MO2 Art Assets

@Beware I'm not making a straw man argument in that quote at all, I'm not making an argument at all actually, I was pointing out that I don't respect the suggestions you've made for the game so far and disagree with the opinions you voiced over the art assets because they're illogical. I don't respect what you've been saying because you drop stuff in your comments like "registered since 2009", "played off and on for 10 years", "as a developer..."

You're trying to establish some kind of authority as to why your ideas should hold any kind of merit when in actuality they're coming from a person that didn't like the game and obviously never played it much (which is fine btw, why play a game you don't like?). But by making those kinds of suggestions it shows that you don't really understand the core things that give MO its identity and you'd change those core things because you think your idea is better, but it just isn't. When SV strayed from their original design people didn't flock back to the game. MO had a ton of issues, I don't think anybody is blind to that, but I hope one thing SV has hopefully learned is that you can't please everyone, so it's better to stick to your core design principles that got everyone excited in the first place, and build a solid game around that.
 
People often have a very limited understanding of software development in general and what it means to "write your own code".

When you go to the supermarket, you don't bring your own shopping cart.

When you want to check if an email address was correctly inserted into a formula, you don't write the checker.
You use a package of another developer:

https://www.npmjs.com/package/validator

3.5 million weekly downloads

Why would you want to develop something that somebody else already did, cheaper or even free and millions have already tested?

You are an idiot if you don't do that.

The same goes for art assets. An artist can charge 5000 dollars for a model that one company uses, or 5 dollars for a model that 1000 companies use.

Star Vault would be idiots if they would have created assets they can buy much more cheaply in a store.
 

ThaBadMan

Exalted Member
Star Vault would be idiots if they would have created assets they can buy much more cheaply in a store.
Theres many positives to this, frees up dev time to be used in more important areas, cheap and easy and so long it FITS with MOs general art then why not.

But I must say and im sure everyone else agree is that Beware is right in the fact that if SV ONLY bought store assets it would look bad and probably not have the real MO feeling.
But so far its just in COMBAT Alpha testing and we know they already have tons of assets from MO not that I agree all of those assets fits imo but thats just imo.
Like the later houses I despise the look of and I rather have old palisades over the much bigger new walls and especially the Mordor metal walls. I liked the old houses but imo tier 3 houses was simply too large for a setting like MO and size of old Myrland. I would rather see bigger but not so high structures. There was alot of problems with MO assets and so far I feel the assets in Alpha is decently sized compared to MO assets that normally got too big like keeps and the unused giant castle or fortress.

Anyway we will see with time and hopefully the scale is more like a medieval time scale, remember most folks where poor and could not build insanely large structures.
 

Najwalaylah

Exalted Member
if you want to mcdonalds, ordered a hamburger, but instead of getting a "new" hamburger, they just took parts of a pre-existing hamburger that was laying around for awhile, or worse yet, went to burger king bought a hamburger for $5 passed it off as mcdonalds and then charged you a premium.
Worst metaphor of this forum, 2020.

We'll see.
 

Najwalaylah

Exalted Member
Hell, someone found a final fantasy xiv world map asset in game.
Someone compared them and, yeah, they are comparable. I think the new Myrland map also looks like the beta concept art map of Myrland, and that both of them look more than vaguely like the map of Africa.

FFXIV world map; the original Final Fantasy XIV was released in September 2010 to largely negative reception, and I do not know if this was the original map for it:
eorzea-1.jpg


Beta Myrland Concept Map (tilted slightly widdershins), circa 2009-Jun 2010?:


New Myrland Map, on a table in a tavern near you in Combat Alpha, 2020:
Screenshot 2020-04-29-map-on-table.png


Africa, released somewhat less than 4 billion years ago, possibly by the Planet Forges of Magrathea, but (crucially) without fjords :


So, with Africa being arguably the first to use that shape, I am nevertheless by no means certain that FFXIV didn't copy their map or part of it from MO1. They do seem to be using versions of the same asset at this time.

----
Map collection & collation courtesy of Aegis Imperium Information Services (AIIS): "We search it out so you don't have to."
 
Last edited:
Hey @Beware you should read this article, I know it is for the unity asset store and not the unreal asset store but it is still relevant, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ga...f-what-asks-unitys-global-head-of-asset-store

in particular you should pay attention to this section:

One topic that's been batted about often lately is the concern over "asset flips." The term is generally used to refer to games that use a large amount of pre-made assets from stores like Unity's to create a game with relatively few original assets. Though on its face that sounds like something one would want to avoid, the line of what constitutes an "asset flip" has blurred in the last few years. Perhaps the 173 games Valve removed from Steam last year all count as undesirable asset flips, but what about when PUBG is accused of the same thing?
However you feel about excessive use of assets, O'Reilly offered a nuanced explanation as to why a studio might lean on Unity assets in the first place.

"I think 'asset flipping' is a very derogatory term, and the Steam community in particular has latched onto it in a very derogatory way," he said. "AAA developers use outsourcing. Why do they use outsourcing? Because it gives them time to focus on what's really, really important, and that's the gameplay. Most indie game studios have around $200,000 to build a game, and the majority of those are self-funded. Games wouldn't see the light of day in most cases if they weren't clever about where they secured some content.
"I think most game developers would say that, if you're building your main character, you want that character to be unique. The Asset Store may not be the place to get your main character. Or a really integrated part of a contactable surface, which you may have to interact with, or needs to break in pieces, or whatever else. It probably makes more sense to do those in-house. But if you think of the size of games these days, and the breadth, it just makes sense - especially for that indie market - to use assets so they can really focus on what matters: making a great experience.”
 
Someone compared them and, yeah, they are comparable. I think the new Myrland map also looks like the beta concept art map of Myrland, and that both of them look more than vaguely like the map of Africa.

New Myrland Map, on a table in a tavern near you in Combat Alpha, 2020:
View attachment 13068


Ermmm don't want to downplay your opinion (cause I agree with your stance).... but that is a FFXIV map. Not a starvault map. Not only is the picture the same (downstairs has a better viewable version). But it has the same names, same companies and well it's just 100% that picture. It's from FFXIV. No doubt in my mind 100% the same. Same snake in the bottom, same dragon in the top etc etc.
 
Pubg was accused of asset flipping, there were hundreds, maybe even thousands of threads and articles about how “outraged” the fans were, but guess what? The game is still being played and enjoyed and is ridiculously popular and successful, because to its player base it is fun.
 

Najwalaylah

Exalted Member
Ermmm don't want to downplay your opinion (cause I agree with your stance).... but that is a FFXIV map. Not a starvault map. Not only is the picture the same (downstairs has a better viewable version). But it has the same names, same companies and well it's just 100% that picture. It's from FFXIV. No doubt in my mind 100% the same. Same snake in the bottom, same dragon in the top etc etc.
No worries. I never said it wasn't; it is the same picture on two kinds of surface (maybe three). You can hardly get more comparable than that. I just can't figure out which is the chicken (SV 2009-ish? SE 2010-ish?) and which was the egg, before we got to where they are using the same picture in 2020.

SV seems to have gotten closer to a distinctive map in the past, and I'm not sure why they didn't carry that forward in dealing with the new extent of Myrland for Mortal Online 2. They still could, unless they've made the new Myrland actually conform to the map of FFXIV, which I somehow doubt.
 
I would also advice to watch this little talk. It's about the use of AI in asset generation, but the guy tells something about the general costs of moddeling 3d objects. Hint: It's the most expensive part of game design



1588856780505.png

1588856724380.png
 
Thing is MO is meant to be for a niche audience, said niche audience dont want themeparkers massing into our beloved game and ruining it with their whining like happened to MO.

Once MO started caving to whiners who couldnt handle the hardcore aspect of MO, MO started bleeding its audience and surprise surprise said whiners left in droves either way. Thats modern "gamers" for you, they want everything they want but in the end will leave for the next FOTM cocaine game.

If MO2 is to become successful with thousands upon thousands of players it should earn it by being the best it can be within its own design by making the gameplay as good and fun as possible, having the game as stable, optimized, polished and smooth as it can with as little bugs and imbalances as possible and not through going away from its original vision like MO did to cave to those not designed to play it in the first place.

You had crafters and PvE players making PvP desisions in a PvP centric game and the devs somehow listened and made poos choices that chased off its long time backers who are still here while said bad players stuck for some time and then left probably never to be seen here again.

All the while that happened we got insanely bad excuses from the devs like "we need lower foot speed cause of prediction issues" then down the road they jacked the speed up on mounts that somehow did not follow said prediction issue rules as foot speed and that change alone killed off foot combat for competitive players who had to that point stuck through thick and thin for months with game breaking imbalances and bugs because we hoped it would eventually be fixed and get better.

We dont want history to repeat itself so this time around themeparkers and whiners and easymoders should not even get the chance to whisper poison to the devs ears.

This is the time for MO2 to become what MO failed to become. We dont need retarded suggestions we know will ruin the game AGAIN.
We might seem thick headed to some but what we been through has set a wound we dont want rifted and so we beat down idiotic shit as soon as it surface.
Case in point, what happens when game devs bend over backwards to appease an audience that is not the target demographic, in the misguided belief that it will somehow bring in both crowds:
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #52
@Beware I'm not making a straw man argument in that quote at all, I'm not making an argument at all actually, I was pointing out that I don't respect the suggestions you've made for the game so far and disagree with the opinions you voiced over the art assets because they're illogical. I don't respect what you've been saying because you drop stuff in your comments like "registered since 2009", "played off and on for 10 years", "as a developer..."

You're trying to establish some kind of authority as to why your ideas should hold any kind of merit when in actuality they're coming from a person that didn't like the game and obviously never played it much (which is fine btw, why play a game you don't like?). But by making those kinds of suggestions it shows that you don't really understand the core things that give MO its identity and you'd change those core things because you think your idea is better, but it just isn't. When SV strayed from their original design people didn't flock back to the game. MO had a ton of issues, I don't think anybody is blind to that, but I hope one thing SV has hopefully learned is that you can't please everyone, so it's better to stick to your core design principles that got everyone excited in the first place, and build a solid game around that.
I think it has to do with you just don't like people discussing and pointing things out that you take issue with. Your quick to assume things, like how "playing off and on from 2009" means I only played the game a little (how you jumped to that one confuses me). Important to note I only referenced it because you called whether I played the game in doubt, you want me to break out the steel book collector's edition cd case as additional proof? Could've easily mean I played for a few months, took a break, came back played a few more, and so on. Are people who only played the game 10 years straight the only ones allowed to discuss things on this discussion forum? I definitely do not think SV should stray from their version, but that won't stop people discussing aspects of the game that you might not want to be discussed, sorry. As far you not respecting my opinion, well, sorry but not sorry, I could careless to be honest. I understand what makes MO just fine, and I'd be fine if nothing changed, but I can also understand why MO never really took off in the first place, and I'm willing to discuss that. I'm not sure why you're scared of discussion. The game is releasing on steam, the most opinionated platform you could possibly release on, so how are you going to act when the flood gate opens and people start discussing things you don't want to discuss? I'd rather not see MO2 fail because of the stigma of an asset flip.

The question is if they use all these store bought assets and they want to add additional things later down the line , are they going to be able to match the art style?

@zdkazz
I definitely see the benefit in store bought assets, but those developers that utilize them in the finish game typically don't charge a premium, keep that in mind. PUGB got shit because the company developing it, Bluehole is not some small indie company that couldn't afford to outsource art.
 

Najwalaylah

Exalted Member
I think you're straw-manning a little to say that people are unwilling to discuss this. Three pages of fine, lively discussion later, it's apparent that you're simply being disagreed with. That happens.

I certainly hope to see more visuals unique to the Mortal world as MO2 expands out of Combat Alpha-- to the extent that there ever were any in MO1, a question which never perplexed me previously-- and that they can be seamlessly placed alongside those that someone outside of SV came up with.
PUGB got shit because the company developing it, Bluehole is not some small indie company that couldn't afford to outsource art.
Thanks for pointing that out, as it is the very reason that Star Vault, a small indie company that may not be able to afford the time and money to re-invent stuff like the appearance of wheels, houses, etc., probably should be concentrating on how non-visual stuff works instead of on how the world... of Nave... looks (especially since so much of it seems to be looking so much better in MO2, already).

Guess you'll have to carry the burden of worry over the issue as you see it mostly alone, because of all the things about which there are to worry it seems pretty low down most folks' list. We will see.
 
Relating to the price of the game, I don't think it's unreasonable for SV to charge the price they're charging. The MO2 client price is still unknown as far as I know (if someone knows, please enlighten me) and a monthly sub.

A small company like SV is not going to have a large parent publisher or an army of investors to pour in millions of dollars annually, and the ones that do usually have to make a game that makes lots and lots of revenue returns for their publisher or investors at the expense of their vision. Developing and keeping an MMORPG running is a monumental project, I don't think many people realise just how much money, capital, manpower and time is needed to do so. Unless they have substantial financial backing from third party sources, SV is unfortunately going to have to take a route that some may consider "lazy" or "complacent", and charge a "premium" price.

As for the negative reviews on Steam, I've read a lot of 'reviews' over the years and probably 1/3 of them aren't really reviews. Even if SV were to handcraft every asset in-house, I doubt it will make much of a difference to the reviews they're going to get. The reviews will simply go after some other non-issue to complain about, and there's a lot that could be easily nit-picked on, for no other reason than to get a "Funny" rating, possibly.
 
Last edited:
Pubg was accused of asset flipping, there were hundreds, maybe even thousands of threads and articles about how “outraged” the fans were, but guess what? The game is still being played and enjoyed and is ridiculously popular and successful, because to its player base it is fun.
PubG isn't the best example to use, it's only surviving because of the Chinese playerbase, which originally kicked off and attracted millions of Chinese players, due to the monetary gain available through cosmetics($400 - $1000 USD items), hence the rampant cheating problem that has plagued the game since launch and played a huge factor in the games decline from the top.

Over the past two years, the game has been in a very steady decline in players due to cheaters, lack luster gameplay changes, bugs and lag. Then there's the competitive scene, which died off due to a variety of things. Then there's the developers milking the Chinese market and calling every other regions racist for wanting region locks. Sorry had to rant a little, played the game semi-pro, still have a sour taste lol.

PubG wasn't a true asset flip, they utilized pre-purchased assets and environments, then replaced them over time with custom ones or heavily modified pre-purchased assets to create multiple varieties to make them their own. It's completely different than just slapping a prototype game together that never leaves alpha, and just uses the same assets and blueprints that every other $10 - $20 scam game utilizes, which are nearly identical in every way with slight differences(Sergey Titov anyone?)

This is what people are afraid of, hopefully SV takes the rout of updating assets over time and not charging premium + sub for a game largely built on things that are found in tonnes of other projects. People want MO to succeed, and not get thrown into a dumpster fire before it even gets a chance to shine. Others want MO to retain it's unique art style.
 
Top