Art Question 1 - Choosing our visual style

What is preferred graphics style?

There are several types of art styles a game (simulator) can have to operate visually.

1- Simulator style. Getting as close to the real as possible. As many polygons as possible, photo textures, no enhancing visual effects (like bloom, dynamic particles, etc…). Gives a really accurate representation of what the real model is, on the downside the graphics feel “boring” and artificial. Examples- DCS series, Lock-on, LFS, iRacing, MFSX.

2- Sci-fi style. Epic skyboxes, aesthetically pleasing color mixes, extensive application of post processing, great design (and polygon number) of models. Definitely a beautiful sight, but tends to stray away, or “overdo” the realism. Examples- Mass Effect series, EVE online, Mirrors Edge.

3- Blockbuster style. An art style based on “Hollywood” effects and very fast paced action. Hollywood effects include stuff like extreme water effects, overuse of muzzle flashes, massively detailed explosions, and extensive scripting. On the downside the polygon models are not as detailed and the realism is hurt severely. Examples- COD series, Halo series, BF2 series.

4- Grim (Horror) style. Based on shadows, contrast and light effects, and high res textures. Creates great atmosphere, coupled with music, and provides player with a thrilling ride with, arguably, deepest emotions. On the downside the realism is hurt severely and this art style gets repetitive and tiring for your eyes. Examples- Silent Hill Series, FEAR, Doom 3, Resident evil.

5- Cartoon style- pretty self explanatory, features bright colors and funky shapes. Quite pleasing and easy for your eyes. Also appears to be drawn instead of rendered. On the downside, absolute lack of visual realism and gives the game a “dumber” look. Examples- Spore, Sims, Little big Planet.

6- Electronic style- Based on functionality and system resource management rather than being visually appealing. Great when the game has great mechanics and needs to be accessible to ALL the devices for free. On the downside… makes any game look ridiculous. Examples- Minecraft, Runescape, Tetris, Pacman

There are indeed mixes and crossovers in styles for many games, but usually one style predominates. That is what we are disussing.

So what do you IDEALLY want Thrive to look like?

Personally I am between combining Grim style with Sci-fi.

The best thing to shoot for, is of course realism- the only things we're really going to have control over are things like the GUI and menus, because everything else is created by the player. However, we can choose an art style for creations that we make, preferrably one that focuses on looking very good, but staying at a lower poly-count.

~sciocont wrote:

The best thing to shoot for, is of course realism- the only things we're really going to have control over are things like the GUI and menus, because everything else is created by the player. However, we can choose an art style for creations that we make, preferrably one that focuses on looking very good, but staying at a lower poly-count.

I supose.

My vote goes for a balance of Sci-Fi and Realism.

The problem is that we can't really define anything visually because it's mostly player-made, or evolved from our base models. I guess we have control over the textures, though. I think realism would be the safest bet, especially if sci-fi has specifically "well-designed models". Because that is one thing we can't do, define how good the models are.

I Have to go with realism, but we have to remember something important: Borderlands. Borderlands' textures were probably the best I've evr seen in a video game, and they were all basically just sketches, pen and watercolor. The game looked very realistic, but when you took a closer look at something, you could see the artistry there. I think we shoudl look into what we can do to really influence the look of the game with textures.
Concept art for Borderlands

US_of_Alaska wrote:

The problem is that we can't really define anything visually because it's mostly player-made, or evolved from our base models. I guess we have control over the textures, though. I think realism would be the safest bet, especially if sci-fi has specifically "well-designed models". Because that is one thing we can't do, define how good the models are.

Since we are creating the engine we can definitely decide how complex will the player models be. We can control how our base models look; we can control how many polygons will the planet detail/landscape have, LOD’s, amount of post processing, blur on the third person camera… the list is endless. We can define the boundaries for the player, but we cannot control the product of our graphical capabilities. And yes, the textures too

That brought me to the question of choosing the “style” of our graphical capabilities.

Well-designed and detailed model which has been well optimized is about 20-30k polygons for the main character or main objects for the game (take mass effect series). For modern simulators it’s about 70-80k polygons per model. Polygon count is, indeed, not the cornerstone of 3d modeling, but it is greatly responsible for how detailed an smooth the object is.

Where did you get that simulators can't have post processing? It's just that all sims you selected were created in age of computers too slow to handle large terrains and aftereffects at once.

Arma 2 ingame trailer

I think we should mix simulator with sci-fi and a bit of blockbuster...
But the main style is however given by the player, by its creations.

Sci-fi/Realism - I want realism. Lots of it. Can't get enough. Well, I can, but... This game needs to be so good computers explode from the demand! Because when this game comes out, it will be the future, and they wont! Well, they might... But we can still turn down the graphics.

Hang on, in the future, it will still be the present, and the present will be the past. But then the future will be the past. So what is the present and future? Well, it's the present and future of the future, and the present present is the past, and so is the past, and some of the future will also be the past, and some present, but not much. I just blew up your minds over something you all understand...

Anyway, this game has been created in the future, which will be the present when the game was will be created, and so lets just say computers are 10x better than they are now, for now, and then in the future computer will be as good as they are.

Commander Keen wrote:

Where did you get that simulators can't have post processing? It's just that all sims you selected were created in age of computers too slow to handle large terrains and aftereffects at once.

Arma 2 ingame trailer

I am aware of ARMA 2, and the core for the engine was also programmed a while ago.

Anyhow, what I said was “enhancing visual effects”. You are right, maybe I have not made myself clear, but what I meant is additional effects to make the graphics look “nicer” than IRL. An example of that would be massive overuse of blur in NFS Shift.

i understand
like little effects to make the graphics look better then they are
like an optical illusion

Gotrol wrote:

I am aware of ARMA 2, and the core for the engine was also programmed a while ago.

Anyhow, what I said was “enhancing visual effects”. You are right, maybe I have not made myself clear, but what I meant is additional effects to make the graphics look “nicer” than IRL. An example of that would be massive overuse of blur in NFS Shift.

Yeah, core of Arma is veeery old, the first Poseidon prototype was created in 1997 I think.

Also, graphics theme is mostly closely tied with the game theme. Simulators mostly have photorealistic graphics, NFS usually have emphasis on speed (motion blur every time, etc.), retro games (Minecraft), and similar.

Commander Keen wrote:

Yeah, core of Arma is veeery old, the first Poseidon prototype was created in 1997 I think.

And the Source Engine that all Valve's games use is directly based off the original Quake engine.

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The best thing to shoot for, is of course realism- the only things we're really going to have control over are things like the GUI and menus, because everything else is created by the player. However, we can choose an art style for creations that we make, preferrably one that focuses on looking very good, but staying at a lower poly-count.

I supose.

My vote goes for a balance of Sci-Fi and Realism.

QFT (obviously). In some instances, regarding the situation, we might tweak the shaders a bit (I.E. more bloom or darker shadows).

Of course, at the start, graphics won't be our top priority. If we can get the visual generators and etc. down by some point in the project, then we'll focus on this.

Actually looking back, we'll have to keep this in mind when making things for advertisement purposes, I.E. concept art and 3d renders. Keep your eye on his, Djohaal.

So the consensus is reached on the point of making a simulator with sc-fi art elements.

The reason I asked this question is, that the art style doesn’t juts boil down to in-game graphics, but also, as Noitulove mentioned, relates to concept art, menu style, music style, ambient sounds, trailer style, font style, etc…. (all the little details)

If we establish a guideline to what type of art promotion and visual representation we want in early development stage, then the actual product will be easier to achieve and the art style will be solid which will, in its term, bring a unique atmosphere to Thrive.