Where's the "Dynamism" (aka moving grass, trees, water etc.)?

[Prime-Mover]

In Project Eternity's backer update #49, they show off a scene with a good deal of dynamic environment. But when playing the game, I don't recall seing anything even close to that level. E.g. I don't recall ever seeing moving trees, grass or bushes at all. I may simply have missed it, but the environments in general appear very static to me. Sure, there's a few leaves falling, but in general, everything appears very glued on.

 

 

So, does anyone what the official explanation is for why they didn't include much of it? As it stands now, it's not really as far from the BG1 standard in this regard as I had expected.

[Boneless Jogger]

They mentioned before release that they weren't satisfied with how it looked in practice and didn't have the time to refine it.

[mrmonocle]

a waste of resources in the 1st place imo.

[Wbino]

Probably would have raised min specs past targeted audience.

[FalloutBoy]

Animated campfire with particles and heat shimmer effect.

Dynamic point light from a carried torch.

Falling leaves.

Animated water where the ripples move faster in the deep areas and slower near the shore where water is shallow.

Fireflies.

 

Made this list in 5 minutes walking around the first map in the game. So I guess the answer to your question is "in the first map in the game". 

[Marceror]

I particularly like the smoke and fog type effects. The dock in defiance bay looks awesome when that fog rolls in. The dynamic lighting is also great.

 

No, plants don't move but oh well. If making them work properly was going to take too many resources Obsidian was right to deprioritize this.

[Shevek]

They should have animated the trees at least - like ToEE.

[Prime-Mover]

Animated campfire with particles and heat shimmer effect.

Dynamic point light from a carried torch.

Falling leaves.

Animated water where the ripples move faster in the deep areas and slower near the shore where water is shallow.

Fireflies.

 

Made this list in 5 minutes walking around the first map in the game. So I guess the answer to your question is "in the first map in the game". 

I wasn't clear in my post. I was referring especially to moving trees, grass and bushes. These are the things I originally thought seemed very cool during the kickstarter video above, and the things that are severely lacking in the more outdoorsy areas, making them seem very static. I understand and accept that in the end it's all about resource management, and these effects just didn't make the cut. I just wanted to know what the specific explanation was.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

There's moving grass in a number of places. That stuff isn't completely cut it's just not present everywhere because yeah budget restraints.

 

There are tides in Ondra's Gift.

[Althernai]

The waterfall in Northweald is moving water, but I wouldn't say it looks perfect.

[yaggaz]

a waste of resources in the 1st place imo.

 

As was all the time they spent making the whole game look out of date.

[yaggaz]

No, plants don't move but oh well. If making them work properly was going to take too many resources Obsidian was right to deprioritize this.

 

Stop being a bunch of apologists already.   The fact they decided to make it look like a game from 20 years ago already highlights how lazy there were.   Cutting all the things that might have given it a glimmer or visual quality only brings that truth home.

[sparklecat]

 

No, plants don't move but oh well. If making them work properly was going to take too many resources Obsidian was right to deprioritize this.

 

Stop being a bunch of apologists already.   The fact they decided to make it look like a game from 20 years ago already highlights how lazy there were.   Cutting all the things that might have given it a glimmer or visual quality only brings that truth home.

 

I think you backed the wrong game for your tastes, buddy.

[Marceror]

 

No, plants don't move but oh well. If making them work properly was going to take too many resources Obsidian was right to deprioritize this.

 

Stop being a bunch of apologists already.   The fact they decided to make it look like a game from 20 years ago already highlights how lazy there were.   Cutting all the things that might have given it a glimmer or visual quality only brings that truth home.

 

It's 15 years ago, not 20, and it absolutely does look better than those games from 15 years ago. But for me personally the writing, story and characters are FAR more important to me than moving shrubberies. So stop calling me an apologist. I'm just expressing my view.

 

I'll never forget some idiot gaming exec many years back making the statement of "you want to see the fear in the Orc's eye before you hurl a fireball at him don't you?" and basically everyone from the IE era was like, no, actually, we don't. Just give us a deep game with a great story, and you can keep your graphical fluff to yourself. I will personally put swaying tree in a similar category.

[ibanix]

I can't comment on any promises made in the Kickstarter, but I find the graphics to be a great mix of BG2-era nostalgia with higher quality. I'm 95% satisfied with it. My only gripe is that placement of some objects (eg. large trees) makes it sometimes difficult to figure out where your characters are supposed to go. That's a pretty minor complaint.

[Marceror]

 

 

No, plants don't move but oh well. If making them work properly was going to take too many resources Obsidian was right to deprioritize this.

 

Stop being a bunch of apologists already.   The fact they decided to make it look like a game from 20 years ago already highlights how lazy there were.   Cutting all the things that might have given it a glimmer or visual quality only brings that truth home.

 

It's 15 years ago, not 20, and it absolutely does look better than those games from 15 years ago. But for me personally the writing, story and characters are FAR more important to me than moving shrubberies. So stop calling me an apologist. I'm just expressing my view.

 

I'll never forget some idiot gaming exec many years back making the statement of "you want to see the fear in the Orc's eye before you hurl a fireball at him don't you?" and basically everyone from the IE era was like, no, actually, we don't. Just give us a deep game with a great story, and you can keep your graphical fluff to yourself. I will personally put swaying tree in a similar category.

 

 

 

I had to find it. It was a post from Atari about their plans for BG3. The shame:

 

 

 

Though BG3 won't be a direct sequel to the storyline of the first two BG games, Atari intends for the game to have similarly epic scope and feature a large gaming world populated by memorable characters.

 

It will feature cutting-edge 3D graphics, although the gamemakes haven't decided whether to license an existing engine or develop a new one. Atari ambitious design goal is to make a visually stunning RPG that both lives up to BG's great heritage and evolves the genre.

 

When asked if the follow-up would stick with isometric perspective, John Hight, Atari Executive Producer, indicated that Atari wasn't "afraid to move the camera for cinematic effect. [Your viewpoint] will be immersive then the traditional isometric perspective and bring you closer to the action. You want to see the fear in the orc's eye as you blast him with a fireball, don't you?"

 

BG3 will use the DnD 3.5 rules for an authentic roleplaying experience.

 

While there'll naturally be a lot of combat, Atari plans to include a wide variety of quests and incorporate non-combat-oriented skills to give bloodless solutions to some quests

 

Hight's bottom-line promise: "It will be epic""

 

The guy who just doesn't get it. This is from June 2005.

[Skolinkinlot]

I really enjoy the graphics. Certainly alot better than the cartoony WOW style graphics that seem to dominate the genre. Considering from the get go it was planned as a 2d pre rendered backdrop game (actually a selling point since the I.E. games were as well), I think they did very well. I will say some of the character models are rather sub par however (Aumaua for example looks downright silly :D )

[Evange]

Oldsong and Golden Grove are the best looking places to me. The falling golden leaves and soft glow of the moonlight is just gorgeous.

[Isi1dur]

It's a shame that they weren't able to pull this off, it most certainly wouldn't have made the game worse, quite the opposite actually.

[VaultDuke]

 

No, plants don't move but oh well. If making them work properly was going to take too many resources Obsidian was right to deprioritize this.

 

Stop being a bunch of apologists already.   The fact they decided to make it look like a game from 20 years ago already highlights how lazy there were.   Cutting all the things that might have given it a glimmer or visual quality only brings that truth home.

 

compare the graphics to those of Wasteland 2, and you get a rough idea, of what we would have gotten, if Obsidian decided to go for cutting edge 3D on a budget. this is not apologetic. PoE is a stellar looking game, and certainly one of the best looking you can get for 4 million. the only games looking better at a smaller budget these days are highly artistic/minimalistic looking games like journey. Not that I would mind playing any of these 3 games, they are all great games. the latter two of them are also good looking. *shrugs*

[Starwars]

It'd be awesome if they could incorporate some more of those visual ambience effects for an expansion. Someone mentioned the fog in Ondra's Gift, that's pretty much my fav. When you enter the district and see that, you can almost feel how the air would feel. It's a really nice effect.

 

What would be even more awesome if they could develop some sort of dynamic weather for certain areas. The IE games had the rain and snow that started up at times, I *loved* that. It's just moody. And I would love for it to be taken even further, having morning mists in some areas where it would make sense for example.

 

That's one thing the IE games never had, but would be a beautiful improvement I think. A more dynamic weather system to go with the day and night cycles, the new lighting system and so forth.

[Goldseeker]

I was looking forward for those effects, animated 2d in videogames looks really good, sad that they were never implemented

[ApesAmongUs]

 

No, plants don't move but oh well. If making them work properly was going to take too many resources Obsidian was right to deprioritize this.

 

Stop being a bunch of apologists already.   The fact they decided to make it look like a game from 20 years ago already highlights how lazy there were.   Cutting all the things that might have given it a glimmer or visual quality only brings that truth home.

 

And how dare people continue to draw still pictures now that we have these snazzy moving ones.  They need to get with the times.

[Hassat Hunter]

I know right? And how I'm oldschool for saving bucks watching 2D movies without bad, horrible 3D effects. No, I don't want to pay more to make the movie I'm about to watch uglier, thank you.

 

Also, it might be in... couldn't tell. I tried real hard but didn't notice a thing in that trailer about moving bushes or trees... can't be that big a loss.

[Archaven]

I haven't seen any dynamism yet. around 70hours in the game. only dynamism i noticed could be the day and night cycle i think. But i really would have love all the moving grasses and the elevating water too.