why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#311 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 00:12

Ok, one more post comparing the two. I want to share these for our discussion of light (which is still one of the things the game can improve the most). Again, I take my pics with a graphics mod in GTA V (which does help), but much of this is coded into the game. Look at the after sunset orange glow, the post glow blue hour, the pre-dawn glow, and the brightness of end of day sunlight as shown by long, dark shadows and significant contrast.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

SCS light is fading before it actually fades away for the day. So there's really no way to have super dark shadows and super bright light just before sunset. The whole sun brightness mellows out before it disappears on the horizon.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#312 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 01:46

abasstreppas wrote: 16 May 2022 23:39 If you just complain about cargo loads feels too light or trees that are not tall enough, you really need to put up facts to make your point. If you don't put an effort into what you feel need to be improved, nobody takes you seriously.
Some examples regarding the trees. The redwoods I think illustrate my point the best. They are super tall, as they should be, but the other trees around them are about half as tall. That's not realistic.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

Then look at the sign height here. The trees could be taller, would have no effect on the surrounding map, and would make the player feel smaller. Right now, the player feels way larger than he should.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]

For stuff like this, SCS is way too conservative.

Real world mountains and trees make you feel short, fields and plains make you feel small, and even some manmade stuff like distribution centers makes you feel tiny.

[ external image ]

When it comes to vertical space, SCS needs to follow Reforma's lead. A mountain should dwarf a truck.

[ external image ]
Viper28
Posts: 289
Joined: 25 Jul 2019 01:25

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#313 Post by Viper28 » 17 May 2022 02:47

seriousmods wrote: 16 May 2022 22:47
abasstreppas wrote: 16 May 2022 22:05 You may one day realise that if people in general are not complaining is because the game actually is a very good product?

Most of you who complain in numbers are actually very few, just saying...
This is entirely perception based, and in many cases in this forum, based on the player's lack of understanding of what is possible. If you have only eaten oatmeal your whole life, and someone is talking about a hamburger, you probably wouldn't understand what they meant. If however, you've had both, most people would agree that a hamburger makes a better dinner.

Time and again members of this forum, including some of the legends, show that they rarely play other games. So from their perspective, yes, SCS is doing a good job. From the perspective of someone like me, who plays a number of games, or someone far more well played than I am, SCS isn't doing that great a job.

And as @VTXcnME points out, those "complaining" are far more numerous than you might realize or SCS might notice. Read down on the blog, the YouTube videos, the FB posts, Reddit, etc. People are asking for the same things we're asking for, just in often quieter ways. Believe me, if SCS released walk mode tomorrow, there would be likely hundreds if not thousands of comments expressing some sentiment akin to "finally". But if such a thing is never brought up, and people don't even know the forum exists, those hopes and dreams are kept internally, waiting to someday see the light.

SCS hasn't produced a very good product. They have produced the framework for a very good product. I'll share a bit more about that in a separate post.
yes. And a couple more points to ponder:

When SCS is recruiting perspective employees, what's their pitch? Tell Me why someone in programming or map teams should want to work with their products (ATS & ETS2). **not necessarily saying they shouldn't; but what's their pitch?)** I personally wonder if some of the issues are related to retention behind the scenes. I mean, who's hopping in the "make maps for days line.?" **graphic design seems to be decent; course I've never had an issue with ATS graphics; they look pretty decent**

And yeah, I've noticed over time a few more negative comments and/or "hey, that's nice but what about this issue.." comments in the social media platform comments as well. And ultimately, that's the healthy counterbalance; if the distance between what can be done and is being done becomes more disparate; the harder it will be to sustain interest let alone grow consumer interest.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future" -JFK
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#314 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 04:22

@Viper28 I think one of the biggest issues SCS has is how much they talk to us about what they are going to do instead of listening to us for what maybe they should look into.

When Pavel gives his year end announcement, he's dictating how he thinks the game should be developed. Well, unless I am confused, Pavel and his team are making the game for us, the consumer. So if he wants buses and we want vans, we should see vans outpace buses in priority. Obviously, some user desires are not possible, but I fail to believe that SCS has pushed the limits of what's possible with their game engine, in its current state.

And yes, how are they recruiting new talent? You have to live in Prague for the most part. That seems like a downside for many people not from the area. I'm sure it's a nice city, but it's a different country and culture than many people are familiar with. And then how are decisions made internally? From all I can tell, there's very little freedom for the player to make the game his own, so there's likely similarly limited freedom for individual developers to really run wild within the bounds of what the game delivers.

I wouldn't say these games are bad, as that would be unfair. Parts of them are terrible, but overall they are ok. My frustration is in why there is no push to make them excellent. Stuff like cargo alone could make such a difference in this game, and yet it's getting almost no attention from the inside. Maybe it is, but SCS has such a tight-lipped mindset, it's impossible to gauge what they are doing until it's done. And typically, by the time we see it, there is no time or room for feedback. If we had seen the early stages of the wind turbine cargo or the 16-foot tall cattle wagon, maybe we could have helped steer either in the right direction. Unfortunately, they do all the work and then present it to us and hope we like it. Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't.

To add, I think many of the forum users here don't understand my and others' perspective on these games. I love trucks. I've been a truck nerd since I was a kid, thought I was going to do it for a career, and work in a related/dependent industry. Trucking in some ways is in my blood, and I want this game to give the most accurate portrayal of the industry possible so that future generations will be able to enjoy virtual trucking in as realistic a way as possible. I see simulators for trains, racecars, buses, planes, tractors, and even ships reaching higher and higher levels of quality, and yet I see truck simulators kinda languishing in an unimpressive state. SCS can do more, and if they do, I believe more people will play.

Part of that is just letting us do what we want within the game. If the Midwest is just a constant series of deco farms with gates on the gravel roads and grain elevators that we can't deliver to, it's going to be sad. The playable area should be maximized: every road that can be driven on physically should be a possibility to drive on in game, and we don't need barricades or gates in front of every business other than the few we can deliver to. At the least, we could pretend that we could visit them (which going back to GTA is most of what on-foot exploration is about given the limited number of buildings with interiors). At most, over time some of these businesses could get triggers and serve as new drops and new companies. I see something like this, and I just don't get it. Why waste the time detailing a business, then block it off so I can't even drive up to it. What is the point?

[ external image ]
[ external image ]

As a final note to my latest diatribe, I'd like to point out another game that I think could be compared in some ways to ATS, although it's a bit more successful. That game is Cities: Skylines.

As you can see by the Steam Charts, it's performing quite well, and I believe that is largely to due with the freedom players are given to make whatever they want with the world. The devs gave the foundation, and modders and others are doing the rest.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]

The most annoying thing about this game is that it doesn't currently seem to support exploring self-created worlds on foot/by vehicle. The AI is also incredibly janky, which would make any attempt to drive with mods quite difficult.

That being said, people are making incredible things with the game, some of which parallels ATS.

What stands out to me most is the amount of activity in the cities (boats, buses, emergency vehicles, trucks, pedestrians, etc) and the incredible density and compaction of some of these real life city layouts. A few examples:


The videos I see make things seem alive, bustling with activity, and showcasing a relationship between different industries and different forms of transportation. For a game that isn't 100% about logistics, like this one is, it makes a strong case for itself. If it supported truck driving, even basic cargo transport like ATS, I would flip to be able to haul some cargo in a super busy city (even if the map was only one city) like the ones I'm seeing in videos.


Another thing this game really seems to capture is the sense of scale: obviously much of this work is done at 1:1, but just the feeling it gives off of being overwhelmed by the complexity of a place. I just don't feel that, even at a state-wide level, in SCS games. Everything seems small and simple.

IamTheOne
Posts: 198
Joined: 23 Aug 2018 19:17

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#315 Post by IamTheOne » 17 May 2022 22:47

stchamber11 wrote: 16 May 2022 18:58 I am not 100% getting this graphics question. I have a killer system for MSFS, so for ATS, I have everything as max as it goes. In my opinion, the graphics are spectacular. Textures, reflections, shadowing, sun light, sky, etc etc. Some of the views are just postcard and I often get screen shots. What are these other games this is being compared to, I do not see them when I look at latest driving on you tube.
LMAO the problem is that other games have deep gameplay, so you're not seeing videos of players driving from Point A to Point B looking at scenery. With American Truck Simulator there's nothing better to do, so all you see are videos of custom paint jobs for trucks or videos of scenery.

I do agree with you though, the scenery in this game is very well done, and there should be no surprise as to why it's one of the game's biggest selling points. IMO some spots in both the Idaho and Colorado DLCs are some of the nicest designed sceneries I've ever seen in any video game. But unfortunately, pretty graphics does not save a game from lackluster gameplay.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#316 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 23:28

Agreed, with a complicated economy and cargo system, I don't think I'd have time to notice the angle of the sunlight.

But when "beating" the game/building a successful company is as simple as just playing, there's a lot of room to look around for things to improve.
IamTheOne
Posts: 198
Joined: 23 Aug 2018 19:17

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#317 Post by IamTheOne » 17 May 2022 23:43

seriousmods wrote: 17 May 2022 23:28 But when "beating" the game/building a successful company is as simple as just playing, there's a lot of room to look around for things to improve.
the problem though is that it's hard to do it with a game like this: simulations are meant to simulate the experience of the activity which you are trying to replicate, to a limited degree of course. Other than crappy freemium train simulator games that seem to be quite popular nowadays, I don't know of any transportation-themed simulator games that provide any sort of "end game".

With that in mind, SCS should be focusing on making the simulation as close to its real-life counterpart as possible, while also being aware of the constraints of developing a video game. I am of the personal belief that walking around the gameworld is a waste of developers' time, and the simulation would much more benefit from legitimate company management, that way American Truck Simulator would feel more like a legitimate simulation of managing a trucking company. The counterargument is that there are many "chill players" who just want to drive from Point A to Point B without complex company game management in the background, but my argument is that there is ultimately companies out there that have successfully made complex games using the "one size fits all" approach for their players. SCS's current approach of "one sized fits all" doesn't work because even if you buy 500$ minimum worth of gaming equipment and go "all in", you're still left with a barebones gaming experience.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#318 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 23:50

IamTheOne wrote: 17 May 2022 23:43
seriousmods wrote: 17 May 2022 23:28 But when "beating" the game/building a successful company is as simple as just playing, there's a lot of room to look around for things to improve.
the problem though is that it's hard to do it with a game like this: simulations are meant to simulate the experience of the activity which you are trying to replicate, to a limited degree of course. Other than crappy freemium train simulator games that seem to be quite popular nowadays, I don't know of any transportation-themed simulator games that provide any sort of "end game".

With that in mind, SCS should be focusing on making the simulation as close to its real-life counterpart as possible, while also being aware of the constraints of developing a video game. I am of the personal belief that walking around the gameworld is a waste of developers' time, and the simulation would much more benefit from legitimate company management, that way American Truck Simulator would feel more like a legitimate simulation of managing a trucking company. The counterargument is that there are many "chill players" who just want to drive from Point A to Point B without complex company game management in the background, but my argument is that there is ultimately companies out there that have successfully made complex games using the "one size fits all" approach for their players. SCS's current approach of "one sized fits all" doesn't work because even if you buy 500$ minimum worth of gaming equipment and go "all in", you're still left with a barebones gaming experience.
Yeah, good points. For company management, I'd point to Farming Sim. While not the greatest game, I as a player have way more power over the look of my farm, my equipment, what people working with me can do, and so on. Maybe there is no way to "beat the game," but I'd feel way more successful building a farmyard from scratch and owning all my equipment than I would getting fifteen garages and 74 invisible trucks and drivers.

More work equals more effort vs just do the bare minimum (hire people and buy trucks) and become a millionaire.

As for gameplay itself, the problem I have with the SCS approach is the lack of balance. A simulator should hit the middle ground in my opinion. Hardcore play is possible (with appropriate controllers) and silly arcade is also possible with no investment at all.

SCS leans heavily towards easy, arcade gameplay making someone like me that wants an authentic, challenging virtual driving experience left unsatisfied.
IamTheOne
Posts: 198
Joined: 23 Aug 2018 19:17

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#319 Post by IamTheOne » 18 May 2022 00:07

seriousmods wrote: 17 May 2022 23:50
Yeah, good points. For company management, I'd point to Farming Sim. While not the greatest game, I as a player have way more power over the look of my farm, my equipment, what people working with me can do, and so on. Maybe there is no way to "beat the game," but I'd feel way more successful building a farmyard from scratch and owning all my equipment than I would getting fifteen garages and 74 invisible trucks and drivers.

More work equals more effort vs just do the bare minimum (hire people and buy trucks) and become a millionaire.
Interesting point. But these are two different games addressing two different industries: trucking and farming. Farm customization in Farm Sim makes sense because a majority of game time you spend working at the farm. In American Truck Simulator? I rarely ever spend time at the garage, because even if I'm using my own truck I'm usually in the middle of a delivery, elsewhere on the map. I don't care if the walls of my garage in ATS are black, orange or green, because at the end of the day I want to be outside of my garage in order to play the game. In Farm Sim, on the other hand, the game revolves around your own personal farm and its multiple assets.

I guess that you can try to add a certain depth to the game by way of adding company management to ATS, having to hire secretaries, mechanics and deciding who my drivers are. But why should I care when they're just a bunch of names on a screen costing me money for salary every couple of in-game days? While I am strongly opinionated on the subject, I will admit that there's no easy solution for SCS to make this game into something that is a legitimately endearing experience that's more than just cosmetic window dressing.
Viper28
Posts: 289
Joined: 25 Jul 2019 01:25

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#320 Post by Viper28 » 18 May 2022 01:57

IamTheOne wrote: 18 May 2022 00:07
seriousmods wrote: 17 May 2022 23:50
Yeah, good points. For company management, I'd point to Farming Sim. While not the greatest game, I as a player have way more power over the look of my farm, my equipment, what people working with me can do, and so on. Maybe there is no way to "beat the game," but I'd feel way more successful building a farmyard from scratch and owning all my equipment than I would getting fifteen garages and 74 invisible trucks and drivers.

More work equals more effort vs just do the bare minimum (hire people and buy trucks) and become a millionaire.
Interesting point. But these are two different games addressing two different industries: trucking and farming. Farm customization in Farm Sim makes sense because a majority of game time you spend working at the farm. In American Truck Simulator? I rarely ever spend time at the garage, because even if I'm using my own truck I'm usually in the middle of a delivery, elsewhere on the map. I don't care if the walls of my garage in ATS are black, orange or green, because at the end of the day I want to be outside of my garage in order to play the game. In Farm Sim, on the other hand, the game revolves around your own personal farm and its multiple assets.

I guess that you can try to add a certain depth to the game by way of adding company management to ATS, having to hire secretaries, mechanics and deciding who my drivers are. But why should I care when they're just a bunch of names on a screen costing me money for salary every couple of in-game days? While I am strongly opinionated on the subject, I will admit that there's no easy solution for SCS to make this game into something that is a legitimately endearing experience that's more than just cosmetic window dressing.
true. Ultimately, I question if in reality SCS' target consumer here is really the individual wanting to enter the trucking industry or considering it. I am less and less convinced they're after the simulation enthusiast. I'd say the educational demographic too with the scenic screen shows or whatever they call them. To those of you that are diehard detailed simulation enthusiast; I wish I had the money; I throw an amazing game together for us. However, we'd likely have to be using non-branded generic trucks. That's SCS' prized possession.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future" -JFK
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: VTXcnME and 10 guests