Re: Mesh Replacement Test
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:52 am
Ofc youll need some purposely crafted material, characters, sets, to accommodate main or branching storyline. However this is about 10-15% of the entire game's body. Rest could only be achieved by proceduraly generated environment and material.Biboran wrote:Still, i think that new dungeon sets and detailed landscape is way to start.
And also some more hand-crafted content will be still good - look at daggerfall main quest
Ofc. But thats just part of the procedural rules. You incorporate them in coding. For example desert dungeons would have more desert theme to it and monsters they will populate them, on the other hand northern dungeons would be thematically different as they will incorporate different rules for building them (like materials used in region, temperature, population of monsters, purpose of dungeons -hideout/torture/prison/cave/ etc)Biboran wrote:Like original game had some basic rules - generation not compleatly random. In different dungeoun types banned some type of monsters, different regions had a little bit different textures - all that make world more realistc and more interesting for player.
VMblast wrote:Pardon my words but -fuck the theme park RPG games, Im sick of them.
Well, thats the thing really. Focus on this. To have it 1:1 or 50% less, doesent really have any difference nor impact whatsoever. Technically you'll still need to do the same thing. So unless you are making real-world 5x5Km map, with hand placed each element, you'll be having the same issues. So, 1:1 or smaller with proceduraly generated/placed elements/characters/events, its all the same.Arl wrote:VMblast wrote:Pardon my words but -fuck the theme park RPG games, Im sick of them.
I don't think anyone wants that either, as I said before, downsizing the world by a 50% would still leave a crazy sized map.
Models, rivers, locations and all of what can be thought of would not function as you would imagine in a world where the elevations are so much prolonged in distances that it does not make any difference.
I made this quit sculpt to ilustrate my point:Biboran wrote:But why actually downsize world for it? It can be achived with current world, and downsizing to 50% will not make anything exept... smaller world.
You are right indeed, I guess the difference for me is the rate of using fast travel. Exploration is one of the most important things, and you don't need a map the size of Great Britain to have fun exploring. But you do need to be able to go from Daggerfall to Sentinel without growing a grey beard and forgetting the mindset you had when you first started the journey.VMblast wrote:Well, thats the thing really. Focus on this. To have it 1:1 or 50% less, doesent really have any difference nor impact whatsoever. Technically you'll still need to do the same thing. So unless you are making real-world 5x5Km map, with hand placed each element, you'll be having the same issues. So, 1:1 or smaller with proceduraly generated/placed elements/characters/events, its all the same.Arl wrote:VMblast wrote:Pardon my words but -fuck the theme park RPG games, Im sick of them.
I don't think anyone wants that either, as I said before, downsizing the world by a 50% would still leave a crazy sized map.
Models, rivers, locations and all of what can be thought of would not function as you would imagine in a world where the elevations are so much prolonged in distances that it does not make any difference.