I heard there was a new client coming? I don't see any posts on it at all. Where are they? Is it going to be 3D with rotating camera? My #1 pet peeve about this dated UI is that you cannot see behind things. It is really hard to battle and target while behind a bunch of flyers or behind structures.
The new client will have a new UI and clean up a ton of code but will not be changing the art or sprites so rotating camera would not be included.
Well, that seems silly. Why make a new client and keep such dated art, animations, and sprites? Not very attractive for new players. I've got to change my resolution to 1280X800 maximum to even see the sprites and they aren't exactly good looking, even for 10 years ago.
the art style and sprites are part of the game. Look at some of those sprites and tell me they don't look awesome. Like the ireguard when he roars and flexes, it's insanely cool and brings out the imagination while playing.
Anything that requires a monitor to go half of its native resolution in order to see it, is not so awesome.
my computer runs it just fine but then again I have never tried to run it full screen. Also as far as spritework goes, Pox is as good as it gets. You may not like the art style but I would chalenge you to find better sprites elsewhere.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. At any rate, I've got no problem playing games that market gameplay over graphics, but when you have to go and adjust your monitor resolution just to play the game, it's gone a bit too far. I mean, I play roguelikes from 1989, but they have tilesets on modern resolutions. If you want to increase the player base with new players, a graphics overhaul is going to be needed. I know this, because I am one. Strategy runs in my blood and I yearn for it, but this game is really pushing my limits on the minimal acceptable graphics. I am way more lenient then most people.
Are you running a Commodore 64 or an Amiga? Do you have superhuman vision? What resolution are you running it at? We are not talking about "style." I don't know why gamers have allowed themselves to be trained by the industry to call shoddy production, "style." You can make the graphics look exactly like they do now at a modern resolution or in 3D. Style has nothing to do with the discussion at all. Obviously, they are "good enough" for you, or you wouldn't be here, but realize you are the last remnants. The game has less than 100 people online at any time of day that I have looked. The graphics were created prior to 2006, and indie 2006 at that. They need updating. There is nothing to argue or defend here, really.
I will check when I gt home what I have the client set to. My monitor itself is a 1900x1080. I know I have the client set to Windowed and picked a size that is scaled down. Takes up about a 3rd of my screen. O dont change the screen resolution, the client itself has a few dozen options under settings.
Spritework is an art style though. There is no animation. Literally every pixel is hand done. Its the same as looking at claymation like Wallace and Gromit and asking why it looks funny relative to an animated movie. The movement that a unit does when selected or attacking is a sequence of seperate sprites deplayed in order to give the appearance of moving.
Sprites are a technology, not a style. They've been around since the 80s, and probably before that if not mainstream. You can make a sprite that is 5 pixels and you can make a sprite that is 2k pixels. One would be acceptable in 1983 and one would be acceptable in 2016. I don't know wtf you mean by "hand done." This isn't wood working, this is digital artwork. It was done on a computer using software like any other digital artwork. If you don't think there is animation, then you don't know what the word means. I'm sitting here looking at Euan Ironfist breathing and holding moving fists up and down, with probably less than 5 frames for each motion. But again, why are you arguing with me? Is it seriously anyone's position that a game released in 2006 does not look dated in 2016? If so, I am afraid they are beyond the reach of any logic or reason.
Thing is, you are so wrong on half the things you've said but because your attitude is equally bad nobody is gonna bother correcting you.
Sure it looks dated but to me thats the difference between the sprites from the first few expansions and say Charger Knight. Using Sprites is a deliberate artistic choice and recent sprites look much better than the old ones. They go along with the maps that are literally hand painted. You cannot expect the sprites to get updated because there are 1-2000 champions. Creating a new sprite or as you seem to be asking for 3D animated models take an hour or two to make apiece. Updating everything is 10,000 hours of manpower which the 1-2 artists on staffs cant do in any reasonable amount of time. The part that I agree with is that the UI is outdated and that is what is getting updated. The client itself will look cleaner and more modern. The tutorials and marketplace will be shiny and crisp. Asking for a new artstyle is unreasonable.
My attitude, my vocation, my weight, and whether or not I like Pepsi, have nothing to do with the argument. This is a skill Millennials have picked up on social media. When there is no argument left to be had, use Ad-Hominem. In order to claim I am wrong about something, you'd first need to specify what it is I am wrong about. Then you'd need to actually prove it using factual information, logic, and reason. No. Sprites are a technology. The question on whether or not to use them to present the main features of a video game, as opposed to Voxels, 3D models, or a number of other technologies, is one of time, resources, and skill. Using 2D sprites is easier and less time consuming than creating, texturing, and animating 3D models. _and that's fine!_, as long as they are high enough resolution to be used with a modern monitor in its native resolution. I can use either one and make them look "comic book", "retro", or "matte", which would be "artistic styles." Can you show me a video of this technique you are calling "hand painted" vs not "hand painted?" In all my 40 years on computer graphics, I have not run across it. Everyone I know uses a mouse and some manner of graphics software to create assets. I can and I would. Is it a gargantuan task? Sure. Is it a larger task then creating an entirely new game from scratch? No. It is really a question of whether or not they want to dedicate resources to doing it, if it is possible to do it incrementally, and whether or not it would be worth it. The latter being key. Rendering in 3D, allowing for camera rotation, but using billboarded sprites is also an option. If they want to continue holding on to a 10 year old game with the last remnants of its player base and see how long it lasts until there are simply not enough people left to get a game, that is a reasonable and valid option. If they expect to draw new players using some other means, that is also an option. It involves betting on an opinion that it would work. I think that would fail, and that is my opinion. I really doubt many new players, in 2016 and beyond, are going to get past the low resolution of this game, much more the low number of frames in its animations, and the dated effects. Again, I am pretty lenient compared to the average gamer, and I find it hard to swallow. If they want to breathe new life into a 10 year old game that has addictive and well working game mechanics, and a large library of assets (runes), by updating it graphically, that is also an option and one that involves betting on an opinion. Namely, that it would work and it would be worth it. I think this game would easily put the current ccg and tcg offerings to shame if it was updated graphically (and hex based but that's another topic). That opinion is my opinion.
