?? The snow is falling slowly downwards... what makes you think this is a "snowstorm"? Dinos leave footprints in Ark but there's no terrain deformation. I wasn't aware there was any in Avatar either, but if you say there is I believe you.
Alright whatever, I give up on a real discussion I guess.
I mean yeah, it's falling downwards like since it's coming from the sky but you can see the wind's influence on the snow as the player starts running. It doesn't fall straight down. The leaves are supposed to move in the same direction but they don't. Just looks to be a generic "vegetation moves because it does". The bushes also don't react to the creature running through them.
I don't think you need to play the game to appreciate how good it looks. There are dozens upon dozens of videos for each game. No one is criticizing the gameplay. What would change if I booted up the game myself? I haven't played Avatar either but again, just watching a few clips of the game, Ark looks like an indie game compared to it. Not saying you're incorrect since you know this stuff far better than I do but as an amateur observer analyzing what's available in either game, Avatar looks a lot more true-to-life than Ark. The one place where it falls short as you've pointed out already is the shadows. I updated my post from earlier but even in Alex's videos, they sometimes appear blocky and pixelated. I think you both mentioned it would have benefitted from rt shadows?
I think it shows. It's not exactly fair to compare it to a Ubisoft game that likely cost $100M+ with a staff of over 300 employees. Regardless of that, I think there is a glaring difference in the level of polish and detail.
It is, really.
Buying a game and playing some hours just to chat is a bit much. most of our discussion requires observing other people play, like DF who's job it is to buy (get) lots of games and play them for hours. Better to share little videos to provide evidence as you've done, which is pretty easy these days.I do like the trees destruction better in Ark though. In Frontiers of Pandora, it looks like there are only two states? Either the tree is there or it gets destroyed and fall into pieces that disappear. In Ark, it gets knocked over and remains on the ground.
We need to have a little chat about special relativity and reference frames. The reason it doesnt fall straight down is your forward motion, now if it doesnt fall straight down when your stationary thats different
Not talking about the part where he runs and we can see him running through the flakes, obviously, the motion will make the snow rush past him. I'm talking about when he starts moving and we can see the wind blowing the snow to the right. At the end, they stop and we can once again see the snow blowing in the same direction.
Oh I know, I just thought it was funny how a T-rex tipped over a whole tree just by touching it. It would take minutes to chop down a single tree if it were realistic.
I think the point is the wind is strong going by the vegetation motion, yet absent given the snow is falling straight down. Either the vegetation is wrong and there's an animation in effect that shouldn't be (Below2D's theory), or the snow is wrong and it's not following the wind that's moving the trees. Either way, the snow and vege-motion are telling different stories here. I don't think it points to anything about the underlying systems though. Doesn't indicate the animation systems affecting the tree.
It might be related more towards developer decisions on the level of realism vs what the engine can do. I've time stamped your island video above where you are near the water. Looking at the water you can see there is a breeze blowing in the direction of the shore but the trees lack any synchronized animation in conjunction with the water. The snow falling has a similar lack of "environment" realism. Not sure if this is an oversight or deliberate decision by the developer.
I've not seen the video, but these kind of sentiments have no place in a technical review where the analysis should remain as objective as possible, because the "right" way to play any game where you have a choices like this, will entirely depend on the preferences and tolerances of the individual.
Lots of people, myself included, do not get distracted by uneven or changing frame pacing unless it's really egregious, and some people are hard wired to get distracted by variances in input. Likewise, some people with really good visual acuity, or who sit closer to their screens, can perceived differences between 1440p, 1600p, 1800p and 2160p. At the distance I sit from my TV, I can't differentiate above 1440p for most games unless there is a side effect producing nasty artefacts.
Any suggestion that one visual choice is objectively right or better is insane to me. How can you say that without understanding the individual?
Right but you know the issue... it still takes 15 minutes to make a video and 5 seconds to move the goal posts. "The scenery is static" [video]. "But it doesn't interact with objects" [video]. "But the way the snow falls and the water moves is unrealistic and there's no footprints", etc. Before long we're so far afield that the discussion doesn't even make any sense any more (does Avatar even do any of these things?) and the person spending 10x the effort has been backed into a random corner and sounds like an apologist for a given game and no useful information related to the original topic has even been discussed.
At that point, putting in the work to create videos, if the argument isn't coherent then agree to disagree and move on so as not to waste your time. Totally okay with that.It's not though. It's buying the game and then playing enough to see what it does and doesn't have. For every game that'll ever be talked about, if we're being fair. the price of entry to talk on B3D tech threads becomes $40-70 per title being discussed. I think that's an unreasonable ask. Rather than expect those without the game to get it, or be excluded from discussion, I think it's better to share your POV with evidence for those who have the game, or point to videos, and then move on when the talk has clearly stalled or just plain isn't satisfying.
