Pox Nora Complete Overhaul - and why it should happen.

Actually I don't mind Pox's graphics the way they are for the most part... that being sprites that is.
I do think it does need some graphic polish but those would be smaller things like the distract animation, or sand tiles, etc...

Some really good examples how they have actually addressed some graphic issues:

1) Firestorm - spell animation before and now are different. The animation is kickass now.
2) Maps - revamped maps are very nice

As for revamping rune sprites there are a LOT of old runes so this doesn't strike me as a good use of time.
A better more manageable solution would be to develop a new sprite and then work that look into a LARGE content release.
Unfortunately that would split the runes into OLD sprites and NEW sprites so some rotation may be required ala MTG.
Slowly midreleases could involve redone old sprites ala reprints. Selections would be based on faction identity and balance since this would cut down the 'type 2' playable runepool.

As for those that want a total retooling you basic have that right now and it's called conquest of champions

Sorry still like this game better ^_^

 

Yobles, you always deliver, keep on keepin on, brue.

 

- Dat Doomball Lyfe. Ugly as f*ck.

P.s. Releasing better sprites and art for new runes would be revenue generating. I know it would be seen as graphic creep..."hey man Pay2lookCool ..." But so what. If legendaries and exos or just the new ronin expansions runes were cell shaded or 3d like Voil prog. Id buy the hel out of them.

 

I agree with the original post, and would happily pledge a few hundred bucks for it or a similar crowd-funded operation to overhaul and improve the game.

 

They have included some engine updates for the graphics, @Gedden has mentioned it in recent Q&As and said the reason they didn't do more is because some people's computers couldn't handle it (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread). The main issue for the graphics is that the sprites are old and have pretty low resolution (as do many of the maps). I'm getting the sense that they're trying to update the map graphics right now since it has a major impact on the prettiness of the game for a relatively low input of time. The other part of this is to update the sprites and animations for every rune which is incredibly time consuming and expensive to do. I don't disagree that it would be a very good thing to do but maybe not the immediate priority.

 

To fall back on the same strangely convenient comparison- Dota players want Dota 2; They don't want LoL.

Personally I think that's a cop-out. If you actually have trouble running this game, I can only assume that your monitor is beige and weighs more than your beige computer- in which case you can upgrade it about... six generations with the amount of money you'd spend on a deck box.

Tl;Dr: If your computer can't run Starcraft 1; then fix that.

Edit: Was informed that laptops can be pretty backwards and incredibly expensive to upgrade. Which makes sense.

 

Just FYI - I have a i3 processor, 2gb of ram, and geforce gt 420m with 1gb of memory and this game lags bad with mass terrain changes going on or over 10 units on the board. Yes, this computer is 4 years old but it still shouldnt lag like it does. If the game required anything more, I would be out sadly.

EDIT - anyone willing to donate, I will start a kickstarter for a new computer

 

Oh. Sorry for assuming.

Well if the game was designed on a 2006 engine, I wouldn't be surprised if it couldn't utilise more than one core.

I daresay a complete overhaul would actually make the game run cleaner, despite the increased rendering.

Would be good to get a green opinion on this, btw.

 

I think you underestimate the amount of resources DoG has, in comparison to a company like Valve. Valve was able to take an old engine that was running a game pretty much pro bono, and build an enormous engine to hold it that has been in open ended development for a long long time. They still haven't implemented all of the heroes from Dota 1, and Valve is a behemoth of a company.

DoGs currently has, (by my estimates and correct me if I'm wrong,) about 10 people working for them, give or take. The engine is buggy, but a rework of such a complex engine would likely just change the bugs, not remove them.

I'm not going to say a major overhaul like this would be bad for the game, and it might be exactly what it needs, but it's an impractical idea given the time and resources needed to dedicate to such an enormous project.

​

I really like this quote out of context. Enough Alchoholics Anonymous meetings will make Executives make Executive Decisions.

 

And yet you are assuming again.

I may not be a green; but I was the one that maintained and worked on the code base for 3 years before the hand off to DOG. While I agree in principle with your OP, you are making very broad and uninformed assumptions about the tech of PoxNora. Unless you have knowledge and understanding of how the tech works please just stick to conversing on the opinion that the game feels outdated; because as I have already pointed out in my previous post, the tech for PoxNora is up to date.

 

Ah, my bad. Every time I play Pox I seem to forget that it is a modern game.
Although I do find it kinda difficult to believe that they had a full engine overhaul somewhere down the line and didn't shout it from the rafters. Especially if it was during SOE's time.
Obviously the 'Can't run more than one core' is a gross exaggeration on my part, and I apologize for the misunderstanding- but didn't you yourself say in your previous post that it was functionally tailored towards 2D?
Whilst I'm happy to take your word on the fact that it has 3D functionality, what little I do know of computers is screaming at me that making pox a 3D game would be more than just swapping out the sprites.

So with you as a legitimate authority on all of the techy things I don't know about- How deep would someone have to go into the current code in order to put in fully-animated 3D models?
If you tell me that a full rework isn't better in the long run, then I'll make sure to update the OP accordingly.


... Also I want a seperate-boot client and iPad functionality. I don't own an ipad, but I feel it'd make money.

 

It seems silly to me to have a back and forth with you when you admit how little you do know about computers.

I do however want to address your passive aggressive stab:

The look and feel of the UI/gameplay does not dictate the level of moderness of the engine. Unless you are going to state in this thread that Minecraft is a non-modern engine? To the last of my recollection Minecraft and PoxNora both use the same core engine tech. Does the UI/gameplay feel modern? Of course not. However the core engine tech is modern and supports the latest OpenGL standards (both mobile and desktop variants).

So, like I said before; please continue the conversation about what you would like changed. As is present in many of the posts here many of us agree with you. Just leave your jabs at the tech behind.

I personally would love to see a breakdown conversation on the components of PoxNora. I realize this is something that has been done many times; but I feel that often with fresh eyes new things come to light or unique ideas are presented. To me, 2D/3D is an irrelevant conversation. This may seem odd, but I have had more fun out the original civilizations game than most of the iterations that followed. It was basic and simple; yet the game mechanics were solid. On the flip side, I have loved playing the Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time which was fully 3D. The beginning story where you are sliding around the buildings as they are falling down around you was amazing. Similarly Mass Effect 3 felt the same way. But I have watched my kids play Minecraft for hours, and I have enjoyed so many top down scrolling shooters that are straight 2D sprites for me to believe that any game has to be XD to succeed.

I believe that PoxNora's future and beauty is that it follows the old rule of PONG or Asteroids. It seems simple, but knowledge/experience makes the game greater than it is. What it currently lacks is a smooth Player experience from start to game, to leaving. It won't really matter if the game runs on a PC, a tablet or the latest console if the player's experience feels jarring. So, what are you feelings on that?

 

I'll just chime in that a "full engine overhaul" every few years really isn't necessary if the game architecture was designed well and with the future in mind. You just keep updating/swapping out the old parts as new stuff shows up. What triggers major rewrites are changes in requirements from the business. It doesn't matter how well you build the product, if customers/marketing/executives tell you to build a different product.

EDIT: Also, "2D" does not imply "single-core". 2D can be hardware accelerated too, and can scale to multiple cores as well.

<-- Never worked on Pox Nora, but I get paid for writing code, so I hope that counts for something

 

On the Civ 1 number, I used to enjoy playing UFO: Enemy Unknown more than TFTD or Armageddon for the exact same reason- the sequels didn't have that je ne sais quoi.
However, I love the XCOM remake to bits, and haven't touched the original game since it came out. So that's my favourite. Old-game story and mechanics; New-game graphics.


I feel that the biggest issue that Pox actually has right now is its playerbase. There just isn't enough of us.
So I followed that thread - Why isn't there many players?
1. The game has been around a while, and is no longer really advertised.
2. The graphics and client put off starting players.
3. It's very difficult to make a 'from-scratch' deck as a new player, especially if you want a decent one.

Obviously No: 3 isn't gonna be changed. No current player wants that, because we already have our dreamteams. So I went for 1 and 2.

Better Graphics + Bigger News = More new players.
???
Profit

So if there was to be a proper re-release; the kind which would be put up on the Steam homepage for a while, the kind which would generate a successful kickstarter campaign, that would spread pretty quickly.
That by itself would bring in players and money.

The reason why Minecraft was successful was because of the novelty. Afaik It runs on Javascript, and I wouldn't consider it any more than an indie game which made big (Possibly the first full-fledged indie success).
Pox has been out too long, so nobody really has an ear out for it anymore.

So that's why I feel pox needs the engine overhaul.
Not because the game is functionally broken- not because the visuals are terrible, but because I think it needs more press, whilst history has shown me the only thing which really generates game-press is remakes and sequels.

 

Ah. Well, I think your heart's in the right place. But why change the engine when you can just change the oil

Most of the things that you notice and can interact with in the client is just the user interface or "presentation layer", not the engine or the technology that runs the game. So the look and feel, the bells and whistles, the special effects -- those are the jurisdiction of the team's art lead and can all be updated independently from the engine. In fact, they already have been. Would you believe it if I told you that special conditions and abilities on champions didn't have icons when the game was released? You had to scroll through a text list. Ironically, there was resistance from the playerbase when the new UI was introduced, but I won't get into that...

So you won't hear me talk about engines any more. As we have assurance from a former dev that the engine is good and modern, assume that the sky is the limit. The question is, what does this game need to really shine?

I absolutely agree with you that a successful Kickstarter has a substantial advertisement benefit, and that all of the work being put into making the maps and sprites look better should culminate in a big marketing push. If the current players are the only ones who ever hear about all the changes DOG makes, what's the point in doing it all!

 

@Tack

I'd suggest you're confusing graphic fidelity with visual aesthetics. Many games emphasize texture resolution (fidelity) such that it is impossible to not feel dated when higher quality textures become standard (biggest hurdle for FPS games striving for realism). Games that emphasize a visual aesthetic often achieve a "timeless" quality. Age of Wonders (vs Lords of Magic), Baldur's Gate (vs Neverwinter Nights), The Settlers (3, in particular), Torchlight (compared to Diablo 2), Borderlands and so forth are all games that aged well due to their visual aesthetic.

Pox Nora currently has a visual aesthetic that can age well if we don't try to force excessive amounts of 3D into it. You can see the beginnings of this problem with champions like Bok Enforcer when compared to similar champions such as Korona or Bok Guardian. Technically speaking, they have a lower fidelity. However, when the proper context is applied (a 2D sprite aesthetic), they don't feel dated because it's what you expect from that kind of graphical medium. A new engine isn't going to make 2D sprites more 2D-er or spritey-er because they are intentionally restricted to a lower resolution that conforms to modern standards.

I would prefer experiencing Pox outside of java, but I don't think that's a reasonable request at the moment.

 

Do you think poxnora is so profitable that it could survive adding significant graphics design costs to each champion? There are thousands of runes. I haven't heard of a unique 3D model ever taking less than 8 man hours to complete and honestly would expect it to take much more time. Telling a graphics artist to give you a final draft model in 8 hours is like getting told to write X script in 8 hours when your boss has no idea what bumps you might run into. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that a skilled graphics artist could pump out a new miniature 3D model in 8 hours like clockwork (and would therefore be able to complete the pixel art for a release set alone in ~ a month... lol). If you paid your graphics team $20 an hour (lol), then redesigning the art for 500 existing champions would be $10, 000 (and require a team of people to do in any reasonable amount of time). It would add up to $160 additional cost to every new champion. There would be other upfront costs of rewriting the engine and licensing design tools.

Then there is the hidden cost of throwing away years of existing man hours that you very recently bought from SOE.

And what about the players that like the retro art? How do you know that modern 3D art would pay for itself in new customers and not hurt itself by looking like all those other trashy double-A 3D titles? Pixel art can hit great quality a lot cheaper and more reliably than 3D art. I think that game balance would increase revenue more cheaply and more reliably than a gamble on new art would, especially in a tactics game where the majority of players are mathy nerds from a culture where pixel art is the hipster fad.

 

That's a lot of good points about 2D vs 3D- I probably have been pushing too hard for something which will be incredibly expensive and time-consuming in order to have similar graphics.
An easy fix to that would simply be (if the reboot was kickstarter-funded), to add '3D' in as a high-cash stretch goal. Besides, just because you're switching to rendered models, doesn't mean you need to get rid of the art style or the inklines.

However even if the game were to be kept 2D and have the same sprite-art, a graphics update could still be done, involving upscaling the resolution by a lot and adding better walking, attacking and effect animations.

For the 'next level' of animation, imagine if the Skeezick Ripper pulled his javelin back as he ran, or the Minotaur Culler swung its morningstar in successively wider arcs as it gained stacks of preperation.

 

Ugh please no.

Unless done very well 3D often times will look way worse then good old fashion 2D.
As many others have mentioned you seem to be arguing more about style/theme/aesthetics.
If not and you really are simply pushing 3D because OMG its 3D then its akin to putting the cart before the horse.

Throwing more polygons at a game does not a good game make.

 

As a Minor Point though, I still personally prefer the original lines of texts for abilities and conditions over the icons. But that's just me =(.

I like text.

If people didn't know that already >__>