Sam & Max 2 Cancelled

[Frosty]

OTOH Graphics cannot improve much more

Ladies and gentlemen, after years of careful study, I am able to present to you this magificent specimen of total insanity.

 

[Bob McDob]

There are a lot of reasons to the decline of the space combat sim market. Maybe it just got old in relation to other genres. Very few people even have joysticks, and now they want to play other kinds of games. But since it’s a market thing, look also consumers and not just to the suppliers. No specific game killed the market, if there was still demand for it, there would be games being made. Maybe this will change.

I think one of the reasons has to do with the environment. When you get down to it, space is kind of dull. Oh, there's asteroids and nebulas and the like, but when you get down to it you're just flying around in a big void. Space games were top-of-the-line fifteen and twenty years ago (back when Wolfen-DooM was just the hallucinations of college kids), but today technology has advanced to the point where you can simulate the world we live in relatively realistically - and, to be frank, for most people space is just something up in the sky; but ground, buildings, that's something tangiable. You can actually walk around an environment, and it seems so much more real (that's part of the reason the Descent series eventually collapsed, I think; it tried to fuse flying and FPS action, and by the time III rolled around people just weren't interested because they were playing Quake III and Half-Life).

So does this mean the space sim is dead? I don't think so ... but think of the Rogue Squadron series, mixing ground and space combat (and I know the irony of extolling its virtues in what started out as a "I Hate LucasArts" thread, but I do like it). If planetary environments - real, interactive-feeling planetary environments - are mixed in, then it helps ground the player in something they already know and suspends disbelief on a subconscious level. And you could mix some sort of deformable terrain engine in with physics - tanks coming through the pass, fire on the boulders and cause a landslide. Mix in urban duels - weave through buildings while trying to minimize collateral damage. Make a hasty retreat as the building comes crashing down from missile fire.

And it wouldn't have to be limited to ground environments either. Take that same engine and apply it to asteroids. Having to dodge fast-flying dynamic pieces of debris as the other guy's lasers chew up rock would make the final kill so much sweeter. And I think technology has advanced to the point where truly massive fleet actions are possible. Sure, you wouldn't be able to effect much, but hey! With fighters and fire all around, your job would just be to survive.

Some of this would work better than others, probably. The point would be to help break up the formula "fly to Nav 1, fight, blow up capships, return to base" and throw in some wild cards. I don't think there's been any truly revolutionary gameplay advances since maybe Wing Commander III. It's been ten years, and people expect advances. What we really need is a breakout game that shows that space game =! WC clone. What better way to do that then with a WC game?

 

[Delance]

But when the space was dull, games sold a lot. Now that we can have nifty space 3D effects, there's no market. Freelancer space was anything but dull.

LOAF, you really can't blame the lack of interest of the market on one specific game. It was not as if it was everything OK and Freespace 2 destroyed it. If anything, the game had a lot of positive reviews, and sold very little. Maybe the market was about to crash, and perhaps you should be thankful it was not with a Wing Commander game.

 

[cff]

Ladies and gentlemen, after years of careful study, I am able to present to you this magificent specimen of total insanity.

Friendly advise Frosty: Stop looking into a mirrow before posting.

If you got something constructive to say do so. If not grow up before bothering me again.

PS: As I am not 100% sure LeHah's comment was aimed at me I will ignore it for now.

 

[Frosty]

Okay, here's constructive: Game graphics stand to go a long, long way before they can't be improved. We're *nowhere* near that point.

When Every object in a game is rendered through a particle system, and can be accurately deformed according to the characteristics of the materials from which they are supposedly made, come give me a call, you'll be close.

 

[Bob McDob]

But when the space was dull, games sold a lot. Now that we can have nifty space 3D effects, there's no market. Freelancer space was anything but dull.

Exactly. Flying around in space shooting things used to be amazing, but fourteen years have have passed, and while the technology has advanced, the basic formula has stayed the same. Sure, the things are now 10,000 polygon models with per-pixel lighting and space is terryingly colorful ... but in the end, you're still flying around space shooting things. I have no reason to buy FreeStarLancer VIII if I could just load up Wing Commander II and do the same thing.

If you can't think of anything new and different, then the only other way is to go the Freelancer route - try to make things as detailed and deep as possible. Freelancer certainly wasn't new and different, but it blew the deep part. Oh, you can fly around space finding hidden objects if you want to ... but how many people who buy a space combat game want to play find-the-doohickey? They want to fly around blowing things up. And while Freelancer let you blow things up in spades, those things weren't different enough to feel special. 48 star systems and all of them feel exactly the same.

 

[Shooter]

About Sam & Max beeing cancelled, it's a shame, but as long as they don't cancel the new Monkey Island...

In other news, Beneath a Steel Sky 2 is beeing developed. I guess point and click IS coming back, So there's still hope for Sam & Max.

 

[Bob McDob]

About Sam & Max beeing cancelled, it's a shame, but as long as they don't cancel the new Monkey Island...

In other news, Beneath a Steel Sky 2 is beeing developed. I guess point and click IS coming back, So there's still hope for Sam & Max.

The hell, they're making a new Monkey Island?

 

[Shooter]

Yep.

And there's always the EMI inside joke about the 5 games deal

 

[Cassiel]

i bet they are gonna cancel the new monkey island too

 

[cff]

Okay, here's constructive: Game graphics stand to go a long, long way before they can't be improved. We're *nowhere* near that point.
When Every object in a game is rendered through a particle system, and can be accurately deformed according to the characteristics of the materials from which they are supposedly made, come give me a call, you'll be close.

Similar you could claim that unless every single atom is properly physically calculated we aren't a that point.
The measure is another one however IMHO. Photorealism. And we are approaching that one rather fast. Already some screenies could be real world snapshots. Note that I never said we are there already. But with the HUGHE increase in graphics power every half year it isn't really that long to go. And that isn't only my opinion. I've heared several FPS game makers say the same.
Obviously you can always improve. The question however is as to wether modelling the sweat dropping of your head and causing additional weaves in the water below your feet is an innovation that will have people buy a new game. And we are slowly walking towards that path when it comes to graphics.

 

[prophecy421]

I thought the first sam & max was a great game, and was looking forward to the sequel. Sure I am slightly dissapointed at lucasart for dropping it, but I see the reason why they did it though. It has to do with the average age group of whos purchasing and playing games these days, when sam and max first released most of them would either watch cartoons or play on their SNES systems because their parents wouldn't let them use the computer for anything but typing. They ultamately never got a chance to play the original or in some cases they did not know of its existance either. For any sequal to be succesful it needs a dedicated and loyal fan base, and unfortunatley too much time has passed since the original game was released. The original fans are older, have more responsabilities, less gaming time than they used to have, so they dont buy games frequently enough to support a sequal of a "vintage" game in todays competative market.

 

[Frosty]

And we are approaching that one rather fast.

Untrue. My entire previous post's point was that we are not.

Already some screenies could be real world snapshots.

Show me one.

Note that I never said we are there already.

Well, you just did: "Already some screenies could be..." But hey, I'll ignore that and say I get your main point. Okay fine, you say we're close, but we're really not. Lighting and geometry are a long, long way from that point, but even ignoring that, look at the textures in today's games.

Until every pixel on-screen during play represents one or more texture pixels, we won't be at the photo-realistic stage, and still not even then if lighting and modelling aren't up to the task at that point. And it'll take a lot more video memory space and bandwidth before we can think about attempting that.

And even then you have to deal with motion and physics, because objects on-screen are in motion, and they can be as photo-real as you want, but if they're not moving convincingly, it's still a puppet-show.

But with the HUGHE increase in graphics power every half year it isn't really that long to go.

A: They aren't that huge. B: And this ties in with previous statments I've made in other recent threads - I don't care how powerful the top of the line is, nobody designs software for it. The day hardware which can handle *truly* photo-real graphics is released is still a ways off from the day games have photo-real graphics. Ever seen those minimum system requirements on the side of a box? Yeah.

And that isn't only my opinion. I've heared several FPS game makers say the same.

Well they're wrong, plain and simple.

Obviously you can always improve.

Not always. I mean once they reach that photo-real plateau your claim we're so close to, anything which would normally constitute an improvement would be meaningless, since the graphics would already be completely indestinguishable from reality anyway.

The question however is as to wether modelling the sweat dropping of your head and causing additional weaves in the water below your feet is an innovation that will have people buy a new game. And we are slowly walking towards that path when it comes to graphics.

Okay, fair question. Here's one for you: Do you buy new games because they have new graphics?

I took your question to mean that, as it stands now, you see graphical improvements as one of the major driving forces behind game sales. I don't think that's true at all. I've bought games I've wanted and said "Wow, nice graphics," but I've never been motivated to purchase a game strictly based on that. And anyone who ever was probably regretted it instantly, and learned their lesson.

I'm very impressed with modern graphics and sound and things like that, but they're not making me question reality yet, and I can see that they're also not very close, either.

 

[Delance]

Good graphics are cool, but are more a prerequisite than a major reason to buy games.

 

[cff]

And even then you have to deal with motion and physics, because objects on-screen are in motion, and they can be as photo-real as you want, but if they're not moving convincingly, it's still a puppet-show.

And you will notice that I never mentioned motion.

B: And this ties in with previous statments I've made in other recent threads - I don't care how powerful the top of the line is, nobody designs software for it.

Wrong as could be. about EVERY software company designs exactly for that cards. Actually they probably design for experimental cards not even on the market.
The reason is quite simple. A game needs 2+ years to be made. By that time the hardware will be available fairly cheap as well.

The day hardware which can handle *truly* photo-real graphics is released is still a ways off from the day games have photo-real graphics.

I'll approch from the other side: Look at rendered graphics 10 years ago. They took hours for a single picture on million dollar machines. We can do that on a home PC in realtime now.

Here's one for you: Do you buy new games because they have new graphics?

One word answer: NO.
Thats probably why I play more DOS games then Windows games. Besides a few minor exceptions the games got more dull since then. And that is what matters for me. Heck - I still play pre-PC games.

I took your question to mean that, as it stands now, you see graphical improvements as one of the major driving forces behind game sales.

Well it is. For the majority of non hardcore gamers at least. Its also what the magazines hunt for.

I don't think that's true at all. I've bought games I've wanted and said "Wow, nice graphics," but I've never been motivated to purchase a game strictly based on that. And anyone who ever was probably regretted it instantly, and learned their lesson.

Let me give an example. UT and UT2003. There really isn't a big difference (actually one could even claim that the new one is worse because of the reduced number of game modi). Yet it is a big hit.
But I would even go farther. I truely HATE improved graphics in some cases. Just take Warcraft 3. What the heck is that 3D craze in RTS games? Not that the game is bad (at least better then WC2, but worse the SC IMHO), but a 2D version would have been better graphic wise (as the 3D isn't actively used it only drags down the PC).

 

[Aron Figaro]

Cff is right about the cards - they do develop games for what's going to be mainstream hardware a year or two down the line, which means the immediate latest and greatest. Motion-capture technology is already very good - within five years we should seem some extremely realistic graphics coming out of computer games - and from a guy currently taking software engineering in university, I'm going to tell you something - that graphical limit is closer than most of you think.

As for the market, yeah, the market was dying when FreeSpace 2 came out. That's why Prophecy didn't do so well, which hosed the WC series badly. Then again, with the guys who work for EA now, I probably wouldn't trust 'em to put out a good WC game. I think the last EA game I've bought would be WC4 (I didn't get Prophecy at the time, can't quite remember why, but now I regret it and am looking for it).

Well...maybe something really cool will happen and EA will subcontract WC out to somebody good. The problem is, right now there ARE no good space sim guys who aren't retired or doing other stuff. Chris Roberts isn't coming back - but myself and the guys at Shadow Weaver do have a space sim planned once we get going. It will be different, but it's definitely going to have the story depth WC had - and that's the big thing.

 

[BlackJack2063]

Rogue Squadron III pissed me off, they took a good combat sim and through in LAME ground missions, just to show off more SW stuff.
Republic COmmando and the other FPS (Battlefront) look interesting, RC will probably be alot like Halo as a FPS, while the other game is like Battlefield 1942, where you can pilot many different vehicles and play either stormtroopers or rebel troopers, if it is online capable it will get SW fans to play it. Until somebody hacks it and no one wants to play with a cheater anymore lol.
Monkey Island Rocks, I loved the hell out of the first ones. Reminded me of old adventure games like Leisure Suit Larry. Ever notice how Lucas Arts, either by making the games themselves, or contracting them out are either really really good, or really really horrible.
X-Wing games are more about the SW factor, I think, it was sweet in Alliance when you come out of hyperspace and there is the Executer and you have to fly past it to get to your mission objective, though the death star thing was gay.
IF only I could see WC in a video game future, then after my wait to see if Episode III is gay and Lucas ruins his saga, then I can die happy..................oh and my son growing up is pretty important too.

 

[ChanceKell]

... though the death star thing was gay ... after my wait to see if Episode III is gay and Lucas ruins his saga ...

How very open-minded of you.

 

[Frosty]

And you will notice that I never mentioned motion.

Well the point isn't whether you'd mentioned it. Though you hadn't that particular issue is still out there, and still affects the quality.

Wrong as could be. about EVERY software company designs exactly for that cards. Actually they probably design for experimental cards not even on the market.
The reason is quite simple. A game needs 2+ years to be made. By that time the hardware will be available fairly cheap as well.

Okay, I won't disagree, but regardless: no games are ever tailor-made for a specific hardware setup, and the latest games, specified however far in advance, are never released in tandem with the hardware setup they were designed for, but rather after. The point I was trying to make was that a new computer is not fully utilized until it's not really new anymore.

I'll approch from the other side: Look at rendered graphics 10 years ago. They took hours for a single picture on million dollar machines. We can do that on a home PC in realtime now.

This is indicative of nothing other than progress over time, which I am not denying. I'm simply saying you're too optimistic.

Let me give an example. UT and UT2003. There really isn't a big difference (actually one could even claim that the new one is worse because of the reduced number of game modi). Yet it is a big hit.
But I would even go farther. I truely HATE improved graphics in some cases. Just take Warcraft 3. What the heck is that 3D craze in RTS games? Not that the game is bad (at least better then WC2, but worse the SC IMHO), but a 2D version would have been better graphic wise (as the 3D isn't actively used it only drags down the PC).

UT2k3 and 2k4 are both a lot better than the original. The newer game modes like Bombardment are more fun, by large amounts, than CTF or Deathmatch, which got old years ago.

As for Warcraft 3, I personally really enjoyed the graphics and thought it was a very fun game. The heros system is great, and the differentiation between the different armies is welcome. Starcraft was good, but it's old, and Warcraft 3 genuinely brings improvements to the table. I'm not sure what you mean about "actively used" and "drags down the PC."

and from a guy currently taking software engineering in university, I'm going to tell you something - that graphical limit is closer than most of you think.

This is not cred.

I'm pretty sure I'm very accurate here. The first step that needs to be taken here is a move to 64-bit color. Then after that, texture resolutions have to increase exponentially, and designers need to properly learn how to use them in conjunction with equally high-res bump-maps and specular maps. Then geometry needs to be bumped up probably 100 times in detail, because there's a lot of areas in modern games where they skimp out severely. Obviously lighting and physics are also components.

When videocards measure their RAM capacity in the tens of gigs, and have memory bandwidth to handle it, and geometry and lighting and texture processors that can handle the required tasks, then we'll be there. But the precision of the manufacturing processes used, as well as the price of the product, are going to hold us back from that threshold for a while yet.

Rogue Squadron III pissed me off

I really liked it. It's stupendously difficult. That's about all I look for in a game anymore.

 

[cff]

Well the point isn't whether you'd mentioned it. Though you hadn't that particular issue is still out there, and still affects the quality.

Its comparing apples with oranges however - physics or motion capturing hasn't much todo with graphics. And neither seems to need very much calculation power. Its just that there aren't good ways invented yet to do them.

UT2k3 and 2k4 are both a lot better than the original. The newer game modes like Bombardment are more fun, by large amounts, than CTF or Deathmatch, which got old years ago.

Bombardement? You mean bombing run probably. That one is OLD. Look for the mod "Fragball" for the original UT.
UT2003 is really just a graphic show over UT. UT2004 is a bit better returning Assault mode (which is one of my favourites) and the new Onslaught gamemode (including vehices - something new in UT). The biggest selling point for me is still graphics.

As for Warcraft 3, I personally really enjoyed the graphics and thought it was a very fun game. The heros system is great, and the differentiation between the different armies is welcome. Starcraft was good, but it's old, and Warcraft 3 genuinely brings improvements to the table.

Personally I don't like the hero system. I also find that the army size is too small. All these are of course wanted improvements in WC3, they are just not to my taste.

I'm not sure what you mean about "actively used" and "drags down the PC."This is not cred.

Well they are 3d, but the 3D isn't used. You cannot rotate (at least it doesn't keep that view) and you practically only got 2 zoom levels, which only one is useful at all. All of this could have easily been achieved by using 2D bitmaps in 16 different poses as well. And they would have looked less blocky as well.

I'm pretty sure I'm very accurate here. The first step that needs to be taken here is a move to 64-bit color.

Why? Most people don't even recognize the difference between 16 and 32 bit. 32 bit should be enough for everyone by far.

Then after that, texture resolutions have to increase exponentially, and designers need to properly learn how to use them in conjunction with equally high-res bump-maps and specular maps.

Agree. But that isn't really that hard to do.

Then geometry needs to be bumped up probably 100 times in detail, because there's a lot of areas in modern games where they skimp out severely.

Not really. You can get away with remarkably few polygons of you use good textures, bump maps,... I think the polycount really doesn't have to do go up more then 10 times at max. Its more a matter what you make of it.

When videocards measure their RAM capacity in the tens of gigs, and have memory bandwidth to handle it, and geometry and lighting and texture processors that can handle the required tasks, then we'll be there. But the precision of the manufacturing processes used, as well as the price of the product, are going to hold us back from that threshold for a while yet.

Rediculous. Vid rams in tens of gigs - I doubt even the hollywood studios that do prerendered stuff have that specs.