Mount and Blade Graphics outdated?

Do you think Mount and Blade Graphics are Outdated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 130 28.9%
  • Slightly

    Votes: 207 46.0%
  • No

    Votes: 113 25.1%

  • Total voters
    450

Users who are viewing this thread

As a person who actually knows something about the Source engine's (that's the Left 4 Dead engine) AI, I can tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Firstly, the intelligence, rather LACK of it speaks for itself. Secondly, all the stuff you listed there is not any more than what Source AI does, and speaking from experience playing both games and having modded both games, M&B's AI would seem to do even less (as is the general consensus that M&B's AI is stupid).

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. All AI is stupid. It has to do with how much **** needs to be done every time the function is called.  :roll:

But no, my experience with AI is along the lines of "Pick a random value. If that value is taken, try another one." Not particularly effective, admittedly.
 
Swadius said:
Dwinny said:
Bellum said:
NATIVE M&B. We're talking about NATIVE M&B. It's pointless to say that MODDED M&B is better than vanilla game X, because vanilla game X can ALSO be modded so that it is better than modded M&B! Native M&B does not support 400 characters.

The M&B engine supports that many soldiers on screen, though I have a fairly decent gaming rig and am perfectly content with 100 with max detail instead. You can't modify the engine.

The point I just made in the post you quoted and is that you cannot compare a game that has reached its full graphical potential to a game that has NOT reached its full graphical potential. M&B with GE mod might look better than Left 4 Dead, but M&B with GE mod has been enhanced such that it is doing more than what it was originally designed to do. Left 4 Dead however, is not doing more than what the engine is designed to do. It's not fair to compare an enhanced version of the M&B engine to an unenhanced version of Left 4 Dead's engine.

Stop twisting words to fit your definition. If it was meant that it was not designed for textures like the Graphical enhancement mod to be usable, then it wouldn't be possible to use it. It's mostly just a rehash of new and better textures. How can a game not be designed to be using textures?

Twisting words? What words am I twisting? What definition am I using? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Your logic is also horribly flawed. Just because something is not designed for a specific function, does not mean it cannot perform that function. My laptop was not designed to kill somebody, but I could use it do kill a person if I hit them hard enough with it.

But to clarify anyway, what I mean is the GE mod surpasses the original goals of native (in terms of graphics). GE mod uses higher resolution textures. HDR mod adds HDR. Polished buildings mod adds higher resolution textures and more detailed scenes. If it was the developer's intention to produce graphics of this quality, they would have done so, and of course, if possible, they would have designed the engine to be able to handle it. The other option is that it was the developers intention, but they failed to reach their goal.

Dwinny said:
So, the reason I say you should compare the original, unmodified games, is because it sets an even ground on which you can compare things. In the context of the original post, which talked about reviews, reviewers look at the original unmodified game, not the mod. You can't blame a reviewer for saying M&B's graphics look outdated because he didn't have GE mod.

Give us a reason why we can't compare them to the mods that better the games. Are the creators of the mod's lower class citizens and don't deserve to have their work recognized in the same light as the original?

Did you feel that tremble? That's the shock wave produced from my palm meeting my forehead at supersonic speeds.

I gave you a reason, which is the quote. I didn't say you can't compare them, I said it's not fair to. The reason is it is not fair to make such a comparison, because the two are not on equal ground. This is not because modders are lower class citizens ( :roll:), but because one game has been modded in such a way that it exceeds the capabilities of the unmodded product, while the other game is only doing what it's doing normally.

To make an analogy, comparing an enhanced, modded game to an unmodded game is like comparing an athlete on steroids to an athlete who isn't on steroids. Graphical enhancement is M&B on graphics steroids. And what usually happens with players who take steroids is that they get disqualified.

Dwinny said:
As a person who actually knows something about the Source engine's (that's the Left 4 Dead engine) AI, I can tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Firstly, the intelligence, rather LACK of it speaks for itself. Secondly, all the stuff you listed there is not any more than what Source AI does, and speaking from experience playing both games and having modded both games, M&B's AI would seem to do even less (as is the general consensus that M&B's AI is stupid).

So you're excusing that the AI in Left 4 Dead is better than another game because the other game's is stupid? Are you sure you're not giving leeway to L4D just because they are zombies and are supposed to be stupid? If the same AI was used in any other game that doesn't have zombies it would be stupid.
A close look at what the AI does in game play and youtube videos show that they have incredibly little function. Most of it is scripted animation overlayed on a series of priorities. A smoker has very little function than to be dropped in a designated spot by the director.
[/quote]

Well, there is actually an AI director in Left 4 Dead that's controls the zombies, and paces the game for the players, etc. But that's irrelevant. You're right though, L4D's AI doesn't appear much smarter than M&B's. However, I still stand by that unless you have extensive AI coding experience, you shouldn't be talking about it.
 
Swadius said:
Dwinny said:
Bellum said:
NATIVE M&B. We're talking about NATIVE M&B. It's pointless to say that MODDED M&B is better than vanilla game X, because vanilla game X can ALSO be modded so that it is better than modded M&B! Native M&B does not support 400 characters.

The M&B engine supports that many soldiers on screen, though I have a fairly decent gaming rig and am perfectly content with 100 with max detail instead. You can't modify the engine.

The point I just made in the post you quoted and is that you cannot compare a game that has reached its full graphical potential to a game that has NOT reached its full graphical potential. M&B with GE mod might look better than Left 4 Dead, but M&B with GE mod has been enhanced such that it is doing more than what it was originally designed to do. Left 4 Dead however, is not doing more than what the engine is designed to do. It's not fair to compare an enhanced version of the M&B engine to an unenhanced version of Left 4 Dead's engine.

Stop twisting words to fit your definition. If it was meant that it was not designed for textures like the Graphical enhancement mod to be usable, then it wouldn't be possible to use it. It's mostly just a rehash of new and better textures. How can a game not be designed to be using textures?

Wow, are you so naive? Did you even read what he wrote? He hasn't twisted anything. Something everyone seems to be forgetting here is that we're talking about NATIVE here. As in what Little Billy gets when he goes to the store and buys the game. The retail version. NOT M&B with mods. When Little Billy installs the game he gets outdated graphics. Sure with a mod that has to be downloaded separately and is not OFFICIAL get good graphics. The retail version, the Native version, does not have amazing graphics.

If the GE came packaged with the game and the GE textures were installed instead of Natives then sure you have a case but their not. So your point is moot.

You also can't say  "If it was meant that it was not designed for textures like the Graphical enhancement mod to be usable, then it wouldn't be possible to use it" because that in it of itself is retarded. Sorry. Every PC that has ever been released has been modded to do things it was not originally doing. Again you obviously failed to comprehend Dwinnys post because what M&B was originally designed with was the lack luster graphics of NATIVE. Sure they can be supported, just like Oblivion can support dismemberment and insanely high-resolution textures, but it was not originally released with that.


Give us a reason why we can't compare them to the mods that better the games. Are the creators of the mod's lower class citizens and don't deserve to have their work recognized in the same light as the original?

Are you... are you serious? Did you really just type that? No one said anything even pertaining to "m0dd3r5 4r3 teh suxx0r lololoz."

Again, for some reason you, and a lot of others, seem to continually forget we're talking about NATIVE. Native, native, native. Not Native + a mod. Yes, Native plus GE looks good, but for the purposes of this thread we're not talking about GE. When a customer buys M&B they don't get the much improved graphics of GE, they get Natives. Like Dwinny said, you cannot compare a modified game to an unmodified game. It's not fair and you know it. Stop trying to justify it. It's like trying to compare an two apples to see what one tastes better, only one is covered in chocolate.

However if you want to compare M&B + mods to game X plus mods then fine go a head.

Oblivion + Quarls Texture Pack > M&B +GE
Left 4 Dead +(an eventual texture mod equivalent of GE) > M&B + GE

The core of the matter here is, yeah we can make all the textures HD + mapping and it may look better than [insert game here] but if that same game is running on a modern graphics engine and also has HD textures , mapping the modern engine will eventually win because of models and the likely hood if will be able to be tweaked to support even more graphical enhancing.

Look at the Source engine for example. It's a modern engine and years ago, when HL2 came out the graphics were good, but compared to today's games they too are outdated. Now look at HL2 and L4D. Same engine huge difference.



So you're excusing that the AI in Left 4 Dead is better than another game because the other game's is stupid? Are you sure you're not giving leeway to L4D just because they are zombies and are supposed to be stupid? If the same AI was used in any other game that doesn't have zombies it would be stupid.
A close look at what the AI does in game play and youtube videos show that they have incredibly little function. Most of it is scripted animation overlayed on a series of priorities. A smoker has very little function than to be dropped in a designated spot by the director.

Ok, so have you ever actually played a Source game? At all? Have you ever played a VALVe game? They make some of the smartest AI bar none. Look at the CS Bots. You wouldn't even know those were bots. They play just like humans.


Most of it is scripted animation overlayed on a series of priorities. A smoker has very little function than to be dropped in a designated spot by the director.

You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about. Nothing in L4D is "designated." Every time you play you get a completely different game. The zombies are in new locations, they spawn at different times (other than a few key points) and each time they have to figure out where they are, what objects are where, how they can get around or over/under said objects.

Since you brought up the Smoker, one of the dumbest, lets also talk about the Hunter. The Hunter, who literally hunts you. You'll almost never see a Hunter do anything stupid unless your party has cornered him and he has no choice. Otherwise you will literally see that hunter creeping about the shadows, leaping around buildings WAITING for the perfect opportunity to strike.  The second someone gets separated from the party or mobbed by zombies that hunter will be on you in a split second.

Oh lets not forget the freaking director. The "man behind the curtain." That's an AI. An AI that watches everything you and your friends do and adjusts accordingly. Again, no game is the same and the director changes tactics depending  on how good or bad your doing, where you are going, how many people are in the party, how many people are separated... everything.

Yeah, you're right Swadius, the AI in L4D is just as dumb, if not dumber than M&Bs who's only thought is "Charge!" "Hold" "Follow me!" "Kill everything in sight".... [/sarcasm]



*Edit* Oh hai thur Dwinny
 
Yes Aldwen, but your wrong because M&B native doesn't look bad and it does look better than Oblivion (though not Left 4 Dead).  :roll:


Also, your stretching Left 4 Dead's AI quite a bit. And misusing the word "intelligence"(EDIT: dumb, rather). Also, your getting loud and pumping up the rhetoric. Take a break.
 
Bellum said:
Yes Aldwen, but your wrong because M&B native doesn't look bad and it does look better than Oblivion (though not Left 4 Dead).  :roll:

:shock: I really would like to see pictures of this... Do post them.

Oblivion screen shots
Mount and Blade screen shots


Also, your stretching Left 4 Dead's AI quite a bit. And misusing the word "intelligence"(EDIT: dumb, rather). Also, your getting loud and pumping up the rhetoric. Take a break.

Though perhaps a bit exaggerated, it's not by that much. We're also trying to compare "dumb" zombies to "intelligent" soldiers... :???:

I don't see how I got loud. Using bolds and cap-locks just furthered the point along. Though I admit, I could have gone without the insults. 
 
Aldwen said:
:shock: I really would like to see pictures of this... Do post them.

Oblivion screen shots
Mount and Blade screen shots

Exactly.

Aldwen said:
Though perhaps a bit exaggerated, it's not by that much. We're also trying to compare "dumb" zombies to "intelligent" soldiers... :???:

Let me break it down. I believe the point is that M&B's AI has a lot in which it needs to do for every man on the field. This is relevant to the discussion because it is theorized that graphics were sacrificed so that the average person can play with X units on the field and enjoy the game. (This is a valid point, but I'm pretty sure the main reason was to save money and time) Left 4 dead was bought up. After all, there are masses of zombies on the screen. Other games also have many monsters or soldiers on the screen, like Total War.

It's important to note that the point of game AI is not to simulate intelligence. If it is, both M&B and Left 4 Dead have failed miserably. A games AI needs to do three things. First, it needs to function within the context of the game. Secondly, it needs to do a reasonable job of convincing the player of the world. Thirdly, it needs to challenge the player.

Lets use Total War as an example, perhaps a better example than Left 4 Dead because the difference in scale is so huge. What does the AI need to do to function within the context of the game? The men are divided into larger units both to ease gameplay (controlling that many individuals would be an impossible task) but also to ease computation time. On an individual level, the men in the unit don't do much. The game presumably needs to keep track of where they all are and the ones in front of the camera need to play certain animations. That's about it. The rest is designated to large units and an abstract battle system.

Now, what does the AI in Mount&Blade need to do to function within the context of the game? One of the things I like about M&B is the lack of abstraction. It simulates medieval combat by having a bunch of medieval guys on the field beating each other to death with sharp pointy things. The argument is not based on the AI's intelligence, but that the AI needs to do so much in real time to serve it's function. Every man in M&B acts independently and must do so in real time.

I'm not as familiar with the AI in Left4Dead as I am with the AI in M&B and Total War, but within the context of the game there is much more room for optimization within the AI. The individual zombie just doesn't need to do a great deal to convince the player. All it really needs to do is swarm toward the player and play a random attack animation. There are other situations (like managing obstacles, the path finding is really quite good), but those are not constants strains on the game.

This really has nothing to do with intelligence. Both M&B and Left4Dead do their job better than most other games.
 
Aldwen said:
Wow, are you so naive? Did you even read what he wrote? He hasn't twisted anything. Something everyone seems to be forgetting here is that we're talking about NATIVE here. As in what Little Billy gets when he goes to the store and buys the game. The retail version. NOT M&B with mods. When Little Billy installs the game he gets outdated graphics. Sure with a mod that has to be downloaded separately and is not OFFICIAL get good graphics. The retail version, the Native version, does not have amazing graphics.

If the GE came packaged with the game and the GE textures were installed instead of Natives then sure you have a case but their not. So your point is moot.

No I think you don't get what I meant, there should be no boundary between that of the work of the modders and the original designers. All there is that differentiates them is the title of "official". And that it came in the box. How can this be where one draws a line and says that all other work is irrelevant? Where is the discrepancy between the value of the work of the original dev team and the modders?
There is none, in reality the title of "official release" is arbitrary when comparing the products themselves. It sets a line in the sand where the work that comes from the modders and the devs are indistinguishable. It's like buying into something just because of its name.
To be specific, this is what the OP has:
Frankoman said:
Do you think the Graphics in Mount and Blade are outdated? ...
It mentions nothing about native specifically. Yes, from a legal standpoint all games in and of themselves are that of the officail released version. However, why do you seek to carry that over to the realm where we're comparing the actual product itself, because it's a standard? It would be like judging a painting for its artistic merit by equating in the license and transaction papers before ever looking at the painting, and those that do do this should have their heads cut off!
If that's all there is to not include mods into a review of a specific department in a game, then why should we continue to do this? It's like receiving special privileges because one is of royal blood (not a remark aimed at any development team) and not because of all the work itself.
That is my point.

Aldwen said:
You also can't say  "If it was meant that it was not designed for textures like the Graphical enhancement mod to be usable, then it wouldn't be possible to use it" because that in it of itself is retarded. Sorry. Every PC that has ever been released has been modded to do things it was not originally doing. Again you obviously failed to comprehend Dwinnys post because what M&B was originally designed with was the lack luster graphics of NATIVE. Sure they can be supported, just like Oblivion can support dismemberment and insanely high-resolution textures, but it was not originally released with that.

I'm not saying "if..." I'm saying technically the phrase "more than what it was originally designed to do" implies that it cannot do anything more than the bare minimum stated. Perhaps I did misunderstand Dwinny's idea at that point and you have it correct, but the words do not translate into your explanation.
By that phrase alone it would imply that additional anything would be impossible, which he later states is possible.

Aldwen said:
Give us a reason why we can't compare them to the mods that better the games. Are the creators of the mod's lower class citizens and don't deserve to have their work recognized in the same light as the original?

Are you... are you serious? Did you really just type that? No one said anything even pertaining to "m0dd3r5 4r3 teh suxx0r lololoz."
Again, for some reason you, and a lot of others, seem to continually forget we're talking about NATIVE. Native, native, native. Not Native + a mod. Yes, Native plus GE looks good, but for the purposes of this thread we're not talking about GE. When a customer buys M&B they don't get the much improved graphics of GE, they get Natives. Like Dwinny said, you cannot compare a modified game to an unmodified game. It's not fair and you know it. Stop trying to justify it. It's like trying to compare an two apples to see what one tastes better, only one is covered in chocolate.
[/quote][/quote]

As in the first response of this thread, there shouldn't be an imaginary line distinguishing the work of the original devs and the modders that later came (not that I'm saying that we're not at all ungrateful to them), or at least the top layer of the official release shouldn't be the limit. All I ever hear in response to why are "because it is the official release" as if there's any logical reason why one can't review the mods as well along with the original game themselves applied to it.
Plus I never said anything about not comparing games with mods, the main argument I'm pushing for is that there shouldn't be a divider on what is "official" and what isn't. M&B is no exception, neither did I state that it was, nor did I explicitly say that it shouldn't be compared to other modded games. It wasn't me who brought up a main stream game to compare to M&B. I also didn't say that you couldn't compare M&B to a graphically enhanced version of L4D did I.
The source of where you got that idea that I am eludes me.

However if you want to compare M&B + mods to game X plus mods then fine go a head.

Oblivion + Quarls Texture Pack > M&B +GE
Left 4 Dead +(an eventual texture mod equivalent of GE) > M&B + GE

Great, but can you still say that M&B's graphics are out of date allowing this method of critiquing?

Aldwen said:
The core of the matter here is, yeah we can make all the textures HD + mapping and it may look better than [insert game here] but if that same game is running on a modern graphics engine and also has HD textures , mapping the modern engine will eventually win because of models and the likely hood if will be able to be tweaked to support even more graphical enhancing.

Crazily enough, I thought the core of the matter was whether or not M&B's graphics can be considered outdated.

Aldwen said:
Look at the Source engine for example. It's a modern engine and years ago, when HL2 came out the graphics were good, but compared to today's games they too are outdated. Now look at HL2 and L4D. Same engine huge difference.

You know that's a little weird, some of them sprung up as mods and didn't become full games in and of themselves until they were legitimized by a a legal authority. I'm assuming that's the reason you're not bringing in any mods of those games also? I for one don't think that such things like graphics maybe even art shouldn't be bound to fine text. If it is beautiful, then it is beautiful.

Aldwen said:
So you're excusing that the AI in Left 4 Dead is better than another game because the other game's is stupid? Are you sure you're not giving leeway to L4D just because they are zombies and are supposed to be stupid? If the same AI was used in any other game that doesn't have zombies it would be stupid.
A close look at what the AI does in game play and youtube videos show that they have incredibly little function. Most of it is scripted animation overlayed on a series of priorities. A smoker has very little function than to be dropped in a designated spot by the director.

Ok, so have you ever actually played a Source game? At all? Have you ever played a VALVe game? They make some of the smartest AI bar none. Look at the CS Bots. You wouldn't even know those were bots. They play just like humans.

Most of it is scripted animation overlayed on a series of priorities. A smoker has very little function than to be dropped in a designated spot by the director.
You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about. Nothing in L4D is "designated." Every time you play you get a completely different game. The zombies are in new locations, they spawn at different times (other than a few key points) and each time they have to figure out where they are, what objects are where, how they can get around or over/under said objects.

Aldwen said:
Since you brought up the Smoker, one of the dumbest, lets also talk about the Hunter. The Hunter, who literally hunts you. You'll almost never see a Hunter do anything stupid unless your party has cornered him and he has no choice. Otherwise you will literally see that hunter creeping about the shadows, leaping around buildings WAITING for the perfect opportunity to strike.  The second someone gets separated from the party or mobbed by zombies that hunter will be on you in a split second.
[/quote]

I don't recall ever saying that I did, other than watching other people do it. And the ability of killing the player does not equate to a good AI. No AI ever plays like a human, you'd need a server to compile the erradicacies of a human mind. I can make an AI appear very smart if I limited what it can and can't do. If I put activated one on a small map, the restrictions therein are obvious, both to the player and to the AI. All that it comes down to is what can a player do, and how can the AI compensate. If you limit the prudent actions of a player you can't make an AI seem smart in that environment. Outside of it, on a large predominantly open field, the options for the player are expand exponentially. The scriptwriters will have an incredibly difficult time copping with that if the AI relies on its environment.
If you can funnel the player's actions, like putting them into a particularly cramped building or area, their options for beating the AI will be that much fewer, and easily compensated for.
Of all the games that does this well is L4D, F.E.A.R., and the HalfLife series. The areas in L4D that the players are in are not wide open fields with large amount of possibilities. In fact, most of the areas are cramped hallways with the occasional  warehouse where there's only one area worth defending from. The AI will only appear to be smart in that environment. Put them on an open field without some form of compensation for the environment and players, and they're toast.
This is why computers can be programmed to be so good at chess. There are no unseen probabilities that the human can make (theoretically). All the options and restrictions of the human are not hidden in the environment. That makes the optimal environment that an AI can operate in.
The scripters of L4D knows this.

Oh lets not forget the freaking director. The "man behind the curtain." That's an AI. An AI that watches everything you and your friends do and adjusts accordingly. Again, no game is the same and the director changes tactics depending  on how good or bad your doing, where you are going, how many people are in the party, how many people are separated... everything.

You're buying into the whole marketing thing a bit much don't you think. You're almost repeating it verbatim. It doesn't adjust accordingly like an omnipotent entity, "knowledge" of how many people are separated, and the ammunition present is not something remarkable. I know you are exaggerating, but it doesn't know "everything", there are some possibilities that the director may not have been programed to account for.
On top of that there's incredibly little space in that game to move in (that wouldn't mean you'd get bum rushed), adding to that there one designated path. There are trigger everywhere, but unlike those in Indiana Jones, it takes into equation of the properties of the player, and them picks an option that it was scripted to do. It's one additional simple layer to the whole linear game concept of the past made to look like it was heralding an new sophistication of AI in human history.


Yeah, you're right Swadius, the AI in L4D is just as dumb, if not dumber than M&Bs who's only thought is "Charge!" "Hold" "Follow me!" "Kill everything in sight".... [/sarcasm]

Consider that every other troop of the field is capable of the same actions as the player (affording attributes and with a few exceptions like weapon pick up), they can mount horses if they are able, switch weapons for the appropriate job, and more or less react when an enemy gets into range. It's also a wide open field, and though the AI in M&B may not be much compared to Big Blue, you have to take into account of the environment.


Didn't see your post until I got half way with the above one :wink:.

Part2

Dwinny said:
Swadius said:
Dwinny said:
Bellum said:
NATIVE M&B. We're talking about NATIVE M&B. It's pointless to say that MODDED M&B is better than vanilla game X, because vanilla game X can ALSO be modded so that it is better than modded M&B! Native M&B does not support 400 characters.

The M&B engine supports that many soldiers on screen, though I have a fairly decent gaming rig and am perfectly content with 100 with max detail instead. You can't modify the engine.

The point I just made in the post you quoted and is that you cannot compare a game that has reached its full graphical potential to a game that has NOT reached its full graphical potential. M&B with GE mod might look better than Left 4 Dead, but M&B with GE mod has been enhanced such that it is doing more than what it was originally designed to do. Left 4 Dead however, is not doing more than what the engine is designed to do. It's not fair to compare an enhanced version of the M&B engine to an unenhanced version of Left 4 Dead's engine.

Stop twisting words to fit your definition. If it was meant that it was not designed for textures like the Graphical enhancement mod to be usable, then it wouldn't be possible to use it. It's mostly just a rehash of new and better textures. How can a game not be designed to be using textures?

Twisting words? What words am I twisting? What definition am I using? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Your logic is also horribly flawed. Just because something is not designed for a specific function, does not mean it cannot perform that function. My laptop was not designed to kill somebody, but I could use it do kill a person if I hit them hard enough with it.

But to clarify anyway, what I mean is the GE mod surpasses the original goals of native (in terms of graphics). GE mod uses higher resolution textures. HDR mod adds HDR. Polished buildings mod adds higher resolution textures and more detailed scenes. If it was the developer's intention to produce graphics of this quality, they would have done so, and of course, if possible, they would have designed the engine to be able to handle it. The other option is that it was the developers intention, but they failed to reach their goal.

I am going after these words in particular: "more than what it was originally designed to do". The words "originally designed" would imply that the hard coded scripts wouldn't allow for anything to slip in between them. You could modify it, but you cannot add something in without changing the rest of the codes to compensate, thus it will become something else if you do add a few lines more in. The textures, HDR, and other graphical enhancement mods work on the "top layer" of the program.
To say that it "was not originally designed for" in the context of that paragraph would mean that there is no room for modification for those features which you've described. At least that's how I first interpreted it :???:.


Dwinny said:
So, the reason I say you should compare the original, unmodified games, is because it sets an even ground on which you can compare things. In the context of the original post, which talked about reviews, reviewers look at the original unmodified game, not the mod. You can't blame a reviewer for saying M&B's graphics look outdated because he didn't have GE mod.

Give us a reason why we can't compare them to the mods that better the games. Are the creators of the mod's lower class citizens and don't deserve to have their work recognized in the same light as the original?

Did you feel that tremble? That's the shock wave produced from my palm meeting my forehead at supersonic speeds.

Dwinny said:
I gave you a reason, which is the quote. I didn't say you can't compare them, I said it's not fair to. The reason is it is not fair to make such a comparison, because the two are not on equal ground. This is not because modders are lower class citizens ( :roll:), but because one game has been modded in such a way that it exceeds the capabilities of the unmodded product, while the other game is only doing what it's doing normally.

To make an analogy, comparing an enhanced, modded game to an unmodded game is like comparing an athlete on steroids to an athlete who isn't on steroids. Graphical enhancement is M&B on graphics steroids. And what usually happens with players who take steroids is that they get disqualified.

I never said that M&B is an exception (as mentioned above). All I'm going for is the argument that the extent of a game can go beyond the official release, as shown by the mods on PC games, but that their work also qualifies as when one reviews it. So to say that one game has outdated graphics based solely on the official release is folly. It's like rating a game without including the patches that makes everything better.

Dwinny said:
Dwinny said:
As a person who actually knows something about the Source engine's (that's the Left 4 Dead engine) AI, I can tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Firstly, the intelligence, rather LACK of it speaks for itself. Secondly, all the stuff you listed there is not any more than what Source AI does, and speaking from experience playing both games and having modded both games, M&B's AI would seem to do even less (as is the general consensus that M&B's AI is stupid).

So you're excusing that the AI in Left 4 Dead is better than another game because the other game's is stupid? Are you sure you're not giving leeway to L4D just because they are zombies and are supposed to be stupid? If the same AI was used in any other game that doesn't have zombies it would be stupid.
A close look at what the AI does in game play and youtube videos show that they have incredibly little function. Most of it is scripted animation overlayed on a series of priorities. A smoker has very little function than to be dropped in a designated spot by the director.

Well, there is actually an AI director in Left 4 Dead that's controls the zombies, and paces the game for the players, etc. But that's irrelevant. You're right though, L4D's AI doesn't appear much smarter than M&B's. However, I still stand by that unless you have extensive AI coding experience, you shouldn't be talking about it.

All you need to do is limit the options of the possibilities the human can have, the AI then will appear smart due to it acting out a very controlled script in a very controlled environment. All linear games are like this, they will have better AI then sandbox games like Elderscrolls, X3, GTA, or the bastards copy cat children of Grand Theft Auto. The AI in them are certainly not up to par in comparison to linear games. When you identify all the restrictions, you have a template on what the player can an cannot do. The more restrictions, like those applied in linear games, the easier it will be to "funnel" the possible actions the player can take. Making it look like the AI knows what you're doing. M&B is not an exception either, the fields are limited, but given the lack of restrictions on how the player can go about completing the objectives it makes it that much harder to make an AI that compensates for the way the player plays.

Spoilered for epic and carpal tunnel inducing length.
 
It's hard to compare game graphics to one another because there are a number of variable factors to take into account. You have to look at both the technical prowess of the graphics engine ( what it can do and how optimized it is), as well as art direction and style. These fall into two distinct categories, and the overall impression can be different.

For example, the engine in Oblivion is pretty decent - from a technical point of view - it supports high-res textures , and complex shaders, but it is poorly optimized. That is a pretty straightforward judgment. And now comes into play the relative part: art direction and overall artistic style. And if I take those into account, then I can safely say that I personally find the overall graphics quality of Oblivion below average: because I hate the artistic style (or lack thereof). Same goes for Crysis, and for a number of other games out there. I always try to see past the surface when analyzing graphics, to see where the engine's technical qualities stop and where the artist's skill begins. True enough: with a powerful enough engine, art direction falls in second - and here Crysis is the best example. When I look at that game, I can't help but think: " Yeah, it looks great, but..it has no soul". That game does not render any artistic emotion whatsoever for me.

Why do you people insist on comparing MB and Oblivion? What is so enthralling about making that comparison that so many people just can't help it? Is it the 1st / 3rd person perspective? Because they are in fact two very different games, with very different goals and the engines reflect that. MB is more like a strategy game played from a 3d person perspective, with RPG elements. So you have to see what the engine is built for doing: displaying a lot of units on screen at the same time. Oblivion doesn't have that. And that's why those 5 - 10 soldiers which Bethesda calls an army during the siege of the final oblivion gate can have 5 - 6000 tris each, and look a lot prettier in close-ups and screenshots. So that's another thing to take into account: what the engine is built for.

Which brings me to the real question in this thread: is the MB engine outdated? Strictly from a technical point of view, the answer is yes, yes it is. Poor shader selection ( not to mention the fact that shaders only serve ONE function at a time - you can't have both specularity and opacity at the same time), no post processing effects, poor optimization ( no occlusion culling), all of which are pretty much standard in any modern game engine are not present in M&B. So, that makes the engine outdated. But that does not mean that the graphics are bad? No, not at all.

 
You make good points Swadius, so I'll rebuttal :smile:

First off, no one is saying that modders work is irrelevant or unimportant or that it isn't quality equal to or greater than the original title. However the reason everyone draws the line at official, retailed, released game is that because not everyone is going to download mods. In fact a pretty large percentage of gamers rarely download mods, let alone mod themselves. Look even at forums, the percentage of people playing a game to those posting in official/non-official forums is insanely small. Take for example this forum, Mount and Blade just came out not to long ago, these are the official forums, but how much has the membership really increased? Sure there has been a good influx of new people (me one of them) but I wouldn't put this number very high, maybe a few hundred or so.

So for a very large portion of the customers are only ever going to see Native and nothing else. Most people want to read a review of a game then go out and buy that game. Mods come second. Sure they could start reviewing mods, or adding a little side bar about good mods but that rarely happens.

That's why those few of us have stressed Native. When reviews review games the review the official, unmodified version. The official, unmodified version does have dated graphics. Now if a review played with GE and said Mount and Blades graphics were still ****ty then you'd guy would have an argument against them. Though I still say, even with GE 2.5 they're still a bit behind the times, but just a little. GE 3.0 however brings Mount and Blade right up to modern.

If only we had access to models...

And before you mention it, I know the OP mentioned nothing of Native but that is what everyone has been basing their opinion off of and it's what the reviewers he mention have based their opinions off of.


As for...
Great, but can you still say that M&B's graphics are out of date allowing this method of critiquing?

No, I can't. Like I stated just a paragraph up, Mount and Blades graphics without any mods are behind the times. Mount and Blade plus Graphical Enhancement 2.5, just a smidgen behind the times. Mount and Blade plus Graphical Enhancement 3.0 and the Building Replacement Mod will bring Mount and Blade right up into modern times.

The only thing that will be left is for someone to learn how to modify the models. Once someone can up the polys and detail on those Mount and Blade will be absolutely stunning.

No one is arguing against the fact that mods can bring Mount and Blade up to date graphically but what we've all be arguing about has been what version deserves to be judged. For all intensive purposes I believe we should judge the same version that all of the reviews who claim Mount and Blade is behind the times.


As for the AI, you make good points. but I'll just remind you that the abilities you listed of the Mount and Blade AIs are pretty standard across all games. So there is nothing ground breaking or Earth shattering about Mount and Blades AI, and you're likely right about L4D being nothing spectacular.

However, "No AI ever plays like a human" I beseech you to play Counter-Strike with AI bots turned all the way up. You will be impressed. Those bots are scarily human.
 
Aldwen said:
You make good points Swadius, so I'll rebuttal :smile:

Well you did put all that effort into writing that mini essay :razz:.

Aldwen said:
First off, no one is saying that modders work is irrelevant or unimportant or that it isn't quality equal to or greater than the original title. However the reason everyone draws the line at official, retailed, released game is that because not everyone is going to download mods. In fact a pretty large percentage of gamers rarely download mods, let alone mod themselves. Look even at forums, the percentage of people playing a game to those posting in official/non-official forums is insanely small. Take for example this forum, Mount and Blade just came out not to long ago, these are the official forums, but how much has the membership really increased? Sure there has been a good influx of new people (me one of them) but I wouldn't put this number very high, maybe a few hundred or so.

Ii would like to point out the lurkers in these forums. They may not number in the millions, nor do I think thousands, but enough to earn ~50,000$ in traffic says one website.

Aldwen said:
So for a very large portion of the customers are only ever going to see Native and nothing else. Most people want to read a review of a game then go out and buy that game. Mods come second. Sure they could start reviewing mods, or adding a little side bar about good mods but that rarely happens.

I take it most people who read reviews about games would be the ones that really look into them. I mean they cost a cheap lawn mower these days! But I concur, there is a difference between those who buy a game and be done with it and those that really stick with it with mods. This forum and the repository isn't easy to find either. However, I have to point out the download new content on the con fig screen itself. I don't know what it does, but I suppose that it does give an incentive to look online.

Aldwen said:
That's why those few of us have stressed Native. When reviews review games the review the official, unmodified version. The official, unmodified version does have dated graphics. Now if a review played with GE and said Mount and Blades graphics were still ****ty then you'd guy would have an argument against them. Though I still say, even with GE 2.5 they're still a bit behind the times, but just a little. GE 3.0 however brings Mount and Blade right up to modern.


Well, if you compare to the bench mark. Anyways, I my criterion is if there's a corner where there shouldn't be, and it's bigger than the player's head, then yes, that needs a little refining.

Aldwen said:
If only we had access to models...

BRF Editor?

Aldwen said:
Great, but can you still say that M&B's graphics are out of date allowing this method of critiquing?

No, I can't. Like I stated just a paragraph up, Mount and Blades graphics without any mods are behind the times. Mount and Blade plus Graphical Enhancement 2.5, just a smidgen behind the times. Mount and Blade plus Graphical Enhancement 3.0 and the Building Replacement Mod will bring Mount and Blade right up into modern times.

The only thing that will be left is for someone to learn how to modify the models. Once someone can up the polys and detail on those Mount and Blade will be absolutely stunning.

No one is arguing against the fact that mods can bring Mount and Blade up to date graphically but what we've all be arguing about has been what version deserves to be judged. For all intensive purposes I believe we should judge the same version that all of the reviews who claim Mount and Blade is behind the times.

I think I need to ask everyone what they mean by outdated. Certainly, at this exact moment, M&B does not have graphics comparable to Crysis, or FarCry. But are they on par with what came out one or two years ago? Can such a short amount of time even fulfill the definition of being outdated? Isn't everything that doesn't measure up technically also outdated? We're certainly not discussing the latest chip and the forefront of hardware, but this department does progress at the same ratio.
Plus, you need to break into intel's development center, steal their latest computers and chips to run M&B at the level we can now with the later "up-to-date" graphics.

I remember rendering scenes in 3DS Max, it used to take all evening and well into the next morning and possibly into the next week if it was a Friday and the scene wasn't optimized. Most of time I had to hide the more detailed objects just to work on the scenes :lol:. Most of the time I had to borrow someone else's station just to get the rest of my work done :wink:.

Aldwen said:
As for the AI, you make good points. but I'll just remind you that the abilities you listed of the Mount and Blade AIs are pretty standard across all games. So there is nothing ground breaking or Earth shattering about Mount and Blades AI, and you're likely right about L4D being nothing spectacular.

You're right, unless someone can fit Deep Blue into a one gigabyte amount of space, it's not going to create shock waves. Valve is a good smoke and mirrors presenter I'll give them that.

Aldwen said:
However, "No AI ever plays like a human" I beseech you to play Counter-Strike with AI bots turned all the way up. You will be impressed. Those bots are scarily human.

You know, from where I come from, telling someone to go play Counter Strike is the equivalent to telling someone to go and **** their own mother.
Plus I'm broke.
I know there are youtube videos, perhaps you can direct me to the ones that you think will convince me?
 
M&B is clearly dated, but it's not fair to compare it with 'modern' games with tens of millions for budgets.
 
Swadius said:
All you need to do is limit the options of the possibilities the human can have, the AI then will appear smart due to it acting out a very controlled script in a very controlled environment. All linear games are like this, they will have better AI then sandbox games like Elderscrolls, X3, GTA, or the bastards copy cat children of Grand Theft Auto. The AI in them are certainly not up to par in comparison to linear games. When you identify all the restrictions, you have a template on what the player can an cannot do. The more restrictions, like those applied in linear games, the easier it will be to "funnel" the possible actions the player can take. Making it look like the AI knows what you're doing. M&B is not an exception either, the fields are limited, but given the lack of restrictions on how the player can go about completing the objectives it makes it that much harder to make an AI that compensates for the way the player plays.

Spoilered for epic and carpal tunnel inducing length.

This is true, sometimes. Sometimes the less possibilities there are, the less chances the AI has to showcase its ability, and the less variety there will be. Give it a wide open space to work with and there will be less repetition, and more space for the AI to work with.

I'll give you an idea of how Source's AI works. This is not exhaustive of course. Anyway, when a mappers make maps, they must place nodes all around the navigable areas. These nodes form a grid of possible areas where an NPC can go. Without these nodes, enemy NPCs will simply walk straight towards the player, or will fail to move at all. The ability of the AI to move intelligently depends on the placement of these nodes, not on the size and complexity of the map.

M&B doesn't have to deal with path finding much, because the battlefields are all wide open spaces that have no defined paths. Most of the time, the AI doesn't need to do anything except run straight at you. In a village scene however, the AI now has to deal with more complex pathfinding then in battle scenes, at which it frequently fails. In this case, limiting the possibilities has actually made the AI appear to perform worse.
 
Kaskad said:
Cymro said:
I frankly find all graphics whores disgusting. For some reason, crap games (Gears of wars, best example here) can be excused because they've got shiny graphics. In 10 years, they will not be played, and have really, really outdated graphics, and as such shunned by the next generation of gamers (if current trends continue). Compare this to a game like nethack, which, despite already being over 20 years old and having more or less no graphics whatsoever, is still being widely played, and will be for years to come.
You act like it's unreasonable to want a game with good gameplay and good graphics. M&B has a reasonable excuse in its small development team, but you act as if the two are never compatible.
Well...
For some reason, crap games (Gears of wars, best example here) can be excused because they've got shiny graphics.
For some reason, crap games (Gears of wars, best example here) can be excused because they've got shiny graphics.
Yet you still manage to come to the conclusion of
You act like it's unreasonable to want a game with good gameplay and good graphics.
you act as if the two are never compatible.
How?
 
I have to be honest: This thread is 7 pages of completely missing the context, and running in circles. The original post was, in and of itself, fairly silly. It struck me as being pissed off about mainstream reviews, and looking to preach to the choir.

Here's the thing that makes it pretty silly: Video game journalism is dead.
I will repeat: Video game journalism and reviewing are dead.

If Mount&Blade magically had the best graphics to date and was 100% polished, it still wouldn't get as high ratings as games like CoD and GoW. Why? Advertising budget. Reviews are directly related to how much hype you have, and who you're paying off/advertising sizably with. See Fable (then dig in the archives and note that some of the very same reviewers that gave Fable 9.8/10-10/10, months later talked about what a heaping disappointment it was).

So why even worry about what mainstream reviewers are saying about M&B? If you're playing M&B, you probably aren't even those reviewers' target audience.

Anecdotally, I stopped reading video game reviews years ago. All my favorite games have gotten a 5 - 8/10 rating, and I very seldom enjoy the 10/10 games. At some point you just have to acknowledge that you are not a mainstream gamer, and the reviews and magazines just aren't relevant to you... It makes for a lot less 'wtf' moments.

vlad_flyzzz said:
It's hard to compare game graphics to one another because there are a number of variable factors to take into account. You have to look at both the technical prowess of the graphics engine ( what it can do and how optimized it is), as well as art direction and style. These fall into two distinct categories, and the overall impression can be different.

Getting back on subject, this quote from Vlad that was pretty much ignored should have ended the graphics debate.

Is Mount&Blade's technical prowess and out of box graphics behind the mainstream, multimillion dollar budget studio games' graphics? Duh, of course it is.
Is Mount&Blade's art direction and style behind the mainstream? This is where the whole Oblivion vs M&B thing comes up. You guys are trying to hash the debate in terms of technical prowess (where, very obviously, Oblivion is superior), but you're really arguing about subjective stylistic differences.

Me? When I look at Oblivion I see campy, generic-looking 80's era high fantasy art. It looks good on a technical level (as does a lot of professional 80's fantasy art), but the style choices are just shudderworthy. It reminds me of watching a pre-rendered cutscene from the mid-90's (see Warcraft 2, not a compliment). M&B is more pleasing to my eyes, but that's a totally personal observation: If you like Oblivion's lighting style, more power to you.

In summary: Yes the graphics are dated. You knew the mainstream reviewers would not be friendly to M&B no matter what. Realize you're a niche gamer and enjoy yourself!  :lol:
 
Cymro said:
For some reason, crap games (Gears of wars, best example here) can be excused because they've got shiny graphics.
Yet you still manage to come to the conclusion of
You act like it's unreasonable to want a game with good gameplay and good graphics.
you act as if the two are never compatible.
How?
Because of the rest of what you wrote. You're taking your own quote out of context, to hilarious effect.

You hate "graphics whores." You praise an ancient game because it had good gameplay and ancient graphics. You think gears of war, a game with very good graphics, was a piece of ****, even though it's still played well after release by a large number of people, and your use of the plural indicates that you believe this to be common.
 
HardCode said:
Too bad those Oblivion screen shots are special renders, and the M&B screen shots are actually in-game. You lose.

Special renders?!!? Sorry guy, you fail, those are in game shots.

You  clearly don't have a system of running Oblivion on such high settings. On my system Oblivion does indeed look just like that maxed out. In fact, when you add in mods, like we do with Mount and Blade, it looks better than those screens. So please, stop with that crap.


Anyways...


Well, if you compare to the bench mark. Anyways, I my criterion is if there's a corner where there shouldn't be, and it's bigger than the player's head, then yes, that needs a little refining.

So we're in agreement then, at least? The benchmark here is Native, and that is behind the times. If modified though Mount and Blade can look just as good as recent games. With GE 3.0 I dare say it reminds me of Assassins Creed. Not as eye boggling as Assassins Creed, but it's just a hair away from it.

Oh and we have access to models?! Someone need to get on the project of sprucing them up! If the models were cleaned up a bit and not so "blocky" we'd have a Mount and Blade worthy of the next gen title.

As for the "corner" I do agree with you. I agree that reviewers should start giving mentions to mod makes, and even suggesting to readers what mods are *must downloads* especially when mods, like GE, can drastically alter a game. However as Gafwyn has mentioned the whole system of "game reviews" is completely and utterly broken. Most of the best games they rate low, and highly rated games are crap. I've always felt BioShock was one of the worst games I've ever played with one of the most hollow and see through stories, but game "critics" viewed it as a gift from the gods with a story worthy of the ages.

Maybe one day we'll actually have a mainstream magazine or website that reviews games honestly, but I doubt it. Until then if you want honest reviews read the player reviews. Many websites offer "gamers score" and the difference is almost always a point or more. I also find web-comics like Penny Arcade and Ctrl-Alt-Del to give honest reviews of games. So there are sites out there, it's just the "mainstream media" as Gafwyn  said is broken.


But are they on par with what came out one or two years ago? Can such a short amount of time even fulfill the definition of being outdated? Isn't everything that doesn't measure up technically also outdated?

In the land of computer technology two years ago is outdated.

Two years, ago Mount and Blade would not be outdated at all.... That was 2 years ago though. You forget computer technology moves at light speed. What is "top of the line" today will be archaic in two or three years. We'll be looking back at Gears of War, Oblivion, Left 4 Dead, World at War and people will be saying "wtf is that ****ty ****?! look I can see a polygon"

It's just how things go. We're not saying that the graphics are *bad* we're saying that by a technical stand point they are outdated. I still play games from '98 frequently...



You know, from where I come from, telling someone to go play Counter Strike is the equivalent to telling someone to go and **** their own mother.
Plus I'm broke.
I know there are youtube videos, perhaps you can direct me to the ones that you think will convince me?

That is the funniest ting I've read in a while  :lol: I'm looking for videos, but I keep finding "bots 0wn3d" videos instead.. so that kinda negates my point. However some people play CS with an OCD like obsession so they could of course destroy bots, because they can crush humans as well.

I know at least when I played CS those bots gave me the creeps, but then again I'm not a good CS player. I like to, you know... use my brain. :razz:
 
Kaskad said:
Because of the rest of what you wrote. You're taking your own quote out of context, to hilarious effect.
Would you mind pointing out where I specifically state "I think it's unreasonable to want a game with good gameplay and good graphics"? You'll have a hard time, because I didn't. You're putting words in my mouth here :neutral:

You hate "graphics whores."
By that I mean people who play a game simply due to the graphics in it, even if the game is complete tosh. That is unreasonable, whatever way you look at it...
You praise an ancient game because it had good gameplay and ancient graphics.
I didn't praise it because it had ancient graphics, I praised it because it had good gameplay. What is your point here?
You think gears of war, a game with very good graphics, was a piece of ****, even though it's still played well after release by a large number of people, and your use of the plural indicates that you believe this to be common.
Would you mind pointing out any redeeming features in that game? The combat was a grindfest, and a complete tunnel in parts. If you'd also like to notice that I said:
In 10 years, they will not be played, and have really, really outdated graphics, and as such shunned by the next generation of gamers
And once again, I ask you, how do these make me "act like it's unreasonable to want a game with good gameplay and good graphics"? I say it's unreasonable to want good graphics only in a game.
 
Back
Top Bottom