All this detail.. to what means? - by Scott Weiland
gunsmoke on 11/5/2010 at 10:59
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
EDIT: Let's not forget that the failure of the Vista launch and the inescapable stigma attached to it has also contributed to technological progress being slowed, not just consoles.
Let's hope Windows 7 rectifies that.
WingedKagouti on 11/5/2010 at 11:48
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
Let's hope Windows 7 rectifies that.
Windows 7 has been adopted far faster than Vista so far, so there's a good chance that we'll see more DX10 exclusive games sooner rather than later.
DDL on 11/5/2010 at 16:14
Quote Posted by Xenith
The people that worked on the placement of bushes, flowers and garbage and those that worked on textures and so on and so forth were hired to do that exact thing. It's not like they took 4 guys from the gameplay department and made them work on clouds and grass. That's how I see it at least (and I may be wrong since I don't know how game companies decide to allocate their workers, so correct me if I'm wrong).
I could be wrong, but a brief wander through a wiki for fallout 3 seemed to indicate that they'd constructed some sort of semi-automated process for "detailing" levels: rather than sit there looking at "generic bunker 0034" and adding a burned-out barrel here, a toolbox there, a plunger under that table, etc, they just selected "random crap setting #3" and it added it all for them, leaving them to just check it for excessive retardedness (and to add more plungers).
This sort of approach would take up valuable coding time, but the long term saving makes it seem like an ideal compromise scenario.
Personally, I
love pointless and unnecessary detail. I can while away the hours just experimenting with a given game's decal system...("ooh look! It makes different bulletholes if you shoot trees rather than wooden boards! Yay!")
Nameless Voice on 11/5/2010 at 17:29
Um, I don't know. For outdoor areas, most probably. A lot of the terrain in Oblivion was "grown" based on algorithms, for example. Generally, other areas such as dungeons are snapped together manually out of prefabricated parts. I also seem to recall reading that Bethesda have "clutter monkeys", whose job it is to add clutter to their levels to make them more detailed.
I must say that Fallout 3's "dungeons" are a lot more interesting than the dungeons in Oblivion were. Except for the metro tunnels, which I avoid like boring places to be avoided.
june gloom on 11/5/2010 at 17:31
The metro tunnels are samey, yeah, but to be fair it at least makes sense, as opposed to Oblivion's identical naturally-forming caves.
Nameless Voice on 11/5/2010 at 17:43
I agree.
I think Fallout 3 also benefits from being, or at least feeling, a lot smaller than Oblivion. There seem to be a lot fewer "dungeons" compared to "interesting areas" like cities, which makes the game world seem far less repetitive.
Turning that back onto the topic: there are too many dungeons and places in Oblivion which are too similar. There's detail there, but the detail is built up out of the same few pieces of detail repeated too often, which makes it boring detail. A single piece of detail shouldn't be over-used and over-repeated or it ceases to be an interesting piece of detail and makes the areas where it is used boring and monotonous again.
Renault on 11/5/2010 at 19:22
Maybe she...maybe she...maybe she swam away..?
june gloom on 11/5/2010 at 19:41
You guys are dorks.
Scott Weiland on 11/5/2010 at 20:04
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
where's my only cigarette?
Quote:
Did you check the bathtub?
She sleeps there sometimes......water cleanses, you know.
Quote:
Maybe she...maybe she...maybe she swam away..?
STP forevar and the new single rocks and the new album's gonna be goood. To sum up this thread, Scott > Geralt, one of the main reasons being he shoots heroine, not silly potions
but Geralt will be
dead and bloated long before Scott o/
