HellFrost wrote: » First of all I would like to congratulate on decision with UE5, it's really a great engine to future proof your game, however I would like to bring a discussion regarding overall look and feel of the game world. The first obvious point would be the lack of high quality textures. I understand you were happy to show the move and lighting capabilities of UE5, but textures are really odd looking which makes overall environment look dated. I understand that this game is far from release so hopefully you have a plan to update them as you go. Second and most important thing is foliage. It's literally 2D foliage. Furthermore it's a static 2D foliage which just make whole world feel static and unnatural. I can see snowstorm in the trailer but bushes or grass patches are just static giving this weird feeling of "artificial environment". Hopefully you are going to address this not only with foliage but with trees branches, leaves and other stationary objects that should have some kind of movement. Lastly icing on the cake: random small animals like butterflies in the field, random frogs in the swampy area or white rabbit running around in snowy area. There are all kind of small and big animals, birds, snakes and insects you could add to the world that would make the world feel alive and full, living it's own thing. These things goes long way to giving immersion for the game. I've recently played Red Dead Redemption 2 and the world design is truly amazing. Take my 2nd and 3rd point away and that world would feel dead. I'm not saying game doesn't look good, but it doesn't look amazing as well. These small features would literally push the overall in game world feel warmer and alive.
Kiluvian wrote: » Everyone is so quick to defend the game and yell out the obvious fact that the game is still in development. No shit, sherlocks. Just because someone is pointing out some of the flaws doesn't mean they don't need to be pointed out. You can't assume that all of these things will be addressed, so it is important to call them out.
Kiluvian wrote: » ^ Excellent troll bait, but I'm not taking it.
Atama wrote: » So when the developers put out videos, repeatedly say in those videos that the animation is going to go through a lot of passes and it has barely been touched by their art folks, you think that they “need to be pointed out”? You think the developers are going to announce that animations are being worked on (proactively I might add, not in response to anyone, it’s because they know it’s clunky), and then not change them until you tell them to on the forums? Someone certainly has a ridiculous idea of their own importance. Here’s the thing, chuckles. The people you call “naive fan boys” are the people who have been around literally for years, watching development, following along, actually gathering info. That way, when glassy-eyed ignoramuses stumble into the forums to grumble for the 3,000th time about the same gripe that’s been addressed 3,000 times already, we can provide information and dispel some of the pained confusion. Stick around a bit newbie, and if you pay attention you might even learn something.
neuroguy wrote: » Atama wrote: » So when the developers put out videos, repeatedly say in those videos that the animation is going to go through a lot of passes and it has barely been touched by their art folks, you think that they “need to be pointed out”? You think the developers are going to announce that animations are being worked on (proactively I might add, not in response to anyone, it’s because they know it’s clunky), and then not change them until you tell them to on the forums? Someone certainly has a ridiculous idea of their own importance. Here’s the thing, chuckles. The people you call “naive fan boys” are the people who have been around literally for years, watching development, following along, actually gathering info. That way, when glassy-eyed ignoramuses stumble into the forums to grumble for the 3,000th time about the same gripe that’s been addressed 3,000 times already, we can provide information and dispel some of the pained confusion. Stick around a bit newbie, and if you pay attention you might even learn something. To back up "chuckles" a bit, just because they say something is being worked on does not mean they will fix it to everyone's satisfaction. I think it is fair to present you preferences on the solution. You don't need to be a game developer to know what/how you enjoy playing so everyone's feedback is valid. Now on the flip side, just saying 'the animations are bad' is not constructive and is useless feedback when they actively say they are working on them as it provides no information on the preferred direction, that's fair enough.
Nerror wrote: » This game really does need some orcs though.
Vhaeyne wrote: » @HellFrost Like everyone said, the game is in development. What is more important than that though is that the game is not a AAA game with a AAA budget. It's an indy game with a fairly low budget as far as MMORPGS go and the time period we are in. Furthermore, it needs to be able to run on as many computers as possible. This means they have to put some limits on how many polygons and how big of textures they can use. The game looks fantastic as is. Nothing is "Missing badly". The game could not look any better than it does now on release, and it would be amazing, so long as the gameplay is good.