creatures caves welcome, guest
downloads   gallery   dev   community   creatchi   forum   mycaves
bookmarks | search | post new topic
General Forum
old
Creatures Games Retrospective   
ManaException

ManaException



  9/27/2017

What was good about the Creatures games? What was bad? What could be improved? What got changed between the games and did that make them better or worse?

As Doringo on the Discord said: "Microtransactions and Facebook game elements, absolutely!"

 
GimmeCat

GimmeCat



  9/27/2017

This will probably end up sounding mostly negative, as I think we can all agree that the world simulation, interactivity and AI got generally better over the series, so I will be glossing over those and focusing on what I feel got worse over time, instead. But despite this, know that Creatures is one of my all-time favourite series, and that includes even the games I am about to poo-poo for various reasons below. :)

I feel the graphics took a sharp dip after C2, when they started relying on primitive 3D models as the basis of most of their graphics. The move away from hand drawn art happened prematurely, at a time when the tech simply wasn't yet good enough to provide good-looking, realistic graphics for organic or complex shapes. C3 norns look ugly to me, and I still genuinely can't believe Creatures Village/Adventure norns shipped looking like they've been bred with their own parents for the past twenty generations. *shudder*

The environments, too, became progressively more crowded and claustrophobic and just... way too busy. This process started in C2, but got particularly bad in C3/Exodus. There were just so many objects, critters and details packed into so little space, and there was no clarity to the colours or values used.

Compare the visual readability of this scene (C3) to this one (C1).

Now, granted, that first image (courtesy of Kezune.com) includes a few custom cobs which - ironically enough - are actually the things that stand out the most clearly. Kudos to the creators of those COBs for that, but sadly, that means they don't fit in with the rest of the decor. This is because absolutely everything else in that scene has the same depth and value, the same crispness, the same contrast. As a result, it all gets lost in a sea of visual noise, where individual objects (and even creatures) are hard to make out without squinting, and it's sometimes impossible to tell whether something is part of the background or not.

Would you be able to see the hummingbird nest in that pic if you didn't already know where it was? Or even the hummingbird itself, for that matter. I know where it is and I still have to take a second or two to find it with my eyes.

Now look at the C1 image, and note how the backgrounds are generally softer than interactable objects and creatures. Look how scenery further back fades into a kind of blue mist, a common technique applied in landscape art to give the illusion of 3D distance on a 2D rendering surface. Look how every individual carrot can be picked out easily by the eye, and how obvious it is that the sunflowers cannot be interacted with, but the ticking clock and the elevator buttons can.

And look at how gorgeous and non-goofy the norns look! C1 sprites are absolutely adorable, and C2 norns are some of the most striking and beautifully rendered of all.

For C3 and beyond, it looks like they decided to use those awful 3D renders they'd been using in the marketing material as the basis for the in-game sprites, and good lord was that a bad idea. In my very frank and honest but wholly subjective opinion. ;P

Even the original 3D norn render from C1 didn't look that bad, now that I really look at it. I mean, it even looks like it has a bit of bump-mapped texturing on the face, as opposed to the smooth plastic polygons of the C3 Bruin; how did they manage to get it looking so much worse? It's not like computing power had to be taken into consideration. Remember, these were converted to sprite images. They could have been as pretty as you like. Instead we got bulging bellies, googly eyes and spaghetti hair. Nice.

I suppose I generally don't have a lot positive to say about the later games, and I think a great deal of that is due to how they stopped being Steve Grand's pet project and became just another franchise for the publisher to churn out game after game. You can almost feel his creative control slipping away as the series progresses, until it's hidden under so much bright colour and graphical bloat. That's why C1 and C2 will always be my favourites. They are the closest to embodying the heart of what Creatures was ever meant to be, and their art direction was clearly handled with great care and attention to detail in a way that served to enhance the base game, not upstage it.

 
ManaException

ManaException



  9/27/2017  1

So you'd say that for the most part the main problem changes were matters of visuals? What about the setting changes as the series progressed, would you say it would've been a better idea to stay planet bound? Did you have any problems with the norns (other than graphically) as the series progressed (interminable wallbonking in C2 aside)?

I definitely think you're right on the visual clarity front. In the earlier games (primary C1 as you said) they used something similar to the old Looney Tunes "Fudd Flag".

On the other hand, when C3 released, I don't think it looked as bad as it does when we look at it now. It's certainly aged badly but I remember Silver (released in the same year as Creatures 3 if you can believe it!) from when I was a child looking much better than it does. It's also when the first Counterstrike and the original South Park game were released.

 
ylukyun
Patient Pirate

ylukyun

Manager



  9/27/2017

That's a good point about the visual noise. I like the C3 graphics, but they are way too busy. Even C2 has scenes like that - some otherwise very pretty areas of the game are, unfortunately, very cluttered and don't have a lot of contrast. I don't have as negative an opinion of the creature sprites as GimmeCat does. I think they're pretty good considering the technology that was available at the time, and charming in their own way, if not quite as charming as their predecessors. They look somewhat artificial, but (and I'll get to this in a minute) the C3/DS Norns are more artificial.

I think most people here will agree that the default genomes got progressively worse as they became more and more complex. I suspect it was part scope creep, part unfeasible deadline(s) and part moving away from the original focus of Creatures (i.e. the Creatures [ntongue]). Like GimmeCat said, it became "just another franchise for the publisher to churn out game after game."

The genome that shipped with C2 basically made the game unplayable (if you were one of the lucky people for whom it didn't constantly crash). Creature Labs (then Cyberlife) released an improved genome, but it wasn't much better. The genome shipped with C3 seems to have been half-finished and then hacked into a usable, but seriously crippled state just before release. None of the fan-made edits for either game have ever been able to fully fix these issues, although many people are still trying.

The C1 genome, by contrast, just... works. Yes, there are a few issues, but they pale in comparison to stuff like OHSS. And although the Norns are less complex (they don't even have organs) they function a lot more like real organisms - in my opinion, anyway. In terms of intelligence, C1 Norns appear dumber than C3/DS Norns (and perhaps even dumber than Cannies or Nova Subterras) but that's because they have minimal hard-coded behavior. (With each game, behavior becomes a little bit more hard-coded, to compensate for the genome issues and make the Norns seem more "advanced." [nsick]) Across all the games, C1 Norns are the ones most often reported as having varied and interesting personalities.

The later games do have their advantages. They were designed for modding. By the time C2 came out, everyone and their dog was developing for C1, so C2 shipped with an object injector and there were a lot more slots for breeds and COBs. Switching from 8 to 16 bit color also gave you more options graphically, even if it arguably didn't improve the look of the games or even made them worse. C3/DS took things even further by adding an in-game CLI and making the GUI entirely CAOS-based (great for moddability, however many people resented the loss of applets).

DS added the warp, which was fun while it lasted. [nsad]

One last thing: C1 was emphatically not designed for raising Grendels. [nevil] Grendels were only supposed to be a nuisance, serving as an obstacle that the player was supposed to overcome, or a persistent threat to Norns if the player couldn't do that. They can't breed without an altered genome and world file, the game ships with only one life stage for them and even today, I'm not aware of any mod which allows them to be selected from the menu (as opposed to using a COB).

C2 wasn't much better in that regard, but at least there was a power-up that let them be selected from the menu. Grendels had sprites for life stages, but only male sprites. Ettins only had male sprites for one life stage and no voices. (I suspect Ettins were a last minute addition and/or a very low priority one.) One of the life kits added female sprites too.

C3 actually seems to have been designed for people who wanted to raise Grendels and Ettins. Yeah, the default genomes are even worse than the Norn ones, but they can breed without any genetic engineering or code modifications being involved.

tl;dr: Franchise got worse over time, but also became much more open-ended.

 
GimmeCat

GimmeCat



  9/27/2017  1

ManaException wrote:
So you'd say that for the most part the main problem changes were matters of visuals? What about the setting changes as the series progressed, would you say it would've been a better idea to stay planet bound? Did you have any problems with the norns (other than graphically) as the series progressed (interminable wallbonking in C2 aside)?



I would say that is my main complaint with them, indeed. The settings were interesting and I loved the progression of the lore, from the flat-disc Albia, then its volcanic rebirth, and then moving into the spaceship. Each game's world felt fresh and unique, and gave us a lot of variety to play around with.

Admittedly it's been a while since I played C3, but my memory of it suggests the norns felt like they had less individual personality. I have no idea how true that is in reality. I remember endless loops of "me hungry" followed by "maybe eat fruit" and then none of them actually doing anything except cluster around each other and chatter excessively. But that's probably not accurate and even if it is, I didn't dabble in custom genomes back then, so it would have only been whatever shipped with the game.

I liked the addition of deeper language and expression, but not sure how useful it was in practice.

Probably my favourite thing about C3, and definitely what I remember about it the most, was the wire-linkable agents. Building things like automatic Grendel-seeking turrets that used the flying elevator to move around, that sort of thing. I only wish it was much more expansive. The idea was great, but felt limited in available options.

 
SpaceShipRat

SpaceShipRat



  9/27/2017

(vastness, indeed :P)

Having played only C1 and C3 when they came out, I got to try C2 only much later with GoG, and I have to say I really did not enjoy it. The standard genomes are, well, hopeless, and even with the updated genomes, it has the same problem as C1, with norns wandering off, except the world is much bigger, so they're even harder to herd.
It also felt too buggy and unstable, plus needing a lot of fiddling to get all the kits, which themselves feel immersion breaking.

C1 had a fiddly, yet small and intimate world, and C3 maybe made things to easy and norn lives too cheap, but being able to lead norns by hand, or pick them up when you finally figured out blueprints, opens up a whole new layer of gameplay, a more (ironically) hands off and scientific approach, where you could arrange populations at will and just watch them evolve. Those two games cater well to two different playstiles.

C2, to me, is halfway, and does neither thing well, too vast to love your norns, too fiddly and limiting to do sandbox science.

On another topic entirely, I get what GimmieCat says about scene readability in c3, from an artistic point of view, but personally I LOVED that I kept discovering new things for years. Being a child when I got the game, it took me 3 years and browsing Gameware's forum before I discovered the splicing machine, but also small things like finding out robins laid eggs, and that dispensing bees and putting them on trees would create other nests, C3's cluttered world blew my mind so many times. I didn't even need *norns* most of the time, fiddling with the ecosystems and gadgets was so much fun.

 
Tohru1529

Tohru1529


 visit Tohru1529's website: my Creatures blog
  9/27/2017

I only played c1,c3, and docking station. I really like all the creature I played.
 
ManaException

ManaException



  9/27/2017

@ylunkun: A lot of good stuff there. If I'm right, what you're essentially saying is that they made the pool wider but they lost depth?

I'd love to hear more about the brain changes if anyone knows much about them (or who I can harass to find out about them).

@SpaceShipRat: I think you're right in a lot of ways, especially when you consider how the "atmosphere" of the games changed as the series advanced. We went from happy soft palette "Your Nan's House"-land to "Spaceship with different biomes"

Also, there was no better feeling than getting that got damn desert biome to actually function. What a hell hole.

 
C-Rex
Lollipop Lord

C-Rex


 visit C-Rex's website: The Norn Nebula
  9/28/2017  1

The problem with the two later games in the series (Creatures 2 and Creatures 3) is that they were rushed by the developers upon release and so many parts of the games, such as the genetics in Creatures 2 and the ecosystems in Creatures 3, making them somewhat broken. It is pretty understandable though as Creature Labs were quite a small game development team, although even bigger companies have shipped broken games *cough*Bethesda*cough*.
 
SpaceShipRat

SpaceShipRat



  9/28/2017

It's definitely an advantage of these days that companies can repeatedly publish patches after release and fix the worst bugs. Yeah, old games did it too, but generally no more than once, and you had to have good internet and know to check their website to download it.
 
ManaException

ManaException



  9/29/2017

Is there anything about the way your norns acted that was obviously artificial / incorrect? Is there anything that could've got you more attached to them?
 
GimmeCat

GimmeCat



  9/29/2017

How they would walk forever in 'quiescent' state, their vision focused on themself, as they walked into walls continuously. Happens in both C1 and C2. Any pain they encountered was a self-punishment that confused their brains.

Also how they sometimes would just stand and stare at something for hours because they were tired but refused to sleep. Like they'd be hungry, and they'd look at some food, but be too tired for the 'eat' decision to win the battle and force them into action. So they'd do nothing.

 
Pilla
Fuzzy Dragonhat

Pilla


 visit Pilla's website: Pilla's DS Agents
  9/29/2017

I like the creatures. They're cute little dumb things. Oh and them breeding. I like breeding stuff. And trying to get pwetteh colorz outta them.

I have always loved the multiple metaroom aspect of C3DS. A single metaroom is okayish but can get boring. With multiple metarooms the possibilities are pretty much endless, especially with the user-made add-on metarooms. For C1C2 you have to 'pick' and I don't like picking.

I like the C2 world graphics. I also like the C3 graphics, both are pretty. The C1 graphics are a bit "boring" imho.

I personally prefer the C3DS norn designs over the C1C2 and DEFINITELY the CA norns. Those are creepy.

I loved the warp.

The thing I like the most about all the games is the moddability.

I would've liked it if there would be some kind of C3 screensaver mode too.


Visit my Creatures blog/website - Pilla's DS Agents
Join us on Discord - Caos Coding Cave
Visit/contribute to the Creatures Wiki

 
TheDrunkenNorn

TheDrunkenNorn


 visit TheDrunkenNorn's website:
  9/29/2017

Space was a bad idea in my opinion. I can't stand C3's world. It's depressing. C1 and C2 had a completely different tone based on the background and objects.

That cute little bugger in my avatar is <UnNamed> from my Creatures 2 Wolfling Runs! Click here if you'd like to know more.
 
Gulliver

Gulliver



  9/30/2017

C3/DS always felt a bit too much like they had lots of great ideas but only gave us a taster of each one. Like the machines connecting and the moisure/heat controls. They could have given us amazing season-changing environments but it's more like "Sometimes, there are carrots. Sometimes, there are not".

C1 felt hand-crafted, all the way down. C2 was quite excellent and had some of my favourite third-party creations, but C1 is just beautiful.

 
ManaException

ManaException



  9/30/2017

It feels to me like the C1/C2/C3-DS divide is along the lines of "pet", "artificial life" and "breeding science simulator". Or certainly that a lot of the individual personality of the norns was lost as the series progressed.
 
Dinofan137

Dinofan137



  10/28/2017

This topic is very interresting. I'm aggreeing with you with all the point that have been discussed here, especially about the "visual appeal" of C1 compared to C3 and DS. I think that this appeal isn't only linked to the fact that C1 uses a miniature set and C3/DS a CGI one. It's also linked to the fact that C3/DS's universe is voluntary "cold" compared to C1, with all those claustrophobic metarooms, those biomachines, etc ...

I also agree and what peopla are saying about C1's norns "personnalities". I've always felt that all C3/DS Norn rely to heavily on their instincts, and they all act almost indentically when they're facing a specific situation. That's not the case in C1, I remember some Norn that were extremly dumb compared to other, some other Norns that were acting in a very specific way when facing that or that situation ... But I know almost nothing about genome so I can't tell if it's only my own impression, or reality.

 


downloads
cobs
adoptions
creaturelink
metarooms
breeds
 
gallery
art
wallpaper
screenshots
graphics
promos
sprites
dev
hack shack
script reservations
dev resources
active projects
dev forum
 
community
links
advice
chat
polls
resources
creatchi
 
forum
bookmarks
general
news
help
development
strangeo
survivor
mycaves
log in
register
lost pw
0 online
creatures caves is your #1 resource for the creatures artificial life game series: creatures, creatures 2, creatures 3, docking station, and the upcoming creatures family.

contact    help    privacy policy    terms & conditions    rules    donate    wiki