Most games have small items that give you extra stats. For example, SWTOR and the Relics and Implants, LOTRO with the rings and necklaces (If I remember correctly, it's been awhile) and whatever else that other MMOs have included, however have any ever gone through the troubles of including it in your characters appearance? I've never come across a game where if you put on a ring, that you can actually be able to visibly see the ring, which is a bit dissapointing. I don't know about all of you, but I think it'd be pretty sick to have a ring or two on (depending on the limit) that might have some high level ring on thats enchanted, ancient writings engraved on it, glowing an organish or red color. Does Pantheon plan on doing anything like this? I know that one of the pledge rewards is the Ring of the Fallen, so are you guys planning on making the rings and whatever other smaller items visible?
Am I alone in thinking that this would be pretty dope?
It might be cool, but the reason none of those games made them visible is because it multiplies the amount of work that the art department needs to do -- forever.
Yeah, that thought did cross my mind. It adds more work on their behalf, and for the most part they just want to create a game. But I think its the small details that count. It only adds to the immersion. But I can see that it's a lot more work and money to add such small details in.
Actually Unity has built in features for this. It has more to do with how much memory you have to work with. You have to imagine a scenario with the maximum amount of players in a confined space all showing these fine details, and the resources required. All the little textures can be auto-generated for the most part. Animations though... that's time and money.
ZennExile said:Actually Unity has built in features for this. It has more to do with how much memory you have to work with. You have to imagine a scenario with the maximum amount of players in a confined space all showing these fine details, and the resources required. All the little textures can be auto-generated for the most part. Animations though... that's time and money.
I'm actually a programmer by trade and do 3D art art as well. I've used Unity. I'm no expert in it, but I program fluently in Visual Basic, C# and Javascript. And I've created applications in Java, and have done repairs in C++, though I haven't created any full programs myself in that language. And I can create the presentation layer in any number of mark-up languages, including html, CSS, Razer, PHP. I also handle the database layer and often have to engage in complex SQL to achieve what is needed by my clients. On a hobby basis, I've been working in a number of gaming engines. Lightwave is the 3D tool I am most familiar with, but I'm grooving in on Maya and Motion Builder and have some experience with 3D Coat and Zbrush. I don't claim to be expert in any of these. But your assumption that I don't have an education or any knowledge of these tools is incorrect.
I don't know what to say if you can't understand what I'm referring too, but I'm sure others can understand the basic principles of an economy of resources. And that no tool allows for an infinite economy. If for no other reason than it isn't just the resources of the computer but also the dev team.
It is a concept that I have to deal with on a regular basis with the developers under me. I'm not dealing with graphics in business solutions, but the same principles apply. And it most defiinitely applies to this situation. And stating such isn't some sort of "trying to attack" you. It is just a simple statement of the facts as I see them and I don't think I'm very far off. No matter how good these auto-tools are that you are referring to, it doesn't stop the fact that the artists need to create content for them. And on an MMO with 9+ races and 13+ classes multiplied by the number of slots is how many variations need to be made everytime a new set is made. Sure some stuff can be reused, etc. But if you are going to have acceptable, modern graphics, this work will take work and I am glad that there are tools that'll make it easier than it used to be. However, all of this still eats up time and game resources which can be rather limited on a min-spec machine. It simply isn't a "no worries, Unity takes care of that, we can make as many visible slots as we want and it will never affect dev time or costs and will never affect performance". I don't care what the tool is. Project development of any kind doesn't work that way and never will. There will always be a ceiling. That ceiling will just get higher and higher, while needed resources for higher quality content grows to fill the space.
Mod Edit: Removed quoted content that was deleted due to breaching the forum guidelines. (thank you for being so civil and calm in your response)
1. Summary of comments taken from Brad/DEVs in Streams/AMAs/Roundtables to date:
The DEVs have stated that they want your avatar to reflect your gear, and thus can visually represent your 'power' or 'status' to other players, as much as possible. To this end they cited the red neck-scarf worn by one of the characters in the recent streams. This was a look determined by an item worn (the scarf) and not merely a 'generic' look for that armour/class. They further cited the runes/glow on Aradune's (massively OP and top of the DEVs nerf list once Brad gets drunk enough not to notice) flaming sword and it's reflection on the gnome's breastplate.
So yes, the team is on board with the concept of in-game item representation ... HOWEVER ...
... they also stated it will not (likely) be 1:1 since the DEV/game impact would not be cost effective.
(but that this does not make it an unworthy goal at some point).
[Please feel free to research this yourself: all the information is available via links in the WIKI/Forums (though in a few cases it references previously held VIP led discussions and commentary)]
2. Cost of Item representation:
Irrispective of options offered by Unity, information theory tells me that information can neither be created nor destroyed and follows the same intrinsic rules as thermodynamics and electromagnetism (think Maxwell's description, not the later Feynman/QCD representation which is fuzzier). Even with an in-built meta-function where item representation can be added as an automated segment in the artwork pipeline, this has cost. The cost is in planning, creation of a texture database, assignment of shape/form/texture to an item from the relevant database and finally, the nett effect of these bundled layers on the gfx engine, client side.
It may be that it is viable in a limited fashion, if ones works hard enough to preset the relevant dependencies:
Eg Racial-palette + Item-Creator-palette + item-age-palette + lore-palette -> item pattern/texture list
such that the items eventual look/feel is randomly selected from within this intersected sub-list .....
... but this will absolutely not be done for nothing.
Conclusion:
I suspect there will be representation of many items in game. Many will be more generic (low level gear) while some will be unique in look (more powerful etc). However, It is unlikely to be a 1:1 representation, particularly of smaller items (compared to, say, cloaks) for a while.
Evoras, hope this does include a unique look for the cat in his backpack...
Also, how would you logically see those items through armor and gauntlets? I'd like to see as many items as possible (I really like when games show your cloak), but it would be weird to see rings outside of gauntlets and a necklace hanging out over the front of your armor.
DragonFist said:That's not how it works. Sure, Unity might have tools that make these things easier. However, while having tools that make creating art easier, merely always for more art to be created per time spent. It never results in an infinite art vending machine. The more aspects of a character models that can be changed or have different visuals adds more more art content that must be made everytime new model content is made (armour, new races, etc.) Then, as Liav points out, there is a limted amount of memory and frame-buffer space, especially on consoles. Every one of these visible items slots means more textures. It is getting larger and larger, but the it not and never shall be an unlimited economy. The devs have to balance programming, art other development hours. They also have to maintain the economy of the computer environment in which the game is being run, and try to keep that in amount reasonable enough that one doesn't need a $5000 rig to play the game at 20fps.
The tiny little textures you render to the character model for jewelry on fingers, around the neck, or as earings, can be generated in the engine out of the box, they don't have to be complicated, or unique. At all. They can be as simple as a band of color with a gradient or any other simple default texture effect. You don't have to create anything new, you don't have to model the items. Nothing. Unless you want to. And that is a completely different argument. A semtantic one that has no constructive purpose.
The OP says "small visible items". This does not mean unique rendered objects with animations and visual effects. Unless you need those assumptions to form a semantic argument without seeming... well you know. Silly.
If you can make a single post without using the word "semantic" in some form, I'll be amazed.
I took this post as something along the lines of "if you equip a ring with this icon graphic, the graphic will match", meaning that some little gradient texture would probably look atrocious in a game that wants to take itself seriously. It's better to do nothing at all if you can't do it well.
EQ2 has relatively detailed rings you can buy on the marketplace as a cosmetic option, however that game's performance is in the trash and their development is trash. If Pantheon can't do it as well as EQ2 while having a game that performs well, the idea should probably be scrapped altogether.
I've yet to see an implementation of this in a game that isn't being experienced in a "cinematic" sub 60-FPS environment.
I asked someone to make a tutorial showing what I am talking about step by step, so you can see for yourself. I have a feeling you won't even watch it, but I did promise Pie. You would probably notice more of what I am actually saying if you weren't so busy questioning the choice of napkins. But hey, someone has to make a hard choice about napkins, at some point, and you're just person I trust with a choice that critical.
Now you amaze me and post something constructive about games created with Unity, and the options availible for rendering small equipped items to the character model. And better yet, the sorts of examples of this, that you like. Because as I tell my young nephews, "you don't make friends by trying to prove other kids wrong, you make enemies". They are just learning how to deal with kids in their age group that are not in their same education group. And they struggle with this idea. Most people do in some way or another all their lives. I try not to as often as possible.
Are you ready to try with me?
FFXIV does jewelry well and runs great.
If it came down to it I would rather see visible belts instead of various small rings/necklaces/earrings.
Iksar said:FFXIV does jewelry well and runs great.
If it came down to it I would rather see visible belts instead of various small rings/necklaces/earrings.
I would think that a ring, an earring, a belt.etc, static items that don't have animations (like a cape etc) are basically the same to each other.. in other words, a ring is a ring is a ring is a ring. The rendering of a ring is minute compared to that of a breastplate, a boot, leggings, etc. I understand that the more things to render there are, the more resources it takes. So with that respect, there is indeed a finite number that can be utilized.
I do not buy the "it takes too long to program" argument as, regardless of what engine , unity or whatever, is used, the basic design of a ring is the same. The same with a belt, an earring too. Even if it is more ornate than the other, the basic foundation of the item remains the same. So assuming that a creative person could design dozens of different designs of rings in a day, a programmer could use a basic template to program these. I would argue it would take actually longer to design the art than to program it. And designing can be done by the community as a contest perhaps if there's no creative talent (which i know certainly is not the case)
Durp said:I would think that a ring, an earring, a belt.etc, static items that don't have animations (like a cape etc) are basically the same to each other.. in other words, a ring is a ring is a ring is a ring. The rendering of a ring is minute compared to that of a breastplate, a boot, leggings, etc. I understand that the more things to render there are, the more resources it takes. So with that respect, there is indeed a finite number that can be utilized.
I do not buy the "it takes too long to program" argument as, regardless of what engine , unity or whatever, is used, the basic design of a ring is the same. The same with a belt, an earring too. Even if it is more ornate than the other, the basic foundation of the item remains the same. So assuming that a creative person could design dozens of different designs of rings in a day, a programmer could use a basic template to program these. I would argue it would take actually longer to design the art than to program it. And designing can be done by the community as a contest perhaps if there's no creative talent (which i know certainly is not the case)
Durp said:I would think that a ring, an earring, a belt.etc, static items that don't have animations (like a cape etc) are basically the same to each other.. in other words, a ring is a ring is a ring is a ring. The rendering of a ring is minute compared to that of a breastplate, a boot, leggings, etc. I understand that the more things to render there are, the more resources it takes. So with that respect, there is indeed a finite number that can be utilized.
I do not buy the "it takes too long to program" argument as, regardless of what engine , unity or whatever, is used, the basic design of a ring is the same. The same with a belt, an earring too. Even if it is more ornate than the other, the basic foundation of the item remains the same. So assuming that a creative person could design dozens of different designs of rings in a day, a programmer could use a basic template to program these. I would argue it would take actually longer to design the art than to program it. And designing can be done by the community as a contest perhaps if there's no creative talent (which i know certainly is not the case)
You are absolutely correct. These things are trivial from the development perspective. They are weighed by resources needed to render in the engine, not by resource required to add them to the engine. They are already in there, and a database can be automatically generated for any amount of complexity you wish to add. "Any amount" means you can go with almost no complexity, or the most advanced jewelry physics of any game ever made, and whatever lies between those two points. So every "arguement" is moot, and pointless.
All that matters is unique perspective.
For those that want to look for themselves and get an idea of what this really involves, here a link to a tutorial series on how to do an extremely simplified armor system with only one model and minimal changes. Take a look and then work out how what it would take to have it look good and then what it would take to look good for a combination of 9+ races and 13+ classes multiplied by the number of visible inventory slots desired.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLy6KNtyCe9RK-lmQRTbRPJeSMAnHN9I0H&spfreload=5
Again, the point isn't that it can't be done, nor even that it shouldn't be done. The point is that "These things are trivial from the development perspective." does not create an accurate picture of what going into the creation of such systems.
If it is that trivial, then I'm sure a link can be provided to show a demo such a system created that allows for full changing of armor with art content to allow for 9 races and say, just 9 classes while looking like profession game visuals. Because, if it is indeed trivial, then it shouldn't take long to put together.
Here are the rules:
Get to it.
It is a simple request. Put your money, time, resources where your mouth is or stop calling it trivial. If you can't do it yourself in a few days, then it isn't as trivail as you say it is. It isn't more complicated than that.
If you are saying that VR can do it because they have resources, then I guess they have to manage those resources, don't they? The point is, you say that it is trivial. They don't need new art (meshes, textures, etc.) They don't need trained employees to do it and the time to do it. It is trivial. It is like fighting a level mob with you raid equiped level 60. So, do it. Show that it requires a trivial amount of resources.
And, please, stop making personal attacks on me and claiming that something like "it isn't a trivial task" stated in many different ways is somehow a personal attack on you. It isn't. But stating in veiled ways that my arguments are "silly", "vomit", "like a toddler", and various other statements insinuating that I have an inability to think or apply logic or have a lesser education than you. You can't go around insulting people and cry victim everytime someone disagrees with you. It is not cool. I have not once said anything negatively about you personally. I've simply made statements of that I disagree with your data that you have presented. I haven't made any slants on you or your ability to think. In fact, this is the first time I've even mentioned it in a post. However, you seem to make it a point to end off you posts with a statement that, while not directly insulting anyone, implies a lack smarts or creativity or whatever, aptitude you wish to make little of this time. In addition, you have tendency to then make a post that argues some point that I didn't make and end it off with a veiled attack on my intellect or experience. I've really tried to ignore this aspect of your posts and just stick to the issue at hand. But it is difficult to do when nearly everyone contains a personal attack and a claim that the one you are attacking actually attacked you. I've even seen you make a personal attack and after the response, you edit your post to remove the attack. I assume to make the other look bad.And then claim that I attacked you. I'm asking you, this once. Please stop doing that.
In this particular case, your claim is that implementing such a system as the OP requested is trivial. You said, and I quote:
ZennExile said:These things are trivial from the development perspective. They are weighed by resources needed to render in the engine, not by resource required to add them to the engine. They are already in there, and a database can be automatically generated for any amount of complexity you wish to add.
Dragon there is no way for you to know any of those things. You have such a great imagination that you box your mind in with it. You could add so much to these conversations if you spent a tiny fraction of this effort you spend to prove things wrong.
I am tired of telling you how important your own unique opinions are though. Please go ahead and assume that my communications are not meant for you, or beg a response from you. There is nothing to gain from interacting with you in this manner. It is sad to me, that you don't understand how important your contribution could be if you would just stop to smell the Pie.
Bart Simpson said:I didn't do it. Nobody saw me. You can't prove anything.
Factually, I posted in this thread before you. The original poster and I had a very reasonable discussion on the subject with no upset or disagreement and no taking of polar opposites. It was like three posts long. Just a "Yeah, that would be cool, but this is a factor." and a "Yeah, I thought about that. Well, I hope they can do something like that." That's it.
You've been stating that my original statement is untrue ever since. And I've plenty of posts that have nothing to do with disagreeing with anyone. They probably get glossed over because they are things like "those are some good ideas" or "that would be cool, perhaps it could also have..." Anywho...
No more talk. Do! Put up or shut up. No more misdirection. Prove it. Prove what you said.
ZennExile said:These things are trivial from the development perspective. They are weighed by resources needed to render in the engine, not by resource required to add them to the engine. They are already in there, and a database can be automatically generated for any amount of complexity you wish to add.
My first post in this thread, was in response to Jacasta. I never even read your post Dragon.
Like a told you last time, you are attacking your own imagination. I would never intentionally engage you in a conversation, about anything. Ever. I don't even read your posts unless you directly quote me and ASK SPECIFICALLY for something from me. EVER.
Maybe that is my fault for not being sensitive to your perspective, but you don't see me trying to prove anyone wrong that is not direclty soliciting my thoughts of contradiction. I always try to spin an argument into a thought experiment FOR EXACTLY this reason. And even then I get reported for Pie analogies and trying to encourage more conversation.
Now you enjoy stewing on that. And I will keep on being the better person and ignore these idiotic provocations.
Not sure what I just read. Was there a link to the tech demo? No link, it didn't happen.
Mod Edit: Removed Gif as per the no images unless requested by a dev is to be posted in dev forums (off topic or meme thread are ok)