Graphics and visuals and what ho!

[Endre Fodstad]

Once more, a question more-or-less directed at Snowball itself.

What are the developers using as a basis for the artwork in CK? I am aware of the fact that Snowball has someone from historical circles as a consulant, but most historians(and archaeologists) possess little knowledge of the appearance of buildings, clothes, armour and weapons of anything but their area of speciality.

If the graphics are more-or-less as in EU, this really won't matter - no detail can be seen in the little EU sprites and the map is fairly sexless. However, we're promised a more "medieval" map in CK. Perhaps more graphics as well?

The only thing we have to go on is the cover picture, which shows a knight on an unarmoured horse in what appears to be body-covering mail, plated gloves and legs of late 14th-century type(though strange-looking kneecups), an early 13th century bucket helmet with crown, a sword that can be just about any type between 1100 and 1400 and a mid-13th century shield with the Gules three lions passant guardant on scarlet, the arms of Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, and Edward II. He's fighting some unidentifiable enemies wearing what appears to be turbaned helmets, and behind him lurk shadowy figures holding a crucifix aloft.
Richard I? If so he's a hundred to two hundred years early on a lot of his equipment.

I realize most people doesn't give a rat's ass about accuracy in this department, but how about the crowd here? And will snowball bother to put any effort into the visuals from an authenticity-perspective?

EF

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Endre Fodstad
......................
Richard I? If so he's a hundred to two hundred years early on a lot of his equipment.

.............

EF

That's what made him such a great warrior. He had the Latin tech advantage.

 

[unmerged(8632)]

to make things clear, we don't give a parrot's ding about authenticuty as long as we are paid by the hour and have a six-pack in the fridge. if it were not for a coincidence that made us order the cover art you saw, i would have opted to post a naked woman on the game's boxwhich, in my belief and through the facts of US retail sales data, makes the game more successful than any so-called "balance", "gameplay" or "design".

however, just because of old habit that dies hard we 1) used architecture books on medieval design with photos to re-create town icon types 2) used actual, hard-to-access medieval maps and chronicles from the Russian Historical Museum to borrow illustrations for PTI 3) used our inhouse library of military costume reference books to re-create the unit models according to time periods and weapon/armour specifics 4) put forth the goal to stylize game's interface in the same direction most of medieval window designs are.

i promise that we will do out best to be more mainstream with the next project and i will personally conduct the selection process for the cover chick to be on par with our American collegues in the industry

 

[Norgesvenn]

Sounds like CK will look pretty darned good, then.

And that next game...

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Originally posted by sergei
to make things clear, we don't give a parrot's ding about authenticuty as long as we are paid by the hour and have a six-pack in the fridge.

however, just because of old habit that dies hard we 1) used architecture books on medieval design with photos to re-create town icon types 2) used actual, hard-to-access medieval maps and chronicles from the Russian Historical Museum to borrow illustrations for PTI 3) used our inhouse library of military costume reference books to re-create the unit models according to time periods and weapon/armour specifics 4) put forth the goal to stylize game's interface in the same direction most of medieval window designs are.

That's plain speaking. As long as anyone actually makes a bit of an effort it's an improvement - look at MTW's horrid visuals. Even using only Ospreys' books or similar popular literature as sources would be an improvement over what we tend to see in "medieval" games. Two thumbs up to Snowball.

EF

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn
Sounds like CK will look pretty darned good, then.

And that next game...

Sure sounds like it will look more authentic than any medieval game before it.

Now about the (semi-) naked chick on the box cover...combined with the research in seedy NY city and the mantion of GH - I've got another guess ------ Get Horny!

Seriously though, the artwork ought to be astounding - lending even more atmosphere to the game.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

Even as a historian, I would prefer a good quality game wich has the "atmosphere" of the period, rather than the "accurate" representation of different decades, centuries etc.

 

[kurtbrian]

Originally posted by Sonny
Sure sounds like it will look more authentic than any medieval game before it.

Now about the (semi-) naked chick on the box cover...combined with the research in seedy NY city and the mantion of GH - I've got another guess ------ Get Horny!

Seriously though, the artwork ought to be astounding - lending even more atmosphere to the game.

girl hunt...?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Lasse Nielsen
Even as a historian, I would prefer a good quality game wich has the "atmosphere" of the period, rather than the "accurate" representation of different decades, centuries etc.

True with me also. If the game coveys an atmosphere which fits my impression of the time period then I feel the game more than if it were to be totally accurate and not quite what I expect it to be. My impression is that this is one of the things that makes Medieval:Total War so popular. Even though it is innacurate in many respects it coincides with peoples impression of the times. Much of this is, of course, fostered by movies. We see The Messenger and if we do not know enough to refute the historical innacuracies these innacuracies give us a distorted glimpse of the times - which we carry over to our gaming experiences.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

The "impression" of a time period, any time period, created by the last 10 years or so of popular culture, is exactly what a game that hopes to be even vaguely educational should avoid. Modern people are extremely gullible in relation to their historical past, and tend to accept at face value what they see in the idiot box, watch on the not-silver-anymore screen or remember from half-forgotten history classes they slept through.

That sort of an attitude leads to Braveheart setting the standard and shoddy research like Stereotype Total War. It is a very, very sad state of affairs.

This is a subject I feel very strongly about and all too often end up ranting about, but I felt it still needs saying. It is possible to create a feel or impression that isn't total nonsense without sacrificing the enjoyment one has from a game(or a movie). It is just almost never done.

EF

 

[Martinus]

I disagree there, Endre, and by the same token, agree with Sonny and Lasse.

The game is not a history lesson - it is an entertainment. It is neither nothing new - the contemporaries of the crusader kings entertained themselves with "historical" stories of Charlemagne (Chanson de Roland) and King Arthur just as well.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

The contemporaries of the crusader kings were quite aware of the legendary nature of the Chanson de Roland and the Arthur cycle.

If this game is ONLY entertainment, then that's what it is. Don't print "historical empire building" on it like the EU2 box, because that's not what the game is about. What I am saying is that it is quite possible for a game to be educational(or at least accurate) AND entertaining. It is just almost never done - people are so afraid of challenging the least common denomitor of the average goon's historical understanding that they prefer to make medieval movies with fantasy gear. That's a safe way to make sure nothing ever gets more accurate or educational, and a sure way for a reaction to come sometime in the future: "Why do so few people play Paradox' historical strategy games? Because Master of Orion 4 is just as realistic and playable, and better marketed".

Luckily Snowball(apperantly) and Paradox' put quite a bit of attention into historical detail - good for them! And good for the players - they can learn something while playing instead of just looking at pretty pictures while learning new ways to outsmart the computer and exploit a game's weaknesses.

EF

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Endre Fodstad
The contemporaries of the crusader kings were quite aware of the legendary nature of the Chanson de Roland and the Arthur cycle.

..............................
EF

Then why did Henry II (IIRC) say that they had found Arthur's grave? Far too many people believed Arthur would come back and restore Britain to whatever they thought it was, and should be again (whatever that may have been in their minds). So while the more educated may have believed Arthur was a legend, there was still some popular belief in their hero.

As for Braveheart, well it wasn't supposed to be a history lesson after all. Had it been historically accurate the only people who would have gone to see it (other than Mel Gibson fans) are the people who play EU (and will play CK). Won't get too many ticket sales that way - ok, Mel is a big draw - but you get the idea.

Not saying that games can't be entertaining as well as accurate. Just saying that when someone agrees with you, you feel better/more comfortable towards that person. When a game agrees with you, i.e. gives you what you feel is right, then you feel more comfortable with that game.

 

[Norgesvenn]

Originally posted by Endre Fodstad

Luckily Snowball(apperantly) and Paradox' put quite a bit of attention into historical detail - good for them! And good for the players - they can learn something while playing instead of just looking at pretty pictures while learning new ways to outsmart the computer and exploit a game's weaknesses.

EF

Well, I think the interest for the EU II time period definitely rose amongst those who played the game, even though it wasn't "historical". CK will be less historical, inherently, due to the RPG elements.

People will always want to win. Thus what people complain about isn't the artwork, it's the AI work.

 

[unmerged(5978)]

kul sanna wa anta tayyib

I like games that, after having played every free minute for a several years allow me to say:
"well, at least it was not a total waste, I learned something"
"information may come in handy when I apply for my next job"

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Originally posted by Sonny
So while the more educated may have believed Arthur was a legend, there was still some popular belief in their hero.

Just as the more educated today don't tend to believe in aura healing. Point taken otherwise, I was of course referring to the scholars. Aside, I've read some articles(off-internet) that argue that Henry II was quite aware of the fact that Arthur was fictional and that the presentation was a propaganda move.

Not that medieval people did not entertain strange ideas. Just like modern people.

Braveheart wasn't meant to be a history lesson. Neither is EU2. Neither will CK be. That does not mean that it couldn't have been more accurate, does it? The story is one thing, but Mel and his crew had access to people who could have made the movie authentic in look-he just choose not to. Why? Because it would look bad? One of the complaints ordinary people in my social circles,with no knowledge of the 14th century,ade on the movie was that both the caveman scots and the orange english looked silly.
A few months ago on the Armourarchive one of the 14th century fantasts was delighted to have been contacted by the people who are filming Michael Chrichtons "Timeline". Without commenting on the quality of that work, one of its repeating plot points is the plethora of silly myths we have about history, including how people looked. The gentleman directed the moviemakers to a (private)rather accurate site on late 14th century dress and armour and received the answer: "I'm sorry, that's not what we're looking for".

Result:

http://www.thetimelinemovie.com/gallery/friel_anna.jpg
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/383/383271p1.html(The timeline pic with two people in it)

Reneissance faire galore. Not only totally off for any medieval century, but silly-looking (check out the guy on the left with the too-long shirt). In addition they have the nerve to talk about authenticity on the official website!
(RANT)
Why? why? They have the resources, they have the money!
Someone suggested that historical movies end up looking like that because people need to "relate" to the characters. How in the name of Grud is one to relate to those two hobos?
(RANT OVER)
Still, I'll probably see it. 100 years war, buxom women and so on...

Historical accuracy is not something demanding much resources. It's simply a matter of believing that it's possible to combine accuracy with entertainment. We'll never know until someone tries...

EF

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

I do not care that it is not "historical" to the detail, just it gives us the "air" of the period. A couple of examples of this could be Shakespears representation of the past or Homers' of the period of the Iliad of the Odyssé. I saw that horrible tv-movie with Armand Assante as Odysseus (Ulysses) wich was a fair representation of the period wich it should portray, but didn't give the same atmosphere as (a popular) portrayl of ancient (even if it was archaic) greece would give you. In popular entertainment I would always prefer somewhat "wrong" sterotypes to acurrate (and sometimes dissapointingly boring/ugly) representation. Who would like to discover Camelot to be noting more than a dirtwall and a small hut? - My point is this is not a project for historians but a game for the masses...

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Originally posted by Lasse Nielsen
I saw that horrible tv-movie with Armand Assante as Odysseus (Ulysses) wich was a fair representation of the period wich it should portray,

No it wasn't. It was just a bad tv-movie, with a rotten cast(especially the lead), rotten script and bad production. Francis Ford Coppola, who produced it, made some noises about trying to make it look "realistic"(whatever that meant) but no effort was put into the visuals at all. It's not like we know much about the Homeric age anyway...

What I'm still trying to argue for is that it is possible for a game or movie to be _both_ educational _and_ entertaining. Not that authenticity should take center stage, but that one should at least make an attempt!

EF

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Braveheart is one of the most profoundly annoying films I've seen. Not just the laughable inaccuracy but the way it was taken as historical gospel by people who should know better. I find the idea that historical accuracy = automatic yawnsville very bizarre. Truth, like the bare-arsed insurgents of East Anglia, is stranger than fiction.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

Originally posted by Endre Fodstad

What I'm still trying to argue for is that it is possible for a game or movie to be _both_ educational _and_ entertaining. Not that authenticity should take center stage, but that one should at least make an attempt!

EF

Then we don't disagree, just different opinions about how much ressources to spend on the different areas...