bjack on 17/12/2014 at 22:26
Graphic slow down (very low FPs) is experienced in some of the New Dark FMs. Is this limited extra content really worth it?
Yes, No, or It depends...
Edited to change "video" to "graphics".
Xorak on 18/12/2014 at 02:23
I say it depends, because graphics for graphics sake veers too close towards what Thief 4 is and what most modern AAA games are. If the graphics help to retain the atmosphere of Thief while also encouraging classic Thief gameplay mechanisms then I say go for it.
downwinder on 18/12/2014 at 02:49
i find missions that are over done and laggy to be shit compared to the classic fan missions that run amazing,so yes i think it matters a lot,as not everyone is going to get a top notch comp just to play thief fan missions,i am kinda sad to see some missions are so intense with graphics that i cant even run them,i also don't feel graphic make thief a better game,usually its at the cost of puzzles in game,making mission nothing more then eye candy with lack of mission content.
i would rather play a mission with stock graphic witha great story line and puzzles,compared to a great looking mission with lack of content
Mofleaker on 18/12/2014 at 03:46
Interesting topic. It's a genuine concern; every minute spent engraving details onto a wall is a minute which could have been spent expanding the level, albeit with lesser detail.
Ideally "pushing newdark to its limit" means levels packed with more content, unrestricted by the harsh boundaries of old dark. The downside is longer build times. We're all still testing the waters, and there are a lot of missions on the horizon. So we'll just have to wait and see.
fortuni on 18/12/2014 at 09:55
Absolutely Yes....without artists pushing the boundaries we would never have had 'Seven Sisters' by Lady Rowena, '7th Crystal' and 'Rose Cottage' by Saturnine, almost any of Sensut's missions and 'Kings Story' by Zontik. Even the great Komag was pushing the boundaries in his day.
The fact is all artists, whatever their field want to do things that have never been done before, without their experimental inner urge the human species would be a poorer race on a cultural level
yes it may be annoying if you do not have a machine that can cope with some modern missions, but to say they should restrict their missions to simplistic FMs to satisfy those who have older less powerful computers is like saying companies should not make smart phone apps as not everyone has a smart phone
ZylonBane on 18/12/2014 at 19:21
Given how resolution-limited videos are in the Dark engine, I have a hard time believing anyone made a video for their FM that burned enough bitrate to cause slowdown. Maybe they used a lossless codec? Still, doesn't seem like it would be so widespread an issue as to be worth starting a thread over it.
qolelis on 18/12/2014 at 19:45
At the risk of being forced to eat my own words later (anything I might release from this point on will most likely be dissected to the death :p ), I'll say this:
I would say the real question to ask oneself is "Would my mission still be rewarding to play without all the enhanced graphics?" and if the answer is "no", then go back and rethink the whole thing. That's the short of it.
If the answer is instead "yes", then, by all means, enhance the graphics all you want (perhaps at the expense of losing some potential players, though). Now, I'm not saying that having amazing visuals is a bad thing in itself, but it might steer you away from what really matters in a game (which, by definition, is a great deal, if not all, about interaction) and without the content to back it up, your mission just becomes an empty shell, so get your priorities straight; first add that great gameplay and story, have everything working, ask the above question again - and iterate if needed, then enhance the visuals if your time/energy/will/ability/etc admits it.
Sure, if what you want to create is something to look at rather than interact with, do that (it's your mission after all and you can do whatever you want with it), although you will probably loose some potential players.
Disclaimer:
I took it that you by "video" meant "visuals in general"!?
bjack on 18/12/2014 at 21:11
Thanks everyone for your replies and participation so far. It seems some feel "meh" about it, and others outright "yes it is worth it" .
I am one of the "no", but leaning toward the "it depends" people. I am not an FM maker and it is their prerogative to enhance as much as they can. Still, I do appreciate warnings, like those that were made for "The Farm" that slowness may be experienced. While my system is old, it is not super slow. I can play some pretty graphic intense games that blow away T2 visually (like Fable, The Lost Chapters, or Myst Uru). The Dark Mod plays fine on my system too. What concerns me is what looks like just simple additions to T2 are really slowing things down to a crawl.
Still, for the most part I do not have any play issues with the majority of New Dark FMs. The exceptions are when there is of animation is added. Swaying plants, particulate fog, moving machines, etc. in very large open areas are the usual problems. I think that in other games, these items are suppressed if they are far from view. Is it true that in New Dark everything is active no matter how far away it is, as long as it is potentially in view?
And Fortuni, I have played all those excellent FMs you mention and had zero problems with them video wise. I see nothing in New Dark FMs that blows away the visual coolness factor of King's Story though. I do love the new mantle and the other bug fixes, but super slow downs just for a little larger playing field with swaying grass? I don't think it is worth it.
And qolelis, what I should have been more specific about is the added content that slow everything down to 2 FPS. Anything that slow down play drastically.
Thanks again all!
nbohr1more on 18/12/2014 at 22:22
I guess the answer to this question depends on the following:
1) Is the limit you are approaching one that scales with CPU or GPU power?
If it's the former then you probably shouldn't go there because CPU improvement is slow, whilst GPU's keep improving exponentially.
2) Is the NewDark team continuing to improve performance scalability?
We don't have any way to predict how much more development will happen but more performance hungry missions might prompt
them to try to improve\optimize further.
3) Are you doing something suited to the engine?
For example, are you bogging down a map with scripting events to make AI behave more intelligently when you could instead build
your mission on The Dark Mod where the AI are more intelligent by default and the source is openly available to add new features to
the core project.
NewDark has the primary advantage of being well suited to large open spaces, big cityscapes, etc. It still runs into issues where lots of
detail is packed into a scene and especially seems to run afoul of performance when texture data is heavy (HD Mods are probably making
some missions seem heavier than they would be using vanilla assets.) Skacky is an author who capitalizes NewDark's strengths...
So I guess if you're asking "should mappers produce smaller maps so that the HD mod will run smooth?" I would say no to that. Graphic cards
continue to have more memory on-board and grown in bandwidth quite quickly. I've got a cheap $60 GPU that runs faster than
an 8800GS high-end card from a few years back. If people want HD textures, they should get better video cards not ask mappers to reduce
their mission polys to 1999 levels :)
