Return to “General”

Post

Re: Nebula Zen

#31
Dinosawer wrote:
Scytale wrote:
Dinosawer wrote:
On the other hand, if I say a system is pretty, then it doesn't need another one to compare it to. It's just pretty. Having 2 pretty systems doesn't make each only half as pretty.
(if it did, we wouldn't still be salivating at each LT screenie :ghost: )
You're right, but the comparison is nonuniform in number: if you have a thousand pretty screenies, they tend to become indistinguishable from one another if they're all "equally" stunning
No, they become indistinguishable if they all look stunning in the same way.
To use the silly allegory, the solution is not to cut all but one flower, the solution is to plant more than 1 species of pretty flowers.
That's put better. But I still like that there should be variation in beauty of the systems!
Post

Re: Nebula Zen

#32
Scytale wrote: That's put better. But I still like that there should be variation in beauty of the systems!
In Limit Theory as it currently stands there is variation in beauty of the systems though I think it only comes in a few forms. You have asteroid fields, nebula of gas particles, and open space with the occasional planet which can be seen on the horizon. I wouldn't mind seeing more variety in the future, but to me, the current version of Limit Theory that we see today far exceeds other space games on the market. There's no need to put in additional background content prior to the launch of 1.0.
Image
Post

Re: Nebula Zen

#33
Perhaps I should clarify. I'm certainly not suggesting that players fly around in endless clouds of mud to make the systems we've been shown so far to be the very rare and stunning exception that makes the player why it isn't used more often. However if pretty nebulae are ubiquitous, systems start to feel like rooms, the skyboxes like wallpaper, and the awesome and overwhelming scale of just how big space is will be greatly diminished. Perhaps 5% is too low, maybe 10%, or 15%, or 25%... as I said, it will need testing, and like everything else in LT, sliders. Most systems should be nice, they're not ugly, just not really all that special.

I'm suggesting that LT should have significantly more systems where most of the sky looks like this:
Image Than look like this: Image That's not to say that systems with mostly empty skies can't have any part of that looks like the 2nd image. But those systems with gorgeous nebulae in every direction should be special, and yes, rare... or at least uncommon.
Dinosawer wrote: No, they become indistinguishable if they all look stunning in the same way.
To use the silly allegory, the solution is not to cut all but one flower, the solution is to plant more than 1 species of pretty flowers.
You make a good point. There should be multiple kinds of pretty, and if graphics josh or a modder wants to add in galaxy pinwheels, supernovas, and so on to the skyboxes, by all means, the more the better. If not? Work with what ya got :monkey:
Image The traditional view of robotics, the metal servant who doesn't ask questions, is merely nostalgia for slavery.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: Nebula Zen

#35
Hyperion wrote:I'm suggesting that LT should have significantly more systems where most of the sky looks like this:
Image Than look like this: Image That's not to say that systems with mostly empty skies can't have any part of that looks like the 2nd image. But those systems with gorgeous nebulae in every direction should be special, and yes, rare... or at least uncommon.
I personally think open space should look similar to this: Image If there is little to no light source to wash out the stars, then stars of all brightness should be visible.
Image
Post

Re: Nebula Zen

#36
Even if I ultimately disagree, I really like a good, thoughtful post like Hyperion's here that questions an unconsidered assumption. Good stuff.

I do, though, come down on the side of "keep the nebulae." Two factors override other considerations IMO:

1. Other games with lesser nebulae are the contrasting examples.

2. Limit Theory having especially good nebulae is a key selling point.

My notion of a compromise (not that I expect it to be palatable to anyone) is that the pretty nebulae are the norm, but every now and then there's a dark one, or empty zone. If it's felt that contrast is needed in order for the nice nebulae to be appreciated, you can get that by having only a few that are less pretty. As long as prettiness isn't guaranteed, you get most of the desired psychological effect -- being reminded to appreciate how gorgeous Josh's nebulae are -- without the unnecessary cost of losing pretty nebulae as the norm.
Talvieno wrote:(OPINION POST) (wow, that sounds weird)
You do know confusion with Official Joshposts would be less of a problem if you'd stuck with the attractive violet color for your forum name, right? ;)
Post

Re: Nebula Zen

#38
Flatfingers wrote:Even if I ultimately disagree, I really like a good, thoughtful post like Hyperion's here that questions an unconsidered assumption. Good stuff.

I do, though, come down on the side of "keep the nebulae." Two factors override other considerations IMO:

1. Other games with lesser nebulae are the contrasting examples.

2. Limit Theory having especially good nebulae is a key selling point.

My notion of a compromise (not that I expect it to be palatable to anyone) is that the pretty nebulae are the norm, but every now and then there's a dark one, or empty zone. If it's felt that contrast is needed in order for the nice nebulae to be appreciated, you can get that by having only a few that are less pretty. As long as prettiness isn't guaranteed, you get most of the desired psychological effect -- being reminded to appreciate how gorgeous Josh's nebulae are -- without the unnecessary cost of losing pretty nebulae as the norm.
That's a very fair point Flat. In terms of marketing LT, I agree with you, "Lots of nebulae, beautiful beautiful nebulae" is almost certainly a superior strategy...But only at first. When LT truly hits the internet, it will be judged in comparison to what exists already. However, as it matures, and becomes the genre defining game many of us think it will, It will primarily be judged on it's own strengths and ability to keep people interested. IMO, Nebula Zen gains more and more value to the player the longer they play. It gives players a reason to explore the game for a genuinely satisfying reason that has absolutely nothing to do with gameplay, and everything to do with their own curiosity. Nebula Zen lets even the player with a thousand hours under their belt enjoy the unexpected surprise of an emotionally meaningful discovery. You say every now and then a dark system, I say every now and then a stunning system, it all largely boils down to a personal preference for ratios.
Hyperion wrote: like everything else in LT, sliders.

We should all be able to have our cake and eat it too, where our universes can be as full or as empty of graphical goodness as we desire. Reasonably assuming the frequency of nebula generation will be user-controllable, the testing I'm suggesting is mainly to establish the most desirable default settings for 1.0.
Image The traditional view of robotics, the metal servant who doesn't ask questions, is merely nostalgia for slavery.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: Nebula Zen

#40
True, it may somehow not be genre defining, but it WILL mature and be judged on it's own strengths and weaknesses
Image The traditional view of robotics, the metal servant who doesn't ask questions, is merely nostalgia for slavery.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron