# New screenshots of character visualizer, virtual tabletop



## Benimoto (Feb 25, 2008)

I just noticed that over at Boing Boing they have some new screenshots of what I assume is the character visualizer and virtual tabletop parts of D&D Insider.

They also mention that we'll see more of the application at DDXP this weekend.

Relevant to the Rogue weapons discussion we've been having lately, one of the screenshots shows the weapons characterized as "military", "simple" and "superior", with the rapier in the superior category.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 25, 2008)

I'll just say this, I am glad I am using table-top, cause my imagination works a lot better then those pictures/characters 

Huh... Now that is interesting, I wonder then where the whole "Pick"-proficiency falls into this.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS (Feb 25, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I'll just say this, I am glad I am using table-top, cause my imagination works a lot better then those pictures/characters
> 
> Huh... Now that is interesting, I wonder then where the whole "Pick"-proficiency falls into this.




Well it basicaly confirms the 8 PHB1 classes too....


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 25, 2008)

The character modeler looks like dog crap; fantasy cliche at best.

With the innovations already present in MMORPGs today, you'd think that WotC would actually hire expert character modelers. These people are a dime a dozen, and hungry for work.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 25, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Relevant to the Rogue weapons discussion we've been having lately, one of the screenshots shows the weapons characterized as "military", "simple" and "superior", with the rapier in the superior category.



Interesting!

And for the record: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard.

edit: and to answer a question from another thread: Rapiers are in. As are Katars.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 25, 2008)

The armor and weapons look ok. But the faces aren't very good. Too round with unattractive hair.

I don't play WoW, but the WoW character modeller pretty much set the bar that I think WotC should try to exceed.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 25, 2008)

I think AoC in terms of MMO's has set the highest standard for character customization.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Feb 25, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Interesting!
> 
> And for the record: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard.




To shouts of surprise we discover that these are the same classes we knew about by the end of Gencon!



> edit: and to answer a question from another thread: Rapiers are in. As are Katars.




And Spiked Chains.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 25, 2008)

I dunno how WOW or any other MMO characters look but I know what the graphical quality of Crysis is and these character portraits look awful. A real retro 90's computer game look, yuck.
Not only are the detail levels and image quality very poor but they have real 'clipping' problems. The characters hand, for example, don't even go around the weapons (doesn't help that the weapons are so stupidly porportioned).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 25, 2008)

Though I guess you got to figure make it too pretty and only high-end computers would be able to run it which would be very annoying if you and ALL your friends you want to play online with have to upgrade their computer.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 25, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> A real retro 90's computer game look, yuck.



D&D should emulate retro 70's graphics instead.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 25, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Though I guess you got to figure make it too pretty and only high-end computers would be able to run it which would be very annoying if you and ALL your friends you want to play online with have to upgrade their computer.



Which is why I'm hoping 5e moves to consoles only. 

Makes gaming soooo much easier.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 25, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> D&D should emulate retro 70's graphics instead.



LOL
wahay the Spiked Chain is in!


----------



## Gundark (Feb 25, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> The armor and weapons look ok. But the faces aren't very good. Too round with unattractive hair.
> 
> I don't play WoW, but the WoW character modeller pretty much set the bar that I think WotC should try to exceed.





Not as good as I had hoped for alright. WoW has pretty characters, just not enough variblity in appearence. I've run into my twin a couple of times on WoW.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 25, 2008)

I agree that the graphics leave something--maybe a lot--to be desired. 

OTOH, if the program succeeds in terms of its promised _functionality_, I can live with mediocre pics.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 25, 2008)

Perhaps in time there could be upgrades for higher-end computers with the basic model for most computers to use.


----------



## lkj (Feb 25, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I agree that the graphics leave something--maybe a lot--to be desired.
> 
> OTOH, if the program succeeds in terms of its promised _functionality_, I can live with mediocre pics.





Yah, I'm right here with you. I'd be pretty annoyed if they spent a lot of resources on pretty graphics and the functionality was weak. I'd be just as annoyed if the pretty graphics made the program run slowly or required a high end graphics card. To be blunt, I want it to be able to make characters and serve as a medium for a game. If it looks pretty but doesn't slow things down, then all the better. 

(Disclaimer: This is just my opinion. I can appreciate why others would want better graphics to improve atmosphere.)

All that said, maybe it's easy to get really good graphics with lower end computer requirements. I just don't know.

AD


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 25, 2008)

WoW characters suck, I want something like Oblivion


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 25, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Though I guess you got to figure make it too pretty and only high-end computers would be able to run it which would be very annoying if you and ALL your friends you want to play online with have to upgrade their computer.




Even a low-end computer can easily render better models than these - and not only that, but _animate_ dozens of them in real-time, with dynamic lighting, spell effects, etc. These are _static_, they require much less processing power.

As a matter of fact, computers could do better-looking graphics than this several years and graphic card generations ago.

The models are awful - not only technologically inferior, but also just plain ugly. There's no excuse.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 25, 2008)

*looks at my computer* "shoo, he doesn't mean it, your a good computer even if you stutter and lag in original NWN"


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 25, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Even a low-end computer can easily render better models than these - and not only that, but _animate_ dozens of them in real-time, with dynamic lighting, spell effects, etc. These are _static_, they require much less processing power.
> 
> As a matter of fact, computers could do better-looking graphics than this several years and graphic card generations ago.
> 
> The models are awful - not only technologically inferior, but also just plain ugly. There's no excuse.




Perhaps, and we can hope, these are placeholder images used during testing.  I can live with the graphics as they are, but I agree that even lower end computers these days can deliver much higher quality.

With the cluster that was WOTC's character generation software for 3E, I'm not holding my breath for functionality with this version.  

Relating to the Rogue and his limited weapon selection, as we saw in the recent Ampersand article, how does the newly revealed Rapier fit in?  Is the Rapier in fact now a martial weapon, or was the preview list not inclusive of all Rogue usable weapons?


----------



## psionotic (Feb 25, 2008)

Anyone else think that the female faces look too masculine?  Maybe they're not all that way, but in 2/2 examples.  Yikes.


----------



## fnwc (Feb 25, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I'll just say this, I am glad I am using table-top, cause my imagination works a lot better then those pictures/characters



No kidding. I'm fairly enthusiastic about 4th, but these screens look like they were made by the same designer as the DDO game; the interface and models look like they're from a PC game made 10 years ago.

Hopefully they tighten this up a little before launch.


----------



## Pour (Feb 25, 2008)

Do you think there will be third party opportunities in character modeling and design? Because I'm certain there will be a market for better looking characters. Wonder if that will fall under the OGL... It would open up a lot of nice variety and most certainly increase willingness to use DDI. 

Just think of it. Third parties could introduce different versions of existing armors, like hide armor that actually has some cool parts of the animal like the head and claws, or plate without the heinous swirled pauldron, (and I could go on and on...).  And new backgrounds, environments, monsters and spell effects, too, of course.

Third party might also be able to offer new model styles entirely, like cell-shaded heroes or maybe Lego people.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 25, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> And Spiked Chains.




And Katana. Watch the firestorms rage once more!


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 25, 2008)

Yay!  Katana!

I sure hope the have a "trenchcoat" option....

EDIT:  Ooooh!  Great mimes think alike!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 25, 2008)

I really do think the preview didn't give all the rogue weapons. Perhaps for this very reason they didn't want to showcase the civilian, military, superior model yet so they left out things for that reason. *Shrugs shoulders*


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 25, 2008)

Pour said:
			
		

> Do you think there will be third party opportunities in character modeling and design? Because I'm certain there will be a market for better looking characters. Wonder if that will fall under the OGL... It would open up a lot of nice variety and most certainly increase willingness to use DDI.
> 
> Just think of it. Third parties could introduce different versions of existing armors, like hide armor that actually has some cool parts of the animal like the head and claws, or plate without the heinous swirled pauldron, (and I could go on and on...).  And new backgrounds, environments, monsters and spell effects, too, of course.
> 
> Third party might also be able to offer new model styles entirely, like cell-shaded heroes or maybe Lego people.




I believe the engine for DDI was a cut-down version of the Aurora Engine that Bioware/Obsidian used for the NWN games.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 25, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Yay!  Katana!
> 
> I sure hope the have a "trenchcoat" option....
> 
> EDIT:  Ooooh!  Great mimes think alike!




Oh the old "Bad Ass Merit" with its prerequisite of katana, trenchcoat and sunglasses.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 25, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> The character modeler looks like dog crap; fantasy cliche at best.
> 
> With the innovations already present in MMORPGs today, you'd think that WotC would actually hire expert character modelers. These people are a dime a dozen, and hungry for work.



Boy, you said it.  I think we're better off with a really good text-only generator, but if they're gonna go with graphics, it should be graphics that add to the experience, not detract from it.  I've been playing D&D for many years, so I'll keep playing "despite" the poor character modeler, but I bet this will turn off potential new customers.

[old grump voice]
Back in my day we rolled dice made out of plastic, kept our character records in pencil and used poor Xerox copies of fantasy novel covers, comic books or rule book art for our character portrait - _and we liked it!!_
[/old grump voice]

But seriously. I hope whatever character sheet printout WotC supports allows you to paste in a pic of your choosing to represent the character. There's too much good fantasy art out there to be restricted to their crappy modeler.


----------



## Silvergriffon (Feb 25, 2008)

Ugly.

I sure hope those character builder shots are at the lowest resolution with all the 3D modeling effects for lighting, etc. turned all the way down. And a few months old...
 :\


----------



## Kishin (Feb 25, 2008)

Those PCs definitely look like Aurora engine models.

Also, I wouldn't expect Oblivion-like character modelling as a possibility for the simple fact that WoTC likely does not expect (nor should they) every D&D player to have an Oblivion capable rig, let alone a Crysis-capable one, like was suggested by one poster.

I'm fairly sure they're trying to meet a 'looks decent and has functionality' compromise.

Well, that and they don't have professional game studio level budgeting and talent to bring to bear on this project, I imagine.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 25, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> OTOH, if the program succeeds in terms of its promised _functionality_, I can live with mediocre pics.



 That's the beauty of it: you don't _have_ to! Just tell your local WotC representative to hire someone who can design cool characters! Like...

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			









[/sblock]


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 25, 2008)

Pour said:
			
		

> Do you think there will be third party opportunities in character modeling and design? Because I'm certain there will be a market for better looking characters.



I think this would be great idea. But I also think if WotC were institutionally capable of admitting that they suck at managing anything involving code, and that they should just farm out the whole thing to an equity partner up to the task, they'd have done it by now.  Just look at the mess that's Gleemax compared to EN World. I know it's not fair to compare an alpha release with a system that's been in production for years, but they should have started off with proven code for their various bits (like Wordpress or similar for the developer blogs) rather than try to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Silvergriffon (Feb 25, 2008)

fnwc said:
			
		

> No kidding. I'm fairly enthusiastic about 4th, but these screens look like they were made by the same designer as the DDO game; the interface and models look like they're from a PC game made 10 years ago.




I don't know what kind of machine you saw DDO running on, but the graphics there are infinitely better than this. In fact, they are among the best in the MMO industry.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 25, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> That's the beauty of it: you don't _have_ to! Just tell your local WotC representative to hire someone who can design cool characters! Like...



Klaus, have you ever been hired to do a one-off character sketch? How much would you charge for something like those samples you just posted?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 25, 2008)

Was that the Commodore 64 version of the software?

DS


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 25, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> WoW characters suck, I want something like Oblivion




Ugh. Sorry to say this, but Oblivion's models look like trash. It takes people several hours to produce a character that isn't hideous, but they still look awkward in the game itself.

I prefer things with style, like WoW's art direction, rather than attempts at photorealism that fall well short and inspire Uncanny Valley in me.


----------



## fafhrd (Feb 25, 2008)

I'm impressed by the detail, particularly the 5 o'clock shadow and adam's apples on the female figures.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 25, 2008)

I'm not too worried. The stuff they were demo-ing at GenCon looked better than these shots. Notice how in the table-top shot with the beholder, you can still see lines of the wireframe models? Pretty much confirms for me that these are just some test screens.

On the Items screen... what's with the numbers infront of the weapons? I thought they might be page references, but rapier is on there four times, with different numbers (116, 143, 224, 986) More placeholder/test data?

Why is Short sword listed under Superior? Have they renamed Masterwork? Is there a Military Short Sword?

Notice also the categories: Implements, Others, Shields, Weapons, Rods.

*Edit:* Oh, and I really like Guild Wars character models (see avatar)


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 26, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> I'm fairly sure they're trying to meet a 'looks decent and has functionality' compromise.
> 
> Well, that and they don't have professional game studio level budgeting and talent to bring to bear on this project, I imagine.



Yep. 

Better graphics are always nice, but the current ones are good enough for me.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 26, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I'm impressed by the detail, particularly the 5 o'clock shadow and adam's apples on the female figures.



"she's a man, man!"
I was not really sure....


----------



## Jorunkun (Feb 26, 2008)

How come there's all this great, highly stylized artwork featured in the 4e preview books, and for the online character builder they show this embarrassing generic dross? "Tacked-on" and "half-baked" is the impression I'm getting here. 

Doesn't bode well for the D&D online offering, does it? Which is a real pity, because I'm convinced online playing and collecting is going to be a huge part of the FRPG market, and a goldmine for WotC if they manage to do it right.

If they don't shape up soon, this is going to be a traincrash.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 26, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Klaus, have you ever been hired to do a one-off character sketch? How much would you charge for something like those samples you just posted?



 A few times, yeah. If you're interested, shoot me an e-mail at claudiopozas (at) gmail (dot) com with what you have in mind and I'll give you an estimate.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 26, 2008)

Yeah, I hate to jump on the bashing bandwagon, but I_ sincerely_ hope that these are placeholder models/pre-alpha build work they're showing here. I agree that maybe _10 years ago_ this would be fine, but today looks just abyssmal.


----------



## PrinceXaxor (Feb 26, 2008)

Believe it or not, but 3d modeling is trickier than 2d art.  While these aren't the prettiest of graphics, they certainly aren't total crap.  If you really want to know what games looked like in 1998, here is the Wikipedia list of games.  I think age is making some of our posters forget just how far we've come in 10 years when it comes to graphics.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Feb 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> The armor and weapons look ok. But the faces aren't very good. Too round with unattractive hair.




well, it does beat the "anorexic" silliness you seem in some art 
Big trade of between:
a) what the company can AFFORD to make
b) What the systems it's being targetted at can take (huge difference between my 8 gig quad core art PC, and Joe Shmo's Pentium *3*), and note it does have to be targetted at "generic PC users", so what they set as the bar *shrug*?
c) More detail ramps up the requirements for video card.

http://www.silverblades-suitcase.com/tutorials/22/light_gels.jpg
That is *NOT* meant to be good art, it's just a pic from a tutorial of mine (hence odd lighting rig).
That's high quality Poser character armour etc. *THAT* would take a lot of PC resources to do for the DDI stuff. However, stuff like that probably will become real time renderable in coming years...


----------



## Eldorian (Feb 26, 2008)

Those shots make me want to play dnd online instead of at the table, even at my own house (my roommates and me play).  Not because of graphics being good, either.  They're low quality, but good enough for me.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 26, 2008)

PrinceXaxor said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, but 3d modeling is trickier than 2d art.  While these aren't the prettiest of graphics, they certainly aren't total crap.  If you really want to know what games looked like in 1998, here is the Wikipedia list of games.  I think age is making some of our posters forget just how far we've come in 10 years when it comes to graphics.



Is the sample dungeon _really _anything better than what you'd find in Heretic II?







Is there any animation at all in the digital game table?


----------



## FourthBear (Feb 26, 2008)

They look good enough to substitute for the unpainted minis, coins, dice, random rocks and stones we usually use around our game table.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 26, 2008)

Looking at it again, I have to say that even though I don't like the portrait models, the actual dungeon tiles and minis look nice.

I wish that WotC would release an Xbox Live version of the D&D game table. I'd love to put up the dungeon on my big screen and let the players use a controller to move their minis around when it was their turn to act.

That would be all kinds of AWESOME!


----------



## Intrope (Feb 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Looking at it again, I have to say that even though I don't like the portrait models, the actual dungeon tiles and minis look nice.
> 
> I wish that WotC would release an Xbox Live version of the D&D game table. I'd love to put up the dungeon on my big screen and let the players use a controller to move their minis around when it was their turn to act.
> 
> That would be all kinds of AWESOME!



 THIS.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 26, 2008)

They need to buy the hero modeler being put together for Champions Online, or at least City of Heroes.  

More realistically, I'm hoping they create a "shrinky dink" option so we can just put up properly-sized 2D images in place of meh 3D minis.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm fine with the graphics. I doubt you'll see the minis up close much during a game.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> edit: and to answer a question from another thread: Rapiers are in. As are Katars.




Katars are so Diablo II.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 26, 2008)

The Katars make me think that the Rogue Weapon List is incomplete since the Katar screams Rogue to me and fits with the mandate or atleast the mandate we have seen for the Rogue with; easily-concealable, one-handed, straight-blade, light.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Looking at it again, I have to say that even though I don't like the portrait models, the actual dungeon tiles and minis look nice.



Personally, if it's not even on the level of battlemaps I can create out of NWN II or even NVN I, I would be highly disappointed - especially if I have to _pay_ for the service. The tools are out there already to run games online (die rollers, chat), I just don't see anything compelling in this offering if what we see here is indicitive of what we'll get.

And from what I've heard, the figures aren't even animated on the battlemap, just glorified chess pieces moving around.


----------



## The_Fan (Feb 26, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> WoW characters suck, I want something like Oblivion



 Ugh. Such thing as too many options. It took me several days of tweaking just to get a character whose face didn't make me cringe.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 26, 2008)

PrinceXaxor said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, but 3d modeling is trickier than 2d art.  While these aren't the prettiest of graphics, they certainly aren't total crap.  If you really want to know what games looked like in 1998, here is the Wikipedia list of games.  I think age is making some of our posters forget just how far we've come in 10 years when it comes to graphics.




Yeah, there were many games with primitive graphics back then, but 1998 was also the year of games like Half-Life and Metal Gear Solid. The computers of the day definitely wouldn't have been able to animate characters with this level of detail - at least not well enough for a playable game - but the fact we already had quality 3D graphics ten years ago really doesn't make this application look very good.


----------



## gtJormungand (Feb 26, 2008)

What I find interesting is that rapiers (as well as katanas, and the rest of the mentioned weapons) are all under the Superior Weapons, which is different than Military.  This must be the new exotic weapon category.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 26, 2008)

The clothes, armor and textures look good enough to me, at least not worse than WoW. It's the human parts that are disturbingly unattractive.

I don't think there is any technology issue here, just poor aesthetic choices during design. WoW has very stylised, somewhat anime characters, with geometrical faces and figures Here, they attempted something more realistic and detailed. Which makes it easier to botch up facial and body proportions and end up with ugly. And they did, big time.

I would have preferred more idealised (not necessarily anime) features over detail.
Unless an elaborate “yuck” option was actually used to make these characters, It's one more reason for me to stay away from dnd online.


----------



## Stogoe (Feb 26, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> They look good enough to substitute for the unpainted minis, coins, dice, random rocks and stones we usually use around our game table.




THIS.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 26, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I'm impressed by the detail, particularly the 5 o'clock shadow and adam's apples on the female figures.




Well the article did point out that those of us with transgendered characters wouldn't be left out. Now if they can come up with some atractive females this could be considered a feature.


----------



## Tewligan (Feb 26, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I'm impressed by the detail, particularly the 5 o'clock shadow and adam's apples on the female figures.



She's a 4th level WarTranny!


----------



## Tewligan (Feb 26, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> D&D should emulate retro 70's graphics instead.



Agreed!


----------



## small pumpkin man (Feb 26, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> They look good enough to substitute for the unpainted minis, coins, dice, random rocks and stones we usually use around our game table.




I disagree, I will always prefer no art to bad art, not to mention poor 3D art tends to look particularly bad, especially when making an attempt at realism as this does. Thing is, the two characters fighting the beholder look relatively well done, if not particularly high tech, it's just the pictures of half made characters which look really really awful.

If I was going to use an internet game board, there are already free ones which have basic sprite art and allow me to easily enter my own, the _only_ reason I would have to use this would be a shiny 3D, extremely intuitive interface. Since the 3D lacks "the shiny" and the only interface I've seen from WotC is Gleemax (which I find unintuitive and irritating to navigate) I can't see myself ever using this.


----------



## Corinth (Feb 26, 2008)

Of all the things I wouldn't mind being stolen from WOW, I would object least to stealing their character and effect models.  Good God, that DDI preview makes chicken scratches look good.


----------



## Nytmare (Feb 26, 2008)

My guess is that someone at WOTC has a sense of humor and pushed this out to create a lot of noise prior to the real unveiling next weekend, or that someone at Boingboing doesn't like 4th ed, got these a LOOOONG time ago and wanted to try for a sucker punch.  I don't really like either one of those answers though.

Was this released anywhere else?  Is Boingboing a normal venue for teasers like this?

From top to bottom, this looks unprofessional and sloppy.  Especially compared to the high standards Wizards appears to have regarding the rest of the line's production value.  I can't believe that these are anything but early drafts, it just doesn't mesh.

Even compared to the graphics in DDO, these examples pale in comparison.  And it's not just the characters either.  The menu designs, the fonts, and even the color choices look unpolished and thrown in temporarily.  

As for designing to the specifications of your userbase's technology, you design for a range and allow the users to modify display settings.  You don't design for the lowest common denominator and hope that the people who HAVE nice setups don't mind.  Plus you're not talking about any serious rendering here.  How much animation are we really expecting for that game table?


[EDIT] - It's kinda like a cheeseburger except with avocado instead of cheese and they forgot to put the hamburger patty in and they give you two bottoms of a bun instead of a real set and then forgot the ketchup.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> It's kinda like a cheeseburger except with avocado instead of cheese and they forgot to put the hamburger patty in and they give you two bottoms of a bun instead of a real set and then forgot the ketchup.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 26, 2008)

I care a lot less about what it looks like, than I do about whether it functions.  I just want a friggen character generator that works with all the official books, and is modable by individuals or 3rd parties to adapt to house rules and third party publications, and that looks right when you print out the character sheet.  That's it.  That's all I want.  I've wanted it since 3.0.

A functional game board that works right with all the rules would also be nice.  Something like Klooge, but with more functionality.  I suspect that is what we will get.

I don't understand you guys focusing on what it looks like...it's not in itself a game guys, it's just a quick visualization of the actual game.  Who cares if it's even stick figures, if it works?


----------



## Imban (Feb 26, 2008)

Hmm. For the virtual tabletop, I'm wondering what's going to be there in terms of things that... aren't dungeons. Will there be support for towns and outdoors?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 26, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> My guess is that someone at WOTC has a sense of humor and pushed this out to create a lot of noise prior to the real unveiling next weekend, or that someone at Boingboing doesn't like 4th ed, got these a LOOOONG time ago and wanted to try for a sucker punch.  I don't really like either one of those answers though.



I hope you are right but so far when some one comes out spouting rubbish as official release a WotC guy puts us right on these boards. Waiting............


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 26, 2008)

Well it is the middle of the night, lol, their probably all asleep if it is old, beta, etc.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Feb 26, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> The character modeler looks like dog crap; fantasy cliche at best.
> 
> With the innovations already present in MMORPGs today, you'd think that WotC would actually hire expert character modelers. These people are a dime a dozen, and hungry for work.




YES, hire me. check out my website, lol. WotC, at the moment I'm looking for work. Hire me before some other awesome company does. you wont regret it.


----------



## Nytmare (Feb 26, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I don't understand you guys focusing on what it looks like...it's not in itself a game guys, it's just a quick visualization of the actual game.  Who cares if it's even stick figures, if it works?




It has a very strong visual element, and it is a part of a game that has already set its own standards for what the style and artistic benchmarks should be.  It's part of a complete package, not a third party tool that sacrifices style in lieu of function.  If it works, I will be happy, but not as happy as I would be if it worked and looked as gorgeous as everything else they're creating.

I'm a graphic artist by training and occasionally by trade, and I'm on the development team for Kingdom of Loathing (for those of you who don't know it, think clicky text adventure with drunk stick figures).  The visual aspects of _everything_ are important to me, but not nearly as important as it is for the visual aspects of a professionally made product to tie things together into a unified whole.  Especially when those visual aspects run the risk of turning possible fresh blood away.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 26, 2008)

For the PHB1 classes, it was a complete spoiler.
For the visual content, meh. But I know it can and will be improved.
So for the time being I'll say this: Nice try.


----------



## Andor (Feb 26, 2008)

I note that the katana is listed seperately from the bastard sword. I'm hoping that's just a graphical difference and we're not going back to the days of making up different stats for the longsword, broadsword, backsword or saber, scimitar, shamshir etc...


----------



## Agamon (Feb 26, 2008)

One word comes to mind with those models: fugly!

At least WotC is going against the Hollywood grain and not making PCs automatically good looking.  But then, this is fantasy.  Who wants to look like a she-man?


----------



## epochrpg (Feb 26, 2008)

I hope it doesn't HAVE to be Klingon armor.  I would actually like Medieval European armor in my game-- I hope that is an option.


----------



## Mentat55 (Feb 26, 2008)

Is it just me, or is it weird that the short sword is listed under superior weapons?  Maybe it is just me, since the rapier is also currently a martial weapon, and the katar is essentially a punching dagger (a simple weapon).


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 26, 2008)

The graphics are not up to par at all, but I wouldn't be using the program for its graphics anyway. And those can be improved in the future.

They need to make the thing work right. If it can be used to simulate a table top game easily, and has some good robust features like a quality character generator, than that's what I want. They really need to make sure that's working right before they waste time on graphics, imo.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm of two minds about this.

First, the beholder picture shows what seems to be the cleric of Pelor mini from the Dungeons of Dread preview along with an anonymous dwarf that could really be any mini. If the D&D minis line will be available in digital form for use, that's not too bad. If I had all the minis, I could have representative minis for most of the characters I use in non-online sessions. And it will certainly be a big improvement over the AOL instant messenger interface that I used the last time I tried D&D online. (Download a spreadsheet to keep track of locations where it is important; otherwise, ask lots of questions in text).

That said, there are aesthetics issues that bother me and one big functionality issue that concerns me.

Aesthetically, I am trained to expect 3d backgrounds in an environment like that. Where are the walls and the roof? When I play other games on my computer, I get the full 3d environment and it adds a lot to the aesthetic feel of the game. When I look at the DDI screenshot and don't see it, I'm disappointed. 

Also, my standards for representation are higher in an online or computer based setting than in a pen and paper session. Today, I needed a Gorgimera (gorgon rather than lion based chimera) for the Lost Caverns of Tsjocanth game I'm running. I didn't have a gorgon mini handy. I didn't have Chimera mini handy. So I plopped a fiendish dire wolverine on the table and called it good. In the past, I would have used blank large citadel monster base and called it good. (I've always had painted minis for characters but the paint quality improved until D&D minis came out when it took a moderate hit in favor of easy portability and hassle-free storage). But I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with proxying in a computer based system. Again, in computer games I'm far more used to wysiwyg representationalism and the though that I might have to remember that the fiendish dire wolverine is really a gorgimera is not a promising one.

Even with those issues, however, it would still be a clear improvement over what I now use (or to be more precise, what I now don't use because it's too clunky, too complex, or has too much set-up time and effort involved). The one that concerns me the most is this: the modelling system seems to be the D&D Dungeon tiles.

This concerns me because I don't like the dungeon tiles for most settings. I don't much like their inn and tavern. I don't remember seeing any kind of chapel in their dungeon tile set, and if I did, I don't know that I would want to use it. I generally use a battlemap because of the freedom that it gives me to make the terrain the way I want it, and when I do use tiles, I like to have a wider variety of tiles to use (0-one games' Inn for a large, high quality establishment; Dwayne Argim's HeroQuest tiles inn for a moderate sized inn, the Golden Griffon Inn from the back of the last DDM map set for a classy two story inn, and drawing one for a small inn or tavern. In a dungeon, I want to have more twisty, turny corridors and differently sized and differently shaped rooms than I have observed to be possible with the Dungeon Tiles product. If the product were limited to the NWN toolset, I would be unhappy but could probably live with it (especially if I could get the CEP and DLA add-ons). If it's limited to Dungeon Tiles, that's not enough functionality for me.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 26, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> YES, hire me. check out my website, lol. WotC, at the moment I'm looking for work. Hire me before some other awesome company does. you wont regret it.



 Heh. Join the club, buddy!


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 26, 2008)

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or is it weird that the short sword is listed under superior weapons?  Maybe it is just me, since the rapier is also currently a martial weapon, and the katar is essentially a punching dagger (a simple weapon).




I think the answer to this and all related questions is that this isn't the character generator - it's the character "visualizer", so what we see of the interface won't have much to do with the actual rules of chargen.

I'm betting "superior weapons" just means all the weapon models that look more flashy and flamboyant, rather than realistic and utilitarian.


----------



## Syunsuke (Feb 26, 2008)

I have been wondering whether Americans think these kind of (female)figures in computer games atractive or not.
I think finally I get answer


----------



## EATherrian (Feb 26, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> D&D should emulate retro 70's graphics instead.




I myself want the Virtual Tabletop to use the old Gold-Box graphics.


----------



## EATherrian (Feb 26, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I agree that the graphics leave something--maybe a lot--to be desired.
> 
> OTOH, if the program succeeds in terms of its promised _functionality_, I can live with mediocre pics.




Maybe in the Points of Light world everyone is just really, really ugly.  Beauty isn't a Points of Light concept.


----------



## EATherrian (Feb 26, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> That's the beauty of it: you don't _have_ to! Just tell your local WotC representative to hire someone who can design cool characters! Like...
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> ...




Who?  Do you know anyone?


----------



## EATherrian (Feb 26, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I'm impressed by the detail, particularly the 5 o'clock shadow and adam's apples on the female figures.




The Fall of the Tiefling Empire involved a massive testosterone spill into the water supply.  Today they still live with that horror.


----------



## EATherrian (Feb 26, 2008)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> Agreed!




My God it's the return of the War Duck!!!


----------



## Traycor (Feb 26, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I agree that the graphics leave something--maybe a lot--to be desired.
> 
> OTOH, if the program succeeds in terms of its promised _functionality_, I can live with mediocre pics.



I'm sure the hardcore gamers can live with sucky graphics that look over 10 years outdated (that's not an exaggeration btw), but for most of us, I would have a hard time paying $15 a month for something that looks like I bought it off the $5 rack at Wal-Mart.

But it's much worse than the graphics simply looking outdated. Whoever made those models is obviously not much of an artist. I mean, the women look butch in the extreme. If my wife sat down to make a character and she looked like that, she would probably refuse to use the gametable. Come on! Surely someone could have used some reference material and made the women look like _women_!


----------



## Traycor (Feb 26, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> They really need to make sure that's working right before they waste time on graphics, imo.



One would hope that _different_ people were programming the functionality and designing the graphics. If DDI is a shoestring opperation were the same dude is prgramming it and doing the modeling, then it's not going to work right _anyway_.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2008)

I've been playing online (over OpenRPG) for years now.  I can honestly say that graphics is the one place where online gaming can rock over tabletop.  You lose out on a lot of things when you use VTT - no personal interaction, voice characterization can be difficult, no body language - so, you need to gain in other areas to make up for it.

With Open, I can use any image for my battlemaps.  That means I'm using stuff like Dunjinni maps straight up.  They look great.  And, I can actually show pictures of the NPC's instead of trying to describe them.  

So, for me, if I'm paying for this, I want graphics that make my players drool.  I want to blow their minds visually, since I cannot do so in other ways.  The graphics here were not pretty.  Looked like some amateur hack work that you might see on Renderocity.  That's simply not good enough.  

Now, I know this is a preview and not the finished product.  But, jeez, guys, let's see some goodies hey?  This is just not good enough for me to shell out close to a thousand dollars a year to play (me and my six players anyway).  Not when I can get as good or better for free.


----------



## Emirikol (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm looking forward to the 3D virtual tabletop.  I know many of you have buried your time in more graphically enhanced MMO's and whatnot, but for me, it will be nice to have a "virtual tabletop."

We're currently playing using RPTools Maptools.  It's a hell of a system for freeware, but if WotC can push the envelope with stuff like this for virtual, real-time, DM-controlled tabletops, we're probably in for a treat.

..as for scenarios where a DM sat down and spent 55 hours of programming for a 4 hour auto-run game..yea, that doesn't sound like fun to me as a DM..and in which case, you're better off just telling your players "Go buy a game off the shelf and stop bothering me."

Go virtual tabletop!

jh


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 26, 2008)

Traycor said:
			
		

> Surely someone could have used some reference material and made the women look like _women_!



Chyna is a woman. Well, sort of.


----------



## Traycor (Feb 26, 2008)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> I know many of you have buried your time in more graphically enhanced MMO's and whatnot, but for me...



I lol'd at this. Neverwinter Nights is a great example. That game had outdated and low-end graphics when it came out, but it traded off functionality for graphics. The game still looked good and worked very very well... That's the kind of trade off I would expect.

The Gametable.... uh.... Neverwinter came out I guess about 5 years ago and its graphics were very outdated at the time.... and even as old as it is, Neverwinter's graphics BLOW this tabletop out of the water. "You sunk my battleship!" and all that.

What you are seeing isn't a "trade off". What you are seeing is an executive that didn't care whether or not what he allowed his people to make was a steaming pile of... you know...


----------



## mhensley (Feb 26, 2008)

fnord


----------



## Kirnon_Bhale (Feb 26, 2008)

*Exclusive Gallery: Dungeons and Dragons 4.0's "D&D Insider" Screenshots*

From all the replies. I see that most are regular computer users. I have no real opinion regarding the modeler pics.

I did however feel a shiver run down my spine when I looked at the title and at the text - all those references to *Dungeons and Dragons 4.0*

Nobody else seems to be taking notice of this. Maybe it is just me and my preorder of the core rules.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 26, 2008)

lkj said:
			
		

> Yah, I'm right here with you. I'd be pretty annoyed if they spent a lot of resources on pretty graphics and the functionality was weak. I'd be just as annoyed if the pretty graphics made the program run slowly or required a high end graphics card. To be blunt, I want it to be able to make characters and serve as a medium for a game. If it looks pretty but doesn't slow things down, then all the better.




I'd agree with you if we were talking about an actual computer game, but... this isn't a computer game.  It's just a gaming tool.  It's not a question of gameplay versus graphics.  It's a question of graphics versus not-graphics.

It's my understanding that there are free services that perform the function of the virtual tabletop perfectly well, albeit without frills.  Heck, I'm fairly sure I could write one myself if I put my mind to it.  If I'm going to pay for WotC's virtual tabletop, it's going to have to offer me something substantially beyond what those free services have going on.  Graphics quality is a big part of that.

As for performance--I can't believe performance is a serious issue.  This stuff isn't going to be animated AFAIK; you're just making a "virtual mini."  Nor will there be huge amounts of background stuff going on.

Bottom line, if the virtual tabletop can deliver a really compelling and attractive character portrait/virtual mini system, I'll sign up for it.  If not, not.  The VT is offering so few features compared to, say, a typical MMO, that there's no excuse to skimp on the features it does offer.



			
				Kirnon_Bhale said:
			
		

> From all the replies. I see that most are regular computer users. I have no real opinion regarding the modeler pics.
> 
> I did however feel a shiver run down my spine when I looked at the title and at the text - all those references to Dungeons and Dragons 4.0
> 
> Nobody else seems to be taking notice of this. Maybe it is just me and my preorder of the core rules.




The current edition is D&D 3.5.  4.0 is the next logical step.  I think that's all it is.  WotC has sworn up and down there will be no 4.5E, and I'm inclined to take them at their word.  (And before somebody brings up the tired old claim, no, they did NOT lie about whether they were working on 4E.  A couple of evasive answers from WotC employees were taken totally out of context.)


----------



## lkj (Feb 26, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I'd agree with you if we were talking about an actual computer game, but... this isn't a computer game.  It's just a gaming tool.  It's not a question of gameplay versus graphics.  It's a question of graphics versus not-graphics.
> 
> It's my understanding that there are free services that perform the function of the virtual tabletop perfectly well, albeit without frills.  Heck, I'm fairly sure I could write one myself if I put my mind to it.  If I'm going to pay for WotC's virtual tabletop, it's going to have to offer me something substantially beyond what those free services have going on.  Graphics quality is a big part of that.
> 
> ...




I don't disagree with you really. It's just that I don't care that much about the graphics. On the other hand, I completely and utterly understand why other people do. It's a justifiable desire for something that you are paying for. 

Now, having said that, the virtual tabletop does have a hill to climb before I'm willing to buy in. It has to offer something to beat Fantasy Grounds. Fantasy grounds has worked great for me. I've already payed for it. I won't have to keep paying every month. 
    And I'll be frank-- flipside of the coin-- spiffy graphics just ain't going to do it. I'm willing to believe you that such graphics won't necessarily slow down game play. But game over for me if they do. Now what would beat FG for my purposes? Don't know at this point. Wizards has to sell me on that.

      On the other hand, the character generator is of much, much more interest to me. I need one of those as a DM. I couldn't care less about the pictures for that. I just want the character sheet with all the numbers crunched right. Graphics are completely irrelevant (to me).

AD


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 26, 2008)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward to the 3D virtual tabletop.




From what I have seen, it appears to be 3D models in a 2D world. If your characters can travel up and down, in addition to forward-back-left-right, I'll be impressed.

Granted, I doubt we'll see support for aerial/aquatic/variable-gravity planar adventures in the initial release. Perhaps by the time they get it right, they'll have Mac support and character icons for every MM entry.


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 26, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Perhaps by the time they get it right, they'll have Mac support and character icons for every MM entry.



Hahahahaha...err... yeah.  Mac support?  Minis you don't have to pay for?  Want a pony with that?  

I think that the graphics look outdated and ugly.  The women they have shown look excessively masculine.  I'm an amateur 3D artist (more experience in 2D and graphic design), but I can still make better art than that on my own.  What I'd like to see is for the character generator to be compatible with some of the standard 3D file formats so that you can import a 3D model.  That's unlikely to happen, given the difficulty of fitting weapons and armor onto a non-standard model.  Fair enough.  

What the character generator seems to be for (graphically speaking) is producing a 2D image using 3D modeling.  I imagine it goes something like this:  You dress the character with the right items and accessories, rotate and pose them the way you want, then you can print off your portrait for the character sheet, or a 2D image with a backdrop that you select.  So you don't need a machine capable of animating these figures.  That takes a lot more horsepower than just rotating them and moving their limbs into different poses.  It can take the time to re-render each step, without worrying about realtime lag.  Have it drop to flat-shaded models while rotating or posing, then re-render when you stop fiddling with it.  

The state of 3D modeling is very advanced nowadays.  We should be able to get images that look much better than the ones we've seen, given that the model is just being rendered to 2D anyway.  Here's a nice look at what the amateur 3D artists like myself have to work with DAZ3D human models.  These models are cheap, versatile, have endless morphs available to make them look different (including things to make them look like aliens, elves, whatever).  I know that purchasing 3D models for use in a company product isn't the same as me buying one for individual use, but come on!  The tech is there, the work has been done.  Why reinvent the (ugly) wheel?  Gah.  But I have a Mac, so I'll be making my *own* character portraits using my 3D rendering toys.   

None of this applies by the way to the VTT.  That is supposed to look like minis on a tabletop, so it's slightly different.  Still kind of crude, but I'm not commenting on the modeling for that.  *shrug*


----------



## malladin (Feb 26, 2008)

Even though someone else said it 'bringing us the best graphic technology 1999 has offer' is the best and funiest description of this I've seen so far.


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 26, 2008)

malladin said:
			
		

> Even though someone else said it 'bringing us the best graphic technology 1999 has offer' is the best and funiest description of this I've seen so far.



Lol, that's priceless.


----------



## Voss (Feb 26, 2008)

'99 had better graphics than that.  

But on the graphics... its interesting look at the thing.  Personally, I don't care about the system at all, and don't want it.  And sure, it might be fine for a small portion of the audience that doesn't care about the graphics.  But...

this is theoretically a professional product that they want to sell to people.  Including new people, and people who are used to a certain graphical standard in computer products.  Being a year or two behind the curve is acceptable to a general audience.  A full decade behind?  That will damage sales severely and drive off people that would otherwise buy it.  This looks like a poorly implemented and poorly funded attempt at a shoddy virtual tabletop.  It also gives the impression that TPTB don't take it seriously, and it will be dropped 6 months to a year after release.

Which works for me, because then they can put more money into the game and not the silly side projects.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 26, 2008)

malladin said:
			
		

> Even though someone else said it 'bringing us the best graphic technology 1999 has offer' is the best and funiest description of this I've seen so far.




Seriously, it's truly amazing how awful those player models are. I mean, I'm really pressed to think of anything that looks worse than the hideous man-lady and the "Igor"-esque fighter or cleric or whatever the hell he is. How can anyone possibly not think those faces and bodies look _terrible_? Embarassing, even.

I mean, I'd rather have non-animated 2D characters in the applications than those horrid things.

*Zinovia* - You say "why invent the (ugly) wheel", and you're spot on. It's bizzzzzzzzzzzzzare. So many easily available attractive 3D models, so many talented 3D modellers out there, and DDI somehow manages to hire the one who makes every face look like a horses' rear end. I mean, jeez, you can spare a few more polys for the face, guys, you can even use LOD on it if that upsets you!


----------



## Silvergriffon (Feb 26, 2008)

Really, the tabletop looks OK to me but I have to say again that those characer creator models are soooooo bad! The biggest problem with this is that people will see screenshots like that and will dismiss the whole product as being an amateurish piece of junk without ever taking a closer look at the product as a whole. So, no matter how good the rest of it is, this could adversely affect sales.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 26, 2008)

Silvergriffon said:
			
		

> Really, the tabletop looks OK to me but I have to say again that those characer creator models are soooooo bad! The biggest problem with this is that people will see screenshots like that and will dismiss the whole product as being an amateurish piece of junk without ever taking a closer look at the product as a whole. So, no matter how good the rest of it is, this could adversely affect sales.



I think this is an important point. While I wasn't planning on using this system, I was hoping it would be good and thought I might get into it later on ... I have some friends who are a fair bit away from me, so why not give it a try?

And then I see this terrible graphics. Just horrible. Unless I see things have seriously improved, I'm out of this. I am working on a gaming project at the moment, and when considering artwork, I had a number of industry professionals tell me "no art is better than bad art." This is *bad art*, and I suggest that WotC get rid of it entirely until they can get something decent up.

--Steve


----------



## Belorin (Feb 26, 2008)

They have screenshots for class and items, but not for race. I wonder...


Bel


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 27, 2008)

Zinovia said:
			
		

> Here's a nice look at what the amateur 3D artists like myself have to work with...




   I've been messing with Poser since version 2 and Bryce since KPT Bryce. Here's a quick render I did years ago, to show someone what could be done in under 5 minutes. Bryce + Poser


----------



## fnwc (Feb 27, 2008)

lkj said:
			
		

> Now, having said that, the virtual tabletop does have a hill to climb before I'm willing to buy in. It has to offer something to beat Fantasy Grounds. Fantasy grounds has worked great for me. I've already payed for it. I won't have to keep paying every month. Now what would beat FG for my purposes? Don't know at this point. Wizards has to sell me on that.



I think we all agree the graphics are poor; while this is not a deal breaker for me, I would prefer something that looks polished. That being said, the biggest selling point for me is how well the rule set is automatically integrated into electronic tools that will enhance/quicken my gaming experience. I've used just about all of the possible electronic RPG tools out there, Fantasy Grounds, eTools, etc. I've compiled a wishlist of things I think would really justify the subscription cost of DDI.

Things I would like to see:

Character generator/sheet - This has to support all of their official rulebooks, and will work at least as good as eTools or other similar programs. Should be able to autocalculate any calculated values on the sheet, and auto-populate values that are appropriate (e.g., spells). They should also give the option to use a non-calculating/validating character sheet (for custom stuff)
Character Validator - Can validate a character sheet meeting some 'requirement' so that a DM doesn't have to thoroughly evaluate a character to see if they are 'legal' (i.e., to prevent a level 2 warrior from having a Warhammer +5)
Power/spell cards - Included in the character sheet, should auto-generate a printable page of your powers for easy reference
Automatic encounter generators for DM (should populate in to the combat tracker tool)
Combat Tracker to track initiative, hp, effects, etc. Should autopopulate values from the MM (if you own it). Figures should be tied to this as well, so you can easily add figures to the map. You should be allowed to save the Combat Tracker states so that an enterprising DM can pre-populate the tracker for various fights in a module, to save time at the table.
It would be nice to be able to see the various combat effects on the map per unit; this could be represented by small graphics hovering above the figure. An example might be a green droplet indicating a unit is poisoned, a cloud with 'zzzz' indicating a unit is unconscious/sleeping.
Easy access to all of your hardback books; all content should be indexed and searchable. There should be an easy way to 'reference' this material, perhaps by dragging the header of a body of text into the chat window, so you can share it with all of the other players, or the DM, in case a rules question comes up. This would also come in handy while building a character, especially if you can search for something like _All Feats that contain the words 'attack of opportunity'_.
All of the subsystems should integrate well with each other. For example, opening the Combat Tracker and dragging the 'figure' icon onto the map could allow you to automatically grab the needed figure from your virtual collection. This would save the time of having to search through your miniatures to add it. I'd like to be able to drag a monster heading from the MM into the Combat Tracker and have it populate the appropriate values.
A party treasure sheet that shows different information for the PCs and for the DM. PCs would be able to see things like 'long sword' and 'amber gem'. The DM would see the same items as a long sword +1 and 50 gp amber gem. It would be nice to toggle whether or not the PCs had detected a magical aura on the item -- things like that. It would be even nicer if the sheet could be tied to the PCs character inventories easily.
Some of the examples of integration mentioned above really fall into a thing that might be called 'context sensitive dragging'. Dragging the entry of a _long sword +2, Defender _ from the PHB to a character sheet would equip that character with that weapon and add it to their inventory. Doing the same thing onto a Combat Tracker entry would equip the appropriate monster with it, or add it to its treasure (depending on where it's dropped). Dragging and dropping it into the chat window would give the text entry from the PHB in OOC chat. Dragging and dropping it onto the map would put a sword figure on the ground representing it.
The ability to save the state of the entire adventure, from the placement of the figures on the map, to the Combat Tracker, etc.

There are plenty of other things I can't think of right now, but implementing stuff like this would be a big selling point (for me).


----------



## broghammerj (Feb 27, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I don't understand you guys focusing on what it looks like...it's not in itself a game guys, it's just a quick visualization of the actual game.  Who cares if it's even stick figures, if it works?




Because for guys like me who don't give a hoot about online Dragon or Dungeon, the money is a bit steep for on online gaming table alone.  If I pay a WoW-like online monthly subscription fee I want something that looks good considering these are inanimate renderings.


----------



## curupira (Feb 27, 2008)

PrinceXaxor said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, but 3d modeling is trickier than 2d art.  While these aren't the prettiest of graphics, they certainly aren't total crap.  If you really want to know what games looked like in 1998, here is the Wikipedia list of games.  I think age is making some of our posters forget just how far we've come in 10 years when it comes to graphics.




Yeah, but it's not the whole story. COMPUTER games looked like that. Arcade games were better: remember, Virtua Fighter 3 was released in 1996 (and in 1998 for DreamCast).

Nowadays, good computers beat arcades (they still exist?). I don't buy your protest of "3d modeling is trickier than 2d art". The problem is obviously not the level of detail, but the fact that those graphics were not drawn by a good artist. It was the exact same problem of Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind (just look for all the "pretty faces" mods for Morrowind and you'll see).


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Feb 27, 2008)

[sarcasm]Now the art clearly shows why male and females can have the same Strength scores . . . because they have the same bodies! Hey, it is the tragic end result of not having separate gender max scores for Strength. *cough*[/sarcasm]


----------



## Witchfinder General (Feb 27, 2008)

The character renders are less than impressive. Some thoughts:

Fantasy fonts and decor elements may look good on an interface mockup, but it can get very distracting and annoying for applications you use a lot. I would like a clean GUI for the visualizer. I don't care if it looks like a generic Windows application, and in fact I would prefer if it did.

The sepia portrait in the the third screenshot looks a bit odd, almost bloated. It is probably a close-up taken with a wide angle lens. This can probably be fixed by moving the POV back and zooming in.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 27, 2008)

Well, I'd like more stylized graphics, but...

my main thing is that I want this to be an application I can run on top of a number of other things.  I don't want this to be a power concern at all even for a low end computer.  So on that level the graphics fill me with some hope.

And the dungeon tiles and mini's look a lot better than the 2D graphics.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 27, 2008)

Ever since I started using DAZ Studio for PC and NPC pictures as well as to create illustrations for my campaign history, my standards regarding game art have gone up.

What I see on those screens is not good enough for 2008.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 27, 2008)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Now the art clearly shows why male and females can have the same Strength scores . . . because they have the same bodies!




Somebody call Dee Snider. 4e has gone Twisted Sister!


----------



## Klaus (Feb 27, 2008)

Any idea what software was used for those character models? I'd like to learn how to use something like that.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 27, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Any idea what software was used for those character models? I'd like to learn how to use something like that.




You might want to look into Poser or DAZ Studio


----------



## fedelas (Feb 27, 2008)

the models seems pretty ugly, and the resolution is lame too. IMO if something has to interfer with my imagination of the character i want to play, i need something that is good-looking (not exactly what i've seen).
I'm a little disappointed in seeing only the 8 class we know ( my hope was for a 2nd controller    ) but i like the confirmation of weapon divided not only in group like light blade or pick but also in the three broad category ( simple, military, superior); however reading the rogue article sems that weapon proficienses have nothing to do with this category like in 3ed, but are fixed... i'm still in doubt.
In the end my interest on DDI products depend on how much they are supported in my country (i'm italian), yes many thing are appealing to me but this first sneak peek let me very disappointed.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 27, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> You might want to look into Poser or DAZ Studio



 Can I create armors, weapons and faces with these?


----------



## sunmaster (Feb 27, 2008)

@fedelas : If there is a company which license and translates D&D into Italian then I would recommend asking them if they will support DDI.

@Klaus: As I know you can make all these things with Poser (http://graphics.smithmicro.com/imagecatalogue/image/list/20?sbss=504 ).

The best thing is that these figures in the screenshots are more or less static graphics. They could have render the best graphics on a rendering cluster to get character images that let look Final Fantasy as seventies Disney crap.

I don't know what is running wrong in the halls of WotC but they have really big difficulties with software it seems.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 27, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Can I create armors, weapons and faces with these?




Armor , weapons , and faces


----------



## WhatGravitas (Feb 27, 2008)

Hexdump said:
			
		

> Fantasy fonts and decor elements may look good on an interface mockup, but it can get very distracting and annoying for applications you use a lot. I would like a clean GUI for the visualizer. I don't care if it looks like a generic Windows application, and in fact I would prefer if it did.



The problem is: There is too much *useless* fantasy decor. It has no function besides looking fantasy-y - and the background uses too much real screen estate.

NWN 1 pulled the non-boring design off (NWN 2 less much), as well as other modern games. It's possible to do non-windows-looking things, but you can do without using too much design elements. I have the same beef with the new D&D website. Compare with their MtG website - much cleaner, but definitively not "more boring".

Cheers, LT.


----------



## vectner (Feb 27, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> D&D should emulate retro 70's graphics instead.




You know that would actually be really cool. Erol Otis style. Trying to look like newer computer games just isn't working. These graphics look like those freebee MMO's.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 27, 2008)

Ideally I'd like to see a combination of klooge.werks and dundjinni, with models by Poser/DAZ3D and landscapes by Bryce. Not too tall an order, eh?


----------



## hong (Feb 28, 2008)

According to Scott Rouse's D&DXP blog, the character creator and game table are still pre-alpha.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 28, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> According to Scott Rouse's D&DXP blog, the character creator and game table are still pre-alpha.




Hmm. I am a bit surprised, I'd had expected them to be a bit furhter - June isn't that far way anymore!

On the other hand - I know from first-hand experience that software development always takes longer then predicted (often including the error margins developers add to their personal estimations before they tell their managers.  )


----------



## hong (Feb 28, 2008)

At this stage I'm pretty much expecting the char generator, game table and encounter generator to crash and burn, so anything better would be a bonus.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 28, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> According to Scott Rouse's D&DXP blog, the character creator and game table are still pre-alpha.




Not good news at all. DDI is supposed to launch with the core rules but so far there is little to no Dragon or Dungeon content plus the character gen and game table (the other half we would be paying for) are still in pre-alpha so I can't really see there will be any real online support worth paying for. And they also need to have that up by the time the books launch or they will loose large amounts of possible customers who are buying the core books asap only to find the online portion referenced in the books doesn't exist or sucks and who may not check back 6 months later to see what the have finally come up with.


----------



## Intrope (Feb 28, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> At this stage I'm pretty much expecting the char generator, game table and encounter generator to crash and burn, so anything better would be a bonus.



 That's a good way to approach most any new computer program!

On the other hand, the images The Rouse posted are better than the Boing Boing ones IMO.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Feb 28, 2008)

Just to quickly point out something.  The demo is of pre-Alpha, granted.  I don't see anywhere in the blog that mentions that's where the design is currently at, and coming from a background in demoing and testing, there can be any number of reasons why they can't or won't show something closer to release.


----------



## Shroomy (Feb 28, 2008)

I was under the impression that WoTC was signing people up for the Beta at DDXP.


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 28, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> You might want to look into Poser or DAZ Studio



DAZ Studio is *free*.  Yep, free for both Windows and Mac platforms.  
The catch is you pay for models, although they regularly give some of those away free as well.  The models are usable in Poser, DAZ Studio, Bryce, Carrerra, etc.  I use a combination of DAZ studio and Bryce and I'm pretty pleased with the results
I just need to make time to play with my 3D toys more.  I've been wanting to do some character portraits forever, but have a lot of work to do for science fiction conventions I'm involved in.  

To drag this back on topic, it's a bit dismaying hearing that an app due to be released in a few months is still in pre-alpha.  It really ought to be further along in development by now.  As others have said, I guess they rolled a '1' on their Digital Initiative.      It seems the main purpose of the visualizer is to make a custom mini for your character, which is cool neat.  I was hoping it would make a nice portrait as well.  The one they show is meh at best.  Here's hoping that those of you with Windows get a much better product when it's released in a few months.  If not, I expect a lot of people to give up on D&DI and not bother following up later - even if it's been improved by then.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 28, 2008)

Intrope said:
			
		

> That's a good way to approach most any new computer program!
> 
> On the other hand, the images The Rouse posted are better than the Boing Boing ones IMO.




They may look better in some areas but until we see a female character that doesn't look like a man then I will continue to be doubtful.


----------



## Darkthorne (Feb 28, 2008)

We should take into account that was they stated what we are seeing is pre-alpha doesn't mean that is the current state of the tool. They could have gotten the pre-alpha version a couple of months back to fully get used to how it runs so they may show that off at a demo w/o having to go wait I think this is where you go next (makes for a pretty sad demo). Just a different POV than what I have seen posted thus far.
Thanks


----------

