Well, I was stuck on the Sam & Max remaster's only bad point last night. The ambient occlusion was so awful I woke up at 4 AM thinking about it.
So let's talk about big cartoon mouths.
Small human mouths don't really move much. You can presume the back teeth are hidden and the front teeth can be simply lit because that's how tiny human lips work.
The problem is that as the mouth gets bigger, you see a lot more of the teeth.
You see the outsides of the teeth as their cheeks roll back, you see the crowns and the inner faces as they open their huge, hinging jaws.
Cartoons are really disturbing if you think about it.
Anyway, how are the teeth lit when this sort of nonsense happens?
For the most part, the answer is "naively". You can see this in a lot of games where someone opens their mouth and the inside of their mouth glows like the sun.
It's receiving no shading information from the head, let alone bounce/indirect information from the lips.
That's fine when you only ever see the front teeth. But it gets strange when you can see the rest.
It'd be extremely expensive to calculate per-frame lighting information about teeth, so most games that need to do something about the back teeth use some kind of occlusion calc.
Here's an example of how that looks. Not too bad, right?
Not too bad... in a still frame. The problem is that it's using screen space data to do it.
So... that means it warps and jumps and morphs every frame based on the camera angle.
(This game also uses some basic shadow calculations, but clearly they decided that wasn't enough)
Screen space ambient occlusion is used in nearly every modern game, because it works very well for scenery.
However, it doesn't work well in situations where organic edges constantly roil past each other, because we see the calculation exposed with each frame.
So I was thinking... why not just use a simple texture driver?
We do it all the time. For example, we might use a driver to reshape the shoulder so it looks right during arm-raise animations. Or a driver to move combinations of shape keys that make Sam smile.
Why not have a driver that simply darkens or brightens the teeth according to how open the mouth is, how furled the lips are?
You could just use a gradient and move the zero point.
It wouldn't be realistic, exactly.
But at least it wouldn't FLASH.
Anyway, if you're listening, Skunkape: your ambient occlusion is really distracting but everything else is great.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, the thing I adored about these games is that you could play them.
Most adventure games aren't made to be played. The puzzles are meant to "challenge" you, which for me always boils down to "read the dev's mind and then get a walkthrough".
Not these.
These are basically just interactive movies - in the best sense of the term. They're fun to watch and fun to play and they don't ever make you stop to look shit up online.
They are - strangely, given the humor - the least "meta" adventure games. You never have to leave the game to find a solution.
It's interesting to me when people talk about sci fi as if it needs to be realistic. That's, uh, that's not the point of sci fi.
Even hard sci fi isn't about that. It may be realistic, but only because it's a more effective story with that feeling of realism.
But what really is interesting to me is when people talk about the social currents of today, and whether sci fi should portray them as ongoing or solved.
Obviously, this is an authorial choice... but it's an interesting one.
Do you portray a world where we've gone past the stupidity of homophobia or fascism or whatever?
Or do you portray a world where we're still struggling with those things?
Since the point is to tell a story to people of today, both choices are absolutely valid.
The point is that you will end up destroying yourself. This is not a competitive spreadsheet with a board-game skin. It's about how far you can go.
Most games use an external force to test you.
For example, Dwarf Fortress uses endless waves of monsters. And if you figure out how to deal with that using trap hallways, you'll get another bad shock when you find more monsters in your basement.
There are also stealth incursions of various sorts.
But at the end of the day, even DF knows it has to have internal mechanics to create stories, so it's infamous for its tantrum spirals.
However, these internal mechanics don't shift too much based on what kind of fort you want to make.
Waiting on lunch, so let's talk about an imaginary not-quite-4X game.
Each planet you settle has a population cap. You can only raise the cap with 'projects', large scale endeavors that create a reason for the colony to exist.
These also create the colony's place in the stars.
If you land in a strange alien ecosystem, one project might be to adapt it. Another to study it. A third to clearcut it.
Each would lock and unlock 'paths'.
Clearcutting would lock the alien biome path, the other two would unlock it. But clearcutting unlocks other paths...
Once a project is completed, the unlocked paths create a set of facilities you can build. There are also generics, but they suck.
For example, alien biome unlocks might allow endemic farms. These are very good, but create colonist biodivergence from species norm or whatever.
There's something charming about just... endless text crawl in an indie game. Especially clearly translated stuff. Clearly you must know all of this before you go pew pew with your space ships.
It just goes on and on and on, it's amazing.
The smeerps of 1022 were particularly gromulent in their unending assault on the Tromblelands of Karpolina 9. The great science-monks of Zosorch unveiled their greatest masterpiece, the Maque Starland Bumbergloss. Unfortunately, it was defeated on the Yuyumaigrek Nebula battle of
I'd take more screenshots, but the alt button skips dialog in the game proper, so I can't do it easily.