Trees and grass

[kloperius]

Hi, i have a only a question i saw new videos with pillars gameplay, but i noticed that the trees and grass are static. I dont see anywhere a answer. The developers will put animations in some trees and grass or will stay static?

 

Thanks

[Monocled Gamer]

First world problems

[kloperius]

Sorry, but i didnt uderstand! 

Edited August 22, 2014 by kloperius

[Mr. Magniloquent]

When reading the Beta responses, I at first thought that the static vegetation was going to be awful. After marching around the areas though, I was very surprised that I didn't mind, or even really notice that they were static. The constant bodies to hack through kept my attention, for sure, but the aesthetic purely unto itself did not suffer. Do I think that having dynamic vegetation would provide a serious ambiance enhancement? Absolutely. Will static vegetation ruin the atmosphere? Not really, say I.

[kloperius]

I dont mind to about the static vegetation. but i asked because they talked about animation of trees and grass in a video. Its not a killer,  but if it had, it would be perfect   .

[Amentep]

Not sure if its been specifically addressed since the beta started, but given that they've showed demonstrations of animation (like that sea shore) in other things, I'd imagine that they'll continue working over areas for animation, detail, etc.

 

Could be wrong of course.

[Fluffle]

Well I did notice that too. As beautiful as the backgrounds are at the moment I think trees and grass that moved slightly in the wind would add a lot more atmosphere for me.

However I'd say that this is rather low priority right now.

 

Still it'd be awesome to see this in final version.

[Thundercat710]

I'd prefer if they were static unless acted upon by wind or what have you.  Always static or always moving are always distracting to me.

[miguel]

Hope too they make some animations to the vegetation. Not always but sometimes as Thundercat710 said.

[ctn2003]

The grass seems a tad to big as well.

[lightblade75]

I would like to see the grass and the trees animated, but as far as I know the backgrounds are only 2D and therefore will not be animated?

 

I don't think we will see grass and trees animated. 

[BillyCorgan]

Ok.... but what about shadows ? Why always the same angle... no planets movement in Pillars ?

[archangel979]

I don't care as much about grass but it is very noticeable when trees are static.

[Quantics]

I would like to see the grass and the trees animated, but as far as I know the backgrounds are only 2D and therefore will not be animated?

 

I don't think we will see grass and trees animated. 

 

In early KS update videos, trees and grass were animated.

 

 

However it seems that those animations have since been removed. I suspect it's because they were very rudimentary/basic, and as a result looked very unnatural (see for instance the bushes just 'rotating'  in the video above)

 

I suspect that they didn't have the finances and manpower to improve those animations so they just removed them altogether. 

[archangel979]

The trees in that video are still better than nothing.

[samm]

Having them static is better than that unaligned and unmotivated rotation animation. I don't mind it during my beta plays, all the IE games were also static except for special animated objects.

 

But we'll see if that is something that's still subject to change until release.

[Zeckul]

However it seems that those animations have since been removed. I suspect it's because they were very rudimentary/basic, and as a result looked very unnatural (see for instance the bushes just 'rotating'  in the video above)

 

I suspect that they didn't have the finances and manpower to improve those animations so they just removed them altogether. 

Yeah that's exactly what I suspect as well. With the team trying to tie up all the loose ends in preparation for release I doubt they will find time to add quality animations to these, considering that the backgrounds are already one of the game's strong points even without animations.

[archangel979]

They should if they want the game to have strong sales. Reviews will notice this and it will push away some of the less IE enthusiast crowd. 

Edited November 15, 2014 by archangel979

[Quantics]

Bad animations is worse than no animations IMO. 

[Gairnulf]

Ithink they are not animted for a good reason. Doesn't distract the player's from what's important - the characters, or enemies coming out of the bushes.

[Quadrone]

They should if they want the game to have strong sales. Reviews will notice this and it will push away some of the less IE enthusiast crowd. 

 

Are you actually serious?

Do you mean to tell me that animated vegetation is some huge sales factor?

[constantine]

The trees in that video are still better than nothing.

 

I agree, but it seems they re not coming back. Too bad.

[Gairnulf]

This thing about the strong sales reminded me of an argument I saw in, *ahem*, another forum, that if a certain game doesn't make it "obvious enough" from its box art that you can play with a female PC, "many women may not know and may not even consider buying it", although in that instance it was phrased almost as a threat

 

Seriously though, when I watched the tech demonstration video, the animations did look very cool, yet if they are too short it would actually make the game look less realistic. Adding realism to visuals in a game is kind of a slippery slope - you have to pay roughly equal amounts of attention to the realism of visuals of every part of the game, which means adding a proportional amount of detail to one aspect increases the amount of work needed exponentially, otherwise you risk having very detailed trees but people asking "why doesn't the wind force and direction ever change?", "why doesn't the wind get stronger during rain". Or you can have detailed and varied faces but instead of appreciacion you have people asking "why so few hairs", or "why no facial animations", etc. Or you add domestic animals in villages, and someone comes up with the question "we have such details as varied wind force and direction, but the horses only have one idle animation of beating with their hoof on the ground, why are they so overlooked, and the dogs have only two animations of barking...". So I can understand part of the reasons they removed those animations has to be that they saved themselves a big amount of other work they would otherwise have had on the visuals, which indirectly follows from the foilage animations but would have been needed to keep the visual style consistent, instead of looking like they paid a great amount of attention to one thing and neglected visual detail in other areas.

 

Btw, I really like the small animations in the water, the dandelions' seeds flying through the air in Dyrwood crossing, or the fireflies seen in the twitch video. I think that's just enough environment animation to make the environments feel alive.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Gairnulf

[Rumsteak]

Yeah you're right, if developers start adding bells and whistles for some specific visuals, there will be a snowball effect and people are going to expect more and more for all other visuals. This could make the game relatively low budget explode.

I think the game is graphically good enough, I'm very happy with what has been done given the constraints. Won't mind some improvements if they have some free time of course!

Edited November 16, 2014 by Rumsteak

[archangel979]

 

They should if they want the game to have strong sales. Reviews will notice this and it will push away some of the less IE enthusiast crowd. 

 

Are you actually serious?

Do you mean to tell me that animated vegetation is some huge sales factor?

 

Yes, because out of all the animations this has been most asked about feature.