Naturality

[Grey]

I\'ve realised in other MMOGs that there seems to be blatant disregard for realism of nature.  Stuff like lack of streams in a forest, lack of mist at dusk, and stuff like that.  I hope those things are considered when areas are being added to the game.  I\'d hate to think what I could do the staff if they weren\'t there. (   , )

[Fantasyfiend]

This is a 3d MMOG, so realism can only extend so far before things start to lag. Then realism is cut shorter still since this is a fantasy game. Castles in the sky, and underwater cities should make perfect sense in their disregard for reality. It would be kind of silly to make sure all the rocks in the game were indiginous to that area just to have flying wyrms and monster spiders go strolling by.

[Abemore]

not silly
because not real real
fantasy real.

which means, as long as things have a believable explaination, they are fantasy real.

things that are just stupid with a stupid explaination lack any realism

[Grey]

Regardless of fantasy, streams in forests exist.  Maybe not so much in this game in its underground nature, but you can\'t ignore a realism like that.  Saying that \'oh its fantasy, theres dragons and griffins, so naturality doesn\'t exist\' is just stupid.  If nothing like that mattered, then what is the point of terrain anyway, we should just fight fantasy monsters on a plane of white, so the game runs smoother.

[Fanomatic2000]

It\'s totally stupid to even imagine a world without realistic nature.
I wanna see big lakes, waterfalls, huge mountains, vegetation and wild animals. This is a huge game, but a game without beautilful surroundings is like a movie (or a game) without sound X(
There\'s always a way to make the game run smooth without having to peel down the nature.
Realistic nature is very important to PS, so don\'t spoil the game by cutting in the landscape just to make the game run smoother

BTW. I think that vegetation should grow by time.

[cmhitman]

ok guys i\'m sure that the dev team has a good grasp of

how to make a game have good fiction fantasy. but

even if they dont

they do have all the time in the world to do it right.

And its nothing but a matter of time and trial and error

 before  they come up with

a good story, ellaborate on it then with good arists

working in conjunction with smart and creative people

the ideas and visuals come along then good game play

 will

 make a stunning experience, so don\'t worry about

things like this. Plus they\'ll have us all the way telling

them whats cool about it, what sucks and what makes

this game the ultimate in freeware.

[Fanomatic2000]

There is something in your post that doesn\'t look right

[cmhitman]

It\'s the spacing, what you think its too much?

Too bad cause i\'m getting older and all the bunched up

 text is killing my eyes and i\'m to lazy to change the text

size on every comp i logon to at school    

[kinshadow]

You guys are all talking about very realistic graphics in the nature simulations (dynamic water, realistic grass, etc.).  These effects take very complex algorithms and use pixel/vertex shaders supported by the newest graphics cards.  The posts I have seen on this board point to most of you having just enough hardware to run the game as it is right now (no cinematic effects).  If these features are put in, just be prepared to upgrade if you want to see them.  I\'m sure the game will be playable on older hardware, but it probably won\'t look as good.  Hopefully you will see some of these features (water anyway) in Crystal Blue.

EDIT:  \'Speak of the devil\',  I post a comment on upgrading and /. points to an article  the same day.

[Grey]

I\'m not talking about making good graphics at all...

[kinshadow]

Originally posted by Grey
I\'m not talking about making good graphics at all...

You are talking about realistic simulation of the environment.  In modern computing, this falls under the very large blanket of \'computer graphics\'.  There will be wind, fog, mist, dynamic water, rain, grass, etc.  IMO, the big hurtle to all of these things is client side graphics rendering (or, if you perfer, \'real time visual simulation\').  The other parts of the nature simulation (when to do the fog, etc) are usually \'relatively\' easy mechanisms.

EDIT : If by chance your post is not about the realistic simulation of nature in the engine, then what is it about?  Are you simply saying, \"I hope the 3D devs make good levels.\" ?  That would be a pretty pointless comment.

[Grey]

urgh.  You don\'t quite get it, do you?  Of course it is great for 3d environment to look good and crisp and animated, but its more important that the developers take these natural settings into account than making everything look good.  In my original post, I was not thinking of graphics whatsoever, and I still am not.  I was thinking of the creation of a natural setting and a natural setting is a natural setting whether we are using C64 graphics or 128MB crystal clear graphics.  The thought and concious effort to make a well thought out setting by adding subtle and not so subtle things is what counts.

[kinshadow]

Originally posted by Grey
urgh.  You don\'t quite get it, do you?  Of course it is great for 3d environment to look good and crisp and animated, but its more important that the developers take these natural settings into account than making everything look good.  In my original post, I was not thinking of graphics whatsoever, and I still am not.  I was thinking of the creation of a natural setting and a natural setting is a natural setting whether we are using C64 graphics or 128MB crystal clear graphics.  The thought and concious effort to make a well thought out setting by adding subtle and not so subtle things is what counts.

How do you \"define\" a natural setting? I took it as you are talking about real time simulation of events in nature/physics.  This traditionally falls in the realm of graphics and graphics engines.  How do you think that most people simulate this stuff?  I\'ll give you the example of water.  The engine could implement two versions of water, one for higher gfx cards, and one for lower.  The lower would be a flat or statically modified mesh with one or two textures.  If fast enough, maybe even a multipass implementation for effects.  Odds are though, for older systems, you won\'t be able to see the rivers flow and you won\'t be able to make waves by jumping in (this is typically done with shaders).  On the other hand, higher end systems will allow this capapbilty via the graphics engine, which uses the hardware.  The same can be said for all the elements I listed in my previous post. Thus, the quality and subtle nature of the enviroment are tied to the graphics capabities of the engine and the machine.  Am I still not getting it?

[Kiern]

I am probably wrong, but here\'s what I think Grey is talking about:

More than the way things move and stuff, because im pretty sure they will have those anyways...I think its more the placement of things in the enviroment to be more realistic than other things would be

that might not make it clear, and it might be completly wrong, but thats my view of what he is saying  8o

[kinshadow]

Originally posted by Kiern
I am probably wrong, but here\'s what I think Grey is talking about:

More than the way things move and stuff, because im pretty sure they will have those anyways...I think its more the placement of things in the enviroment to be more realistic than other things would be

that might not make it clear, and it might be completly wrong, but thats my view of what he is saying  8o

IMO, that would translate into \"I hope the 3D devs make good levels.\"   Of course a forest is going to have a stream, etc.  The question of whether there is mist at dusk is a simulation issue.

Basically, Grey, you want the game to be believable. That is an issue than spans more than just one field of interest.