Why is it so hard for games to get scale right?
Why is it so hard for games to get scale right?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Poor perspective due to a static camera and laziness from game devs. Also game size.
Processing power
because to have scale you also need time, monotony, and boredom. and gamers dont really want that.
The erdtree did this for me. Also Raya Lucaria now that I think about it
You misspelled 'zoomers'.
People have been bitching about "empty" open worlds for years, revisionist.
If they were to scale games into a more realistic size, people would have a fit
because that vista consists of 10 minutes of uninterrupted riding through an empty valley.
>UMM just add items and enemies hurrr
you've now copypasted even more monotony into that space since now you've got meaningless chore combat and a nagging checklist of items to comb for, and your 10 minute ride is now 30 minutes of busywork. you've now got ubisoft garbage, all for the sake of some big statues that are impressive when you first see them and then utterly meaningless.
Most times they change it intentionally. Like in the Assassin's Creed games. You'd be walking and climbing 10x longer if the buildings were an accurate scale. The buildings in Venice in AC2 are much smaller than reality, to make game flow better. Whereas in AC3, they did keep to the true scale. And the result was it was much slower and annoying to climb stuff. And the streets were poorly laid out with crooked walkways and dead ends (because that's how it was in real colonial cities).
Basically, they change the scale to make gameplay faster or easier. In a fantasy world, they can change the scale to accommodate that. But sometimes they do the opposite. Like Final Fantasy XII and Breath of the Wild made things bigger just for the visual spectacle. And it hurt gameplay.
'Empty' is a reddit buzzword.
6 millions Mo of high-def textures for shit only two autists on Yea Forums will appreciate.
Come home...
Funny how it always gets used here too
It's just another word that people use to blindly 'critique' a game. Any time I ask them what they even by it, I never get a good answer. It's right up there with other words like 'overrated', 'shallow', and 'boring'.
>you can't have a big world and fill it with things at the same time
uh
okay
Imagine having to actually spend five minutes holding forward just to get through it. There's your scale limiter: boredom.
I'm sure they'd have fast travel points for all you zoomies.
shallow and boring are absolutely valid (if they bother to explain it) but overrated is just a cope
Elden Ring and BotW scratch that itch for me. Scale on this size is so beautiful to comprehend and let your mind wander looking at; those games make their worlds feel lived in and you an observer. It's great.
I love video games.
what game?
Play FF15, and tell me that shit is good
The original Unreal had a pretty big sense of scale to it and for it's time it was pretty impressive. The downside to it is that you spent a lot of time just walking across large empty spaces until an enemy or two would spawn and you're back to walking again. Large spaces are great for scenery, for gameplay not so much.
Take a wild guess
>Dishonest camera angle
OP probably meant good games.
Kings Field 12
open world with nothing in it. fuck your scale.
i made my horseback riding camera offset after considering what people were saying in these threads. i like the new perspective honestly
are you the one who made this? nice job user,
The camera is one of the biggest reasons games don't do scale right. Typical 3rd person is shit for showing off scale.
Imagine if you had to walk for 30 minutes in a video game to get the tavern, and then had to take a 3 day trip to the next village over.
fpbp
This one was another user using a reshade
this
it peaked here
I'd unironically love a game like that if it was handled properly. The problem is that to handle that properly would require an astronomical amount of money and work that probably not even a studio like Rockstar could pull off.
This.
I would too, but if you made every game like that it would get really old fast. Some games do operate to that scale kind of, like EVE, but that's hardly a mainstream game and they can afford a lack of details because of the setting.
S C A L E
Some open world games also kind of did this aesthetically, like KOTR.
Why does it need to take 3 days? Elden Ring had a bunch of big shit and it didn't take me 3 days to get from point to point.
Elden Ring didn't capitalize on it's scale as much as it could have. Raya Lucaria you get teleported in instead of climbing. The capital you start at the top which looks amazing but then you get funneled down. It shows off the verticality well in how you can take different paths down, but there's never really that sense of scaling a massive structure. Stormveil was a cool dungeon but it was too small to evoke the holy shit feeling that Leyndell could have if you did it in reverse.
scale and a small 2d monitor are an oximoron, they won't get it right until vr has matured.
I'd really like some horror games with a megalophobia theme
planetside 2 has gotten scale right imo
Elden Ring also lacks scale. It feels more like a themepark with different areas arbitrarily spliced together at a whim on top of fast travel. The first Dark Souls honestly has a far better sense of scale.
>why won't anyone make a game where I literally have to ride my horse for a week to cross a single valley?
because no one would actually enjoy three day travel times betwee ntowns? people bitched about how far they had to walk in Dragon's Dogma for fucks sake.
because they refuse to have tiny characters.
Because scale conflicts with gameplay. Huge scale would mean very long traversal times and people get bored of that. On the other hand if you "alleviate" this problem by very fast movement speed or outright teleportation to various points on the map the sens of scale is gone.
>Elden Ring also lacks scale
I disagree. Hopping around castle rooftops made me appreciate how fuckhuge some of them were. But it was also the first time I was medicated enough to play a Souls game so I need to go back and try out Demon/Dark/Blood
Because the time to model all that non-interactible vertical scenery could be spend on modelling interesting shit on the ground, instead of that flat-ass plain.
I want shit that will matter gameplay-wise over shit that won't.
In the old time shit like that could be done with a low-res skybox, but that trick won't fly nowadays.
mite b cool, thanks for sharing
microsoft flight sim has the best scale
Bruh.
The game is huge, and you can actually spot nearly all of the game's areas from the first bonfire outside the tutorial, due to how wide the rendering distance is.
This but completely unironically.
Yeah DaS1 with the connected areas like valley of drakes felt nice. Same with the feeling of going back down to firelink from undead burg. Still a bit too small though. I want to wander up to some massive structure in the distance that turns out to be a complex labyrinth on the inside with insane verticality. And if they can weave that massive structure inside of an interconnected world as well then the game would be god tier. I can't think of a single game that comes close to what I want though.
Dark souls II: 2
Scholar of the second sin edition
Everyone has access to world with a proper sense of scale and filled with NPCs already. They play games as an escape from it.
because 3d artists dont want their work to be missed by most players
I can't build complex labyrinths irl without being a billionaire and even then they make the most boring shit
tell me where i can find the deep dungeons where ancient evil sleeps irl
this looks cool, I should read this maybe