Many of Perpetual concepts seem better than what Cryptic has chosen to put in the game. I would like Crypt to consider adding those concepts since they do have them and can use them. Perpetual concepts seem more futuristic and laid out better. Yes, some maps and bridges do look like Cryptic has but a lot of effort into them, but there are way more that do not.
Many of Perpetual concepts seem better than what Cryptic has chosen to put in the game. I would like Crypt to consider adding those concepts since they do have them and can use them. Perpetual concepts seem more futuristic and laid out better. Yes, some maps and bridges do look like Cryptic has but a lot of effort into them, but there are way more that do not.
Those Ryan Dening concept pieces for SF HQ and P'Jem still strike a cord in me whenever I see them.
While not official by any means, here are some images that a member of the STO community (APPARENTLY) once made in the Crisis engine (iirc) in order to try and bring that Vulcan town and SF HQ concepts to life. They did a damn fine job with it too.
I think they got the rights to that stuff. I really want to see that bridge in the game. I like that Vulcan city also.
I don't like the Starfleet academy that much. I would like it as close as possible to the shows and films.
Cryptic bought the rights to much of perpetual's work in progress ( which was never much more than some sketches and ideas despite many people believing there was a developed game ready for testing ) but Cryptic quickly said that apart from ship design ideas none of it was compatible with the direction they were taking.
Looking at the copyright attribution on Denning's perpetual work it's down to CBS and it may well be that CBS retained all copyright over work relating to the IP.
Cryptic did use Denning's pictures as teasers when they acquired STO rights so they probably own the artwork.
They certainly based Starfleet Academy on that drawing if I'm not mistaken.
Many of Perpetual concepts seem better than what Cryptic has chosen to put in the game. I would like Crypt to consider adding those concepts since they do have them and can use them. Perpetual concepts seem more futuristic and laid out better. Yes, some maps and bridges do look like Cryptic has but a lot of effort into them, but there are way more that do not.
With the Vulcan buildings, Cryptic did use them on P'Jem and in the Vulcan revamp, added them to Vulcan. Which made it a ton more appealing and less deserted.
Starfleet HQ, I know they used one of those buildings as an asset. And would be nice if they used that large building in a future zone. But not as Starfleet HQ.
Same goes for those other Starfleet Buildings, they are really nicely done and be great to see someday.
As per Tacoface's admission on one of the recent podcasts, I think part of the problem is that there isn't any concept art for much of the work the environment artist(s?) undertake - it'd certainly explain the Odyssey bridge...
Perpetual Artwork and Concept art looked amazing; I always felt that the art work alone was more 'Star Trek' in spirit, but it was not to be. Would love to at least see an adaption of that bridge though in STO.
I agree that Cryptic needs to use at least a good portion of these concepts. I'm not sure how to describe my reasoning other than "it feels like Trek", however.
If they have the rights to all of Perpetual's work (or at least the concepts), why not use good stuff like this?
I agree that Cryptic needs to use at least a good portion of these concepts. I'm not sure how to describe my reasoning other than "it feels like Trek", however.
If they have the rights to all of Perpetual's work (or at least the concepts), why not use good stuff like this?
I think Cryptic's main issue is that they do not provide enough of a Star Trek feel, which is a problem when they are working on a MMO that is about Star Trek.
Take the new signs they added to ESD. I understand the reasoning behind them, but their was not a lot of thought out into making them so they do not have a Star Trek feel to them. I personally think they should have more of a holographic look to them. Add what about the icons floating above people or objects? There is no Star trek feel to them. I think more of a holographic look would be better there too.
I think Cryptic's main issue is that they do not provide enough of a Star Trek feel, which is a problem when they are working on a MMO that is about Star Trek.
The problem as I see it is that this was never intended to be a 'faithful' Trek game. Cryptic had the opportunity to take on the license when Perpetual folded - it was a great opportunity for them (even with the ridiculous deadline) to make a new MMO based on a AAA license.
The only way they could do this though was by using their existing engine which sadly just wasn't sophisticated enough to do the kind of things Trek fans want to do in a Star Trek game - the technical, exploratory, ship-board and diplomatic elements in particular.
They've struggled to squeeze Star Trek into a fairly standard MMO mould when really, Star Trek could have (and should have been) an entirely new kind of MMO. Would that have been successful? Who knows - I know I'd have given it a shot (as would I suspect many of the players here).
Now they add to the game in the limited fashion that they're able to - the tech has changed a bit (FPS gameplay, DOFF system) and they've added content but much of what they're doing now is (I suspect) hacking an old engine to add new gameplay. STO is unlikely to change much in its lifetime now bar the adding of new content - and that's fine - but there's a limit to what they can achieve with what they have (tech and team size).
Don't get me wrong - I really enjoy playing STO - it's the only Star Trek MMO we have and I've had a lot of fun with it - but the troubled development this game has had really limited what's possible both at the beginning and going forward. Add to this, Cryptic's focus on making the game more accessible (i.e. familiar/fun for non Star Trek fans) and you've got something that will always fall short of Trek fans expectations.
And of course, since F2P, all development money will go towards getting the maximum return from the C-Store/Dilithium economy - sure we'll get new missions, but I suspect PWE/Cryptic sees them more as a 'necessary evil' rather than something they should be focussing on (and I have to mention the Odyssey bridge again here - seriously, doesn't Cryptic have any pride in its work? In being the MMO torchbearers for one of the greatest Sci-Fi franchises of all time?).
I must admit I fell the same as everyone else here. I've like a considerable amount of the concept art produced by Perpetual. Even the ship designs. There were a few incredible ship concepts in there that were dropped altogether and we ended up with a few rather balnd designs.
I think Brandon (Bran_Flakes) needs to add this to his list feedback!
I would love to see some of this stuff in game, but in the end the engine just can't do most of it (engine is really limited in it's own ways).
For me sadly STO will remain a game I drop into once in a while play a bit and depart again, it just isn't star trek enough for me in looks, feeling and gameplay.
Not difficult to find out who he is. Ryna dening is an extremely well known and talented concept artist. Why you'd want to find him though is another matter. Good luck prying him away from Bioware where he's senior concept artist for Star Wars TOR.
Not difficult to find out who he is. Ryna dening is an extremely well known and talented concept artist. Why you'd want to find him though is another matter. Good luck prying him away from Bioware where he's senior concept artist for Star Wars TOR.
I must admit I fell the same as everyone else here. I've like a considerable amount of the concept art produced by Perpetual. Even the ship designs. There were a few incredible ship concepts in there that were dropped altogether and we ended up with a few rather balnd designs.
I think Brandon (Bran_Flakes) needs to add this to his list feedback!
Any talented artist can put stuff on paper or through Painter and create beautiful looking things. i do a bit myself. Having a game engine that can render that faithfully is a different matter. STO is too cartoony and blocky to resolve anything lifelike or high poly.
I disagree. The STO engine looks competent enough to handle these types of designs.
I totally agree about this concept art though. It just feels more "trek" than a lot of what we see. I tend to stick with canon ships and outfits/etc just because they look and feel more correct to me than what Cryptic has made on their own. Their ship designs are largely bland and do not connote the futuristic "trek" feel that I prefer. That design of the bridge, however truly looks like it is an evolution of the bridge concept in TNG and is something that I would totally go for over some of the canon bridges.
It's intriguing to me to hear all of the engine hate. I guess I'm confused what you want "the engine" to do that it does not do. Everything shown in any of those concepts (which are very nice) is all art related. Our design and Art direction may not be in line with those concepts, or perpetual's original direction, but nothing really hinges on the engine's capability. . . ?
It's intriguing to me to hear all of the engine hate. I guess I'm confused what you want "the engine" to do that it does not do. Everything shown in any of those concepts (which are very nice) is all art related. Our design and Art direction may not be in line with those concepts, or perpetual's original direction, but nothing really hinges on the engine's capability. . . ?
The STO engine isn't that bad. Its a little on the inefficient side, and the camera is poorly implemented (does it really need to bounce so badly when you walk off a step?), but it isn't too bad, really. Now, the animations and art direction are another story entirely, sadly...
It's intriguing to me to hear all of the engine hate. I guess I'm confused what you want "the engine" to do that it does not do. Everything shown in any of those concepts (which are very nice) is all art related. Our design and Art direction may not be in line with those concepts, or perpetual's original direction, but nothing really hinges on the engine's capability. . . ?
they're talking about the "size" issue.
we've been told for a very long time the interiors are very wide and very high to accomodate the camera movement used by the physics engine. we've been told to make it too small would cause issues with camera angles and wouldnt work.
so when you hear people talk about "the engine cant handle it" in regards to stuff like this thats what they're on about. textures, looks, the "art" of it i'm sure the engine can handle fine.
i guess people want "the engine" to look like that exactly, in terms of style, texture and dimension, and be as playable and free as it is now.
I imagine the teck used on the "shooter mode" that forces a perspective could be used to restrict camera movement, drop the zoom down to a couple of foot instead of the dozen or so it uses now and we could have corridors no wider than 2 people abreast and a little over 7 foot high.. worth chatting to the tech guys about Mr Tumerboy? if you make an environment like that, could they produce the tech to make it work in game?
It's intriguing to me to hear all of the engine hate. I guess I'm confused what you want "the engine" to do that it does not do. Everything shown in any of those concepts (which are very nice) is all art related. Our design and Art direction may not be in line with those concepts, or perpetual's original direction, but nothing really hinges on the engine's capability. . . ?
A lot of people like to blame 'engines' for things like aesthetic choices because they dont know the difference or what a software engine actually is. They assume aesthetic choices different from what they personally would have gone with or expected are issues with the engine.
This thread is very evident of that. Comparing single still concept ART shots for a game (engine) that never existed to actual in game, functional, models/textures.
The SFA concept Art linked looks very much like the in game SFA once you get past the lack of extra functionless space, and aesthetics.
Perpetual concepts are just that, concepts. They made some pretty pictures but never put together an actual game. People comment how much better this game would be if Perpetual had it, thing is, they did. And this game ceased to exist under the control of Perpetual. Cryptic is the only reason this game is as far as it is.
The camera issues aren't really an engine limitation at all. That's more a byproduct of the genre. MMO players tend to like their cameras zoomed way the frak out, so they can see a lot of what's going on around them. As a result, if we make an interior with a reasonably normal ceiling height (say, 8-15 feet), the camera is pushed in very close to the character, and people get really annoyed/feel claustrophobic.
However, this is largely due to the fact that we have EVER let you zoom yourself out that much. In something like Mass Effect or Batman, the interiors are a much more reasonable size, but the camera isn't variable, is locked to the character, and is always in fairly tight. It doesn't feel as bad, because they compensate with a wider FOV and never let you zoom out to crazy extents.
So ceiling height and general scale of the world is mostly dictated by the play style of the genre, not any sort of engine limitation. (i.e. there are files I can edit to force you into First person camera ll the time, or limit how far you can zoom out, or offset to one side or the other. Admittedly, these controls are not as robust as those likely used in Mass Effect, or Batman. . . because we rarely use them.)
On the note of concept vs in game, Concept Art will always look a ton better to most people than in game art does. Concept art is a fixed camera, nothing has to move, they don't have to worry about polygon counts, texture resolutions, lighting limitations or any of that. Concept art is conceptual, they can draw whatever they want, and the gaps they leave your mind automatically fills in for them. In game, you can see it all, and you can look behind the rock over there to see what's on the other side, instead of imagining all of it.
The Perpetual concepts are gorgeous, no doubt. But I guarantee, some of you would be just as displeased with the in game representations of any of those concepts as you might be with the ones we have in game now.
The camera issues aren't really an engine limitation at all. That's more a byproduct of the genre. MMO players tend to like their cameras zoomed way the frak out, so they can see a lot of what's going on around them. As a result, if we make an interior with a reasonably normal ceiling height (say, 8-15 feet), the camera is pushed in very close to the character, and people get really annoyed/feel claustrophobic.
However, this is largely due to the fact that we have EVER let you zoom yourself out that much. In something like Mass Effect or Batman, the interiors are a much more reasonable size, but the camera isn't variable, is locked to the character, and is always in fairly tight. It doesn't feel as bad, because they compensate with a wider FOV and never let you zoom out to crazy extents.
So ceiling height and general scale of the world is mostly dictated by the play style of the genre, not any sort of engine limitation. (i.e. there are files I can edit to force you into First person camera ll the time, or limit how far you can zoom out, or offset to one side or the other. Admittedly, these controls are not as robust as those likely used in Mass Effect, or Batman. . . because we rarely use them.)
i really would like to see this implimented as a one-off in part of a mission, maybe a future FE or remastered project.
there's always been a LOT of complaints about "the size issue", since beta in fact, so it would be interesting to see how people felt and react to that situation.. a smaller "more realistic" environment at the cost of camera freedom.
you say the game can do it, that the engine can be forced into that perspective.. i say take it to the bosses, see if they'll give it a try and then let the players decide if they want to see more of it, or if the lack of camera freedom reduces their enjoyment.
if nothing else it'd end this 2 year old debate once and for all
Perpetual concepts are just that, concepts. They made some pretty pictures but never put together an actual game. People comment how much better this game would be if Perpetual had it, thing is, they did. And this game ceased to exist under the control of Perpetual. Cryptic is the only reason this game is as far as it is.
Comments
About that first pic...,
Other than on Bridges, I don't think Cryptic knows how to make Zones THAT Large...
While not official by any means, here are some images that a member of the STO community (APPARENTLY) once made in the Crisis engine (iirc) in order to try and bring that Vulcan town and SF HQ concepts to life. They did a damn fine job with it too.
reference (Dening's concept art Vulcan Town): http://www.star.trek.sk/suvislosti/hry/online/sto_vulcan_village.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/uYvt0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MDy22.jpg
reference (Dening's concept art SF HQ): http://attachments.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=204025&stc=1&d=1190078827
http://i.imgur.com/dYsLN.jpg
You know, there's already a Prometheus variant that's very similar to this, but I'd love for Cryptic to take a crack at it. That's a very nice design.
I don't like the Starfleet academy that much. I would like it as close as possible to the shows and films.
Cryptic bought the rights to much of perpetual's work in progress ( which was never much more than some sketches and ideas despite many people believing there was a developed game ready for testing ) but Cryptic quickly said that apart from ship design ideas none of it was compatible with the direction they were taking.
Looking at the copyright attribution on Denning's perpetual work it's down to CBS and it may well be that CBS retained all copyright over work relating to the IP.
Cryptic did use Denning's pictures as teasers when they acquired STO rights so they probably own the artwork.
They certainly based Starfleet Academy on that drawing if I'm not mistaken.
http://deningart.com/gallery/concept_STO_BridgePS.html
With the Vulcan buildings, Cryptic did use them on P'Jem and in the Vulcan revamp, added them to Vulcan. Which made it a ton more appealing and less deserted.
Starfleet HQ, I know they used one of those buildings as an asset. And would be nice if they used that large building in a future zone. But not as Starfleet HQ.
Same goes for those other Starfleet Buildings, they are really nicely done and be great to see someday.
If they have the rights to all of Perpetual's work (or at least the concepts), why not use good stuff like this?
I think Cryptic's main issue is that they do not provide enough of a Star Trek feel, which is a problem when they are working on a MMO that is about Star Trek.
Take the new signs they added to ESD. I understand the reasoning behind them, but their was not a lot of thought out into making them so they do not have a Star Trek feel to them. I personally think they should have more of a holographic look to them. Add what about the icons floating above people or objects? There is no Star trek feel to them. I think more of a holographic look would be better there too.
The problem as I see it is that this was never intended to be a 'faithful' Trek game. Cryptic had the opportunity to take on the license when Perpetual folded - it was a great opportunity for them (even with the ridiculous deadline) to make a new MMO based on a AAA license.
The only way they could do this though was by using their existing engine which sadly just wasn't sophisticated enough to do the kind of things Trek fans want to do in a Star Trek game - the technical, exploratory, ship-board and diplomatic elements in particular.
They've struggled to squeeze Star Trek into a fairly standard MMO mould when really, Star Trek could have (and should have been) an entirely new kind of MMO. Would that have been successful? Who knows - I know I'd have given it a shot (as would I suspect many of the players here).
Now they add to the game in the limited fashion that they're able to - the tech has changed a bit (FPS gameplay, DOFF system) and they've added content but much of what they're doing now is (I suspect) hacking an old engine to add new gameplay. STO is unlikely to change much in its lifetime now bar the adding of new content - and that's fine - but there's a limit to what they can achieve with what they have (tech and team size).
Don't get me wrong - I really enjoy playing STO - it's the only Star Trek MMO we have and I've had a lot of fun with it - but the troubled development this game has had really limited what's possible both at the beginning and going forward. Add to this, Cryptic's focus on making the game more accessible (i.e. familiar/fun for non Star Trek fans) and you've got something that will always fall short of Trek fans expectations.
And of course, since F2P, all development money will go towards getting the maximum return from the C-Store/Dilithium economy - sure we'll get new missions, but I suspect PWE/Cryptic sees them more as a 'necessary evil' rather than something they should be focussing on (and I have to mention the Odyssey bridge again here - seriously, doesn't Cryptic have any pride in its work? In being the MMO torchbearers for one of the greatest Sci-Fi franchises of all time?).
The Vulcan one in particular could pretty much be perfectly replicated inside The Foundry.
I think Brandon (Bran_Flakes) needs to add this to his list feedback!
For me sadly STO will remain a game I drop into once in a while play a bit and depart again, it just isn't star trek enough for me in looks, feeling and gameplay.
Not difficult to find out who he is. Ryna dening is an extremely well known and talented concept artist. Why you'd want to find him though is another matter. Good luck prying him away from Bioware where he's senior concept artist for Star Wars TOR.
Any talented artist can put stuff on paper or through Painter and create beautiful looking things. i do a bit myself. Having a game engine that can render that faithfully is a different matter. STO is too cartoony and blocky to resolve anything lifelike or high poly.
I totally agree about this concept art though. It just feels more "trek" than a lot of what we see. I tend to stick with canon ships and outfits/etc just because they look and feel more correct to me than what Cryptic has made on their own. Their ship designs are largely bland and do not connote the futuristic "trek" feel that I prefer. That design of the bridge, however truly looks like it is an evolution of the bridge concept in TNG and is something that I would totally go for over some of the canon bridges.
The STO engine isn't that bad. Its a little on the inefficient side, and the camera is poorly implemented (does it really need to bounce so badly when you walk off a step?), but it isn't too bad, really. Now, the animations and art direction are another story entirely, sadly...
they're talking about the "size" issue.
we've been told for a very long time the interiors are very wide and very high to accomodate the camera movement used by the physics engine. we've been told to make it too small would cause issues with camera angles and wouldnt work.
so when you hear people talk about "the engine cant handle it" in regards to stuff like this thats what they're on about. textures, looks, the "art" of it i'm sure the engine can handle fine.
i guess people want "the engine" to look like that exactly, in terms of style, texture and dimension, and be as playable and free as it is now.
I imagine the teck used on the "shooter mode" that forces a perspective could be used to restrict camera movement, drop the zoom down to a couple of foot instead of the dozen or so it uses now and we could have corridors no wider than 2 people abreast and a little over 7 foot high.. worth chatting to the tech guys about Mr Tumerboy? if you make an environment like that, could they produce the tech to make it work in game?
A lot of people like to blame 'engines' for things like aesthetic choices because they dont know the difference or what a software engine actually is. They assume aesthetic choices different from what they personally would have gone with or expected are issues with the engine.
This thread is very evident of that. Comparing single still concept ART shots for a game (engine) that never existed to actual in game, functional, models/textures.
The SFA concept Art linked looks very much like the in game SFA once you get past the lack of extra functionless space, and aesthetics.
However, this is largely due to the fact that we have EVER let you zoom yourself out that much. In something like Mass Effect or Batman, the interiors are a much more reasonable size, but the camera isn't variable, is locked to the character, and is always in fairly tight. It doesn't feel as bad, because they compensate with a wider FOV and never let you zoom out to crazy extents.
So ceiling height and general scale of the world is mostly dictated by the play style of the genre, not any sort of engine limitation. (i.e. there are files I can edit to force you into First person camera ll the time, or limit how far you can zoom out, or offset to one side or the other. Admittedly, these controls are not as robust as those likely used in Mass Effect, or Batman. . . because we rarely use them.)
On the note of concept vs in game, Concept Art will always look a ton better to most people than in game art does. Concept art is a fixed camera, nothing has to move, they don't have to worry about polygon counts, texture resolutions, lighting limitations or any of that. Concept art is conceptual, they can draw whatever they want, and the gaps they leave your mind automatically fills in for them. In game, you can see it all, and you can look behind the rock over there to see what's on the other side, instead of imagining all of it.
The Perpetual concepts are gorgeous, no doubt. But I guarantee, some of you would be just as displeased with the in game representations of any of those concepts as you might be with the ones we have in game now.
i really would like to see this implimented as a one-off in part of a mission, maybe a future FE or remastered project.
there's always been a LOT of complaints about "the size issue", since beta in fact, so it would be interesting to see how people felt and react to that situation.. a smaller "more realistic" environment at the cost of camera freedom.
you say the game can do it, that the engine can be forced into that perspective.. i say take it to the bosses, see if they'll give it a try and then let the players decide if they want to see more of it, or if the lack of camera freedom reduces their enjoyment.
if nothing else it'd end this 2 year old debate once and for all
Well said, and that's the bottom line.