By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - More Star Ocean 4 Info and Screenshots from Famitsu

Million on 29 December 2008
mrstickball said:
FrostyTop said:
SpartanFX said:

ok ,,is this in-game?

 

cause this looks good but the picture i posted in my last post does not

 

 Very unlikely it will look that good in game. Looks almost definately pre rendered.

Actually, that's in game. It was featured in a trailer as part of a battle, AFIAK.

 

i dought  it there's a lack of coonsistency in these screenshots , the other ones make this look pre-rendered.




Around the Network
leo-j on 29 December 2008

Why is it 360 exclusive...,arghh



 

mM
Slimebeast on 29 December 2008
mrstickball said:
Slimebeast said:
FrostyTop said:
Well yes to a degree. WRPGs are more sandbox in the technical sense than JRPGs in that they are character driven, there's more opportunity for supper dooper eye candy moments in JRPGs but you've still got your basic areas you can go back to.

Where there is a lot of eye candy frame rates tend to suffer because the engine isn't specifically designed for those eye candy moments in real time.

 JRPGs have nothing to do with sandbox (not that you claimed them to be, but since that term was brought up). JRPGs are the most linear games you can find. So it's not a technical issue at all if they look inferior (and they do), just a tradition of simplistic (or flat out bad) developing.

Ah, but we're talking technical. and not gameplay :)

There is a very staunch difference in *some* JRPGs and *some* WRPGs, since linearity changes design choice.

When there is more linearity, it means there are FAR more set pieces, and varied terrains/scenarios that are given. Since you aren't back-tracking on the same area often (unlike Sandbox RPGs), they are forced to make more areas that are different.

A few great games to explore for design choices:

  • Mass Effect
  • Oblivion
  • Fallout 3
  • King's Bounty: The Legend
  • The Last Remnant
  • Blue Dragon
  • Two Worlds
  • Eternal Sonata
  • Tales of Vesperia

..Of the recent ones, it's very interesting to view how the game play areas are defined. Some games restrict movement in favor of far more grandoise setpieces (such as Eternal Sonata and Tales of Vesperia), while other games have no boundaries, but are far more generic (Oblivion and Fallout 3). It's a very certain tradeoff: You have to sacrifice somewhere. Either the game will have some sort of pre-rendered, you-can't-go-there background, but have tons of them that are gorgeous, or aren't as gorgeous, but you can go anywhere, and do anything.

I think playing Mass Effect and The Last Remnant bring out the contrast in design choices the most, IMO. Both are UE3 games, but follow the varied East/West philosophies of dungeon and area design. ME has more sandbox-y areas, but aren't as varied as The Last Remnant, which restricts your ability to move in favor of gorgeous level design (which is certainly varied compared to ME...Which is also varied, but not nearly as much).

 

Yeah, those are good points. But I prefer the sandbox trade-off in variety. I adore sandbox.
And I'd actually say that sandbox in essence is gorgeous level design - while linear is inferior level design. But most people disagree.

 



mrstickball on 29 December 2008
Slimebeast said:

Yeah, those are good points. But I prefer the sandbox trade-off in variety. I adore sandbox.And I'd actually say that sandbox in essence is gorgeous level design - while linear is inferior level design. But most people disagree.

It's different strokes for different folks. I enjoy the gorgeous, varied level designs of linear JRPGs as opposed to more bland, but bigger, setpieces from Oblivion/Fallout (especially Fallout 3).

Mass Effect was a good combo of the 2 - Great set design, and the level design was pretty wide-open on the Main Quest worlds. Side-quest worlds were sandbox, obviously.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Words Of Wisdom on 29 December 2008
mrstickball said:
Slimebeast said:

Yeah, those are good points. But I prefer the sandbox trade-off in variety. I adore sandbox.And I'd actually say that sandbox in essence is gorgeous level design - while linear is inferior level design. But most people disagree.

It's different strokes for different folks. I enjoy the gorgeous, varied level designs of linear JRPGs as opposed to more bland, but bigger, setpieces from Oblivion/Fallout (especially Fallout 3).

Mass Effect was a good combo of the 2 - Great set design, and the level design was pretty wide-open on the Main Quest worlds. Side-quest worlds were sandbox, obviously.

level design != art direction



Around the Network
Riachu on 29 December 2008
Slimebeast said:
mrstickball said:
Slimebeast said:
FrostyTop said:
Well yes to a degree. WRPGs are more sandbox in the technical sense than JRPGs in that they are character driven, there's more opportunity for supper dooper eye candy moments in JRPGs but you've still got your basic areas you can go back to.

Where there is a lot of eye candy frame rates tend to suffer because the engine isn't specifically designed for those eye candy moments in real time.

JRPGs have nothing to do with sandbox (not that you claimed them to be, but since that term was brought up). JRPGs are the most linear games you can find. So it's not a technical issue at all if they look inferior (and they do), just a tradition of simplistic (or flat out bad) developing.

Ah, but we're talking technical. and not gameplay :)

There is a very staunch difference in *some* JRPGs and *some* WRPGs, since linearity changes design choice.

When there is more linearity, it means there are FAR more set pieces, and varied terrains/scenarios that are given. Since you aren't back-tracking on the same area often (unlike Sandbox RPGs), they are forced to make more areas that are different.

A few great games to explore for design choices:

  • Mass Effect
  • Oblivion
  • Fallout 3
  • King's Bounty: The Legend
  • The Last Remnant
  • Blue Dragon
  • Two Worlds
  • Eternal Sonata
  • Tales of Vesperia

..Of the recent ones, it's very interesting to view how the game play areas are defined. Some games restrict movement in favor of far more grandoise setpieces (such as Eternal Sonata and Tales of Vesperia), while other games have no boundaries, but are far more generic (Oblivion and Fallout 3). It's a very certain tradeoff: You have to sacrifice somewhere. Either the game will have some sort of pre-rendered, you-can't-go-there background, but have tons of them that are gorgeous, or aren't as gorgeous, but you can go anywhere, and do anything.

I think playing Mass Effect and The Last Remnant bring out the contrast in design choices the most, IMO. Both are UE3 games, but follow the varied East/West philosophies of dungeon and area design. ME has more sandbox-y areas, but aren't as varied as The Last Remnant, which restricts your ability to move in favor of gorgeous level design (which is certainly varied compared to ME...Which is also varied, but not nearly as much).

 

Yeah, those are good points. But I prefer the sandbox trade-off in variety. I adore sandbox.
And I'd actually say that sandbox in essence is gorgeous level design - while linear is inferior level design. But most people disagree.

 

I think linear level designs are best in story driven games while sandbox designs work best in mission driven games.  That's my opinion though, not anyone elses'.

 



 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InvaderZimGuy1?feature=mhum

Slimebeast on 29 December 2008
Riachu said:
Slimebeast said:
mrstickball said:
Slimebeast said:
FrostyTop said:
Well yes to a degree. WRPGs are more sandbox in the technical sense than JRPGs in that they are character driven, there's more opportunity for supper dooper eye candy moments in JRPGs but you've still got your basic areas you can go back to.

Where there is a lot of eye candy frame rates tend to suffer because the engine isn't specifically designed for those eye candy moments in real time.

JRPGs have nothing to do with sandbox (not that you claimed them to be, but since that term was brought up). JRPGs are the most linear games you can find. So it's not a technical issue at all if they look inferior (and they do), just a tradition of simplistic (or flat out bad) developing.

Ah, but we're talking technical. and not gameplay :)

There is a very staunch difference in *some* JRPGs and *some* WRPGs, since linearity changes design choice.

When there is more linearity, it means there are FAR more set pieces, and varied terrains/scenarios that are given. Since you aren't back-tracking on the same area often (unlike Sandbox RPGs), they are forced to make more areas that are different.

A few great games to explore for design choices:

  • Mass Effect
  • Oblivion
  • Fallout 3
  • King's Bounty: The Legend
  • The Last Remnant
  • Blue Dragon
  • Two Worlds
  • Eternal Sonata
  • Tales of Vesperia

..Of the recent ones, it's very interesting to view how the game play areas are defined. Some games restrict movement in favor of far more grandoise setpieces (such as Eternal Sonata and Tales of Vesperia), while other games have no boundaries, but are far more generic (Oblivion and Fallout 3). It's a very certain tradeoff: You have to sacrifice somewhere. Either the game will have some sort of pre-rendered, you-can't-go-there background, but have tons of them that are gorgeous, or aren't as gorgeous, but you can go anywhere, and do anything.

I think playing Mass Effect and The Last Remnant bring out the contrast in design choices the most, IMO. Both are UE3 games, but follow the varied East/West philosophies of dungeon and area design. ME has more sandbox-y areas, but aren't as varied as The Last Remnant, which restricts your ability to move in favor of gorgeous level design (which is certainly varied compared to ME...Which is also varied, but not nearly as much).

 

Yeah, those are good points. But I prefer the sandbox trade-off in variety. I adore sandbox.
And I'd actually say that sandbox in essence is gorgeous level design - while linear is inferior level design. But most people disagree.

 

I think linear level designs are best in story driven games while sandbox designs work best in mission driven games.  That's my opinion though, not anyone elses'.

 

Yes, currently it is like that because it's obviously a lot easier to to integrate a story in a linear game than to an open-world - and that's why most developers still choose the linear path. But the ultimate challenge is to be able to weave in a great story into a totally free sandbox game - that's the dream I have.

 



Riachu on 29 December 2008
Slimebeast said:
Riachu said:
Slimebeast said:
mrstickball said:
Slimebeast said:
FrostyTop said:
Well yes to a degree. WRPGs are more sandbox in the technical sense than JRPGs in that they are character driven, there's more opportunity for supper dooper eye candy moments in JRPGs but you've still got your basic areas you can go back to.

Where there is a lot of eye candy frame rates tend to suffer because the engine isn't specifically designed for those eye candy moments in real time.

JRPGs have nothing to do with sandbox (not that you claimed them to be, but since that term was brought up). JRPGs are the most linear games you can find. So it's not a technical issue at all if they look inferior (and they do), just a tradition of simplistic (or flat out bad) developing.

Ah, but we're talking technical. and not gameplay :)

There is a very staunch difference in *some* JRPGs and *some* WRPGs, since linearity changes design choice.

When there is more linearity, it means there are FAR more set pieces, and varied terrains/scenarios that are given. Since you aren't back-tracking on the same area often (unlike Sandbox RPGs), they are forced to make more areas that are different.

A few great games to explore for design choices:

  • Mass Effect
  • Oblivion
  • Fallout 3
  • King's Bounty: The Legend
  • The Last Remnant
  • Blue Dragon
  • Two Worlds
  • Eternal Sonata
  • Tales of Vesperia

..Of the recent ones, it's very interesting to view how the game play areas are defined. Some games restrict movement in favor of far more grandoise setpieces (such as Eternal Sonata and Tales of Vesperia), while other games have no boundaries, but are far more generic (Oblivion and Fallout 3). It's a very certain tradeoff: You have to sacrifice somewhere. Either the game will have some sort of pre-rendered, you-can't-go-there background, but have tons of them that are gorgeous, or aren't as gorgeous, but you can go anywhere, and do anything.

I think playing Mass Effect and The Last Remnant bring out the contrast in design choices the most, IMO. Both are UE3 games, but follow the varied East/West philosophies of dungeon and area design. ME has more sandbox-y areas, but aren't as varied as The Last Remnant, which restricts your ability to move in favor of gorgeous level design (which is certainly varied compared to ME...Which is also varied, but not nearly as much).

 

Yeah, those are good points. But I prefer the sandbox trade-off in variety. I adore sandbox.
And I'd actually say that sandbox in essence is gorgeous level design - while linear is inferior level design. But most people disagree.

 

I think linear level designs are best in story driven games while sandbox designs work best in mission driven games. That's my opinion though, not anyone elses'.

 

Yes, currently it is like that because it's obviously a lot easier to to integrate a story in a linear game than to an open-world - and that's why most developers still choose the linear path. But the ultimate challenge is to be able to weave in a great story into a totally free sandbox game - that's the dream I have.

 

It might be too late because some would argue that GTAIV did a pretty good job of that.   Others might think otherwise though.

 



 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InvaderZimGuy1?feature=mhum

SmokedHostage on 29 December 2008

The eyes of that catgirl scare the living hell out of me.



Pixel Art can be fun.

DragonLord on 29 December 2008

This game looks entirely badass!  I really can't wait!



PSN ID: Sorrow880

Gamertag: Sorrow80

Wii #: 8132 1076 3416 7450