One of the benefits of the new client is that we are able to scale up the sprites consistently so it looks better on higher resolution monitors.
Unfortunately I am on an iPad atm so I cannot select each portion of your response seperately. You talk of lack of arguement but you have not yet presented any supporting evidence for your position. You have just reiterated your position over and over. You may believe it to be true but that doesnt make it fact. As much as I would love to show you a video of how hand painting works it was invented before the computer so you will have to take my word for it. People sometimes do things the old fashion way for artistic purposes. The maps are comissioned artwork. From actual artists. The map is just a grid that is overlayed over the artwork. Stuff like Lava is overlayed over the map to give the appearance that its part of it. 2-3 of the maps (FW, one of the UD maps and one other have been updated to digital artwork and animations and that is a continued process). As for the sprites, just because something takes less time or effort than another style does not make it any less of a style. Pixel artwork is an actual thing and Poxnoras sprite work is practically godlike in some circles. If you dont believe me take some samples over into a RPGMaker forum and watch jaws drop. They tried 3D animation for a short time during the Maljara expansion set and the models look foreign in game. Deploy a Northern Cross Templar, the modeling looks great if you take it out of game but weird in game. It was decided to return to pixel sprites because it looked beter in what they were trying to do. Also you talk of a dwindling playerbase but its been 5 months since the last expansion and we still are getting 120ish players at peak time (got down to 60ish at peak before DoG reaquired it) the game is growing even if the playerbase is still small.
Ok, I thought the facts were obvious, but here are a couple: 2006 was 10 years ago. It is 2016 now. The mainstream resolutions for gamers were around 800X600 or 1280x800 in 2006. They are now 4k. The sprites and the resolution of the sprites, in this game, were designed prior to 2006. Is that hard to follow? So, you are claiming they put oil on canvas and a magical camera turns them into sprites? I am going to bet they used Photoshop and the brush tool like everyone else in the world.... Again, the use of sprites is not style. I've explained this to you already four different ways. I can texture a 3D cube with the exact same .png file I used for a sprite if I like. You will never, ever, hear a group of developers sitting in a meeting room talking about whether or not to use 2D or 3D as a matter of "style." Never. Instead, they will talk about simplicity vs complexity in capabilities of their engine and their programmers. Nor does calling something a "style" make poor production quality acceptable. An acceptable player base size is another thing that is a matter of opinion. It is my opinion that sitting in the queue infinitely long, until you convince someone via global chat to join you, is a sign of an inadequate player base size. It is also my opinion that a player base size < 100 on average would not pay my bills or fund my future projects. It is also my opinion, that the game has probably seen thousands of players online at once and has the potential, given the current offerings in the ccg and tcg market, to see those numbers again, _if_ it is updated graphically. Those things are my opinion, an ultimately, it doesn't matter 2 bits what my or your opinions are. It's up to the developers and their leadership, and I am sure, they've already formed their opinions long ago.
Mate. Just stop. Claiming that a graphical update will get this playerbase back to the thousand mark and suggesting that "poor graphics" even though this game has incredibly good artwork that you would be hard pressed to find anything better than it is just laughable.
The sprites are made at the time of release. You seem to be suggesting that a game that has had regular releases multiple times a year for 10 years had all of its artwork made at the time of its initial release and has been slowly released since. The sprites made for the last expansion are sprites from 2016. Its like saying the Mustang is a terrible car because it was made in the 60s
This. PoxNora's main appeal is the usage of oldschool sprites that everyone loves. We kept the game alive for 10 years because of the gameplay, not because of flashy stuff. All the current ones need is merely the widescreen support so that they aren't so small.
First things first: Look at this video: . the video is about criticizing a big amount of PC "gamers" (more like hardware enthusiasts) saying PC is better because of 4k 60fps. 4K is still not mainstream. 4k Is not the standard. 1080p is and it seems that way because AAA games sell better on consoles (1080p systems) and not everyone on PC has 4k at their disposal. I get what you're saying. If PoxNora's sprites and maps looked like XCOM'S, I'm 100% it could grab a thousands of players more. You hardcore pox fans can't argue with that. Graphics DO matter. Just look at PS plus free games of the month. See how many dislikes there are from self proclaimed thrash gamers because they wanted something like batman: arkham knight or GTA 5 for free. Of course a huge amount of players will pass down on POX because it might look like a phone game to them. Doesn't mean it won't get enough players even with its current sprites. The art doesn't need updating. Hand painting isn't old school as OP says. Pox is in the state where they have 1 bullet left to shoot. If they fail, the clearly have to make this game as graphically good as XCOM'S. There is just no way it will succeed anyways IF they don't make it big in PS. Pox 2 is coming. For how small DOG is, they have no problem fitting their talents into another game. @Markoth stop lying about the playerbase. It has gone downhill. 5 games during nighttime is a joke.
I said peak, obviously there are going to be parts of the day where there are less. Peak is when the most people are online in a day. We are sitting at 92 atm and not at peak time. We had over 130 on a few days ago. This is during what is considered the slow part of a rotation cycle. We have had parts of an expansion cycle where peak of the day didnt break 70. We have not has a release in 5 months yet we are consistently hitting 100+ per night. Yes the population is much lower than during its golden age (Even then 600-800 was the peak) but the game HAS grown over the past year relative to where it was.
Look at PS exclusives atm. What do they all have in common? Good graphics. Last of Us Uncharted Infamous Killzone (last one was ok but still, their PS3 trilogy was beast) Horizon (I'm sure it will be a hit) Death Stranding Detroit God of War The Last Guardian (although this one has a different art style than others) Even Ratchet looks good. PS isn't a console that appreciates strategy game but it seems as of lately PS is getting more and more PC "exclusives" like Warframe, Planetside 2, Blacklight, Outlast, Ark Survival Evolved, The Forest, Killing Floor 2, Smite and yet they aren't fully strategy games. XCOM didn't sell well on the ps3 and I think the second one didn't do that good on PS4 as well, not sure. PS don't like this sort of games. I wouldn't expect this game to have thousands in a week. I just hope it is enough.
Grown as a game, yes. Grown in its playerbase, no. 92, 200, 300, is still low for a f2p game with as much content as this one. half of that peak play singleplayer. If I want to play, I need to play vs TinyDragon. People should not be bored from this game in terms of content. It's a great game. NOTHING comes close to it. If it did I wouldn't be here. It's going to be harder and harder to pull people in with its graphics and adding new runes each half a year. I know nothing can be done atm. 100 players can't provide enough resources to update the game to 3D. DOG had an alpha game that had 3d models. Looked like a 3D sci-fi turn base game. They're capable of converting Pox to 3D. Like I said. If PS fails. Just stop making expansions and update the game to 3D (sprites and maps). Like seriously. It's probably milking at this time. The client was supposed to be made years ago! Not trying be disrespectful here. I just want to be realistic. Do you think people will choose this game or XCOM? Like give a %. Gamers don't have enough money or time to spend it badly. You have to be compared. Everyone gets compared. Is how we do things better,
I'm sorry, I can't let people sit here and argue that 2006 was prior to 2016. I will eventually grow bored, as I am obviously dealing with a bunch of automatons. I've seen all manner of illogical white knight-ed-ness in my time, but this thread really takes the cake. That's my opinion, yes. If your's is that it won't, then great. No need to go on for another 80 pages. This does not appear to be a complete sentence or a complete thought. Use one subject, one verb, and a few commas, and I will try to make better sense of it. "poor graphics" or "good graphics" are opinions. I am not arguing whether the game has "poor graphics" or "good graphics." To do so would be as much a waste of time as trying to convince you that Coke tastes better than Pepsi. I am dealing with these cold hard truths: 1) I have to lower my monitor's resolution to make out the characters. 2) I find it difficult to select character when they are behind flyers or structures. 3) The game was made in 2006 4) 1&2 are a product of 3. Do you disagree? How the hell can you? Are you my eye doctor? Do you have a spy camera at my house watching me play? I thought is was game play and a somewhat unique set of mechanics.... If you simply enjoy low resolution sprites, IM me your email address and I will sell you some collections of them. You do see how you are contradicting yourself in the same post, don't you? All 70 of you are keeping the game alive? Do you know what is costs to pay 1 developer, much less a handful and some artists, along with software licenses and equipment? My salary is 160k/year and I live in a city with a low cost of living. Did you spend that much on this game this year? Did 10 of you combined? I'm pretty sure you aren't. I'm pretty sure it is in the red at this point. They've probably made their money in years past and are spending it now, in one last effort to expand to the console market. But who knows, I am not their accountant and their books have little to do with the fact that I have to lower the resolution of my monitor in order to play this game. Firstly, realize that when you scale up an image you are filling in space with best guesses as to what color the pixel should be. A certain amount of detail is lost. Increased resolution of the art assets is an option. At least, the game would be playable on a modern monitor with its native resolution. Whether or not that would be enough to bring in new players is a matter of opinion though. I think the game would need more modernizing then simply scaling up. There is still the problem with selection and visibility of units or structures that are behind others, due to the lack of a rotating camera. This is damn frustrating to me as a new player and makes me want to avoid certain areas of the map or tactics that would be strategically sound, if not for the limitations of the client.
@Fleshbits Finally back home. I have my client settings on Windowed, Widescreen, 1280x720 (16:9 Aspect Ratio). Should look normal on a 1900x1080 monitor without changing any monitor settings.
I hope on the PS4 it doesn't stretch out the sprites and look so darn blurry (get close to your PC screen so you know what I mean). You already said that the graphics need to fill today's standard. It's not hard to say that 7 days to die is worse in graphics than dayz gone for example.
dude, make poxnora 2, in ASCII graphic. i will still play it even it have only campaign/skirmish, because i enjoy good chesslike games with resource management Poxnora just a Ultra-High learning curve game that have Ultra-Bad UI, QoL, Combat Log, Bugs, music suddenly stop etc. lets wait for new client, i hope it will good. and i dont care PS, too expensive and later they just make another PS 5, PS 6, PS 7 anyway. PC Masterace ftw.
What is "normal?" Even if your monitor settings are 1900x1080, all that means is that you are more willing to put up with ridiculously small characters and someone else isn't. You don't truly think that taking an image from your monitors, set at an unknown resolution, of a game at a given resolution, to your clipboard, to some unknown software at an unknown resolution, onto a forum that may or may not resize, in my browser, on my monitors at an unknown resolution, is any mind of representation of the resolution a user experiences, do you? At any rate, my mouse pointer is larger than any square on that map.
I literally just posted what my settings were in client and out. You even replied to that post. I have been trying to be polite and helpful but are you just looking to troll or what?
