49 replies to this topic

[Accident]

Oh I agree it doesn't affect gameplay. I think it is more about immersion and really feeling like you are piloting a big stompy robot. Not simply being a guy running around a map shooting stuff.

A big question is how much wiggle room they have to add extra stuff into maps. Little details are a big part of what will make you feel like you're in a big robot. I have to say that the current fog/grain/smoke isn't helping things either. There is very little contrast in the maps. Contrast can also give scale by leading your eye from one spot to another. Looking at a sea of blandness just flattens everything out.

-Accident

[Ashrok]

I feel pretty massive, the scale is actually pretty spot on relative to each other.

Mech scale courtesy of Hartsblade

Relative to the environments, I'm not quite sure, as I can't really tell how many stories most buildings are - an Atlas should be about 5-6 stories high if it's 18m tall.

[The Echo Inside]

Lots of good points here, especially on the smaller scale objects/details. The only thing I'd say about that though, is it's going to be tough to balance at times with performance, which is likely why there isn't ,much of it in. (Though River City has some nice touches in that area)

I think one of the bigger problems is actually not object/model based though, I think it's color variation. And that becomes most apparent on Caustic and Frozen.

If you look at smaller natural terrain objects (hills, etc), you'll notice a lack of variation in colour. It's pretty uniform. As things scale up though, you can more easily identify gradient changes and see variations in structure/growth/material/etc.

To use a specific example, you can compare the terrain in Caustic. If you look at the Caldera in the center, then go towards the "3 Line", you'll see the ridge go down, join the valley with it's trees and then go back up again into a smaller pointed ridge. You'll notice there's some variation, darker spots, some much smaller ridges/bumps with a different texture, but that overall, it's all the same very limited colour palette. (I haven't had time to study it, what with be focused on shooting and all, but I'd guess it's a 4 or 5 main colour palette with some blending tones based on the neutral brown that's the primary colour, with mostly variation in value and not hue).

For most it won't be a conscious awareness thing, but your brain is so used to seeing more variation, the lack of variation will actually make things feel "flatter" and diminish the effects of scale. Effectively, by not having more colours, or vibrant divisions in terrain, you turn what's meant to be a mountain, into a hill. (An adjustment to this would be, as an example, using more red in the "3 line" ridge, using darker/black tones on the caldera top ridges and using a distinct hue base for the valley, with the flourish being having more geological effects such as a different "vein" of material running through areas, etc).

I've seen it in a lot of games, I like to call it, the "monochrome disease". I'm not sure why it's so common, but maybe it's a texture limitation thing? I'm not sure what the limitations of this engine are, etc, But, changing it wouldn't require much, if any modeling I believe, just some overlays.

I think it may actually have more effect than scale objects. Just a thought from a wannabe artist. =)

Edited by The Echo Inside, 04 November 2012 - 02:17 PM.

[Keifomofutu]

If I could see Yetis on frozen then I'd know for sure the scale was correct.

Seriously speaking though the best map for scale right now is river city because of all the human sized objects scattered around it. Plus the more conventional looking buildings make more sense than the goofy block-housing on forest.

[Accident]

Echo, you're exactly correct. What your are describing is what I was talking about with the lack of contrast. I also agree that a problem may be that doing slight variations on textures would hog system resources. An alternative would be lighting. Adding in slight tweaks to coloring in the lighting will do what you are suggesting by adding in visual variety and giving a sense of moving from place to place. It also would mean that when you do a 360 turn you'll actually get a sense of your bearings. Right now it all looks the same.

-Accident

[1ceTr0n]

This is all very minor stuff when a lot bigger issues need to be taken care of first

[Pinches gringos]

Use of forced perspective in design of buildings, roads and map, would create a much greater feel scale. As far as I can tell there is none. http://en.wikipedia....in_architecture

[Harmatia]

How the game controls does a pretty good job of simulating a large lumbering machine. Visually though, three of the maps don't do a great job defining your size (Caustic, Forrest and Frozen), but River City makes a push in the right direction. Honestly though, most of the time I'm so focused on what's going on around me that I rarely pay attention to the ratio of my mech to the surrounding world. And I'm fine with that. The mech feels big and heavy. If anything, environments need more animation/life to see the difference. I'm sure this will come in the future.

[lsp]

Don't really care, the only thing that has bothered me is, the scale of bushes. They are way to big.

[The Echo Inside]

Accident, on 04 November 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Echo, you're exactly correct. What your are describing is what I was talking about with the lack of contrast. I also agree that a problem may be that doing slight variations on textures would hog system resources. An alternative would be lighting. Adding in slight tweaks to coloring in the lighting will do what you are suggesting by adding in visual variety and giving a sense of moving from place to place. It also would mean that when you do a 360 turn you'll actually get a sense of your bearings. Right now it all looks the same.

-Accident

*assumes static/pre-rendered lighting for the maps, since that's what it seems to be*

Hmm, interesting thought. I could see this working in an elevation based way, and on certain terrain changes, but not on others. And I have no idea if the engine would be capable of it, actually.

But, it could definitely help. With the air getting "clearer"/brighter/less coloured the higher you go, except in certain cases, like walking into the caldera on Caustic, where it would be getting "foggier"/darker/more coloured at the crest. And it would work for certain areas, like lakes (different lighting cast based on reflection/sky), and more uniform areas, like swathes of sand.

More localised effects may actually break immersion, than help it though. If there's no distinct source for the colour/light, it can create "pockets" of terrain, rather than a landscape. Things like clouds can create darker areas (but, then they'd have to have well defined skys, and likely some movement, which I'm rather sure are out of scope for games). And different materials/objects can cast some different hues based on their reflective properties/time of day/etc. But, anything more than that the effect would have to be very subtle (and maybe even then not work).

And right now, I'm not sure there's a lot to work with lighting variation wise, as the maps are rather dark/seem overcast. (Though Frozen and Caustic do seem to have a bit of schizophrenia in their sky versus ground lighting arrangements).

Of course, in a perfect world, variation in reflected light and terrain would be excellent.


@General

Don't underestimate the importance of immersion. Immersion allows people to build a connection with what they interact with. The balance/feature concerns are definitely a primary concern. But, immersion is what takes people from a flat "game" to being part of a "world". That emotional connection can make all the difference, especially to longevity.

[Sandpit]

I think it's just sparing aesthetic things on the map right now. It feels like everything is abandoned at this point which is good if you're sticking to lore and battles trying to prevent damage to populated areas but everything feels like it was abandoned decades ago. Snow map is perfect example. Every building is covered in snow leaving just the tops visible. This reduces the feel of size for your mechs. Maybe adding some wildlife or just making it seem like these places were habitable within the last month or so would be nice and help some I think

[Nathan Foxbane]

Most 'Mechs average between 2 and 3 stories tall and top out at somewhere around 12 meters or approximately 37 feet. As for people sprites they looked heinously tacky in MW4 (with the white outlines and weapons fire ghosting through them). People models you are able to kill would up maturity ratings which actually hurts business to a small degree. (mostly international stuff.)

@ Sandpit: Frozen City feels abandoned because it is supposed to be. No city ends up in that condition without being abandoned for a good while.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 04 November 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[Sandpit]

Nathan Foxbane, on 04 November 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Most 'Mechs average between 2 and 3 stories tall and top out at somewhere around 12 meters or approximately 37 feet. As for people sprites they looked heinously tacky in MW4 (with the white outlines and weapons fire ghosting through them). People models you are able to kill would up maturity ratings which actually hurts business to a small degree. (mostly international stuff.)

@ Sandpit: Frozen City feels abandoned because it is supposed to be. No city ends up in that condition without being abandoned for a good while.

That's my point. A few maps that didn't feel like they have been abandoned for decades might help pilots "feel" like they're actually in a living universe and fighting for people in their factions. I think it would just help get a little more emotional investment in the game as a whole

[Exilyth]

A big problem is that fights tend to get hectic and theres not much time to view the scenery.
So, a lot of detail is overlooked, e.g. on River city, there's billboards advertising MW:O literally everywhere.

[TexAce]

Sorry I have to dig out this thread, but better than making a new one on the same topic.

This is after netcode the thing that bugs me most. I blame the DoF and the textures for it (I like the DoF effect but it perhaps just isn't the right place for it?).

You really do not feel that you are really huge when you are in a mech. Some buildings don't even look like they are made for humans.

Look at this early trailer for MW5, which later became MWO:



The scale is much much better, than what we have right now. You really feel that you are in a city.

Edited by TexAss, 02 January 2013 - 09:07 AM.

[Leetskeet]

TexAss, on 02 January 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

Sorry I have to dig out this thread, but better than making a new one on the same topic.

This is after netcode the thing that bugs me most. I blame the DoF and the textures for it (I like the DoF effect but it perhaps just isn't the right place for it?).

You really do not feel that you are really huge when you are in a mech. Some buildings don't even look like they are made for humans.

Look at this early trailer for MW5, which later became MWO:

The scale is much much better, than what we have right now. You really feel that you are in a city.

[TexAce]

Leetskeet, on 02 January 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

I assume you did your other 2000 posts with as much or less content, right? At least contribute to the discussion. It's not like it's a two year old thread. We had like 4 patches since then.

@DCLXVI: Yeah I think they can do something about it. A lot of games have correct scale feelings and are able to make a detailed city/map where it just feels right. I agree it's not #1 priority, like netcode is but still, it's a big one.

Edited by TexAss, 02 January 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[flirrr]

I do agree with the TS. And I think part of that feeling is that the cockpit gives you the illusion that you are way too big sitting in the mechcockpit. Just take a look around in the cockpit of the hunchback for example and take a look to your right side where the AC20 is usually mounted and compare that size to how you feel about the dimensions of your "virtual head".

In my opinion it feels like you have the size like around 30% of your mech, regardless which one you are piloting. And that is just way to big.

Edited by flirrr, 02 January 2013 - 06:31 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Indeed, environmentally there are not enough references for scale. What does seem to help quite a bit, however, is that old cl_fov = 80-90 degree fix in the user.cfg file. It pushes your view back into the pilot seat which makes you feel like you are in a walking tank simply because you feel like you are in a cockpit. By extension, the world outside feels more in tune to the scale the game should be taking place in.

[Penance]

little tiny techs running around bases