What do you value in a terrain?

[~Void~]

Just wanted to get everyone's opinion on this, because I personally know I have a different way of making/looking at terrains than most people. I value simplicity, realistic-ness (is that a word?) and tiny little details that are hard to notice but when you do, it makes the terrain 10 times better.

 

[Gilles]

I voted for one, two and four. Lighting and the basics are most important to me. Too bad I stink at lighting.

 

[Belgarath]

1, 3 and 5 in the poll.

 

[~Void~]

I actually didn't vote for #1. IMO, not all terrains need a fog (sunny days... you can see for miles!), some terrains actually do look good with blizzard cliffs, used sparingly however, and tile/doodad variation is not always needed, especially in dead places.

 

[Naze]

Correction: A short range pic in a sunny day, that doesn't needs fog. But a long ranged pic in a sunny day, yeah, it needs.

 

[~Void~]

Correction: A short range pic in a sunny day, that doesn't needs fog. But a long ranged pic in a sunny day, yeah, it needs.

No. If you were to climb to the top of a mountain on a perfectly sunny day, you could see forever, and there would be no fog. Maybe only in the very distance, like at range 12,000, would there be fog. So I guess there would be fog

 

[DungeonM]

No. If you were to climb to the top of a mountain on a perfectly sunny day, you could see forever, and there would be no fog. Maybe only in the very distance, like at range 12,000, would there be fog. So I guess there would be fog

For example... at approx 4500 feet...
http://blarnay.deviantart.com/art/2007-White-Mountains-03-73807564

 

[frostwhisper]

I voted the same as Gilles.

 

[Gilles]

For example... at approx 4500 feet...
http://blarnay.deviantart.com/art/2007-White-Mountains-03-73807564

But that has fog. A white distance fog.

 

[Oziris]

I voted for 1,2 and 4 same as Gilles and Frostwhisper.

 

[Eleandor]

Voted for 2 and 4.

I considered voting for 1 as well, but I disagree with the "cliffs" standard. If you know what you're doing, blizzard cliffs CAN look good. Perhaps even better than how it would look with hills. I do find tile variation to be very important though. Fog as well, but I think that's in option 2 already, so...

 

[seruk]

Right, what you guys have to get out of your head is this "no bliizz cliffx" thing. You can make good terrain with Blizzard's cliffs.

 

[DungeonM]

But that has fog. A white distance fog.

That's what I was getting at. I wasn't saying there are times when there is no fog, I meant to say that there will almost always be fog present especially at long distances.

 

[~Void~]

But that has fog. A white distance fog.

It also isn't a cloudless sunny day. I'm not saying it happens often, but I've seen it happen before.

 

[Gilles]

I don't understand where these god looking blizzard cliffs terrains are! Prove that they can look better with Blizzard cliffs.

 

[Nudl9]

I only voted for point 2! ^^

 

[~Void~]

I don't understand where these god looking blizzard cliffs terrains are! Prove that they can look better with Blizzard cliffs.

Take a look at \Naze's Snowy Terrain and Koopa124's Underwater Terrain.
The Blizzard Cliffs look good in the snowy one and it wouldn't look nearly as good with the raise tool (stretched textures FTL) and although the underwater one isn't particularly good, the use of cliffs makes it look better.

 

[Naze]

I actually didn't vote for #1. IMO, not all terrains need a fog

As I said, you don't need any fog for something that you can't see at least a part of the horizon. I think I didn't expressed myself well, so here is an ilustrated example:

http://luciana.misura.org/fotos/casa_nova01b.jpg

 

[Gilles]

Take a look at \Naze's Snowy Terrain and Koopa124's Underwater Terrain.
The Blizzard Cliffs look good in the snowy one and it wouldn't look nearly as good with the raise tool (stretched textures FTL) and although the underwater one isn't particularly good, the use of cliffs makes it look better.

I forgot that cites can looks fine with cliffs. The underwater is not very good at all.

Blizzard cliffs should only be used in playable terrain, and sometimes for cities.

 

[seruk]

I don't understand where these god looking blizzard cliffs terrains are! Prove that they can look better with Blizzard cliffs.

I don't know how many time I've told you, look at some of RDZ's maps. They look awesome and could damn well match stuff posted around here. They're playable though.

As I said, you don't need any fog for something that you can't see at least a part of the horizon. I think I didn't expressed myself well, so here is an ilustrated example:

http://luciana.misura.org/fotos/casa_nova01b.jpg

 

[Naze]

I don't know how many time I've told you, look at some of RDZ's maps. They look awesome and could damn well match stuff posted around here. They're playable though.

what did you meant by quoting me?

I think you posted something like this last year....

Anyways, not all terrains needs fog.

 

[~Void~]

Anyways, not all terrains needs fog

I think he meant to agree with you by quoting.