Reply With QuoteI haven't. You said a very dumb thing. There, all caught up now?
A simulation of any depth is code. It doesn't have an intrinsic look. It can look like literally anything.
Stop making a fool out of yourself.
I haven't. You said a very dumb thing. There, all caught up now?
A simulation of any depth is code. It doesn't have an intrinsic look. It can look like literally anything.
Last edited by ZylonBane; 28th May 2016 at 21:58.
I don't think Vae's statement was dumb because he never specifically said a simulation, he said an "Immersive Simulation [the genre of game]", which never were true simulations across the board. Only aspects of the game are simulated, the rest is faking it. One of the end goals is making the player feel like a part of a world, and realistic visuals can help with that as there isn't as much of a transition from our world into the game's. Nonetheless it isn't an absolute unbreakable rule of LG design principles to go for a cartoony style like, say, quick time events are. Most Immersive Sims had intentional unrealistic visual style to some small degree: Ultima Underworld's enemy sprites, Shock 2's audio log portraits...Originally Posted by ZylonBane
If there were a book written on LG design, realistic visuals would be something that would be listed only not as a rule, just something to consider. So I guess a cartoony style is not "out of place", it's just not optimal immersive design, and that's OK. In my opinion immersion should never be the be-all-end-all, but I'd still prefer Underworld Ascendant to have a more gritty style, more out of personal preference than anything.
To give an example of what I mean by "only aspects are simulated, rest is faked" for those that may not know (ZylonBane does):
Simulated System: objects (like weapons) degrade with use, or very slowly naturally over time, that rate being faster if in water or other likewise elements. Hitting soft materials degrades less than hitting hard materials does.
Faked: making the environment look degraded, less specular/shiny than it currently is in UA to match the idea that the game is set in an age-old untended environment and faking the notion that degradation is universal. You don't need to actually code a simulation of natural degradation of the environment, because no player is going to be in the game long enough to witness it and justify that effort (and you don't need to code weapons degrading naturally over time as above either). A true simulation however would have those things.
Disregards simulation altogether: the player can take multiple hits to vital parts and go on relatively unhinged, and the automap fills in automatically as you explore.
Last edited by GMDX Dev; 11th Jun 2016 at 11:49.
You talk to me this way, when you should know better...You only think it was "dumb", because you fail to understand what I'm saying from a design perspective.
Proper aesthetics are extremely important psychologically for immersion, as well as the choice and depth of the underlying systems...If both are complimentary, the two work together to produce a synergized effect, which deepens the experience of an immersive simulation.
Imagine if you will, an SS2 with the same systems, yet with cartoonish art direction and generic sound design...This would have a detrimental impact on the immersive experience.
Well, it's the rare occasion that I will say something for ZB, but he's right - you don't take an objective fact and make a subjective declaration out of it. Maybe you like cartoonish graphics with your simulations or you don't: that's an opinion. 'Immersive' 'Simulation' games can look like anything: that's a fact. Do continue arguing with each other, though.
Posting Permissions