what should a new client look like?

[Beastmaster]

The responses I saw in Dermott's thread about the new client prompted me to wonder just what it is that everyone is hoping to see in a new 3d client. I don't play other online games so I'm accustomed to 2d UO and hated the performance of UO3d and KR. That's not to say I couldn't be persuaded to change if the client was actually good.

Anyway I'd like to see some screenshots from other online games that you play that have graphics you like. Also if you know what engine they use please include that info. So if you play another game and its graphics make you say, "Boy if UO looked like this it would be great!" please share.

 

[Ender]

Like KR.

 

[DevilsOwn]

sorry, couldn't help myself

 

[Thunderz]

Like 2d.... this is UO. Iv played many other games for one, WOW and those graphix suite WOW its a lovely game to play but UO is what it is... old and has depth. I couldn't imagine having to start again playing UO with WOW's graphix it just wouldnt work Uo doesnt need pixels is has soooo much depth thats enough,

KR didnt work as non of us wanted to start again with interfaces and put up with lag!! 2D all the way all they need to do is get more active with us (events, storyline, something for us to do as we love the game as it is it just grows boring)

 

[D'Amavir]

sorry, couldn't help myself

Come decorate my houses please. heh

 

[Zym Dragon]

The responses I saw in Dermott's thread about the new client prompted me to wonder just what it is that everyone is hoping to see in a new 3d client. I don't play other online games so I'm accustomed to 2d UO and hated the performance of UO3d and KR. That's not to say I couldn't be persuaded to change if the client was actually good.

Anyway I'd like to see some screenshots from other online games that you play that have graphics you like. Also if you know what engine they use please include that info. So if you play another game and its graphics make you say, "Boy if UO looked like this it would be great!" please share.

It should look like KR, except with polished item and house art. The UI look doesn't matter as much because we can (should be able to) mod it.

 

[Eslake]

That is easy to answer.

Using the SAME game engine they are already using for KR/SA.

for a more UO2D perspective...

​

These aren't very good, since everything is set to lowest quality, and I didn't want to run around to the areas with more interesting graphics like the flowers and waterfalls, things like that.
(and i should have made a character with a skin tone that doesn't look like dried clay hehe)

 

[Beastmaster]

OK I found these.
link

And I agree they look good, but I'd like to see some from the same perspective we have in 2d. These are all first person. Also, if it uses various engines how can we compare that to what our Devs have?

 

[Static]

That is easy to answer.

Using the SAME game engine they are already using for KR/SA.

for a more UO2D perspective...

​

These aren't very good, since everything is set to lowest quality, and I didn't want to run around to the areas with more interesting graphics like the flowers and waterfalls, things like that.
(and i should have made a character with a skin tone that doesn't look like dried clay hehe)

GOD I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE THAT.....

That is amazing, I would open all my accounts back again for that

 

[Halister Marner]

That is easy to answer.

Using the SAME game engine they are already using for KR/SA.

These aren't very good, since everything is set to lowest quality, and I didn't want to run around to the areas with more interesting graphics like the flowers and waterfalls, things like that.
(and i should have made a character with a skin tone that doesn't look like dried clay hehe)

Even using low quality, if UO looked like that, I would be extremely pleased.

 

[Trebr Drab]

That is easy to answer.

Using the SAME game engine they are already using for KR/SA.

for a more UO2D perspective...

​

These aren't very good, since everything is set to lowest quality, and I didn't want to run around to the areas with more interesting graphics like the flowers and waterfalls, things like that.
(and i should have made a character with a skin tone that doesn't look like dried clay hehe)

I'd love that too.

But there's a problem with it, I think. Now, I'm no expert, but I believe 3D art of that quality, with UOs customization, and with UO's "items on the ground", and all the possibilities involved, that the lag would be too much.

But if I'm wrong, then I can't understand why they haven't done this already.

But as it is right now, I'd rather have a quality 2D avatar than a crappy 3D avatar. I don't have any faith in UO though. They still don't seem to know where to take this game, just as they've lost sight of it's place in the past. They keep saying they want to "keep it Ultima", then they add stuff copied from other games. Heh. Laughable.

 

[Eslake]

OK I found these.
link

And I agree they look good, but I'd like to see some from the same perspective we have in 2d. These are all first person. Also, if it uses various engines how can we compare that to what our Devs have?

( wouldn't 08 be a perfect Lizardman? )
The "other engine"(SpeedTree) is just for the trees, so they can sway in the wind and droop when it rains and things like that. Static trees like UO would use are just a static object model.

But there's a problem with it, I think. Now, I'm no expert, but I believe 3D art of that quality, with UOs customization, and with UO's "items on the ground", and all the possibilities involved, that the lag would be too much.

Actually it wouldn't change. The lag induced by ground clutter isn't the items' graphics, but the server having to send the information about all of them to the client of every player who enters the area. The name of each, position and placement, properties for those items that have them, and so on.

Not too many years ago, equivalent images done in 2D vs 3D were slower as 3D because the technology was still young. But for several years now 3D has been moving to further and further optimization to the point that it is actually less resource-intensive and faster to do graphics in 3D. (the Gamebryo engine takes full advantage of the newer techologies, and those in your video card to make it even less Processor-intensive)

But if I'm wrong, then I can't understand why they haven't done this already.

Because they're so determined to keep us all happy with the 2D-similar view, they are building it backwards.

They are locking it into the 2D perspective and Then building it all.
When they should be building it all, and Then setting the camera view to the 2D client view.

I can't fault them too much tho, we have to remember that many of them have never really worked with 3D gaming technology, and are trying to apply familiar 2D methods to it.
It will take them time to learn the right way to do it just as it will take us time to acclimate to any change from the client we are familiar with.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

It should look like KR, but without the technical issues that people are having in KR right now.

 

[Thrand Graywolf]

If they want the majority to adopt it, it needs to look almost exactly the same as the 2D client. Same scale, same colors, same perspective, same graphical UI elements (books look like books, packs like packs, etc)...they just need to make a high-res duplicate of the 2D client.

Then, and only then, should they worry about adding options for other stuff.

Until they realize that most of the UO players don't like change, they will continue to fail.

 

[LadyNico]

Give the original UO client some love. Anyone remember the brilliant Saphireena? Graphics Challenge, ring any bells? *smiles*

Lookie here:- http://www.andrea.net/uo/general/art/hrc_mare.shtml

and here:- http://www.andrea.net/uo/general/art/hrc_unicorn.shtml

Dammit, I miss you, Saph.

 

[Beastmaster]

Are there objects you can manipulate and place on tables like the picture 21. Or is everything you see static?

 

[Doomsday Dragon]

Like 2d.... this is UO. Iv played many other games for one, WOW and those graphix suite WOW its a lovely game to play but UO is what it is... old and has depth. I couldn't imagine having to start again playing UO with WOW's graphix it just wouldnt work Uo doesnt need pixels is has soooo much depth thats enough,

KR didnt work as non of us wanted to start again with interfaces and put up with lag!! 2D all the way all they need to do is get more active with us (events, storyline, something for us to do as we love the game as it is it just grows boring)

I would actually like to see a more polished 2d. I will dig up some images I have and post them to give a good example of what I mean.

You can actually up the resolution of the current graphics and sharpen them giving them better detail without making the game something completely different. To me this is the ideal client for this particular game.

I could learn a new UI if it were better than the current 2d one should they do the above with 2d.

But change those graphics like they did in KR and give us an awful UI like in KR and I am out.

EDIT: I found them! Some of you may have even seen these before.

To me these images are the ideal upgrade for UO in the graphics department. Some are animated for comparison so be patient let them load up and then watch the difference.

And Last had KR graphics gotten this same theory applied to them this is what we might have seen:

<- Original KR Paperdoll / Redone KR Paperdoll ->

 

[eve]

Must we go through all of this again?

1. many of us cannot afford to upgrade or buy a new computer to play a game.

2. many of us who can afford the above hate (i emphasize HATE) the KR client's look.

3. and many of us just do not wish to learn a new interface. if i wanted a diff UI i would have left long ago.

don't kill this game............ it is unique, and lord knows some of us are really diehard fans.

 

[Ender]

Well considering KR has some pretty low system requirements, I'm not sure how valid the "I can't afford to upgrade" argument is...

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

The biggest hardware upgrade that KR requires is a video card that is NOT integrated into the motherboard. You can find a good 256 Meg card AGP or later connection for cheap these days anyway.

There are only two areas where this is a problem:

1. Laptops: You want a laptop with DEDICATED video RAM, NOT shared.

2. Systems older than AGP 8x or pre-fab mini-systems (like the ones that are built into the back of a monitor).

 

[Doomsday Dragon]

I ran KR just fine on a system with an ATI Radeon 9550 graphics card 256Mb AGP 8x and I had 0 system lag with everything cranked to the maximum.

This should give you an idea just how low the requirements still are even using a client like KR. You are still sending packets over the net that are about equal to that of a player using 2d so any lag you see may come from your system lacking the ability to push graphics so spend 30 bucks and grab a 256Mb card from newegg and pop it into your system it's not hard.

 

[Beastmaster]

I respectfully ask that those of you posting in this thread please reread my opening post. I know these are open forums and everyone has alot of emotions with respect to their viewpoint, but this thread was a request to see what ELSE is out there that people like. I thought I made that clear enough. Please don't hijiack this thread for your own agenda. This is not about which client is the best, or whether any should be cancelled or anything else that's been drug into this. Please take that stuff to another thread.

 

[Thrand Graywolf]

I would actually like to see a more polished 2d. I will dig up some images I have and post them to give a good example of what I mean.

Bingo. Perfect.

 

[Thrand Graywolf]

The biggest hardware upgrade that KR requires is a video card that is NOT integrated into the motherboard.

Apparently not, cuz I have plenty of video card and still stutter. It's not dragging the system down to a crawl or anything, but it does noticeably stutter when I walk along...and loading a custom house is horrible.

It's bad enough that on that issue alone I wouldn't use KR. Maybe performance is subjective? I guess some people might see what it's doing on my system and say it's ok? It ain't to me.

 

[Eslake]

Are there objects you can manipulate and place on tables like the picture 21. Or is everything you see static?

Those are all movable objects. But placing them all that neatly would take some time.

You can actually up the resolution of the current graphics and sharpen them giving them better detail without making the game something completely different. To me this is the ideal client for this particular game.

There is a real problem with doing that though.
Every time you double the resolution of a 2D image, you Quadrouple its size in memory (2x Y and 2x X).

UO2D with double rez graphics would require more than a gig of Available Ram to even load, and probably more than 3 gigs to operate reasonably.

That is one of the better advantages to going 3D. You can start with an object 1" in size, and scale it up to 100' in size, and it still uses the same system resources. Of course exagerating anything that much would blur the heck out of its texture. But within the range the game would ever likely use, it wouldn't make any noticable difference in quality.


They have already paid for a licence to Gamebryo for the client, so that is what they will use. (it isn't cheap enough to pay for then toss out)

To get an idea of what other game companies have done with the engine they're using check out

DAoC
Civilization IV
Fallout 3
Oblivion
and Empire Earth III

Many others too of course, but these are the ones I know off hand. And Warhammer is using it.

 

[Velvathos]

Like this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXWYWfFqlSw

 

[lucitus]

A bit sharper Textures maybe AA but i like the new graphics:




And sharper more detailed ingame Character Models and turn on nice weather effects again!!

 

[Cogniac]

http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/screenshots/ss8-hires.jpg

http://titanquestgame.com/screenshots/large/2.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/7641/182643_full.jpg

 

[Belmarduk]

Like 2d.... this is UO. Iv played many other games for one, WOW and those graphix suite WOW its a lovely game to play but UO is what it is... old and has depth. I couldn't imagine having to start again playing UO with WOW's graphix it just wouldnt work Uo doesnt need pixels is has soooo much depth thats enough,

KR didnt work as non of us wanted to start again with interfaces and put up with lag!! 2D all the way all they need to do is get more active with us (events, storyline, something for us to do as we love the game as it is it just grows boring)

Yes and this is the problem.
People dont want to adapt.
They can make the best client possible - people wont adapt.
Sadly UO is doomed to die because of this.
I doubt there will be enough active players left anyway when this new client comes out. Anyone know the song from motorhead : Too late Too late ?
Why?
1. It takes to long that something happens from Ea´s side.
2. When it does finally people just whine and refuse to adapt.
Ergo UO is doomed...
Greetings Belmarduk

 

[Doomsday Dragon]

Those are all movable objects. But placing them all that neatly would take some time.


There is a real problem with doing that though.
Every time you double the resolution of a 2D image, you Quadrouple its size in memory (2x Y and 2x X).

UO2D with double rez graphics would require more than a gig of Available Ram to even load, and probably more than 3 gigs to operate reasonably.

That is one of the better advantages to going 3D. You can start with an object 1" in size, and scale it up to 100' in size, and it still uses the same system resources. Of course exagerating anything that much would blur the heck out of its texture. But within the range the game would ever likely use, it wouldn't make any noticable difference in quality.


They have already paid for a licence to Gamebryo for the client, so that is what they will use. (it isn't cheap enough to pay for then toss out)

To get an idea of what other game companies have done with the engine they're using check out

DAoC
Civilization IV
Fallout 3
Oblivion
and Empire Earth III

Many others too of course, but these are the ones I know off hand. And Warhammer is using it.

I am familiar with gamebryo and the technical standpoint on 2d resolution. That does not mean they could not use gambryo and 3d to achieve the exact same thing.

My point here is that the 2d graphics we currently use could be retouched with higher detail without changing what things actually look like. For example the difference in appearance for the halberd when going 2d vs KR the item looks like something totally different and that is a bad thing because since the beginning of this game until now I have grown used to the legacy graphics so when you show me something in KR chances are I am guessing at what it is. Not good because I am learning to use a new UI but also re learning what everything is supposed to look like after 10+ years of experience with legacy uo.

So basically what I am saying is that it's to late in the game to change what everything looks like while also changing the UI and doing so alienates vet players by taking away years of experience. If I have to re learn a game I have been familiar with for a long time why not go play a NEW game that is superior in graphics and control and learn that one instead?

 

[Azureal]

Ugh. Just go ahead and rename this thread to:

Depressingly, Itll Never Look This Good.

 

[Beastmaster]

Lucitus, those pics are absolutely horrid compared to the pics from Elder Scrolls/Oblivion. They are nowhere near the same level of quality. The characters look like a kid cut them out of paper and pasted them to the background.

 

[Beastmaster]

Cogniac, those are all better than the pics Lucitus posted from KR, but at the character level they still don't quite rise to the level shown in the Oblivion pics. Nice background artwork in each. The characters in the Diablo3 and Titanquest pics seem to be a little better than UO3d but still have that kinda chunky klunky look to them. Can't tell about the characters in the 3rd pic. Which game is that from?

 

[Beastmaster]

To get an idea of what other game companies have done with the engine they're using check out

DAoC
Civilization IV
Fallout 3
Oblivion
and Empire Earth III

Many others too of course, but these are the ones I know off hand. And Warhammer is using it.

I did some searching on those titles and I must say there were huge differences between each of them. I think Oblivion was clearly the best with perhaps Fallout as the next runner up. Empire Earth looked really bad (as in not good) to me. DaoC seemed to suffer the same problems as the first UO3d, to a much lesser extent though.

 

[Elric_Soban]

I vote NO to high-res 2d, and YES to those 2 gamebryo screenshots posted in this thread.

UO needs to move forward.

I can't stand the 'i cant afford to buy a new comp' crap.

1) video cards aren't that expensive
2) if your that hard up, maybe you shouldn't be playing a subscription game in the first place. Try a MUD. They're free and wont stretch the limits of your old computer.

Sorry guys, UO must remain in the stone age of gaming and continue to decline because some of our players can't accept change.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

I like Doomsday Dragon's suggestions, although the old graphics could need some improvements not only concerning resolution, but also style (as Doomsday quite perfectly showed by changing the KR paperdoll).

I personally would dig something like this:

(Screenshot from Titan Quest)

(Screenshot from Diablo 3)

 

[hawkeye_pike]

Yes and this is the problem.
People dont want to adapt.
They can make the best client possible - people wont adapt.
Sadly UO is doomed to die because of this.
I doubt there will be enough active players left anyway when this new client comes out. Anyone know the song from motorhead : Too late Too late ?
Why?
1. It takes to long that something happens from Ea´s side.
2. When it does finally people just whine and refuse to adapt.
Ergo UO is doomed...
Greetings Belmarduk

Let's say, 10% of the veterans quit when they don't have their 10 year old pixel-client anymore. So what? Thousands of new players would join at the same time. And let's be honest: We veteran players are difficult to handle, demand never ending pixel crack, focus on nifty items, veteran rewards and gold only. So what's the loss? New players would probably care more about the community again. And that is what UO needs most.

 

[Doomsday Dragon]

Something you should all understand.

Graphics are not what make a game good they are not what make a game fun to play.

For those kids out there born after the 16 bit era you need to go back and play some of the classics. You will probably frown on the current gaming industry afterwords like the rest of us who were there for it all from atari till now...

My all time favorite game is 8 bit and has about 8 frames of animation per character TOTAL!

My #1 example of a game that uses lesser graphics and focuses on game play and detail is always going to be Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. That game was pure genius. Created in a time when all other games being released were trying to push 3D graphics capabilities of the PSX and most game companies were selling games based almost entirely on how good the graphics looked vs how well the game played. Yet Konami took a step back and created a game in the 2D side scroll style with sprite based graphics and it was an F'ing masterpiece. Hell I am playing through it for the billionth time right now actually.

My point is that graphics should not be the main focus when developing games. Sure there is no reason not to have nice graphics in a game in this day and age but you also have to understand that the main focus should be how fun the game actually is to play and how well it functions vs how pretty it looks.

P.S. a small fact. UO 2D is 16bit

 

[Beastmaster]

That Titan Quest shot looks better than the other one I saw and more on par to what I'd expect nowadays. The Diablo shot still shows some of that klunkiness I'm having a hard time describing. I look alot at how the characters are done because the backgrounds don't seem to be much of a problem in any of the examples I've seen. But the animated characters/mobs seem to give the artists the greatest challenge. Limbs are often too thin, characters are posed awkwardly, or characters have gaunt, angular figures/features.

 

[Daelomin]

I would say - think....


...2D with higher resolution and still better performance.

keep/dont change the functionality that has been in the client for a decade and "only" add new stuff.

Merging uo assist with KR is a huge step forward. Maiking KR without some base functions of 2D/assist was quite a mistake.


A new KR client would ideally be:

Clean new graphics. Total remake of items , enviroment etc.

Full Uo Assist functionality

All macros/functionality from 2D

Hugely improved performance. If this cant be solved, PvPers will never change client.


If it looked better than 2d had better performance and still got the same functionality as 2d, who wouldnt change? Those are the 3 key words in my opinion.

 

[Gildar]

Option to use 2D graphics, same resolution as they are now (perhaps with some creatures taking the KR style, but toned-down in resolution to match 2D).
Option to use KR graphics (with more every creature completed, including brown dragons; and maybe some creatures re-done to be closer to what they were in 2D).
Option to use KR interface, but with a 2D styling (see the Legacy skin).
Option to use KR interface, but with a more modern styling (see default KR interface)
Option to use KR interface, but a little more subtle styling (see Bitter Black skin)
Consistency between icon styles (the new icons created for KR do not match the old icons that got pulled over from 2D... and not all 2D icons match in style).

And most of all... the client should look finished. It shouldn't be blatently obvious that things are missing for any playstyle.

 

[lucitus]

Lucitus, those pics are absolutely horrid compared to the pics from Elder Scrolls/Oblivion. They are nowhere near the same level of quality. The characters look like a kid cut them out of paper and pasted them to the background.

Hey youre right! But why? Because of the low system requirements, if you want to have the quality of Diablo 3 for example, you must have a DX9 Graphics Card with min 256 MB and a Dual Core Processor recommend. I always said it, make it for new PC's, **** of the old, they would never change anyway.

The engine, you are right, is able to handle this, and we had this before, rember the "weather effects" when KR was relaesed, they are playing with shadows and emulate the sun, this would make the game looking more dynamic.

Also the playermodels in KR not sharp enough, if you zoom in, it looks like an pixel shower, then compare a zommend in screenshot of old 3d, there the models are sharp.

Look also at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmINRZ6zFz8 , i hope it will not against the rules, iam posting this only for as an example.

 

[LadyNico]

I like Doomsday Dragon's suggestions, although the old graphics could need some improvements not only concerning resolution, but also style (as Doomsday quite perfectly showed by changing the KR paperdoll).

I personally would dig something like this:

(Screenshot from Titan Quest)

(Screenshot from Diablo 3)

Let's get something straight right here and right now. Doomsday Dragon did nothing but perhaps copy, cut and paste directly from the links I provided in my earlier post in this thread which at the very least give credit to the artist, Saphireena, since the pictures link directly to her own website.

To the OP:- You asked, "What should a new client look like?" In fact, you even asked for links.

Having played variously DAOC, SWG, Anarchy Online, WoW, LOTR, Horizons and others, I answered and even provided links (crediting the pixel artist, Saphireena) precisely as OP requested.

I've stated my preference for what a new client should look like - Nothing more and nothing less.

If you ask the question, then you should expect that there may be answers with which you may not necessarily agree.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Saph did some great graphical work, but in the end of her posting here there was a LOT of bitterness showing through due to her attempting to get in the door to work on UO and not getting in.

It's kind of sad that she let the bitterness take over because it would have been a GREAT addition to the Exchange to have her as a volunteer UI artist.

 

[DevilsOwn]

The characters look like a kid cut them out of paper and pasted them to the background.

this is exactly the problem I have with just about any 3D game I look at... they look like paperdolls in a diorama... why have I never had that impression with the old 2D, it cannot be only the perspective

 

[Beastmaster]

Lady Nico, I appreciate your position, but my first post did make it clear that I was looking for samples from OTHER games. I have seen all the incarnations of UO and stuff put forward here on Stratics. I am interested in what people see in OTHER games graphics that we aren't getting in UO. I've seen alot of screenshots since I started this thread, but I'm not seeing alot of people saying what it is about these other games graphics that they like. Granted I didn't ask for that info, I guess I assumed most would say something along those lines.

So far I've liked the Oblivion/Elder Scrolls graphics the best. The backgrounds are rich but the attention to character details are not lost. The characters aren't choppy, disfigured mutants. What I'd like to see now is a 3rd person perspective video sample from Oblivion to see what the animation looks like. I wouldn't play a UO client that forced 1st person perspective on me and I think alot of others would agree on that. But I'm sure there are alot of players that would like that option. I'm also sure there's a large segment that wouldn't want a client where they lost the ability to decorate their homes.

 

[Beastmaster]

DevilsOwn, did you look at any of the Oblivion pics? Do you feel those look that way as well? Its hard to say without animation, but I thought they looked very natural in the still shots.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

There's a weird balance with character model graphics right now.

On the one hand you have the "2d models" which are actually ultra-high-resolution 3d models that are screencapped and put in frame by frame in a stop motion manner. On the plus side you get a nice quality render of a character that can be shown on lower end systems. On the negative side, if you put in too few frames, the animation is jerky and stilted at best (which is what the Legacy animation looks like after you spend time in the 3d client or even KR), and if you put in too many frames for smoothness, patching ANY animation requires multiple hundred-meg patches (i.e. the last official KR patch which was 800 Meg) to update.

On the other hand you have the polygon frame/texture models. On the plus side, the data to download for these models is very small and easily updated. The animation is smooth, and if done right works well with the game involved. On the negative side, for models to equal the graphical smoothness of the 2d models above requires a higher end system and video card to process and lower end systems will bog down if too many polygons are on the screen at the same time (making events such as invasions very limited access).

Then you have KR trying to balance the two by projecting the 2d sprite models onto an ingame polygon. Looks better and probably plays the animations better, but as stated above suffers from HUGE patches to update and probably from increase artwork development time in order to create the models and positions.

I don't have an answer as to which one is "right" for UO because they each have their own strengths and weaknesses, thus they'll never please everyone.

 

[DevilsOwn]

DevilsOwn, did you look at any of the Oblivion pics? Do you feel those look that way as well? Its hard to say without animation, but I thought they looked very natural in the still shots.

I know Youtube is choppy and all, but yeah, the animations shown here give me that same impression... I don't know all that much about Oblivion, perhaps this is an older version?

hope the link takes you to the right spot, Chuck Norris vs The Gatekeeper, I think it's called

 

[Beastmaster]

The character there, Chuck Norris, didn't look bad, but the background and scenery sure looked very undeveloped in that segment. Still not the same perspective there that we have either.