Message to developers - Graphics AREN'T crap!

From last video-review I've heard that graphics are crap... It isn't so!

Do your patching, and concentrate on gaming issues... not the graphics. Do NOT reconsider your objectives.

The only thing you might should improve - is a world map, as of graphical aspect.

So, watch up the suggestions board, fix bugs and lets move on...

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctVmNbVu2KA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfOwUTLjoQU

...just for chillin'.

Best wishes,
-Tashim

Those videos are...intresting.

I just never listen to what game reviewers say anymore. The only games I've really liked have been rated 7/10 at best. And on the contrary, I was really, really disappointed with most ~10/10 rated games. Like Oblivion, GTA4 and so on.

I like to watch the game reviews just to get an idea but genearly they are paid for anyway. I think the best way to tell if a game is going to be bad is if there are very bi-polar reviews. That means that some were paid and some wernt so the game probably isn't that good. where as a game like bioshock for example was going to get 10/10 across the board regardless from any reviewer worth his salt.

Well reviewers give you some good information but you can't focus on their particular biases, which will determine how they rate the game in large part.

ya, except bioshock blows

Personally, I put more stock in the players views than reporters.  Check the good and the bad and some of the moderates.  This generally gives a better idea of what you get into.  Personally I don't think the graphics are bad either.  I kind of like them.  Sure there's room for improvement, but over all it's not too bad cosidering what I think is the dev's dream and the size of the indy developer Tale Worlds.

The Media distorts what gamers see as 'good games'. They focus so heavily on graphics, shooting, action-action-action, shallow, etc. games that the majority of gamers have come so used to the **** they receive. Five years ago these 'good games' would be called lifeless, sensless, mindless violence. Any good games with a decent amount of depth (Mount & Blade) are turned down nowadays because of this.

The Publisher is at fault for wanting to push hundreds of titles so they can give themselves bonuses. Unfortunately they don't realise that when you put **** through a tube, it's still ****, just in a tube-like shape. We've been getting **** for so long that it tastes good.

Any smart person will realise it's entertainment they're meant to be paying for. Mount & Blade delivers many many many many hours more entertainment than any Call of Duty that will ever be released. If you want to see 'good graphics' then you're not paying to play games, you're paying to watch something moving infront of you. Go to the cinema or watch some anime if you want that ****. Even better, read a visual novel! You'll get months out of the best VNs I tell you. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to play many hours out of a game that costs less than the **** the big publishers shovel out.

Well, the graphics ARE crap for the overhead map. Not so much in a battle. Those graphics are fine, but everytime I look at the "waves" hitting the shore or the unimaginatively made water on the overhead map, I cringe.

I couldn't really care what the campaign map looks like to be honest, the combat graphics are good enough to satisfy me too. I do play Unreal World though, which is a rogue-like lmao.

That's just how the gaming world works. If you have a big company, you get good reviews, if you're an indie company, the reviewers all the sudden turn into jackasses. This has been changing though with the increasing number of indie game companys and people who play indie games. Also, just so everyone knows, it's a complete myth that big games have better graphics. Look at WoW, everyone says the graphics are great but everyone knows they're ****. Have you even seen them?! The heads have about 5 edges and just about everything looks cartoonish!

Well, realistically, in this day and age, it actually isn't hard to get out a beautiful engine. Nvidia has countless whitepapers on the latest techniques and many books (which can be read after a week of dilligent studying) on the subject are available. HLSL or Cg are extremely easy to use shading languages.

I think the problem lies in the fact that it'd take too much 'effort' to integrate a new rendering engine into the existing system. A new scene graph system would be needed amongst other things (that's presuming they even use scene graphs).

Look at WoW, everyone says the graphics are great but everyone knows they're ****. Have you even seen them?! The heads have about 5 edges and just about everything looks cartoonish!

Click to expand...

People accept 'WoW' because it was released a very long time ago. Back then, those graphics were 'acceptable' by reviewers standards. Its also accepted amongst the wider community that MMOs need not be the peak of technical innovation.

Mikan said:

The Publisher is at fault for wanting to push hundreds of titles so they can give themselves bonuses. Unfortunately they don't realise that when you put **** through a stupid, it's still ****, just in a tube-like shape. We've been getting **** for so long that it tastes good.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't this create, "stupid ****?"

Cyrilix said:

Well, the graphics ARE crap for the overhead map. Not so much in a battle. Those graphics are fine, but everytime I look at the "waves" hitting the shore or the unimaginatively made water on the overhead map, I cringe.

Click to expand...

True, but from my understanding the devs aren't finished yet and intend to add to the game.  I think they just wanted a solid core first before adding all the spiffy details.

woofty said:

Mikan said:

The Publisher is at fault for wanting to push hundreds of titles so they can give themselves bonuses. Unfortunately they don't realise that when you put **** through a stupid, it's still ****, just in a tube-like shape. We've been getting **** for so long that it tastes good.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't this create, "stupid ****?"

Click to expand...

Oh, my bad. I meant to say 'put **** through a tube'.

Also, in regards to updating the rendering engine, they'd also need to redo every single asset in the game. All the models and textures would need to be recreated. Normal maps would need to be updated. Ambient, specular, and a whole host of other texture maps would need to be created. The textures themselves would have to have their resolutions increased (which would mean redoing them). The models will need hi-poly version in order to get adequate normals.

Too much effort. Maybe for M&B 2.

Mikan said:

Also, in regards to updating the rendering engine, they'd also need to redo every single asset in the game. All the models and textures would need to be recreated. Normal maps would need to be updated. Ambient, specular, and a whole host of other texture maps would need to be created. The textures themselves would have to have their resolutions increased (which would mean redoing them). The models will need hi-poly version in order to get adequate normals.

Too much effort. Maybe for M&B 2.

Click to expand...

Though it might be a point that more polygons and textures would mean higher minimal requirements for battle and those of us that have the battle size set to max might be dragged into the dirt.

tashim72 said:

From last video-review I've heard that graphics are crap... It isn't so!

Do your patching, and concentrate on gaming issues... not the graphics. Do NOT reconsider your objectives.

The only thing you might should improve - is a world map, as of graphical aspect.

So, watch up the suggestions board, fix bugs and lets move on...

-Tashim

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

If someone's opinion was important enough to carry weight, you wouldn't be watching it on YouTube.

Archonsod said:

If someone's opinion was important enough to carry weight, you wouldn't be watching it on YouTube.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, that's just such a great sentence.


Thank you.


Finally someone has put the importance of youtube videos back in it's place.
I absolutely hate how much people care about youtube opinions/videos.

I rather the game to allow more soldiers in the battlefield (not that we don't have enough now)  than more polygons on object.
This game is about epic battles, not epic polygon counts.

Cyrilix said:

Well, the graphics ARE crap for the overhead map. Not so much in a battle. Those graphics are fine, but everytime I look at the "waves" hitting the shore or the unimaginatively made water on the overhead map, I cringe.

Click to expand...

I sort of agree, if they just copied how the map looks in Medieval Total War, I'd be simply jovial ... im still already plenty happy with the gameplay which is better than Medieval Total War, though I love both games.

And about battles, the graphics are fine the way the are, just as mucat posted, I'd rather have more soldiers fighting for the epic feel of actual war, than higher polygon count on each soldier. In the thick of battle, do you really see your custom banner on shields that often? It's still great how moddable the game is, certainly more so than M:TW

Also, I think the game should add someplace in the game world where you can view your army, or at leas tyour companions but not in battle map, but like civil map i guess i dont know. I'd like to see my army for its size outside of battle map, or converse with my companions out in the city or osmething/ or village