PC Alpha 21 Dev Diary
- Thread starter Roland
- Start date
- Status
Jost Amman
Well-known member
I hear in Iran they did something like that... but not with Minecraft, apparently. :confused2:They’d have to project Minecraft onto the face of the moon for it to look smooth.
Fanatical_Meat
Well-known member
Adam the Waster
Well-known member
agreed, personally the graphics from A16 and A17 were pretty good.
as long as the game is fun i don't care, plus it gave a Unique art style. if they wanted to improve the older models/zombies/Animations thats fine.
but many games now focus too much on graphics
Blake_
Captain Obvious
That's a tricky opinion if you think about it. Where would the "terror" part of the game be without graphics? Not quite up there I presume. Bear with me here and genres aside, would complexity of content like Rimworld and Dwarf Fortress make the game better? No, I don't think so. Would you call Rimworld a better game than Dwarf Fortress?
Yes, because of the better Graphics. Would a compromise leaning towards the crappy graphics result in better content/gameplay for 7dtd? probably? but I do believe I wouldn't be playing a beefed up alpha 1-10 today vs the game we have now. And not only because of the graphics, but because of core engine limitations directly resulting from that first choice. I am thankful for the compromise, because even if we can whine about what could've been, graphics always delay the aging of a game that has a good enough gameplay, and that is a truth that extends to all genres. 7dtd's core gameplay mechanic is addicting already.
Riamus
Well-known member
This is very true. Look at any old game that is still enjoyed by many people today and you will find that the graphics have stood the test of time. That doesn't mean they are equal to today's standards, but that they are done in a way that still looks good today. Often, they are done in a specific style that fits the game really well even if they aren't hyper realistic.
That said, graphics are certainly not everything. A game with amazing graphics and horrible gameplay will not be enjoyed anywhere near as much as a game with horrible graphics and amazing gameplay. The goal of any game is a balance of the two. Occasionally, you will find a game that has both amazing graphics and amazing gameplay, but those are few and far between. If you focus too much on only one aspect, your game will likely not do very well, or at least not as well as it could have. I think that this game has a good balance. The graphics are very good for a voxel game and fit the game well, imo. They don't have to be equal to the best graphics seen today.
That said, I am very interested in the updated art assets. I think it will make the game more interesting for more players (people do like graphics), which benefits everyone as TFP is more likely to continue improving the game after gold if it continues to do well.
Speaking of the new art assets, @Roland, do you have any favorite new art assets that you could tell us about (or show us)? What would you say is the most noticeable thing improved and why do you think it is better? I know we have seen some new things like cars, but if you could let us know what stands out the most to you, that would be great.
Morloc
Arch Necromancer
meilodasreh
New member
Yep as I said, same thing just one shot taken using slightly lower resolution
On a serious sidenote,
of course this comparison is not really fair, cause 7D2D zombies are not voxel blocks but real 3D HD modelling stuff.
But also the blocks in the background, especially the texturing is of course "zoom to the moon" better in 7D2D.
...wait, damn we're still at this topic?
@Roland fast, a puzzle to distract us
meilodasreh
New member
Yep, me too.
And I guess a good amount of people around here who have been following the development of this game also know about said technical limitations of the voxel engine with current hardware, and so don't really complain.
But as Roland said there might also be a good amount of players (he even called that group "the typical player" which I wouldn't support without reserve),
who don't think said way "rather a better game than better graphics" but more like "game gets better by/with better graphics"
Last edited by a moderator:
zztong
Well-known member
I'm of a similar mind. I don't need awesome graphics. I need acceptable graphics and good game play. I'm more likely to turn down graphics settings. I say "rock on" to developers making conscious decisions that balance artistic style with technology, features and performance. That's engineering.
I think 7D2D, Empyrion, Space Engineers, and Fallout 4 are all great. For that matter, I love Minecraft and RimWorld and they're not graphical powerhouses.
As I said before, from what I’ve seen and read on forums with 2000 hours gameplay now , people want new features, new environment, new experience.. just like any other game out there with expansion to give that new feeling.
not the same game for past 10 years but better graphics ..
i mean I love amazing graphics, and my pc can take wtv you feed it, but need the features to go with it as well ..need some major improvement towards the things to do and achieve in the game.
JCrook1028
New member
retrogamingdev
New member
My two cents on graphics as it relates to 7Days. I think it looks pretty good overall.
But, if I started playing, had no concept of a voxel engine or what that meant for performance, I'd think the game look fairly mediocre, but not terrible. Maybe a high C, low B for a grade. Overall, the graphics look maybe a generation or two behind other big name players.
If I account for the voxel engine, though - I give the game a high B. There is room for improvement - though I think it is less to do with an overall upgrade to the engine. There is some inconsistencies in textures/object models that detracts from things for me. Cleaning that up would drastically help. I also feel like some areas of the game need more variety since we see the stuff so much. Junker cars for example - need more variety of those. And if you play multiplayer, you know the player models and animations are pretty bad and break immersion. Cleaning those up would help a lot for the visual experience when playing with others.
And a big wishlist thing for me as it relates to visuals is some sort of system to randomize the zombies 'look' a bit. Like, changing skin textures, clothing worn, body damage, etc. So, it is still the same base zombie, but chances are if you see 3 of the same ones at the same time - they will look different from each other.
Ultimately, though, if I had to chose one thing for you to work on - I'd say keep visual as the are and start building in more content, story, quests, factions, etc. That is what is missing most for me at this time.
But, if I started playing, had no concept of a voxel engine or what that meant for performance, I'd think the game look fairly mediocre, but not terrible. Maybe a high C, low B for a grade. Overall, the graphics look maybe a generation or two behind other big name players.
If I account for the voxel engine, though - I give the game a high B. There is room for improvement - though I think it is less to do with an overall upgrade to the engine. There is some inconsistencies in textures/object models that detracts from things for me. Cleaning that up would drastically help. I also feel like some areas of the game need more variety since we see the stuff so much. Junker cars for example - need more variety of those. And if you play multiplayer, you know the player models and animations are pretty bad and break immersion. Cleaning those up would help a lot for the visual experience when playing with others.
And a big wishlist thing for me as it relates to visuals is some sort of system to randomize the zombies 'look' a bit. Like, changing skin textures, clothing worn, body damage, etc. So, it is still the same base zombie, but chances are if you see 3 of the same ones at the same time - they will look different from each other.
Ultimately, though, if I had to chose one thing for you to work on - I'd say keep visual as the are and start building in more content, story, quests, factions, etc. That is what is missing most for me at this time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Riamus
Well-known member
Just to add to what has already been commented on... Graphics work is being done (usually) by different people than those working on mechanics and gameplay and other kinds of content like story. So for the most part, you aren't trading mechanics and features for improved graphics.
However, there is still a trade-off in this game. Because of the art assets being added, most of the POI are also getting updated with the new assets. I would assume this is getting done by the same people who make new POI. So time spent updating the old POI is taken from creating new POI. How much this affects things, I don't know, but we probably end up with at least a few less new POI because of the new art assets. Thankfully, there are good POI designers outside of TFP that give us additional POI to use.
However, there is still a trade-off in this game. Because of the art assets being added, most of the POI are also getting updated with the new assets. I would assume this is getting done by the same people who make new POI. So time spent updating the old POI is taken from creating new POI. How much this affects things, I don't know, but we probably end up with at least a few less new POI because of the new art assets. Thankfully, there are good POI designers outside of TFP that give us additional POI to use.
Last edited by a moderator:
mstdv inc
New member
For me, there is a certain level of graphics and if the graphics in the game are below this level, I will not be able to play no matter how cool the gameplay would be.I tried to play all alpha versions starting from 10 and to be honest, starting from A13 it has already become playable.But I do not know how quickly such graphics would get bored, after all, before A19, the game was too colorless and gray.Although someone will call it a plus to the atmosphere.If the A19 graphics upgrade hadn't come out, the A18 graphics would have been enough for me even then, the game looked normal considering its voxel basis.All other games look much worse or have specific graphics that don't everyone will like it.I haven't been able to play minecraft or a teardown.It just hurts my eyes to look at it.But still A19 came out and after that I couldn't play A18 anymore.It seemed too outdated.A20 is also a big graphics upgrade, but for me this is the point after which the game became more 'commercial' and less cozy.With the release of A20 for me, the game lost the atmosphere of a "paradise of rednecks" and became something like a "concrete jungle".Maybe I should only play with small towns, but then I won't see T4 and T5 buildings.Because of this, I'm a little wary of future updates.But if we discard my personal feelings of course, the game is only getting better, and as someone correctly noticed, "alpha" is more for reinsurance, the game has long been a full-fledged playable product and thousands of hours that players have spent in it confirm this.
If we talk about the graph as a whole.There is such a thing as the integrity of graphics when looking at the scene you see that all the elements correspond to each other there is nothing superfluous very soapy or highly detailed there is nothing very bright and just superfluous.I'm unlikely to be able to play games in the first half of the 90s, but since 97-98, in my opinion, the graphics have reached the level where you can just play it without being afraid that your eyes will leak out after half an hour.
And of course, do not forget that how many people there are so many opinions and everyone can't like one thing.Developers understand this and are looking for a middle ground.Therefore, yes, I agree that it was possible to develop some gameplay moments more instead of improving graphics, but on the other hand, after A19, I can no longer play the old alphas.Balance, we need balance.
If we talk about the graph as a whole.There is such a thing as the integrity of graphics when looking at the scene you see that all the elements correspond to each other there is nothing superfluous very soapy or highly detailed there is nothing very bright and just superfluous.I'm unlikely to be able to play games in the first half of the 90s, but since 97-98, in my opinion, the graphics have reached the level where you can just play it without being afraid that your eyes will leak out after half an hour.
And of course, do not forget that how many people there are so many opinions and everyone can't like one thing.Developers understand this and are looking for a middle ground.Therefore, yes, I agree that it was possible to develop some gameplay moments more instead of improving graphics, but on the other hand, after A19, I can no longer play the old alphas.Balance, we need balance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blake_
Captain Obvious
I am of the same mind as @retrogamingdev : If the graphic design was less of a "build on top" and more of a solid base of well performing assets from the get go, all with the same tunneable parameters like coherent LOD, reflections, post processing behaviour, organized shader database that doesn't take huge loads of time to tweak or change by the devs, then the game would perform better today even with the UNITY limitations. Sure, they are doing it now, and that is understandable, they were very few up until recently and they are not Gods, but all in all the result is coming along despite the problems I mentioned (some of them, like LOD or things like shader tunning have a pretty huge impact still).
Shaders can do anything to a texture, but the can also break any game in terms of fps and stability if treated poorly. This game might actually need an engine of its own, because no matter how UNREAL they make games in the future, the only engines that can fully use crazy stuff like 128 cores to the fullest (limit of Windows OS) are those specifically created to do so, like for example the custom engine for Mount and Blade: Bannerlord (allows for a heavy CPU usage, close to 85% fully parallel task manager, which Unity cannot achieve). That is future proofing the game if done with a true voxel engine. It's ok they went with the less "headachy" way and chose Unity though, because it seems to be doing ok.
Let's just hope we get enough content in the end. It all comes down to the ridiculous "we are out of time" and how short the community can pressure the ETA of 7dtd to be. And let's not forget that a new mistak... console deal might happen AGAIN before gold release, or worse, might be forced to become gold before it's ready. That's what the official information led me to believe (that we are 1 year from gold, lol. Try 3 years).
To The Fun Pimps I say: Genres aside, Kenshi is a squad based rpg, fully 3d world with endless posibilities. It took 13-15 years to make. It's perfect now. It has flaws, but does not lack in the original vision, nor in variety of zds... I mean content? My apologies. Lol. I really mean to say that this game needs to go on. And be finished well. Not with 15 crappy zds and 4 thugs with the same face, but with a solid variety both in AI life and emergent gameplay. That is future proofing. And that is -I do know that- the original vision, not the "weeell if we do not have time then instead of increasing the price or start with bonus alpha dlcs, let's do crippling console deals with evil corporations so we can keep going on", or something crazy like that.
Money cannot flow indefinitely, but it will if you let us. The community is solid. Like a big piece of nutricious dun g.
Shaders can do anything to a texture, but the can also break any game in terms of fps and stability if treated poorly. This game might actually need an engine of its own, because no matter how UNREAL they make games in the future, the only engines that can fully use crazy stuff like 128 cores to the fullest (limit of Windows OS) are those specifically created to do so, like for example the custom engine for Mount and Blade: Bannerlord (allows for a heavy CPU usage, close to 85% fully parallel task manager, which Unity cannot achieve). That is future proofing the game if done with a true voxel engine. It's ok they went with the less "headachy" way and chose Unity though, because it seems to be doing ok.
Let's just hope we get enough content in the end. It all comes down to the ridiculous "we are out of time" and how short the community can pressure the ETA of 7dtd to be. And let's not forget that a new mistak... console deal might happen AGAIN before gold release, or worse, might be forced to become gold before it's ready. That's what the official information led me to believe (that we are 1 year from gold, lol. Try 3 years).
To The Fun Pimps I say: Genres aside, Kenshi is a squad based rpg, fully 3d world with endless posibilities. It took 13-15 years to make. It's perfect now. It has flaws, but does not lack in the original vision, nor in variety of zds... I mean content? My apologies. Lol. I really mean to say that this game needs to go on. And be finished well. Not with 15 crappy zds and 4 thugs with the same face, but with a solid variety both in AI life and emergent gameplay. That is future proofing. And that is -I do know that- the original vision, not the "weeell if we do not have time then instead of increasing the price or start with bonus alpha dlcs, let's do crippling console deals with evil corporations so we can keep going on", or something crazy like that.
Money cannot flow indefinitely, but it will if you let us. The community is solid. Like a big piece of nutricious dun g.
- Status