New screenshots of character visualizer, virtual tabletop

[Traycor]

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]

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]

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]

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

Chyna is a woman. Well, sort of.

 

[Traycor]

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]

fnord

 

[Kirnon_Bhale]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.