test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Cryptic must have lazy graphic designers

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
First off let me say I'm still barely wanting to keep subscribing and this is not a quit post. The half hearted graphic design has really been bothering me though lately. One reason I hate ground missions are graphics. The planets are dull and the graphics are cheaply recycled. Have you noticed the large mushroom trees on some planets, well those giant mushrooms are reskined in the same shape as giant mushroom rocks on other planets.

I forget the system I was in on some mission but I noticed on a planet that continents were an exact replica of earth showing the boot of Italy and Spain. Walking through water is also very lame as you do not even see any splash or ripple effects, no signs of disturbance whatsoever. There are no unique hubs or cities hardly to speak of, just an overwhelming amount of recycled graphical content which makes the already repetitive exploration and away missions more dull.

Why did Cryptic take so many cheap shortcuts like this? I think the IGN reviewer, Mr. Kolan, hit the mark when he said, "The typical MMO is endless, and new content and features are added after the game's release to ensure players always have something to do, but STO is, at its core, missing a lot."
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    QFT. It's a half assed job to say the least
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I agree, but im not closet to quitting...but still the ground graphics could use alot of improvement...not so much the character models but the environment detail and graphics are pretty poor. The distance backround and scenery seems faded...and I believe this game needs AA16 and not AA8..the edges are very painful sometimes. The water graphics need ripples or some splashing when your in it...the environments need to be bigger, more flora and wildlife. I wish they could get DX10 iinto this game, maybe sometime a year or two from now?

    The space graphics are decent enough...I still and always will gripe about the asteroid belts, constant colourful backrounds and the blue nebulae around earth...ill also whine about the engine trails and poor ship models that are almost put to shame by ST Legacy's ship models...look at ST Legacy's Negh'var...Sovereign and Defiant.....STO has some pretty poor ship models, I dont know what it is..the edges? the fact that they look grafted together and have windows that are too big? I currently, when zoomed in...cant picture 1.5k crew on my Vor'cha.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I agree there is a great deal of repetition. I chalk this up to the genesis system needing more graphics assets (clearly) but they wanted to get it out there so assigned a lot of placeholders. There is a good bit of that in this game. Im not happy about it but Ive accepted it. YMMV but Im reserving judgement for 6 months out, whether Im still susbcribing or not.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    We must be playing different games here. STO's graphics are mind blowing to me. I think the Cryptic team took things up a notch. Champions had some really great graphics, but Star Trek seems to outclass Champions in so many ways. I'm quite pleased with the look and designs and work the creative folks at Cryptic put into this gem.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    We must be playing different games here. STO's graphics are mind blowing to me. I think the Cryptic team took things up a notch. Champions had some really great graphics, but Star Trek seems to outclass Champions in so many ways. I'm quite pleased with the look and designs and work the creative folks at Cryptic put into this gem.

    You, sir, fail, they run on the same ****ing engine...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Talunak wrote: »
    You, sir, fail, they run on the same ****ing engine...

    Tony Stewart and Jimmie Johnson use the same engines too. One of them does better with the engine than the other. Which is what I see happening here.The Star Trek designers have the same tools as the champions designers. And yet the Star Trek guys do so much more and do it so much better than the champions guys. I think it's because even though the champs team are great at what they do, and put out great looking work (just like Tony Stewart is a great driver that puts together some great wins) ... the Star Trek guys love the game just that much more and put together championship caliber work (just like the 48 car keeps winning it all year after year after year).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Have you noticed in SOL that the moon is just a picture.. You cannot fly around it or even close to it
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    We must be playing different games here. STO's graphics are mind blowing to me. I think the Cryptic team took things up a notch. Champions had some really great graphics, but Star Trek seems to outclass Champions in so many ways. I'm quite pleased with the look and designs and work the creative folks at Cryptic put into this gem.

    Again is this sarcasm? Cause I inferred this from what you said:

    "We must be playing the same game here. STO's graphics are exactly the same as CO. I think the Cryptic team failed to take things up a notch. Champions had some really bad graphics, but Star Trek seems to have re-skinned Champions in so many ways. I'm quite dis-pleased with the look and designs and work the un-creative folks at Cryptic put into this unpolished rock."

    Please correct me if I am wrong.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Again is this sarcasm? Cause I inferred this from what you said:

    "We must be playing the same game here. STO's graphics are exactly the same as CO. I think the Cryptic team failed to take things up a notch. Champions had some really bad graphics, but Star Trek seems to have re-skinned Champions in so many ways. I'm quite dis-pleased with the look and designs and work the un-creative folks at Cryptic put into this unpolished rock."

    Please correct me if I am wrong.

    QFT..........
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    We must be playing different games here. STO's graphics are mind blowing to me. I think the Cryptic team took things up a notch. Champions had some really great graphics, but Star Trek seems to outclass Champions in so many ways. I'm quite pleased with the look and designs and work the creative folks at Cryptic put into this gem.

    The ships look good, but that's about it, in my opinion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    not just the graphics the complete game design is a half assed job. if I went to work and programed something that was this bad Id be jobless right now. I dont see how they got away with it. its an mmo we know blah blah its new we know that is NOT an excuse. Its an excused by people that think they can throw something at the public promise it will get better and expect people to stick around. if they built bridges or airplanes like this we would all be dead by now. Note to self dont let cryptic design anything that needs a big of safety.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    Tony Stewart and Jimmie Johnson use the same engines too. One of them does better with the engine than the other. Which is what I see happening here.The Star Trek designers have the same tools as the champions designers. And yet the Star Trek guys do so much more and do it so much better than the champions guys. I think it's because even though the champs team are great at what they do, and put out great looking work (just like Tony Stewart is a great driver that puts together some great wins) ... the Star Trek guys love the game just that much more and put together championship caliber work (just like the 48 car keeps winning it all year after year after year).

    I had to re-read this to make sure I was actually seeing a "GAME ENGINE" compared to a Human beings automobile "Engine" in his racing car.

    Post of the year in my opinion. "Do so much more and do it so much better than the champions guys." was the meat of that post. The rest....wow, you keep talking about cars?

    I also had to google "Tony Stewart" and yep, he is a NASCAR driver. Initially I thought Tony and Jimme were game developers at rival companies.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Certainly. You are wrong. And have now been corrected.

    :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I had to re-read this to make sure I was actually seeing a "GAME ENGINE" compared to a Human beings automobile "Engine" in his racing car.

    Post of the year in my opinion. "Do so much more and do it so much better than the champions guys." was the meat of that post. The rest....wow, you keep talking about cars?

    I also had to google "Tony Stewart" and yep, he is a NASCAR driver. Initially I thought Tony and Jimme were game developers at rival companies.

    Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed my analogy. Star Trek has a long history of being technologically focused, so I felt the engine to engine comparison, especially in light of how it's the exact point about different teams of people using the same equipment, would make a pretty big impact on the discussion.

    I'm pleased to see I was right.

    :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Let me ask you this... Have you ever played any MMO where models, textures, and other graphics weren't recycled?

    Probably not. So quit your *****ing and play the game. I'd like to see you do the work that it would take to make every planet or ground encounter completely different from the next. You'd prolly kill yourself.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Graphics don't make the game IMO.

    I've played beautiful games that just plain sucked. I'm just saying.

    Yes, the art and engine could be alot better, but I'm having a blast.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Zotfripper wrote: »
    Graphics don't make the game IMO.

    I've played beautiful games that just plain sucked. I'm just saying.

    Yes, the art and engine could be alot better, but I'm having a blast.

    must agree but in this day in age people are so shallow and uncaring they dont look any deeper.. plus this games main problems are not graphics its alot of game stopping buggs and just complete boredom. But if this game was prettier at least it would attract more people till they played it for longer then a day...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    ajac09 wrote: »
    must agree but in this day in age people are so shallow and uncaring they dont look any deeper.. plus this games main problems are not graphics its alot of game stopping buggs and just complete boredom. But if this game was prettier at least it would attract more people till they played it for longer then a day...

    I vote for the Unreal, or Eve engine with Havok physics.

    Watch everyone's PC explode :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Zotfripper wrote: »
    I vote for the Unreal, or Eve engine with Havok physics.

    Watch everyone's PC explode :)

    hahaha be awesome though!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    We must be playing different games here. STO's graphics are mind blowing to me. I think the Cryptic team took things up a notch. Champions had some really great graphics, but Star Trek seems to outclass Champions in so many ways. I'm quite pleased with the look and designs and work the creative folks at Cryptic put into this gem.

    If STO is mind blowing to you, then the last game you played must have been the original half life. Even Myst Online had better environments, and that game came out 7 years ago.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Xanatari wrote:
    If STO is mind blowing to you, then the last game you played must have been ...

    I went from Prototype to Champions Online to Left 4 Dead 2, to Assassin's Creed 1, to Madden, to this. Kind of all over the place.

    And I'm still very impressed with the graphics in this game. I would not call cryptic's designers lazy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I agree with the OP. Today I was on a mission on Romulan occupied planet, where they had some kind of research facility - apparently Romulan research facility. One thing that stroke me like a lightning bolt was LCARS on all screens. And whole environment inside (apart from the walls) felt like Fed starbase, not like dark green, mighty Romulan design.
    Cheap, to say the least.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Talunak wrote: »
    You, sir, fail, they run on the same ****ing engine...

    You are the one that fails.

    I could come up with many games, run on the same engines, that look better than a previous title.

    Left 4 Dead 1/2 both look leaps and bounds better than Half-life 2. SAME ENGINE.

    Killing Floor and Unreal Tournament 2k4. Same engine, hell, one's a mod of the other, yet KF looks leaps and bounds better.

    Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142. you can't even compare them, same engine, 2142 has much better visuals.

    Oh, hey, here's a really good one.

    All three Halo trilogy entries are run on the same engine, but surely, Halo 3 looks better than 1 and 2!

    So, good sir, you completely and utterly fail with that statement.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Don't blame the people making the models/textures/levels. They managed to do an amazing ammount of work for only having 18 months. If you want to blame anyone, blame the higher ups for forcing such a short ammount of time to make the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    ajac09 wrote: »
    not just the graphics the complete game design is a half assed job. if I went to work and programed something that was this bad Id be jobless right now. I dont see how they got away with it. its an mmo we know blah blah its new we know that is NOT an excuse. Its an excused by people that think they can throw something at the public promise it will get better and expect people to stick around. if they built bridges or airplanes like this we would all be dead by now. Note to self dont let cryptic design anything that needs a big of safety.

    you don't have the skills too program something like STO stop pretending you do

    Makes me laugh everytime i see a post like this

    If you are so talented and skilled then make your own game

    Oh and please don't try the line i am currently working on my own game

    Tired of that one too if all the people that posted thay are currently working on there own game really where

    They would have alot less time too cry on these forums
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Kratos23 wrote: »
    First off let me say I'm still barely wanting to keep subscribing and this is not a quit post. The half hearted graphic design has really been bothering me though lately. One reason I hate ground missions are graphics. The planets are dull and the graphics are cheaply recycled. Have you noticed the large mushroom trees on some planets, well those giant mushrooms are reskined in the same shape as giant mushroom rocks on other planets.

    I forget the system I was in on some mission but I noticed on a planet that continents were an exact replica of earth showing the boot of Italy and Spain. Walking through water is also very lame as you do not even see any splash or ripple effects, no signs of disturbance whatsoever. There are no unique hubs or cities hardly to speak of, just an overwhelming amount of recycled graphical content which makes the already repetitive exploration and away missions more dull.

    Why did Cryptic take so many cheap shortcuts like this? I think the IGN reviewer, Mr. Kolan, hit the mark when he said, "The typical MMO is endless, and new content and features are added after the game's release to ensure players always have something to do, but STO is, at its core, missing a lot."

    I agree... sadly. I too am teetering on whether I should keep my subscription.

    What made me so mad was DS9 -- I won't deny it, I'm a DS9 fanatic right off the bat. But other than the promonade, NOTHING (even OPS) feels like its DS9.

    1) OPS (or as I wanna term it, OOPS!) just feels dull, and boring. Nothing about it says, "Hey this is the operations hub for a giant space station and one of the most important outposts in deep space!". Nope. Just dull lighting, some uninteresting NPCs and a turbolift. Even Sisko's office is dimmed down, and no furniture to be seen inside!

    2) I have never seen a corridor like the ones in-game on DS9. I took a screen shot (http://www.wegame.com/view/ds9-corridor-i-think-not/) vs. what DS9 really looked like: (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:DS9_corridor.jpg). WTF? Daniel Stahl valiantly defended the STO team (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=2143552#post2143552) by saying they watch Star Trek, but I"m sorry... I cannot abide this. No stretch of the imagination can cover or explain away this artistic oversight.

    I'm growing more and more impatient with things just because I feel like ST fans are being duped once again into thinking they're getting the best when they aren't. I hate it when the fan-base is abused with substandard product, and STO is starting to look that way, though I am *still* remaining optimistic.

    The OP is absolutely correct -- STO artists needed to spend more time on this stuff. And I'm a little miffed that late last year Craig let us all know that the artists all had extra time to work on bridges... and we ALL know how haphazardly they were put together...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    cmdrrom wrote: »
    I agree... sadly. I too am teetering on whether I should keep my subscription.

    What made me so mad was DS9 -- I won't deny it, I'm a DS9 fanatic right off the bat. But other than the promonade, NOTHING (even OPS) feels like its DS9.

    1) OPS (or as I wanna term it, OOPS!) just feels dull, and boring. Nothing about it says, "Hey this is the operations hub for a giant space station and one of the most important outposts in deep space!". Nope. Just dull lighting, some uninteresting NPCs and a turbolift. Even Sisko's office is dimmed down, and no furniture to be seen inside!

    2) I have never seen a corridor like the ones in-game on DS9. I took a screen shot (http://www.wegame.com/view/ds9-corridor-i-think-not/) vs. what DS9 really looked like: (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:DS9_corridor.jpg). WTF? Daniel Stahl valiantly defended the STO team (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=2143552#post2143552) by saying they watch Star Trek, but I"m sorry... I cannot abide this. No stretch of the imagination can cover or explain away this artistic oversight.

    I'm growing more and more impatient with things just because I feel like ST fans are being duped once again into thinking they're getting the best when they aren't. I hate it when the fan-base is abused with substandard product, and STO is starting to look that way, though I am *still* remaining optimistic.

    The OP is absolutely correct -- STO artists needed to spend more time on this stuff. And I'm a little miffed that late last year Craig let us all know that the artists all had extra time to work on bridges... and we ALL know how haphazardly they were put together...

    yep, alot of weird art design decisions were made for this game...they can be fixed however...and perhaps we can slowly begin to repair what should have felt like ST but doesnt. They need to scrap the blue nebulae around earth....I look into the sky at night and see blackness...wtf is this blue stuff in the Sol system? It has got to go...it does not feel like earth. bridges and ship interiors need alot of work too. Give players the option to toggle it so that all space backgrounds are a black plain starfield...therefore people can have the option to have less colourful space...therefore making it feel more Trek. Allow us to disable engine trails...they never were in star trek...and we should be able to get rid of them. These are just a few suggestions, I have many more...but im sure they have been said many times elsewhere.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I do have to say that space looks good I think Ground it needs work.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    cmdrrom wrote: »
    I agree... sadly. I too am teetering on whether I should keep my subscription.

    What made me so mad was DS9 -- I won't deny it, I'm a DS9 fanatic right off the bat. But other than the promonade, NOTHING (even OPS) feels like its DS9.

    1) OPS (or as I wanna term it, OOPS!) just feels dull, and boring. Nothing about it says, "Hey this is the operations hub for a giant space station and one of the most important outposts in deep space!". Nope. Just dull lighting, some uninteresting NPCs and a turbolift. Even Sisko's office is dimmed down, and no furniture to be seen inside!

    2) I have never seen a corridor like the ones in-game on DS9. I took a screen shot (http://www.wegame.com/view/ds9-corridor-i-think-not/) vs. what DS9 really looked like: (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:DS9_corridor.jpg). WTF? Daniel Stahl valiantly defended the STO team (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=2143552#post2143552) by saying they watch Star Trek, but I"m sorry... I cannot abide this. No stretch of the imagination can cover or explain away this artistic oversight.

    I'm growing more and more impatient with things just because I feel like ST fans are being duped once again into thinking they're getting the best when they aren't. I hate it when the fan-base is abused with substandard product, and STO is starting to look that way, though I am *still* remaining optimistic.

    The OP is absolutely correct -- STO artists needed to spend more time on this stuff. And I'm a little miffed that late last year Craig let us all know that the artists all had extra time to work on bridges... and we ALL know how haphazardly they were put together...

    Well said, and proven. I miss Star Trek feeling so much in this game. I believe the mismatch between STO's look & feel and Star Trek, is caused by the fact that it's mostly recycled CO and other useful stuff, they made to date.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Not to mention the ugly cave systems on various exploring missions who are containing of empty caves including a console every 2nd to 3rd cave room.
    screenshot_2010-02-07-20-23-04.jpg
    screenshot_2010-02-03-19-17-57.jpg

    Not to mention the graphical issues they got, like invisible hostile parties and invisible players:
    screenshot_2010-02-03-19-20-20.jpg

    Quadratic shadows or just the lack of textures
    screenshot_2010-02-03-19-34-12.jpg
    screenshot_2010-02-03-19-34-48.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.