[dsrb]

Well, since someone else has started it!

(I can't play this due to not having the right OS, but:) I've never seen the point of S2HD as it stands, and I don't see the point of this as an imitation thereof. What is so thrilling about playing the same game with graphics upscaled in Flash (with Shininess set to Kill)? I could get almost as good results using 2xSAI in an emulator, and I don't even care about that.

Say what you want about Generations—actually, Sonic Fan Remix is more appropriate in this subforum—they went HD the right way, by reimagining the Zones as they might have looked if they were made for the first time with current technology, not just by tracing and upscaling all of the old stuff and then spraying it with grease.

[Falk]

(disclaimer that I most of this post typed before I read more than the OP)

I'll have to agree, what set S3&K apart graphically from the other games was that its art really was very, very contrast-driven. Having everything just gradiented over somehow makes it lose the feel.

I really don't want to be wrestling with xna, and nothing in the screenshots really compel me to. Gonna second the call for seeing this in motion with sound/music.

[Black Squirrel]

I'm not going to install all that garbage on this computer (I mean really, do we really need the XNA framework?), however

if those are screenshots of the game. I.e. the correct size, no filters, no editing - I'm not seeing the "high definition" part.

that's how the game looks through Kega's CVBS filter.

your interpretation

the badnik seems to have lost some of its "definition", as have the tree trunks. And there's far more repetition in the backgrounds.


I don't think it's a god-awful idea but it certainly looks rushed. I would imagine a huge amount of work was put in to get it this far, but there's a reason high definition remakes are few and far between.

This post has been edited by Black Squirrel: 26 December 2011 - 08:14 AM

[Relick]

That's not the actual size of screenshots. I couldn't take the picture at 1920x1200, because it's full screen (and print screen hates full screen). Also photobucket resized it. I'll see if I can get non-resized pictures.

And yes, we do need XNA unless you have an engine you'd like to share with us?

This post has been edited by Relick: 26 December 2011 - 08:18 AM

[Dario FF]

Seeing it was XNA I considered it would have proper XInput support.

Oh look it does! That's nice, but if you could support the D-Pad as well(because playing this game with a thumbstick just feels wrong), that would be even better. Not all the XInput controllers have horrendous D-Pads like the ones that released with the Xbox at first.

As for the ones who don't have XNA 4.0, if you ever installed Terraria, you already do.

This post has been edited by Dario FF: 26 December 2011 - 08:21 AM

[winterhell]

I don't understand how are we supposed to make a semi-realistic semi-cartoonish graphics with no gradients. This is not a WindWaker or Super Mario World remake.
Also it'll be helpful instead of just saying "worst thing evarr, graphics are crap" ,to actually point what you don't like, mention how to improve it or show something that does it better.
Thanks.

Edit: yes I included basic xbox 360 controller support, I'll do the D-Pad and rumble and will try to include regular DirectInput via SlimDX.

This post has been edited by winterhell: 26 December 2011 - 08:24 AM

[Falk]

winterhell, on 26 December 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

I don't understand how are we supposed to make a semi-realistic semi-cartoonish graphics with no gradients. This is not a WindWaker or Super Mario World remake.
Also it'll be helpful instead of just saying "worst thing evarr, graphics are crap" ,to actually point what you don't like, mention how to improve it or show something that does it better.
Thanks.

Edit: yes I included basic xbox 360 controller support, I'll do the D-Pad and rumble and will try to include regular DirectInput via SlimDX.

I know you probably weren't aiming this at me, but gee, let me bold it for you.

Falk, on 26 December 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

(disclaimer that I most of this post typed before I read more than the OP)

I'll have to agree, what set S3&K apart graphically from the other games was that its art really was very, very contrast-driven. Having everything just gradiented over somehow makes it lose the feel.

I really don't want to be wrestling with xna, and nothing in the screenshots really compel me to. Gonna second the call for seeing this in motion with sound/music.

Obviously you need gradients. That's besides the point. The screenshot comparison Black Squirrel put up really drives the point home re: the trunks and the badniks, but also even on the mini-shrooms and that little brown bit at the top right of the screen.

This post has been edited by Falk: 26 December 2011 - 08:32 AM

[Dario FF]

Relick, on 26 December 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:

And yes, we do need XNA unless you have an engine you'd like to share with us?

Just wanted to point out that XNA is fine for your purposes. Heck, isn't Mono.xna being developed as well for Linux support? Besides, it should just be a rendering engine for your purposes anyway. If your project is done right, you should be able to switch graphic rendering without modifying the gameplay at all.

I'm pretty sure you can embed an XNA 4.0 installer as well later on an installer of your own, so no worries about that. My only gripe at the moment regarding the display is that the aspect ratio is fixed.

This post has been edited by Dario FF: 26 December 2011 - 08:37 AM

[Relick]

Dario FF, on 26 December 2011 - 08:36 AM, said:

Relick, on 26 December 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:

And yes, we do need XNA unless you have an engine you'd like to share with us?

Just wanted to point out that XNA is fine for your purposes. Heck, isn't Mono.xna being developed as well for Linux support? Besides, it should just be a rendering engine for your purposes anyway. If your project is done right, you should be able to switch graphic rendering without modifying the gameplay at all.

I'm pretty sure you can embed an XNA 4.0 installer as well later on an installer of your own, so no worries about that. My only gripe at the moment regarding the display is that the aspect ratio is fixed.

An option to switch between 16:10 and 16:9 is going to be added, both with advantages/disadvantages. 16:10 will have borders on 16:9 screens, 16:9 will be slightly zoomed in.

[Falk]

Relick, on 26 December 2011 - 08:43 AM, said:

16:9 will be slightly zoomed in.

Wait, how does this work?

[winterhell]

Falk, yes I wasn't aiming at you, and thanks for the remarks

About the XNA issue, I'm only comfortable writing in C#, which means for the most part either XNA or SlimDX as I've experience making 3D games and tools in them.
While SlimDX have lesser requirements, like the required .net framework is already present in most Windowses, it'll drop completely the possibility of multiplatform releases.

[roxahris]

A bit big, but the auto-scaling should take care of it

[Dario FF]

Falk, on 26 December 2011 - 08:51 AM, said:

Relick, on 26 December 2011 - 08:43 AM, said:

16:9 will be slightly zoomed in.

Wait, how does this work?

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. Just scale your resources depending on the current resolution's height, and then you just take that as the base value for any of your transformations. Anything added to the sides is just an extra. Pretty much the easy solution to adding widescreen support, as you don't even need to account all the possible aspect ratios.

This post has been edited by Dario FF: 26 December 2011 - 09:03 AM

[Relick]

We did do some sky and are working on those blurred trees at the very back but they aren't finished yet, and therefore not in the demo.

We'll take the rest into account, but not sure about the ovals being smooth? I don't get it. We tried to add a little detail where even the original just had a solid coloured oval. And the shadows from the terrain grass that are cast onto the terrain ovals are like that in the original.

EDIT: in response to roxahris xP

This post has been edited by Relick: 26 December 2011 - 09:07 AM

[roxahris]

Shadows generally aren't sharp. If you take a look, you'll notice the original doesn't actually have shadows there, due to the trees looking completely different (see: the leaves in general).

Gradients should only really be used as a thing for light. Consider, for instance, the matter of specular highlights. Notice how the spheres have tiny specs of light, and only really have gradients for the parts in shadow. Adding gradients where there were none before can potentially look nice, but here you seem to have pretty much overused them. On the ovals it seems kind of odd. On the mushrooms it looks pretty weird. The original art had two to three colours for the stems - and if you take a look, you'll note that a large portion of the 'shroom is flat.