I feel the same.
The objects and characters are not popping out and lights aren’t bouncing off the walls.
I hate floating numbers. I prefer a turn off option for the annoying numbers.
It’s too cartoonish. I need pure action without numbers which cover/mask out brute massacre.
My 2 cents. If the graphics are as good as or improved from TQ and the game play is better that is good enough for me. I play these type of games to enjoy the game play not look at photo quality graphics.
yarly. D2 didn’t get played for 10 years for being pretty. Same for Starcraft, and soon Warcraft3. I mean, if you guys improve the graphics from TQ, good for you, but honestly, I wouldn’t mind the same or lesser than TQ’s. The shots I see are fine imo, so long as the gameplay is solid(which it seems to be)
I hope they are at least on par with TQ. I very much appreciate the pre-pre-pre-alpha shots but they do look pretty rough (understandable).
And we appreciate the feedback! I was asking various questions about how you might remember the game or what your taste might be in terms of style / direction to get an idea of where you were coming from. Often, even among developers, someone will say they don’t like something because of X and then after asking some questions you find out it is really because of Y. Not to say that was the case here - I’m just trying to understand your feedback in the proper context. I appreciate that you followed up with a detailed description.
My biggest gripe with TQ’s graphics was the often weird looking normal maps.
If you’re talking about what I think you are, it is most likely due to many objects in TQ using bump maps converted into normal maps instead of true normal maps. When we started making TQ normal mapping hadn’t really caught on and we only added the tech for it towards the end of development.
the textures look very low res. They look blurry. The overall impression of the screenshots is that they seem to lack contrast. Both in lighting and in textures. As a result, everything looks very flat and dull.
Almost all of the textures are equal or higher resolution than those used in TQ. In a couple cases such as some particle effects and terrain “poly-grass” we learned how to get equal or better results with smaller textures (which is harder for us but better for your performance - it would be much easier to go higher resolution).
In some cases, if you’re looking at objects toward the edge of the screen you could be seeing the new depth of field tech. This makes objects in the distance look softer. While it looks a little blurry in screenshots sometimes, I think it looks good in-game and helps to reduce noise in the scenes and focus players on the action in front of them. If players find they don’t like it, there is an option to disable it.
If you’re talking about specific objects like the modular buildings walls - those are a bit blurry right now but are just first-pass art and will most likely be fixed. The actual textures look great I think but there seems to be a texture-mapping issue that is making them get stretched out on that model.
The lighting has changed a bit since we took the original screenshots, so part of it may also be that I’m used to playing a nicer looking version of the game than you’re seeing in those old shots.
As for the terrain textures, there was no specular mapping on terrain in TQ but we’ve added it for GD. All the ground textures are the same resolution as TQ. The “poly-grass” textures are mostly the same size, although some are actually smaller but I believe as good or better looking. I’ll post some side-by-sides of the terrain textures soon. I kind of wanted to do a little write-up about that anyway since we actually went out and took our own photo-ref of plants and ground textures this time instead of relying on the internetz.
Anyway, I played a bit of TQ to refresh my memory and, despite the fact that much of our current art is unpolished or even stand-in, I’m having a tough time seeing how TQ is qualitatively vastly superior looking. Here are some roughly equivalent shots of each.
Now, you might tell me it’s the mood and the setting, but I don’t think there’s a conflict between a foggy swamp/dirty village and attractive, contrasted light/shadow and texture. Quite the opposite. It looks like there are some normal mapping but the specular isn’t very prominent… they could show more (IE better lighting I guess).
Here is a shot in roughly the same place on the bridge as the one above but with a different lighting profile. This is probably more like what the lighting will be like in most other environments, we just happened to start out with a darkly lit swamp area. Without light it is hard to have have to high contrast as it is the light hitting objects in the scene that gives them their sense of three-dimensionality and helps to establish the depth of different objects in the scene. Shadows also appear darker, making objects stand out more from the ground.
I think maybe the textures look a bit photo sourced as well…
Just out of curiosity - which things seem the most photo-sourced to you?
The color of the flame in the barrels and torches look very detached. They don’t seem to glow or radiate any light. Ok they do, but not in a very dramatic and visual sense. And this IS a dramatic game, is it not? The light they DO radiate look very much like a generic omni/point light placed above it. It doesn’t feel like the flame itself is lighting the area around it.
Heh, well, you guessed it - they’re generic point lights. It kills me that we can’t put dynamic shadow-casting lights on everything but they eat up framerate faster than just about anything else. We had very few shadow-casting lights in TQ though, so this shouldn’t be any different. I think the color could possibly be adjusted better. I’ve thought about looking into a video option for players with high-end PCs that would switch the simple lights in the level into shadow-casting lights.
Anyway, thanks for the critique. It is good to get some constructive critical feedback now and again (although 10 years old? really?! :o ) as it usually stirs up the ants nest and gets us looking at everything with a magnifying glass. Even though the game hasn’t had a polish pass, we’re still self-conscious about the way it looks and negative feedback always gets us fussing about the things that need improvement. It’s also funny because some things in the game we scrutinize and become over-critical of that most people would never notice and other times we look at something bad so long we become desensitized to it and forget that it’s a problem.
On the other hand, the screenshots also look like they were getting a bit out of date. We recognize that things certainly still could use improvement and are striving to get there. Given our small team and budget, there are going to be limitations to what we can accomplish but I’m pretty sure the end result will look no older than 3 years tops! 
Wow, thanks for the detailed post and comparison Medierra. 
Love the side-by-side (up-by-down?) shots of similar areas between Grim Dawn and TQ, the foliage I think looks much better and sharper in Grim Dawn and the transitions appear much more natural (water to grass, grass to rock/cliff). Been hoping for some new screenies for awhile, so that helps satisfy me there.
I think some of it looks ‘softer’, but as you describe I think that’s part the tech and part the lighting and personally really like how it’s looking. In the pic with the zombies and building the plant and ground textures look great!
Soul
Ooo interesting! It makes sense now! Now that you said it, I can see why they look weird sometimes.
I didn’t mean to compare TQ with GD in every respect and if GD somehow didn’t live up to the legacy I was gonna write Grim Dawn off as useless. So don’t get me wrong there. I don’t think it’s such a good idea to compare too much with such an old game in any case. I would rather look ahead at your competition and possible competitors and try and beat/learn from them instead.
The fact that TQ DIDN’T have spec maps don’t make GD instantly better looking. I know that’s not what you said, my point is simply that if something just don’t look as good as something else, it doesn’t matter what kind of tech is involved. I suppose maybe TQ managed a fresh (and still appealing) look is, like you said, the saturated, bright world with lots of vibrant colors.
But that only means that it’s more challenging to make GD pop out and look fantastic.
Here is where we just differ I guess. I think those screenshots show exactly what I mean. Look at the wall in the first TQ shot. It’s sort of blurry (and with the weird normals), yes, but it doesn’t strike me as annoying as the blurry wall in the GD screenshot below. Maybe it’s because the GD texture try to cram more detail into the same area without a higher resolution texture to help that. Granted both shots are zoomed in and I never played TQ with that camera angle and I suspect I won’t be doing it in GD either. The ground doesn’t bother me much in either shot. It looks fine in GD. Although let me just say, this is 6 years after TQs release… one would assume texture sizes to have increased a step in that time. But I appreciate the difficulty in balancing new tech, texture size and performance :p.
http://www.grimdawn.com/screenshots/tq01.jpg
http://www.grimdawn.com/screenshots/2010apr24_zombies01.jpg
That’s a great improvement right there. If that’s light only, all the better. But the rocks still look blurry and stuff :p.
I don’t know if I spoke too soon about that, but I think it’s the overall colors that make me feel that way. Can’t put my finger on it really. The colors bleed into each other and everything looks sort of grey and brown and dull. Also, something I noticed was that a lot of art seem to lack (or have only very little) baked AO. Though you said the houses were modular? That would explain part of it, I guess.
But in this shot below, the wall on that house look sort of photo sourced. And the cobble stones on the ground as well.
Again, this feels wrong in my ears. That it “shouldn’t be any different” than TQ doesn’t really sound right to me. Are you trying to live up to an old game or are you trying to beat the shit out of it and make something new and fresh? It’s like you’re settling for less …or trying to make me change my mind and suddenly say “oooh, well in THAT case…”.
The thing is, Torchlight for example, uses no fancy shaders as far as I know. It’s all color textures. But they have a VERY consistent art style and for them it works. It feels a little bit old but it’s still very beautiful. So I’m not saying that nothing can look good unless it uses uber leet high tech extra extra raytraced lighting with radiosity and 2048 maps and what not.
Oh, and out of my curiosity, what position do you have on the team?
World of warcraft and Torchlight colors are overly saturated.
If you have a colorful game, everything pops out. This is the direction diablo3 is heading towards which fans from the first disliked. I mean when you have a cartoonish style, it’s easier to get away from something that’s off because it’s a cartoon representation of something and it’s not real. On the other hand, this game tries to be realistic as possible and if the textures are not as sharp or real, it shows. I believe if Grim Dawn can control better contrast and dramatic lighting, it’s going to be one of the few realistic action rpg of this generation. It’s going to be a smash hit without a doubt!
The only gripe I see on some of the screenshots is the low resolution / blurry look on some textures, but since elements are still going to get polished, I’m not going too much into it yet. If something increases the overall quality much in the games, it’s the texture resolution for me. Diablo 3’s textures look way too washed out for my tastes. Well, the thing that strikes me most is the fact it has oversaturated cartoony look.
I really like the way Grim Dawn is shaping up when it comes to general mood of the game. It’s dark and gritty, bloody, realistic looking. Not all sunshine and rainbows, although of course I don’t mind some daywalking too. What I’m most concerned about is how much do we get some memorable graphical places to visit. Would love some, instead of just generic graveyard, generic farmlands and stuff. Although I know it’s the way to add content and length the quickest way, and I also know they are realistically part of the normal world. Just asking for some exceptions that makes the game more memorable.
I know the development team isn’t big and thus, I’m not waiting for miracles. But I just love the fact that this team is willing to listen to the feedback of consumers this actively. And I hope it’s a long road to walk with GD in form of expansions and stuff, so I’m hopeful that this game will get polished even further later on.
I’m eagerly waiting for the video though. Everything looks better in movement, that’s for sure.
I have big faith and respect to this team for so actively listening and responding to fans desires and wishes. Makes the waiting so much less painful to hear about the progress of the game.
Went slightly off-topic here, sorry about it. But anyway…
TLDR: Some textures need more resolution to make the image more sharp and realistic. I’m mostly looking at the stones on walkways and some walls too.
Edit: Actually, now that I look more closely to the pictures, the textures are way more crisp closer to the camera. So is the depth of field kicking in too early? As I see the textures go blurry quite early on, even when the camera is placed quite much topside of the player.
Again, this feels wrong in my ears. That it “shouldn’t be any different” than TQ doesn’t really sound right to me. Are you trying to live up to an old game or are you trying to beat the shit out of it and make something new and fresh? It’s like you’re settling for less …or trying to make me change my mind and suddenly say “oooh, well in THAT case…”.
My interest in responding is to try to determine what, specifically, a TQ fan who liked the look of that game doesn’t like about the screenshots for Grim Dawn. In saying what shouldn’t be different, I’m trying to focus in on the things that are different that are contributing to your negative reaction.
If it is just that the game doesn’t look as good as Modern Warfare 2 or that some of the art isn’t polished yet, well, we’re already aware of that. Based on your reaction to other posters and you response to my first post it sounded like it was something different though and that is of interest to us.
Grim Dawn is a departure from the look of TQ and, while we chose this direction based on feedback from fans and believe most fans will enjoy it; we realize not everyone will. It is important to us though to understand our audience, especially when they’re providing critical feedback.
Different people have different tastes and while it obviously doesn’t make sense to change course every time we hear a differing opinion, we want to know what those opinions are, how many people feel that way, and why. Without understanding these factors, we can’t really make informed decisions for our audience and build the best game for them that we can.
I think given the number of new features that we’ve added, both graphical and gameplay, that we’re making an obvious effort to surpass TQ. We just tend to be modest, so we don’t talk as big as we think.
Oh, and out of my curiosity, what position do you have on the team?
I’m the manager and lead designer at Crate but I wear many hats just as I did in the early days of Iron Lore before we got the contract for TQ. Although my responsibility on TQ was design, I ended up making a lot of terrain textures and particle effects. Now I’m back at it again, so you know, I had to make sure it wasn’t my stuff that sucked! 
The rock texture looks a bit like it lacks some sharper normal mapping maybe? The depth of field is probably a bit exaggerated given the top/down camera angle, but then again that might create a nicer experience when actually playing the game as opposed to viewing a screenshot.
By “proper normal map” do you mean a normal map created with sooftware such as Crazybump or are you talking about actually modeling geometry of environment surfaces or are you talking about software such as Crazybump or the Nvidia Photoshop filter? actually modeling the surface would be crazy and incredibly time consuming yes, but some higher budget games do this.
I can’t imagine doing any environment textures without photo source, especially given a gritty art direction. A more painterly style can of course look good like in Diablo 3, but it must take A LOT of time to make and gives more of a fairytale look.
Oooo! New screenies! Sweet
The thing I’m personally most worried about though, is that the main character seems to blend in with the environment. He doesn’t stand out enough - might be different when playing the game, but I don’t know. It actually took me a more than a second to spot the character in this screenie;
Such things could perhaps be helped by placing a player light underneath the player;
Or, what some other game devs do when creating games with a dark atmosphere, make the player stand out by making him brighter/sharper than his environment (e.g. L4D, D3). This should be done subtly though.
I hope I’m not making you frustrated ;s. I’m trying to point out things that I believe could be improved with your current chosen style. I’m not saying that I wish that it would change, not at all. I’m trying to explain why the, so far shown, execution of that style could be improved in my eyes, and of course I’m just one person. I like the style just not the way it’s turning out. I’m not a one style-man. I love everything from cartoony Torchlight and colorful Braid to bloomy, dirty brown UT3, as long as the style is well executed and consistent it’s usually nice and interesting. Not saying “COPY GAME X AND Y”, absolutely not.
So I’m trying to say that don’t see me as a TQ fan, but as a game art fan :D. But now it feels like I’m being arrogant and I don’t wanna go there. So I believe that you guys, as experienced game makers, will put out something nice in the end that I will want to play!
Ah, I can relate to that : p.
You don’t have to do completely without them. But if you overdo it and without proper editing and mixing and combining and color correction etc etc, it will just look awkward in a game engine.
I like the idea of putting a light on your character, or something to make them stand out.
I just don’t like to see player character fade into the scenery. I do like this kind of dark, gritty style. Though, I could see where a little more color, maybe a slightly brighter spectrum would be nice, especially for the player’s character.
Also, I would say - don’t be afraid to invent your own plant life, wild life, bugs, or anything for that matter, remember this isn’t earth. It’s a planet or place with humanoid beings that happened to be in the Victorian era of their evolution. Magic, electricity, and other wonders exist.
The same could apply to architecture and buildings.
Where are new screenies? These are dated March 17th or before.
Edit: Oops, I think you meant these.
Edit #2: They are from today
http://www.grimdawn.com/screenshots/2010apr24_zombies01.jpg
http://www.grimdawn.com/screenshots/2010apr24_bridge01.jpg
http://www.grimdawn.com/screenshots/2010apr24_bridge02.jpg
nice new double barelled shotgun screenies.
- 50% chance to Head shot
- 100% chance to buy box edition too in 2011:)
+1 % chance to find videos
Looks like triple barrel though:).
Hm, while I agree that TL has a consistent look, I like TQ graphics better than TL. In fact for ARPGs I still like TQ graphics best.
I agree that the lighting in GD is too dark for my taste, the lighter bridge screenshot look a lot better to me.