Artwork Request

[RaDian FlGith]

One thing I'd like to see the current Art Team do, perhaps a few items at a time, is to start providing additional facings on things that don't have them. For instance, the Magincia Thrones... someone should take the time to make north and west facings for these so you could surround a table with them.

Also, when implementing new graphics in the future, please remember to do the opposite facings on them as well. Things that aren't seats I'm okay with only the two facings, but please give us options to display things in the different directions in our homes. Typically the additional facing is accomplished by an image flip and adding a level of darkness to it (to be shadowed against that wall).

It would just be nice to be able to turn additional things (such as Soulstones, the new jack o' lanterns, and other stuff too).

Thanks!!!

 

[XLaCeDX]

I'll add that the 3D unicorn art is and always has been hideous and should have gone away with 3D when it was canned.

Growing up as a girl unicorns were always protrayed as delicate versions of horses, not the cartoonish giant hulks with high rear ends and dislocated hips that we have have had to suffer looking at for the past few years in UO.

Awkward and gawky. One thing 2d has over KR and the enhanced client, though I don't really get on enhanced these days, is that 2D is more graceful.

I love to run around in a long skirt on foot in 2D and watch the action of the leg movements. That is grace.

In KR and original enhanced the chars were tall and hunched over and lumbered without grace when they ran.

I feel 3D unicorns are ungraceful in 2D.

As a female I'd never ride something so ugly so I can only assume that a man drew it.

I'm not saying the old 2D version of a white horse needs bringing back but it is better by far than the 3D version.

 

[mjolnir131]

the new totems(wall) need all 4 facings as well as do Gargy couches,

and double yes about the Uni's
they should be graceful but powerful looking

 

[Fink]

I don't really get on enhanced these days

It shows

The unicorn in Classic Client is actually from the Third Dawn client, nothing to do with either Kingdom Reborn or Enhanced. It wasn't drawn so much as modeled, textured & rendered into a 2D sprite from a real-time 3D model that the Third Dawn client used, hence the polygonal appearance.

The unicorn in Enhanced Client is every bit the classic fantasy representation you're talking about, a fey white horse with long flowing mane and elegant horn, all the usual butterflies & moonbeams treatment.

 

[Wolfways]

I've always wished that i could change the facing of things like big statues to north or west. I'd be able to make a corridor with them lining the walls facing inwards then.

Also, as everything faces east or south i've never understood why statuettes are made facing south-east!

 

[Crysta]

I still say they need to port in the KR/SA monster art for everything that was added from LBR through ML... quality is just too damn low on the 2D (from 3D) stuff.

 

[THyRoID99]

As a game artist, one thing I don't understand is why the 3d art still looks low poly despite it being a sprite. I'm sure everything you see in the game are image planes with the art cast on them. It wouldn't be possible to create UOs isometric view in true 3d space. That being said, the art they could create could be anything. Like CG animation (shrek) quality or high poly photoreal. UO could literally be the best looking game out there unless there are limitations I'm not aware of.

Oh and the game would balloon to a massive size because of all the high quality images

 

[Crysta]

It wouldn't be possible to create UOs isometric view in true 3d space.

Why? Is it imposible to make a 3D engine and lock the camera at a fixed perspective and distance like many games have already done? If anything, it should be easier to make a fully 3D isometric game than a sprite based one. Saying its impossible when it quite clearly IS possible is a bit clueless for a "game artist".

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Why? Is it imposible to make a 3D engine and lock the camera at a fixed perspective and distance like many games have already done? If anything, it should be easier to make a fully 3D isometric game than a sprite based one.

Have to agree with you here, Crysta. It clearly is possible since many games out there do it.

And even, god forbid, that there was a little warping at the edges as you zoomed out, it wouldn't be that noticeable to anyone.

What's more bizarre though, in my opinion, is that supposedly the reason all of the artwork in the EC was re-rendered at lower quality was because the "textures" were causing lag and instability. I'm still trying to figure out "what textures?" since all of the objects in the game are presently sprites.

What I've figured out though is that I suspect they're not making use of some DirectX features or that there is a severe limitation to the client with regard to zoom. It's sort of like the first "The Sims." They had a couple of zoom levels, but not a free-scroll zoom... this is because everything was sprites. "The Sims 2," everything became 3D, and you had free-scroll zoom.

So what this makes me wonder is if part of the reason for instability on the "high quality textures" is that the sprites are higher quality, and much like resizing a huge JPEG or other bitmap image, that the instability is coming from trying to zoom-on-the-fly bitmap images that are overall eating up processor cycles.

Of course, since KR/EC are supposed to be new clients from the ground up, I'm also confused why it was fairly easy for them to import all of the old menus from 2D into the EC as a backup plan for going back and revamping all of the KR menus. It seems odd.

There's a lot of issue with the EC, and a lot of it leaves me scratching my head.

 

[Zym Dragon]

What's more bizarre though, in my opinion, is that supposedly the reason all of the artwork in the EC was re-rendered at lower quality was because the "textures" were causing lag and instability. I'm still trying to figure out "what textures?" since all of the objects in the game are presently sprites.

Essentially every item in the game is a texture. They created a single polygon texture and slapped a bitmap on it.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Essentially every item in the game is a texture. They created a single polygon texture and slapped a bitmap on it.

If that's truly how they're handling the EC, then it's no wonder there's so many issues with it.

 

[Crysta]

To give my understanding on the situation. the problem arises as a large number of textures are preloaded into memory, including most if not all of the monsters to some extent, as it would be exceptionally nasty to run through an area only to have a monster that was previously invisible from its textures not being loaded appear.

That would be where the problem lies... about a hundred thousand preloaded single frame high-res textures being needed hanging around in memory all at once. Modern 3D cards can take that kind of strain, but there are plenty of out of the box ones that can't in computers these days, so they cut the size of all of those textures to probably about a third of their original sizes, reducing the system strain exponentially and making it, as promised, run smoother on older systems (and this is all in addition to all of the litle "pixel" polygons that are supporting the textures).

Of course, this is all only if i'm understanding the situation right. Also, it explains the "memory leak" people claim exists... the redundant frames for monsters get loaded as you approach them rather than at the onset, so memory usage will continue to rise as you wander around the game world and see new monsters/animals/people/clothing on players/etc, in addition to every object in game (walls, plants, and so on), having the textures loaded and unloaded as needed as you run around and stuff comes into or leaves update range.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Something still doesn't feel right about that. I mean, as far as a 3D graphic goes, while I understand a sprite is more concise, it shouldn't take a 3D card that long to register "Hey, there's a skeleton," pull the texture and apply it on the fly. Additionally, if there's an issue where older computers are having a problem like that, they could have multiple resolution settings.

What doesn't make any sense to me is that I was suffering the same super system lag with the EC until they dumbed down the graphics, but yet I can play WoW, which on any given screen has more textures due to individual armor pieces, particle effects, buildings, so on and so forth in full 3D, and I can run that in high, super high detail and walk around just fine, no problem, no issue. What they're attempting to do to UO with the EC shouldn't be experiencing the kinds of issues that it is.

And really, if they continue to run into these kinds of things that are causing these massive issues, perhaps it's time to simply re-render the artwork at higher resolution, make it all sprites again, and develop a continued, but improved 2D client from the ground up so that the existing 2D client holes are patched.

It just doesn't all add up from what I know and understand of how these things should work.

 

[THyRoID99]

Why? Is it imposible to make a 3D engine and lock the camera at a fixed perspective and distance like many games have already done?

That's a fixed perspective camera and not isometric.

If anything, it should be easier to make a fully 3D isometric game than a sprite based one.

"Fully 3D isometric" is an oxymoron. It's either rendered in perspective (ie: 3D) or isometrically.

Saying its impossible when it quite clearly IS possible is a bit clueless for a "game artist".

Wow, attack me right out because you have no clue what you're talking about. Educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_projection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)

 

[Kiminality]

If anything, it should be easier to make a fully 3D isometric game than a sprite based one.

"Fully 3D isometric" is an oxymoron. It's either rendered in perspective (ie: 3D) or isometrically.

Seems to me that what's being said is that the isometric style of UO could be kept, while rendering 3D models as opposed to pre-renders.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

They can and did... and got griped at for doing so.

Of course, to be fair, it was done about 7 years or so too early using low res models.

If they did it now, they could make it look great, be much more stable, less processor intensive, AND a smaller harddrive footprint due to having a form and skin instead of stop-motion frames for EVERY animation in EVERY orientation.

But then they'd get griped at again because people might have to upgrade their systems in order to play it.

 

[Crysta]

In game construction terms, "Isometric" referrs to the viewpoint style of the game; a look rather than a physical term, in approximately a 3/4ths perspective. I know damn well what the real meaning of it is, but that doesn't come into the equation here.

Of couse, anything being shown on a screen or monitor is technically a 2-dimensional surface, so your pedantic griping has no meaning. Any game in that perspective with a fixed camera that isn't being rendered with some sort of immersive interface device is isometric, as even if the engine is rendering the rest, it can't physically be seen.

 

[THyRoID99]

Seems to me that what's being said is that the isometric style of UO could be kept, while rendering 3D models as opposed to pre-renders.

You would essentially have the current setup. What you're suggesting would increase the polycount for the current result, but with the overhead of 3D lighting. In that sense its just more efficient to render a single plane with a texture on it which just happens to be a rendered image with faked lighting.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

If they did it now, they could make it look great, be much more stable, less processor intensive, AND a smaller harddrive footprint due to having a form and skin instead of stop-motion frames for EVERY animation in EVERY orientation.

But then they'd get griped at again because people might have to upgrade their systems in order to play it.

...

Well, to be fair, pretty much anyone who wants to run the EC who is running a low-end system for 2D is going to have to upgrade anyway. The other thing is that they could include low, medium, and high polycount models as well as low, medium, and high resolution textures so that at very least the client could run on a variety of systems.

Instead, the EC basically has one setting, save for particles and, strangely, animation quality.

I don't know... it just seems like it would make more sense to go fully 3D even if keeping fixed position camera to hold the isometric viewpoint most are used to. The issues people had with the 3D client were mostly aesthetic anyway. Those could have been fixed (though apparently not by the current art team, because the EC avatars are icky too).

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

I'm not sure how much more I want to even think about it.

If if if if (how many "ifs" should I put here to get across the point that I'm NOT sepcifically saying that they SHOULD?) IF they had shut down BOTH the 2d and KR clients in favor for the EC, THEN I could understand the steps backwards that the EC has taken.

Since 2d is obviously "being kept due to demand", I simply don't understand why they gimped the client SO MUCH.

Even going back to KR's initial development, I thought that the "hybrid" model version they were putting in was a bad idea simply because of the size of patches needed to update the models and animations.

Civ 4 is a great example of using the UO perspective with full 3d graphics and effects, and the human models in the game are very close in quality to the smoothness of the 2d/KR/EC renders compared to the old 3d renders.

It frustrates me to no end to see yet another client halfway done then having no visibly significant advancement either in the Options portion (such as options for higher graphical quality) or with the constant annoyances that the EC current has (Earthquake, "You cannot pick that up", etc).

Unfortunately, I can't even in good conscience say "just wait, it will get better"... because that stopped when they shifted focus away from the client in mid-beta to the expansion. Now we have holiday content that has taken precidence.

An opportunity... most likely squandered... again.

 

[Kiminality]

You would essentially have the current setup. What you're suggesting would increase the polycount for the current result, but with the overhead of 3D lighting. In that sense its just more efficient to render a single plane with a texture on it which just happens to be a rendered image with faked lighting.

It's a trade-off.
You'd significantly drop the overal texture use, while increasing the 3D rendering calculations. At the moment it's heavily biased towards textures, while leaving a lot of the calculation potential untapped.

Also, it would mean that if you zoomed in to get a close look at your character, you wouldn't be staring at a mosaic.

 

[THyRoID99]

In game construction terms, "Isometric" referrs to the viewpoint style of the game; a look rather than a physical term, in approximately a 3/4ths perspective. I know damn well what the real meaning of it is, but that doesn't come into the equation here.

Actually it really does come into the equation here as it's what you're getting all upset about. In game "development" (not "construction") terms "isometric" is defined by its proper, english, literal definition. And so I'm using the word isometric within the context of it's proper definition.

What you refer to as "isometric" is actually "isometric view," to which you're using it's partial definition. The kicker is that you still sunderstand what isometric is, even as you defined it.

"An Isometric view is a kind of third person view for the camera to take. It is usually a fixed camera angle that shows 2D characters or objects on screen as if they were 3D. The x, y and z axis are around 120 degrees. In laymens terms, the camera shows everything from a 3/4th perspective, as if from a high corner." - http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Isometric_view

Isometric games use 2 dimensional objects to actively fake 3D perspective. In a 3D perspective world, all objects cannot be viewed in a 3/4th perspective at 120 per axis at the same time, it's impossible. So any real 3D perspective object cannot properly exist in an isometric world, and vice versa.

So again, I said you cannot recreate UO's isometric view in true 3D space and I was correct. You cannot limit an objects perspective angle in relation to the movements of the viewer in a 3D world. You can't even fake an isometric view in 3D perspective and trying to would just defeat the purpose of using 3D in the first place.

Of couse, anything being shown on a screen or monitor is technically a 2-dimensional surface, so your pedantic griping has no meaning.

Normally, I'm not pedantic. You're just stupid and I'm trying to clarify it for you.

And being rendered on a 2D screen is the end result and doesn't have any bearing whether something is constructed with 3D perspective or isometric projection. It will maintain the illusion of either. That is true of any visual 2D medium such as traditional art and photography. Regardless, I'm glad that you understand objects on screen are flat images, bravo!

Any game in that perspective with a fixed camera that isn't being rendered with some sort of immersive interface device is isometric, as even if the engine is rendering the rest, it can't physically be seen.

Actually if it's rendered in 3D perspective it's considered a form of fixed third person. If it's rendered with isometric projection then you're correct. A+!

 

[THyRoID99]

It's a trade-off.
You'd significantly drop the overal texture use, while increasing the 3D rendering calculations. At the moment it's heavily biased towards textures, while leaving a lot of the calculation potential untapped.

Also, it would mean that if you zoomed in to get a close look at your character, you wouldn't be staring at a mosaic.

Haha yeah very true. I was stunned when I realized the SA client was still heavily based on textures.

I still would LOVE to see the world of Sosaria rendered in full 3D tho. Lets hope UO's successor will be!

 

[GarthGrey]

The Hall is hilarious, everyone's an out of work Game Designer. Or did you all just stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

 

[Kiwillian]

Isometric games use 2 dimensional objects to actively fake 3D perspective. In a 3D perspective world, all objects cannot be viewed in a 3/4th perspective at 120 per axis at the same time, it's impossible. So any real 3D perspective object cannot properly exist in an isometric world, and vice versa.

So again, I said you cannot recreate UO's isometric view in true 3D space and I was correct. You cannot limit an objects perspective angle in relation to the movements of the viewer in a 3D world. You can't even fake an isometric view in 3D perspective and trying to would just defeat the purpose of using 3D in the first place.

This is not true at all. First of all UO isn't "isometric" anyway. Look at the website you quoted. UO is not 120/60 degrees, it's 90/90. It's actually an orthographic or oblique projection.

It is also perfectly possible to render the UO viewpoint in a 3D engine or rendering program, you use an orthographic projection which removes any perspective (since it's parallel).

 

[RaDian FlGith]

It is also perfectly possible to render the UO viewpoint in a 3D engine or rendering program, you use an orthographic projection which removes any perspective (since it's parallel).

Don't confuse the man with facts, he's too busy arguing semantics to understand that the end result of what Crysta is saying is that it is entirely possible to recreate the UO client using complete 3D modeling AND maintain the perspective of the current 2D client. Which, in doing so, would greatly improve the performance of the successor client, which, frankly, is what needs to be done. Instead, he's going to argue about stuff while agreeing that the word "isometric" applies in some manner.

*sigh*

And to think, all I wanted when I started this thread was a few objects to turn to different facings.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

...

Civ 4 is a great example of using the UO perspective with full 3d graphics and effects, and the human models in the game are very close in quality to the smoothness of the 2d/KR/EC renders compared to the old 3d renders.

An opportunity... most likely squandered... again.

...

I agree with everything you said, but these two points are the ones that stand out the most.

First, your point about Civ IV is very true, and with that comes my biggest question... How are both Civ IV and UO:EC based on the same Gamebryo engine and yet the EC has so many problems?

And second, yeah, I hope that they are secretly tweaking all kinds of stuff with the EC, but considering it took two years after KR's release to get to the point of the EC, and really, I can't speak to any overarching improvements between them (yeah, there's some stability improvements that are overshadowed by the backward steps in menus and interfaces) that I am concerned that it may be another two years before yet another client rolls out. Which then leads me to ask why we didn't just update the rendering system of the 3D client and use it as a fairly stable jumping point rather than licensing Gamebryo in the first place.

 

[Gheed]

And to think, all I wanted when I started this thread was a few objects to turn to different facings.

Um ya I was going to post that I agreed w/you. I camped a couple of those really cool looking garg memorial statues on my thf. I was suprised they only face south and can't be turned. But the thread seemed to go all silly so I held off until now... Too many big words scare me

 

[THyRoID99]

Don't confuse the man with facts, he's too busy arguing semantics to understand that the end result of what Crysta is saying is that it is entirely possible to recreate the UO client using complete 3D modeling AND maintain the perspective of the current 2D client. Which, in doing so, would greatly improve the performance of the successor client, which, frankly, is what needs to be done. Instead, he's going to argue about stuff while agreeing that the word "isometric" applies in some manner.

*sigh*

And to think, all I wanted when I started this thread was a few objects to turn to different facings.

My original point was that the texture renders could be as high poly as a cg movie. An incredible high quality model projected. My comment about the isometric and was an aside... That's it! Crysta is the one that started going crazy about 3d isometric games and locking the cam, blah blah... so I obliged him/her.

sooo stfu thanks

 

[Kiwillian]

You're the one that burst in here proclaiming to be a "video game artist" and then proceeded to make a bunch of incorrect/inaccurate statements.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

My original point was that the texture renders could be as high poly as a cg movie. An incredible high quality model projected. My comment about the isometric and was an aside... That's it! Crysta is the one that started going crazy about 3d isometric games and locking the cam, blah blah... so I obliged him/her.

I agree that your original point was that the models could look a lot better than they do. And then you made the extremely strange, bizarre, and entirely untrue assessment that they could not lock the camera in a position that would recreate the 2D isometric view.

Still, I certainly agree there is absolutely NO reason that UO, even on the Gamebryo engine, couldn't look like one of the best games out there.

sooo stfu thanks

Sing Then Fling Underwear? Why would I want to do that?

 

[THyRoID99]

I agree that your original point was that the models could look a lot better than they do. And then you made the extremely strange, bizarre, and entirely untrue assessment that they could not lock the camera in a position that would recreate the 2D isometric view.

Still, I certainly agree there is absolutely NO reason that UO, even on the Gamebryo engine, couldn't look like one of the best games out there.

Sing Then Fling Underwear? Why would I want to do that?

Hmm maybe its because my artists brain is wired differently so ill try explaining a different way. An Isometric view uses no vanishing points so all angles appear parallel. If you were to port an isometric box into a true 3d environment you would go from 0 vanishing points to 3, so that box would have converging edges/lines and thus a 3D appearance.

You could still affix the camera into the 3/4 view from above in 3D no problem but objects would have depth and edges would appear to converge instead of remaining parallel to the viewer. So it wouldn't be the same look of parallel edges that UO currently has. Or in other words it wouldn't be an isometric/orthographic view/world, but instead a 3D perspective view/world. So the UO look couldn't be reproduced in perspective 3D. That's all I was saying

But you could project it orthographically and that would solve that. Its all in the vanishing points

 

[Kiwillian]

Yet your superior artist brain fails to grasp, again, that a 3D camera can render things without perspective. I already pointed this out and it is entirely possible and not difficult.

 

[THyRoID99]

Yet your superior artist brain fails to grasp, again, that a 3D camera can render things without perspective. I already pointed this out and it is entirely possible and not difficult.

Thanks, it really is superior. It tells me so lol yes i was editing that into the post just to clarify. I do understand it but the point im trying to make is locking a cam in perspective 3d will not make a game appear orthographic unless it's projected that way. hence, you cant recreate uo's current appearance using perspective. Say no to vanishing points.

 

[Kiwillian]

That wasn't what you said originally, nice backpedal.

edit: What you are saying now is that "it's impossible to render UO in 3D unless you do it correctly" which does not seem like an issue at all, so I fail to see what your original point was...

 

[JC the Builder]

Seems to me that what's being said is that the isometric style of UO could be kept, while rendering 3D models as opposed to pre-renders.

That is what the Third Dawn client was. The creature models were 3D. Unfortunately most were extremely low quality and ended up looking like paper.

 

[THyRoID99]

That wasn't what you said originally, nice backpedal.

edit: What you are saying now is that "it's impossible to render UO in 3D unless you do it correctly" which does not seem like an issue at all, so I fail to see what your original point was...

My original point was the artwork could be high rez LOL. And then I said you can't recreate UO's isometric view in true 3d space. True meaning perspective. And regardless of what angle/direction you lock the camera it will never look isometric/orthographical in perspective

I'm not back tracking. I'm trying to explain it differently so I'm being clear...

 

[Kiwillian]

Well, that was pointless then. Saying you can't render a perspective view in a parallel projection is like saying you can't make diamonds out of dog turds.

 

[THyRoID99]

Right, I was reaffirming as to why the new client was all projected textures planes since it can't be reproduced in perspective. And then I was called clueless because Crysta thought you could...

Blah I'm too tired for this...

No, you can't make diamonds out of dog turds...

Edit: Can RaDian just get his north and west chairs please?

 

[Kiwillian]

I agree you can't, I'm glad you aren't going to argue that too But yes, this is getting stupid now

 

[Jhym]

I really liked some of the 3dawn renderings, especially the elementals. The earth elemental had some thought go into how it would move as a ball of earth and mud.

Perhaps they'll revisit modelling in 3d again and do it more consistently, but without a really good reason I suspect they'll stick with the current setup until they have no choice.

I'm a bit sad about it because it could be a beautiful game again with a consistent push. After all there are dozens of iso-type games out there with strong 3d aspects that honestly have far more objects on the screen than UO ever does (except for a live event, of course.)

I still hold out hope for full 3d someday, where they lock the view as it is currently for standard rendering, but let us do "picture mode" where we can swoop in and view everything in full 3d.

 

[Fink]

As a game artist, one thing I don't understand is why the 3d art still looks low poly despite it being a sprite.

Because they used the real-time assets (low-poly models & textures) to render them. If you spend enough time in the industry you learn stupid executive decisions get made all the time without consulting the creatives hired to advise on such decisions.

They didn't want to create both the needed low-res models for Third Dawn and high-res ones for 2D sprites. I guess they figured back then they wouldn't be supporting the 2D client much longer, so why bother? They took the cheap option and screencapped (or may as well have) the in-game low-poly models to make the port-to-2D sprites. The result sucked, and thankfully most sprites in the EC are an improvement on the current 2D/Third Dawn crop, although woefully short of the quality presented in KR.

Historically they have had an aversion to employing game artists effectively on an ongoing basis. "They" being EA/OSI, Mythic are thankfully better at utilising their talent pool (although the pet re-hue debacle was a scare).

All that aside, the UO world is a type of oblique projection (south & east faces are at 45 degrees to the horizontal). The sprite system is isometric.
Annoyingly, it isn't that clear cut; some objects cross over. The new virtue roundel & the elven forge are oblique as statics should be, but pentagrams, arcane circles, and the moonglow telescope are isometric like mobiles but are generally viewed as the "correct" aspect.

Oh and, "me too", I'm a game designer. There seem to be a lot of us around here, which says good things about UO. I'm working on two great games at the moment and loving it.

 

[THyRoID99]

If you spend enough time in the industry you learn stupid executive decisions get made all the time without consulting the creatives hired to advise on such decisions.

LOL, so true! Working at my last studio garnered a lot of "are they serious?" and "wtf are they thinking?" from all of us artists lol. The worst exec decision I've seen was changing the software package the artists were used to for one much cheaper and inefficient because it looked like a good idea on paper... and then production costs soared, sigh.

 

[MalagAste]

Rubble tapestry..... so pretty.... yet so useless because it only faces south.

Magincia thrones are by FAR my favorite chairs in game... yet they don't have a facing for 2 directions....

Now that we seem to have a team that can do some art... (as shown by the fantastic new artwork for Halloween!)... could we please fix and add things that are long overdue...

Corner pieces to many of the items in the custom housing tool... New facings to dozens of items so we can turn them please!

Complete sets of stairs that we can use in the custom housing tool...

New wall torches??

 

[pacific lily]

I really liked some of the 3dawn renderings, especially the elementals. The earth elemental had some thought go into how it would move as a ball of earth and mud.

Perhaps they'll revisit modelling in 3d again and do it more consistently, but without a really good reason I suspect they'll stick with the current setup until they have no choice.

I'm a bit sad about it because it could be a beautiful game again with a consistent push. After all there are dozens of iso-type games out there with strong 3d aspects that honestly have far more objects on the screen than UO ever does (except for a live event, of course.)

I still hold out hope for full 3d someday, where they lock the view as it is currently for standard rendering, but let us do "picture mode" where we can swoop in and view everything in full 3d.

The players seem to be the biggest roadblock to getting the kind of art this game really deserves. If they did what you said - and don't get me wrong, I want that more than anyone - most of the people would cry and complain that it doesn't look like UO or doesn't seem like UO, or whatever their whine du jour is.

So not only do you have that working against you, but the mere notion that everything NEW has to work with everything OLD is also a problem. 2 clients is SILLY. What they need to do is grow some big ones and shut down all the old clients and bring out a new one that looks like 2010 and then tell people to STFU and play it. They would. UO players are like a bunch of 3 year olds that cry and fuss, and their mommy ALWAYS caves and gives them what they want. They turn into crying, fussing adults that are used to getting their way and don't know how to act when they don't.

lily

 

[RaDian FlGith]

...most of the people would cry and complain that it doesn't look like UO or doesn't seem like UO, or whatever their whine du jour is...

Actually, given what I've seen over the past few months, I suspect that it's not even that "most" people would, I am starting to think it's a very vocal minority. Don't get me wrong, I have issues with how they've updated UO in the last two clients because I think they're sacrificing unique elements for the sake of cloning the MMO experience in certain areas -- but I'm fine with that as long as they at least toggle it and allow the classic "interface" stuff to remain.

I think largely, the remainder of the issues could be handled in a manner that would run on most computers, and if they wanted to get creative with it, they might even be able to leave a mostly 2D variant (as far as graphics go) in the game and simply lock the camera so that the 2D graphics look as they should and can't get zoomed and made quirky). There are ways to reduce the processor requirements through toggles and setup and such. Yeah, it's some work, but especially in UO's case it would be worthwhile work because you could then keep your playerbase around that plays because they can't handle or don't like fully 3D environments, and for the rest of us, not saying to go fully 3D in view, but they could go fully 3D in representation.

There are ways to make this work.