Partner Nintendo 3DS Central Social

Why don't we have proper forests in video games yet?

CM30

CM30

Gaming Latest Admin and Gaming Reinvented Owner
Full GL Member
13,107
2010
984
Awards
7
Credits
506
I'm not talking about the lame 'twenty trees in a field' or 'tunnel with tree designs painted on' types most Mario and Zelda games use, but a forest area which can actually be explored fully and has a somewhat realistic amount of vegetation and detail.

The Lost Woods in the Zelda series for example is more like a bunch of clearings than a proper scene like the tons shown on this Wikipedia page, and the Ocarina of Time version might as well have no trees at all:

Lost_Woods.png



That's not what a forest looks like. At all.

Nor is this:

800px-Sacred_Grove_3.jpg



Compare it to a real world forest like the one in the attachment, or even this from the Wikipedia article:

Biogradska_suma.jpg



It'd be nice to have more realistic areas in games in this respect, wouldn't it?
 
I agree with you 100%. Honestly, the only place that I've really felt that I have wandered in a forest that looks somewhat realistic is probably in WoW.
 
Play Ghost Recon 1.

And while I do agree with you, I guess it must just be difficult to implement a realistic forest as far as level design and direction goes. Generally only open exploration RPGs like Oblivion can have big, beautiful, realistic forests that make sense in the game.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPi0AhQgrDs&feature=related
Crysis had forests out the ass. Sure it might not be as dense as the picture but I wouldn't say it's improper.

You could be swimming across the expansive water, and turn around at any moment, in any direction, there's still about 6-9 million tris. You bet it's because of all the foliage and trees. That's why I was a bit excited for Crysis 2's new setting because I wouldn't have to deal with all that foliage, but luckily, the foliage was replaced with particles, effects, and too much bloom that make my eyes bleed. Still a very nice graphical game none the less, if they could solve the eye bleeding problem I'd tell them to make it even better.

There are games that have good forests, but I don't think Nintendo systems are where you'll find them..well..there is one exception.
Pokemon had DENSE forests, more than Crysis could ever handle, and only on the gameboy.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100905165024/pokemon/images/thumb/1/18/Cerulean_City.png/830px-Cerulean_City.png
 
Nin3DS said:
Nor is this:

800px-Sacred_Grove_3.jpg
Click to expand...
In fairness, that does look like a real forest (or at least a wood; it never claimed to be a forest). Not all woods have every densely packed trees that cover many square miles, you know.
 
UnknownToaster said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPi0AhQgrDs&feature=related
Crysis had forests out the ass. Sure it might not be as dense as the picture but I wouldn't say it's improper.

You could be swimming across the expansive water, and turn around at any moment, in any direction, there's still about 6-9 million tris. You bet it's because of all the foliage and trees. That's why I was a bit excited for Crysis 2's new setting because I wouldn't have to deal with all that foliage, but luckily, the foliage was replaced with particles, effects, and too much bloom that make my eyes bleed. Still a very nice graphical game none the less, if they could solve the eye bleeding problem I'd tell them to make it even better.

There are games that have good forests, but I don't think Nintendo systems are where you'll find them..well..there is one exception.
Pokemon had DENSE forests, more than Crysis could ever handle, and only on the gameboy.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100905165024/pokemon/images/thumb/1/18/Cerulean_City.png/830px-Cerulean_City.png
Click to expand...

I would LOVE that in a mario game.That would be the best thing ever.
 
Maybe with the new console, if they are really going to start stepping away from "not giving a shit about graphics". They should know once they have graphics and gamplay they'll have a good chance of ruling
 
RootBoi said:
Maybe with the new console, if they are really going to start stepping away from "not giving a shit about graphics". They should know once they have graphics and gamplay they'll have a good chance of ruling
Click to expand...
Didn't do them much good last time, or the time before.
The most powerful console with the best graphics is seldom the biggest success.
 
kunino-sagiri said:
RootBoi said:
Maybe with the new console, if they are really going to start stepping away from "not giving a shit about graphics". They should know once they have graphics and gamplay they'll have a good chance of ruling
Click to expand...
Didn't do them much good last time, or the time before.
The most powerful console with the best graphics is seldom the biggest success.
Click to expand...
Wii,the consloe with the worst graphics,hapened to sell the most because the other ones were 99% "hardcore" games.I hate those lame games
tongue.gif


I'm really glad that the Wii succsessor/Project cafe/Stream will have good graphics!Especially for the Forest reasons.I LOVE realistic looking grass.Hopefully it will have realistic grass instead of the kind of grass in mario galaxy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember a nice forest in Shadow of the Colossus. There was really no point to it though.
 
As long as the gameplay is good, I don't think anybody would complain about realistic graphics or just plain awesome ones, no matter what style
 
RootBoi said:
As long as the gameplay is good, I don't think anybody would complain about realistic graphics or just plain awesome ones, no matter what style
Click to expand...
Gameplay is the most important thing,but its not everything.Graphics,Characters,Story,Music,Everything matters.
 
kunino-sagiri said:
RootBoi said:
Maybe with the new console, if they are really going to start stepping away from "not giving a shit about graphics". They should know once they have graphics and gamplay they'll have a good chance of ruling
Click to expand...
Didn't do them much good last time, or the time before.
The most powerful console with the best graphics is seldom the biggest success.
Click to expand...
Since when does graphics substitute gameplay?
I don't understand why it must be an either or and can't just be both.
To say it has to be an either or is to say no matter how well made a game is, if it is on a nice engine like UDK, then it is automatically bad and lame.

For the record, the Wii was new and was an innovation to some people, so as 'new' technology, a lot of people were excited for it. It also appealed to more age groups. Anyone from 6-90 could play it. The games were usually soft and inviting and the whole family could play it. Because of it's large appeal to high numbers of people, it was plenty able to sell. (Especially if it's the parent who's paying.)

Then there's the PS3 and Xbox market who are usually appealed by similar things, but since the consoles are so similar but so different, it is divided in to for who is interested in specific things. So the people looking for a console like PS3 or Xbox are split into two communities.

As of 2011, the Wii has sold 86 million, and the 360 sold 50 million, and so did the PS3. Seperate, the Wii did win, but, with the community of 360 and PS3 being interested in similar things, if it were one console that appealed to both evenly, they would have gone for that console, so in that case, if you take the two 50 million's, you get 100 million, which does in fact topple over the Wii.

With that said, I'm not seeing the direct correlation of graphics vs gameplay, especially when that's mostly up to the developers game to game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To go along with your statistics, I assume there are many people like me who would buy a 360, but they don't feel like paying for online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top