If Xenonauts sells well enough...

[HWP]

Sure. On paper. but it never does look like that if you generalize what 3D and 2D looks like.

Easy solution: don't generalize. Judge on case-by-case basis.

Assuming that what I consider to be buttugly reflections isn't uncanny valley because of technical limitations...

Definitely isn't. First of all, we aren't sure if "uncanny valley" even exists, it's just a hypothesis, every example of which was shattered. Second, if characters in Skyrim or ME3 don't cause that effect, crude 2003-like renditions of plastic figurines in EU certainly aren't going to.

Yeah, Star Trek's aliens are silly too, whats with majority of them being humans with rubber foreheads if even that(wasn't there space hippies?)

This may be unrealistic and uncreative, but there's nothing silly or cartoonish about it. They did it because of the lack of CG. And ST:TNG even has an episode - a trekkie might be able to point it out exactly, I think it was a two-parter in 4rd-5th-6th season - where it's given an in-universe explanation

sentient life in Alpha Quadrant was seeded by an extinct race of aliens that made it look like themselves

Yeah, it really put that "spoiler" tag to good use.

[Gorlom]

Easy solution: don't generalize. Judge on case-by-case basis.

Ok done. I prefer the current style of Xenonauts over a realistic one. I'm happy they went with a 2D approach.

I also think that every other game that has gone with a 2D style looks better than if they had gone with a 3D representation.

Not a generalization. Nor am I saying that every game should go with a 2D style.

Definitely isn't. First of all, we aren't sure if "uncanny valley" even exists, it's just a hypothesis, every example of which was shattered. Second, if characters in Skyrim or ME3 don't cause that effect, crude 2003-like renditions of plastic figurines in EU certainly aren't going to.

Ok, I might have used the uncanny valley term wrong. I was using it in the sense that "at first glance it looks right, but something seems off and you can't tell what exactly"

That definition would be difficult to debunk because when you examine it closely you figure out what is wrong, and aren't bothered by it anymore. It is also different for everyone.

And I was applying it to the lighting rather than the appearance of the character models.

As far as I know programmers are still trying to perfect realistic lightning algorithms. They have decent ones but none that imitates real life perfectly. Am I wrong about this?

Edited October 18, 2012 by Gorlom

[zzz1010]

The only thing that would be hard to reproduce for Xenonauts' look in 3D would be the ground tiles, which are hand-painted by our very talented 2d terrain artist.

It's not too much matter is you paint tiles sheet for spriets or paint texture for "3d plane", especially if we have fixed angle of view. And you need to make ground texture anyway - you can still make them this way. Maybe I didn't understand something, but I think so.

Main sprites advantage is no polycount or detail limits - is you draw nataly portman or cube(no mater how exacly you "draw") - there no difference for spites but drastical differentce if we make them by polygons - we forced to make nataly as much cubic as we can. (for current hardware bunch of little natalies it's not so big problem but anyway). If engine can handle 500 sprites per map(other than land) - no mater is it will be desert with 500 rocks or forest with 500 no mater how detiled trees. Less limited in size and detail for map

And tiles based destruction model for sprites is simplier then make same with poligons (even though the with polygons will use sort of 3d tiles). And some things looks more appealing when we use 2d -becouse, you know, it's tiles and 2d it's normal to them to look like that, then if we make exacly same thing in 3d. (in other way if we make our props cars to be cube with gexogonal wheels in 3d - it will be normal if they small enough, but strange for sprites )

And 3d render itself is more complicated

This is advantages.

disadvantages - at main part - yes, unit customisation and animation -3d is more flexible. And we not need to have different sprites just to turn things. And some effects. Other things- we anyway need to model them and trexure(and sometimes just overplaint is easier then texture if thing is not animated). Some things is esier, some things is hader.

for such sort of game (square based moving, turnbased, destructable enverintment) advatages from just juming to 3d not too much drastic. There will be another difficulties and problems (maybe they will be less )

Just my non professional thoughts.

[XenoMask]

Umm, what the heck are you thinking about when you are thinking about "cartoonish"? Looney Tunes? Mickey Mouse? Because I'm referring to stuff like GI Joe, Transformers, Captain Planet, Thundercats or even He Man. Though preferably stuff from 90s... Anyway, campy and cartoonish are different things and original game is definitely cartoonish. Why are you so insist on that it isn't anyway?

Umm, Skyrim, Mass Effect and Human Revolution don't have photorealistic graphics. Like I said, your perception seems to be that modern games have Crysis' level of graphics which isn't true. Heck, Human Revolution had complains about that by some people... Anyway, I'd say that XCOM is on part with those three.

Xenonauts' artstyle does remind me little of old propaganda posters when I think about it... Its realistic style, but still.

[GoodGuyEddy]

What do you expect the aliens to be, straight from star trek,

No, star trek aliens suck. "We need a new alien race, quick grab a random person and glue things to his forehead!"

[GoodGuyEddy]

Captain Planet,He Man

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Never be a lawyer! But still funny though.

So you think mister sparkles and a kid getting shafted with the power of heart, and the most ambiguously gay guy ever? Yes that's serious. Thanks i needed that

[XenoMask]

Umm, serious? I meant type of cartoony artstyle They don't have looney tunes style of cartoony do they? You are being really confusing sir. I think what? I wasn't referring to "serious" cartoons, I was referring to cartoons where artstyle isn't like art style of Looney Tunes. Maybe I should have added ghost busters(not movie, the cartoon) too now that I think of it... Anyway, I'm confused and my feelings are hurt because I don't understand why you are laughing at me =P

(also, on side note, Captain Planet is crappy enviromental kids' cartoon, but technically power of heart is actually rather useful power since it seems to involve mind reading and controlling animals. Its just that writers of show were too stupid to realize what you can do with that kind of power )

Anyway, yeah, reason for Star Trek aliens looking human in story is handwaving and doesn't solve the fact that its looks cheap because it is cheap as its easy way to make more aliens when plot demands so

Edited October 18, 2012 by XenoMask

[Gorlom]

I think GGE is drunk or something that sentence (starting with "so you think") doesn't even make sense.

Look at the thread in the OFFtopic section where he is talking to himself.

[XenoMask]

Huh, so this is what drunk people writing looks like? Can't tell since I'm alcohol free

[HWP]

Umm, what the heck are you thinking about when you are thinking about "cartoonish"?

Like Transformers, which your soldiers totally look like in EU. Plastic figurines of transformers. With enormous fugly "guns", dressed up for either cosplay or football.

At least the original UFO doesn't look like this.

(credit: ThreeJumps)

Umm, Skyrim, Mass Effect and Human Revolution don't have photorealistic graphics. Like I said, your perception seems to be that modern games have Crysis' level of graphics which isn't true.

They have better than Crysis' level of graphics. Take a look at Battlefield 3.

Photorealistic in this regard means they approach a photo (not all of them, HR is definitely stylized), not that they are indistinguishable from one - we're a long way from that.

Xenonauts' artstyle does remind me little of old propaganda posters when I think about it... Its realistic style, but still.

It's stylized, much like HR, though in a different way.

Edited October 18, 2012 by HWP

[XenoMask]

Hm, okay .-. I do agree that XCOM: EU goes for action figure style wise whats with toy box comparisons by devs about multiplayer and antfarm and such, but original game is still cartoony no matter how you put it. Design and aesthetic wise, it has nothing to do with bright colors.

... http://www.khairul-syahir.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/crysis-real-life-comparison.jpg?c28902 This is Crysis.

Crysis has so high maximum graphics that most computers can't run them on highest settings. To the point that there was minor meme about "But can it run Crysis?"

It has so high graphics that most games don't even bother because majority can't even play on those settings.. Too expensive for whats ultimately unneeded.

In otherword, no, they don't have better graphics than Crysis' on max settings.

Edited October 18, 2012 by XenoMask

[TrashMan]

Sure. On paper. but it never does look like that if you generalize what 3D and 2D looks like.

People will change the art style depending on the display technique, therefor I can have a preference.

Baseless fear.

There is no direct correlation between art style and dispaly technique

[HWP]

In otherword, no, they don't have better graphics than Crysis' on max settings.

Of course they do. To begin with, anyone seriously intending to play Crysis today has to begin by installing at least a few mods to bring its graphics up to date, like these: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=417651

(Note: links and versions are outdated, look up new ones, this is just a guide to some of the mods to look for.)

The game has some very realistic moments and some that are only decent.

Crysis looks so pretty because what it depicts is pretty in itself. Even its predecessor Far Cry was very pretty.

Metro 2033 has very high-res textures and every advanced feature you could wish for - but it mostly has to show subway tunnels, and they don't look good even in real life.

Battlefield 3 is a lot more technically advanced, offering better lighting and realism than Crysis, but its scenes are less attractive.

There are also a few less demanding, but still very good-looking titles; system requirements are not the same as visual quality.

[Egocentricion]

There are games that have worse graphics than so called 'Crysis' and run slower on high end PC's, it's called optimisation, while Crysis looks great, in my opinion the Graphics arent what we would expect from a 2012 perspective.

For example Gothic 4 Arcania while a bad game, had wind making the leaves fall from the trees, 3D Trees with 3D Branches and 3D Grass, and even rocks looked better than Crysis bad polygons.

It's all about the art perspective and direction, you can make a great game by adding depth and detail without it having the latest omg'engine graphics and it will still look better than most of games claiming they have the 'graphics'.

[Gribbstar]

If there were to be some kind of sequel then full 3d with borderlands style filter over everything might work nicely?

I recall one of the Cryengine games had a filter option to make everything cartoony too.

[erebus2075]

well do realise that this game in full 3d with really good camera control and still everything consistent with the old system would be AWESOME and properly better then the 2d equevalence.

i just love we are getting the real feel of xcom back.. ty for that

[erebus2075]

I think there are settings where 2D is actually preferrable to 3D.

Take Braid as an exampel. It's a little beauty and it works because it's a sidescroller. The necessary amount of work is a lot less than in the case of Xenonauts because you only see the characters from the side.

When you start taking efficiency into the equation 2D gets a lot worse when you do something like xenonauts with it.

I prefer gameplay over optics. And in some scenarios 3D really cuts it.

We won't be able to blast holes in UFOs here. A main reason for that is the amount of work required to make that work. 3D might have solved that problem. Looking acceptable and giving the option of destroyable UFO parts. (I actually think the 2D UFOs will look better than theoretical 3D counterparts)

there is no technical reason which prevent it doing done in full 3d. but its A LOT more work and need people sickly skilled compared to 2d

(at least in my oppinion having worked with both)

i would prefer it in full 3d with very good camera and beautifull models and graphics all the way through, but the gameplay of this game is so good i can accept and fully enjoy it in 2d

If there were to be some kind of sequel then full 3d with borderlands style filter over everything might work nicely?

I recall one of the Cryengine games had a filter option to make everything cartoony too.

NONONO i HATE the cartonish shit look

the only reason to use such a look is if your unable to make it really scary/realistic looking and in full 3d that would definately be the preferred option.

Edited October 19, 2012 by erebus2075

[GoodGuyEddy]

think GGE is drunk or something

No i'm not.

that sentence (starting with "so you think") doesn't even make sense.

Yes it does. Obviously you have never even heard of captain planet and he man. I just described those two shows in a nutshell, and how they are SO rediculous they can never be used to actually defend anything in a positive light.

[GoodGuyEddy]

And ST:TNG even has an episode - a trekkie might be able to point it out exactly, I think it was a two-parter in 4rd-5th-6th season - where it's given an in-universe explanation

That still doesn't make them any less stupid. And most of those aliens just have a bunch of periferals the don't need and/or are really uncomfortable to have all the time. It's lake having a permament beer hat without any beer. The extinct aliens were dicks.

[GoodGuyEddy]

NONONO i HATE the cartonish shit look

That's called aesthetic. And borderlands has a cell shaded look. You may not like it but for pete sake stop using the word "cartoony" , it doesn't descredit the art style in any way. Cartoony how? Does it look like tom and jerry, oggy and the cockroaches, Batman TAS, anime? There all have their own different look, and thinking that the word "cartoony" is actually in any way is a good description af anything is piss poor thinking. There are so many aesthetics and yet people who know only one word still lump all of that under a "cartoony" banner. It doesn't make you look "mature" or as an intelegent critic. It makes you look like a teen who wants to enjoy adult themes without knowing what they are. So tired of that.

the only reason to use such a look is if your unable to make it really scary/realistic looking and in full 3d that would definately be the preferred option.

How old are you? It really wouldn't be the preffered option.

Just because something is photo realistic doesn't make it's better. The only reason you make the game have a certain style is because you want your game to have an artistical aesthetic, or a unique looking world. Do you know how stupid a lot of things can look in photo realistic 3d without a aesthetically desighned world to back it up? And how boring it would be if all games would look alike just because a bunch of teens think that "realistic" is the best artistical direction of all time.

[zzz1010]

You mention 100-50 million titles if a small indie pc only team tbs ever had a comparable budget or sales. In real world If you didn't have dozens of millions usualy in 3d you will have blocky sporadic moving charactes on small maps with two buildings without any randomisation, because you engine can't' handle this and with very basic destruction of pair of barrels and fence because it's too stressfull and ton of blum to make all this little more appealing. If you suscesfull enough and make you game somewhere in east europe maybe you will reach after* level.

Edited October 19, 2012 by zzz1010

[Gorlom]

Yes it does. Obviously you have never even heard of captain planet and he man. I just described those two shows in a nutshell, and how they are SO rediculous they can never be used to actually defend anything in a positive light.

I know of them. I'm just confused about what you think he thinks. You just said "so you think" and described them without ending the sentence.

So you think mister sparkles and a kid getting shafted with the power of heart, and the most ambiguously gay guy ever?

[Gorlom]

That's called aesthetic. And borderlands has a cell shaded look. You may not like it but for pete sake stop using the word "cartoony" , it doesn't descredit the art style in any way. Cartoony how? Does it look like tom and jerry, oggy and the cockroaches, Batman TAS, anime? There all have their own different look, and thinking that the word "cartoony" is actually in any way is a good description af anything is piss poor thinking. There are so many aesthetics and yet people who know only one word still lump all of that under a "cartoony" banner. It doesn't make you look "mature" or as an intelegent critic. It makes you look like a teen who wants to enjoy adult themes without knowing what they are. So tired of that.

How old are you? It really wouldn't be the preffered option.

Just because something is photo realistic doesn't make it's better. The only reason you make the game have a certain style is because you want your game to have an artistical aesthetic, or a unique looking world. Do you know how stupid a lot of things can look in photo realistic 3d without a aesthetically desighned world to back it up? And how boring it would be if all games would look alike just because a bunch of teens think that "realistic" is the best artistical direction of all time.

+1

Bravo! *applauds* Great post! ^^

[VolNation]

+1

Bravo! *applauds* Great post! ^^

Yeah, that was the best post. Ever.

[TrashMan]

That's called aesthetic. And borderlands has a cell shaded look. You may not like it but for pete sake stop using the word "cartoony" , it doesn't descredit the art style in any way. Cartoony how? Does it look like tom and jerry, oggy and the cockroaches, Batman TAS, anime? There all have their own different look, and thinking that the word "cartoony" is actually in any way is a good description af anything is piss poor thinking. There are so many aesthetics and yet people who know only one word still lump all of that under a "cartoony" banner. It doesn't make you look "mature" or as an intelegent critic. It makes you look like a teen who wants to enjoy adult themes without knowing what they are. So tired of that.

To be fair, all cartoons share some visual similariteis, which is why we can lump them under "cartoony" looking in the first place.

For the most part it has to do with stylization(proportions, scale), lighting and coloring.

Do you know how stupid a lot of things can look in photo realistic 3d without a aesthetically desighned world to back it up? And how boring it would be if all games would look alike just because a bunch of teens think that "realistic" is the best artistical direction of all time.

Not always of course. But usually.