Tomb Raider Forums

Tomb Raider Forums (https://www.tombraiderforums.com/index.php)
-   Tomb Raider (Crystal Dynamics' version) (https://www.tombraiderforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   TOMB RAIDER General Discussion Thread (https://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=187894)

larafan25 13-03-12 23:32

I see, well I want a lot of circles and lines, big circles, and needlessly squiggly lines.

Spong 13-03-12 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036010)
I see, well I want a lot of circles and lines, big circles, and needlessly squiggly lines.

Yeah, the lines are obviously the paths linking the hubs. How they'll take shape is anyone's guess. They could be narrow, linear winding pathways, or they could themselves be mini-hubs, open spaces with routes to other hubs.

larafan25 13-03-12 23:39

Oh right.

Beneath Arkham Island were caves and sewers which were open, with structures and links to other parts of the island.

I'd like to see it become unecessarily complex though. Having an underground cistern connecting two parts of the island, but also having a separate cave system which leads to another part of the island but also drops off at the underground hub.

Given the fact that the world is in hubs and not just one, I hope the walls aren't obvious. I'm sure giant mountains will block our paths, but I hope it doesn't look out of place and I hope that when we do go into the mountainhs (if we do) that we have the freedom to fall to the ground.

That part isn't clear to me. If you're on a mountain in Uncharted, because everything is a set- you know you were just down at the bottom of that mountain, and are now at the top, but when you're in the top level the other level doesn't exist, so jumping off won't take you to that area because they're not connected.

CD seem content on convincing us that everything you see is part of the physical game world and can be accessed, and they played with that idea a bit in GOL when they spoke about seeing other parts of the level down below, knowing that you'd end up there.

Spong 13-03-12 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036028)
I'd like to see it become unecessarily complex though. Having an underground cistern connecting two parts of the island, but also having a separate cave system which leads to another part of the island but also drops off at the underground hub.

I quite like the idea of a dual travel system, one could be the fast travel, an underground cave network that gives players quicker access to the parts they've already visited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036028)
Given the fact that the world is in hubs and not just one, I hope the walls aren't obvious.

No dev's got that right so far (IMO), if Crystal don't either then I won't be blaming them (unless the walls are as bad as they were in Underworld). It's the limitations of the tech which is at fault more than the dev's lack of ability when it comes to walls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036028)
I'm sure giant mountains will block our paths, but I hope it doesn't look out of place and I hope that when we do go into the mountainhs (if we do) that we have the freedom to fall to the ground.

You mean like a thousand foot-tumble shown in glorious bone-breaking detail? Yeah, that would be pretty damn awesome to watch. I don't think that sort of thing is beyond a developer, the amount of open space they can cram into one area is pretty phenomenal nowadays. But I guess, in terms of a fall, it comes down to how quickly the data can be shifted about and streamed, which leads nicely on to...

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036028)
That part isn't clear to me. If you're on a mountain in Uncharted, because everything is a set- you know you were just down at the bottom of that mountain, and are now at the top, but when you're in the top level the other level doesn't exist, so jumping off won't take you to that area because they're not connected.

Most of the time when you're in an area where you can see for miles, like at the top of a mountain, the bottom isn't actually in the game's memory and what you're looking at when you look down is a visual trick. Falling from the top to the bottom would be dependent on what I said above about shifting the data around to actually load the bottom of the mountain. That's why tumbles like that normally end in a lousy fade to black.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036028)
CD seem content on convincing us that everything you see is part of the physical game world and can be accessed, and they played with that idea a bit in GOL when they spoke about seeing other parts of the level down below, knowing that you'd end up there.

To all intents and purposes it will be that way, but it's all visual trickery. If you stand on a theoretical TR9 beach and look at a mountain in the distance, the mountain won't be the same model that you get to climb when you actually get there. That's what I think they call level of detail (LoD) management.

larafan25 14-03-12 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spong (Post 6036048)
I quite like the idea of a dual travel system, one could be the fast travel, an underground cave network that gives players quicker access to the parts they've already visited.

Unfortunately I'm sure our fast travel will just be a click on the map to travel. I wouldn't mind some sort of sliding between hubs, through dark tunnels.

Quote:

No dev's got that right so far (IMO), if Crystal don't either then I won't be blaming them (unless the walls are as bad as they were in Underworld). It's the limitations of the tech which is at fault more than the dev's lack of ability when it comes to walls.
Yeeah, I've been playing Alice Madness Returns and there are a few obvious invisible walls in the giant environment as well the boundaries feel somewhat inconsistent.



Quote:

You mean like a thousand foot-tumble shown in glorious bone-breaking detail?
Something like that...





Quote:

Yeah, that would be pretty damn awesome to watch. I don't think that sort of thing is beyond a developer, the amount of open space they can cram into one area is pretty phenomenal nowadays, but I guess, in terms of a fall, it comes down to how quickly the data can be shifted about and streamed, which leads nicely on to...
Just Cause 2 was huge, in fact I think it may be the largest open world game ever created. Some people don't like the graphics, but graphics are something I'd give up a bit for a bit more space.



Quote:

Most of the time when you're in an area where you can see for miles, like at the top of a mountain, the bottom isn't actually in the game's memory and what you're looking when you look down is a visual trick. Falling from the top to the bottom would be dependent on what I said above about shifting the data around to actually load the bottom of the mountain. That's why tumbles like that normally end in a lousy fade to black.
I see, so CD would probably need to tailor their engine to handle the amount of memory you see in an open world game.


Quote:

To all intents and purposes it will be that way, but it's all visual trickery. If you stand on a theoretical TR9 beach and look at a mountain in the distance, the mountain won't be the same model that you get to climb when you actually get there. That's what I think they call level of detail (LoD) management.
As much as that doesn't sound nice, they do it the same way in pure open world games, don't they? Chances are high in TR9 that we can see the mountain, but we can't just run over to it and watch is load in like you'd see in most open world games.

skylark1121 14-03-12 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036061)


OMG, yes -- something just like that, except with more realistic collision with the ground. I love it! :D

Rai 14-03-12 00:21

Wait, that character survived tumbling down that really high mountain...yet dies instantly when he lands in the water? :vlol:

It would be awesome to see Lara fall down a mountain, but she'd better die after a fall like that and not just brush herself off as if she'd fallen off a low wall :pi:.

Spong 14-03-12 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036061)
Unfortunately I'm sure our fast travel will just be a click on the map to travel.

I hope not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036061)
Something like that...


WTF!? And he got up after it. I can't even...

But yeah, that was a good fall, if a bit uneventful. The landscape was all a bit flat and featureless between where he fell from and where he landed. But that's the kind of thing I'd like to see in TR9.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036061)
Just Cause 2 was huge, in fact I think it may be the largest open world game ever created. Some people don't like the graphics, but graphics are something I'd give up a bit for a bit more space.

How old is the game? Two years? Yeah it was a big space, but the visuals in that vid were a little too bland for my liking, there was a lot of 'wallpaper' going on with the mountainside texture as he fell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036061)
I see, so CD would probably need to tailor their engine to handle the amount of memory you see in an open world game.

That's where it goes above & beyond what most people think about. The engine is limited by the tech it's running on. The 360 is the weakest of the three main platforms in terms of graphical clout, but it has better (faster) data transfer rates and more RAM than the PS3, but then the PC trumps both the 360 and PS3. So the devs have to find the balance that works on all the platforms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036061)
As much as that doesn't sound nice, they do it the same way in pure open world games, don't they? Chances are high in TR9 that we can see the mountain, but we can't just run over to it and watch is load in like you'd see in most open world games.

All games do that, not just openworld ones. LoD management covers everything you see on-screen. Surely you'll have noticed in some games that textures on models further away are less detailed than they are close up (a popular trick is to blur stuff), or that models themselves are simplified when viewed from a distance. That's down to the RAM, the amount of information each machine can handle at any one time. Having 'cheaper' models and textures in the distance is just a way of lightening the load on the machine and freeing up more space for more important stuff. Which makes sense to me. Let's face it, do we really need to be able to make out every branch on a tree fifty metres away?

larafan25 14-03-12 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spong (Post 6036094)

How old is the game? Two years? Yeah it was a big space, but the visuals in that vid were a little too bland for my liking, there was a lot of 'wallpaper' going on with the mountainside texture as he fell.

The game was released in 2012 I think....

This is the map...

http://uppix.net/7/d/4/8f1fe67866e98...47a222e8tt.jpg

Quote:

That's where it goes above & beyond what most people think about. The engine is limited by the tech it's running on. The 360 is the weakest of the three main platforms in terms of graphical clout, but it has better (faster) data transfer rates and more RAM than the PS3, but then the PC trumps both the 360 and PS3. So the devs have to find the balance that works on all the platforms.
It would be worth the effort.


Quote:

All games do that, not just openworld ones. LoD management covers everything you see on-screen. Surely you'll have noticed in some games that textures on models further away are less detailed than they are close up (a popular trick is to blur stuff), or that models themselves are simplified when viewed from a distance. That's down to the RAM, the amount of information each machine can handle at any one time. Having 'cheaper' models and textures in the distance is just a way of lightening the load on the machine and freeing up more space for more important stuff. Which makes sense to me. Let's face it, do we really need to be able to make out every branch on a tree fifty metres away?
Would it even be that realistic to display such details from so far away?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rai (Post 6036090)
Wait, that character survived tumbling down that really high mountain...yet dies instantly when he lands in the water? :vlol:

It would be awesome to see Lara fall down a mountain, but she'd better die after a fall like that and not just brush herself off as if she'd fallen off a low wall :pi:.

You can swim in that game, but he hit the ground and tumbled into the water.

Spong 14-03-12 00:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036103)
The game was released in 2012 I think....

According to Wiki it came out in 2010.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036103)

It's a very impressive map, but then so is the map to Red Dead Redemption, and that's a whole world of nothing. With the technology we have, it's currently a formula that dictates larger = less detail. Maybe Crystal started off with a ludicrously huge island for TR9 and then started scaling it back in order to add the detail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larafan25 (Post 6036103)
Would it even be that realistic to display such details from so far away?

It's not necessary no, but graphics whores are everywhere. I care not one bit when a tree in Red Dead Redemption sprouts unseen branches and leaves as I approach, nor do I care for the changing detail of the surroundings as I race past in Burnout Paradise. It's the package as a whole which counts, not insignificant details that you notice once and then never notice again.


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:44.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Tomb Raider Forums is not owned or operated by CDE Entertainment Ltd.
Lara Croft and Tomb Raider are trademarks of CDE Entertainment Ltd.