Have you ever tried to glitch out of a map to see what the scenery is like? Were you disappointed as you hit a 2D wall with some trees on it? If the game looks good enough, we shouldn’t be paying too much attention to the scenery behind the game environments, but if you were to catch a glimpse of it, and then realise it’s ugly, would this affect your view on the game?
Sometimes the 2D scenery over in the hills beyond the gameplay area can actually look quite good, with it giving the effect of a 3D object being there. Sometimes it can look like someone’s taken an in-game object, flattened it and stuck it to a wall.
Since modern games are allowing for more exploration and camera control than ever, we’re more likely to notice this scenery. This can be good, if it’s done right, as we’ll end up noticing the detail the developers have put in their game. As you play through God of War 3, you’ll notice the dynamic scenery with Titans clambering up Mount Olympus, but does this add to the gameplay experience? Does seeing other battles happening outside of the map, in an online shooter for example, add to the experience and make it feel like an actual war, or does it just distract you from the game area?
Some games just use mountains and cliffs at the edge of game areas to get a quick way around this, but this can become boring and repetitive. Would this make the environment feel less like a real, living word? All games have to have an edge of a map, so would you rather they put this to use and made an interesting piece of scenery behind this, or would you just prefer them to get the game area to look as good as possible?
Mikiyaru
im not to uppity in scenery. id agree that in adventure games its a must but i havent seen anything prettier than Uncharted 2
bunimomike
*slumps into chair and prepares*
Where do I start? The vastness of Oblivion where things often appeared to be a “background” but were parts of the level yet to be travelled to. No need for interactive backgrounds then. It became the real world when you investigated.
Uncharted 2 was something else (agreed with Teflon, above). That moment on the hotel roof and as you swing the camera around slowly you think “holy crap, the amount of this city that’s actual 3D instead of some nasty bitmap in the background” was superb. Not just that but how seamlessly it blended into the background; quite incredible.
The artist in me still craves that shot from Uncharted 1, though. At the top of the waterfall, overlooking the u-boat and out over the island into the distance. Seagulls gently gliding over real trees. That took my breath away first time I climbed the rocky wall.
hairfreax also mentioned Red Dead Redemption and with good reason. Stunning, stunning scenery and very early on you start to realise that it’s not a background but somewhere to gallop to. That always impressed me (regardless of polygonal/texture pop-up).
For me, if the immediate and mid-distance scenery has the right amount of “stuff” going on then I don’t really need overly interactive scenery. However, when in a battle-based game it’s lovely seeing things unfold even if it’s just pretend.
I guess what it comes down to is, if the scenery has the correct amount of animation or interaction then it’s helping portray an environment which is to be believed by the user. From a simple seagull or two hovering quietly above or a mock-invasion of alien craft across the shores towards the horizon (think: Resistance 2).
Great discussion! Sorry for not replying yesterday.
maniulo
I think GTA IV got it right, the islands look very convincing, and you can actually fly out to sea if you want to, there’s just nothing there (though I’ve always hoped to find a secret island).