Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
'' everything is a work in progress''
Chicago
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
let me start by saying, i think the game looks amazing, i love the visuals and i think that the combat has come so far from what we saw a few years prior, this is by no means a slander at the game, but something i have noticed looking at alpha 2 footage and footage of the spot tests ' node wars ' showcase
intrepid seem to be pre recording alot of their live streams in an entirely different engine that is running the actual game, all the pre recorded streams, from the weather systems and dynamic seasons, or the gathering, look completely different than the visuals you see when you see footage of alpha 2 spot tests or any footage that can't be pre recorded like the spot tests,
the issue i have with this, is that even in the pre recorded footage, intrepid are still drilling home to us that'' this is a work in progress we still need to add polish' whilst not even using the same engine, i think this is giving people an unrealistic view of how the game is going to look.
if intrepid can deliver the final product to look like the dynamic seasons showcase for example, then i have no issue with it, but to make a showcase like the above and then state that its still a work in progress, and then we see the real game still looking like the alpha 1 is a bit disheartening,
anyway i love to see the progress that the game is making and im happy they share live developments with us, but i think they should record the showcases on whatever engine the game runs on,
PS i know next to nothing about coding or making games, just an observation
intrepid seem to be pre recording alot of their live streams in an entirely different engine that is running the actual game, all the pre recorded streams, from the weather systems and dynamic seasons, or the gathering, look completely different than the visuals you see when you see footage of alpha 2 spot tests or any footage that can't be pre recorded like the spot tests,
the issue i have with this, is that even in the pre recorded footage, intrepid are still drilling home to us that'' this is a work in progress we still need to add polish' whilst not even using the same engine, i think this is giving people an unrealistic view of how the game is going to look.
if intrepid can deliver the final product to look like the dynamic seasons showcase for example, then i have no issue with it, but to make a showcase like the above and then state that its still a work in progress, and then we see the real game still looking like the alpha 1 is a bit disheartening,
anyway i love to see the progress that the game is making and im happy they share live developments with us, but i think they should record the showcases on whatever engine the game runs on,
PS i know next to nothing about coding or making games, just an observation
0
Comments
If anything, it'd be a good question for the PIs. Did the visual fidelity go down between the 6 tests that were made for the node wars showcase. Cause we know that earlier tests were abysmal, while the last one was real smooth.
edit: well, Fantmx said it looked the same, so maybe I'm wrong in my assumption
Link or it didn't happen.
vs
this is the grass/environment in the spot test
this is the environment/grass in the pre recorded fighter preview, recorded Before the spot test, in the exact same biome
then why do they look like completely different games?, obviously i know it was pre recorded in the fact that it wasn't live but i don't think they were recorded on the same engine
Because they're different locations with completely different lighting due to in-game variables? The Carphin video is in a heavily corrupted area with different environmental lighting. Overall they look like the same game. There are a few other differences like having the camera zoomed out more in the Node wars demo and they may have some graphics settings reduced because of performance issues (the game is still unoptimized), but they are clearly both footage from the same game...
that is a fair point, but the above pictures, although the first one is bad quality, you can watch the stream for better quality, are the exact same biome, and almost identical if not the same type of tree/plant, how do you explain that?
I agree there are definitely differences I also noticed it during the node stream. I'm hoping it's a case of having to downscale graphics for better performance with many people and the other image is what represents when it's an 8 player group. Other wise there must have been a crazy downgrade if that's how the overall game is now.
yep i agree, i also agree with patrick that the zoom might have something to do with it, but not enough to effect it that much, the other thing is, some of these pre recorded videos are over 2-3 years old and look 10x better than the game does now, and that does not make much sense to me
The asset quality is basically the same between the fighter preview and the node war demo. They are in different locations though. The fighter preview is in Riverlands and the node war is in Winstead. They are making heavy use of stylized lighting in each area to set a particular atmosphere, something that most open world games do. They also look like they were at different times of day and the fighter preview also just happened to be mostly recorded in locations that were heavily shadowed and engulfed in a lot of fog.
great points mate, but i do disagree, Winstead is in the Riverlands no?, the art styles don't look even close to being the same, they look somewhat similar ill give you that but its quite easy to tell they are not the same models, the other thing i noticed is in the fighter preview, the assets, such as tree's foliage, rocks, paths, all seem extremely well placed, and it looks like a real world, where as in the node preview it just looks like they have placed a bunch of random tree's and rocks with no real design path, like their just trying to fill space
trying to find another example for you, here is one,
Top image, is of the caravan pvp update with PI testers, so it has to be footage of the real game,
bottom image is pre recorded gathering update ( 2 years old ), same biome, similar assets, you cannot tell me this is the same engine lol
vs
for the record im not saying the game looks bad in either one, but i would love some clarity on this on what version we are going to get on launch
yeah, that makes sense, i wish i knew more about game design but realistically i don't know enough to know whats going on either lol, however it seems weird to me that they would waste the time in designing this entire zone differently just for the livestreams?, i would understand if it looked the same with just downgraded graphics, but they don't even look like the same location, it seems like in the real game, assets are just copy and pasted to fill space, and in the live streams, assets are designed and dropped with position to look like a real world, i would love to see a walk through in each area in A2 to compare them next to eachother, so hopefully we can see that soon
Yes, Winstead is in the Riverlands but in-game the two areas are clearly differentiated which means that they've likely adjusted lighting and other parameters to fit the intended atmosphere for each location. It could also be that one was recorded in the summer and the other in spring (different seasons are another example for different lighting styles in a games that have changing seasons). It's also just simply possible that they ended up not liking the more natural, subdued look in the fighter preview and have decided to make the game more saturated and vibrant overall.
The assets themselves look to be the same or mostly the same (they might be using some procedural tools like SpeedTree for some of the foliage) and it's likely that they're using procedural generation to place foliage in an area and then going in and doing adjustments by hand. But the perceived visual differences seem to mostly be down to the different lighting. It's also entirely possible that the fighter preview was recorded in a specific area that's just further along in terms of actual world/level design and they didn't have the requirement of being able to showcase dozens of players all in the same area.
i mean, there is just no way, and like i said its not just graphics its the entire placement of assets
However, I also share some concerns about the discrepancies between the pre-recorded showcases and the live Alpha 2 footage. It's understandable that pre-recorded streams might be more polished to highlight specific features, but it can be a bit disheartening to see a noticeable difference when comparing those to the actual gameplay footage.
I think transparency is key here. If Intrepid Studios could ensure that their showcases are reflective of the current state of the game engine that players will actually experience, it would help set more realistic expectations. Seeing the dynamic seasons and weather systems in the engine that the game runs on would give a more accurate representation of what we can expect upon release.
That being said, I appreciate the hard work and dedication that the team is putting into Ashes of Creation. The continuous updates and live developments are fantastic and show their commitment to delivering a high-quality game.
Looking forward to seeing more updates and the eventual release!
This is the issue with showing alpha and why i hate post like this trying to paint the narrative its on a different engine....that is now how this works lol? Its crazy you can say you don't know how things work and than be saying some insane things. Its kind of the pattern with your post.
If you have an expectation every single angle shot is going to look amazing in a mmorpg you are looking at the wrong genre. Obviously they have going to cherry pick locations and adjust lighting to make it look as good as possible. You also shouldn't be looking at alpha and thinking that is the final look be it things improve or some things adjusted do to optimization.
I mean, I said I don't know how things work because I would like someone elto explain it to me, it's very clear that the game we see in versions like " dynamic season showcase" is not even close to the game we see on the live showcases, it I understand that it's an alpha, but these showcases were not released yesterday, some of them with this quality of footage were released over 6 years ago, so it's not unrealistic that we expect the same quality we see them playing\advertising to us.
Not to mention all the cosmetics that are for sale, are also viewed on this better engine so I don't think it's a bad thing to ask the questions
I think intrepid is an amazing company, and I think Stevens vision and project are great, but if no one holds them accountable then the game will release in a poor state
If we are not going to release with the same quality that's been advertised, why show it
There are a few helpful responses in this thread, but to summarize, Ashes of Creation is being developed with Unreal Engine 5.
We aren't using separate game engines, (and to @Dygz point) the gameplay segments are all pre-recorded in generally the same manner.
To your point @patrick68794 , because the game is a WIP, you will see some visual variances between showcases. There are sooooo many factors that go into this. Lighting changes, Spell VFX changes, character changes, etc. Even what machines they're recorded on or the camera perspectives during the recording can make a difference.
To your point @Chicago , because everything is a work in progress, things will change and can look different between showcases! This is one of the byproducts of monthly development updates
Thanks for the reply, so I understand that there are alot of variables that go into the visuals, the biggest one I have noticed personally when recording is the zoom distance seems to play a big part on how the graphics look, I am curious though, given it's all being recorded on the same engine, when we get into the game, and I don't mean alpha 2 but the full release, we will be able to optimise our graphics settings to make the game look like it does in the dynamic weather showcase?
And part of WIP I believe is that they are not yet at the stage where they are optimizing the game maybe, gameplay systems are more important at this stage, so they'd rather record smooth mass pvp gameplay than pretty scenery that's the focus of other livestreams.
Eventually as the game gets sharpened out and optimized closer to launch, provided you have a powerful enough machine, you probably may have the game looks pretty all the time.
It's a fair remark and questions to ponder, though I'd leave graphics and optimization worries until beta at least
great points, and yes i understand there is no point stressing over it until we get closer to the betas, the only real reason that i was interested is because some of the videos with these insane graphics are 6 years old so just makes me wonder
I think the problem you're having here is the camera perspective. When you have the camera way above, you won't have that crisp level of detail to foliage and everything around you as if you had the camera 5ft right behind your character. I do think in the future showcases we need to see both of these camera perspectives. In my own personal opinion, these super far away camera angles is such a turn-off and gives it the same mobile-esque quality as Lost Ark. Game is STUNNING when we view the game right behind your character, so I would like to see more of that.