Why is everything in Starfield 90-degree snap aligned on a grid?
Absolutely fricking everything.
Once you see it you can't stop seeing it.
Who the frick oversaw its art direction? Did this game HAVE art direction?
Why is everything in Starfield 90-degree snap aligned on a grid? Absolutely fricking everything.
>everything is bland, safe, uniform and has every edge rounded
soulless
Fricking everything. Everywhere. No matter what or where you go.
The places clearly plot-centric enough to have Western eyes on them are still mostly 90-degree grid aligned.
Actually, I was shitposting with my first post but I think it's because they use random generation
They need things to be uniform in reference for the system to work smoothly
Angled models and such would probably bug out and they said frick it
theres nothing "randomly generated" in the game other than placements of WHOLE handmade locations/structures
I haven't seen art direction this bad since Boneworks and Bonelab, and that was made by like 6 autistic engineers who don't have a creative bone in their bodies.
Previous Bethesda games used cells and that, but the level designers had enough intelligence to know to rotate objects and place scene furniture to break up any grid patterns. Plus you can still snap to other angles, like 45 degrees, and maintain easy puzzle-piece interconnectedness.
I'd absolutely despise this game for just this one reason alone. Some videos mention the absolutely soulless art direction but don't even seem to notice this aspect, they just say they have a vague impression that there's a lack of beauty or inspiration.
The level design is one of the major reasons.
Nor do people blame the real culprits: the robotic-minded pajeets that are mentally incapable of aesthetic beauty.
can you morons please enlighten me, a humble architect irl, what are buildings suppose to look like in space, if the game is going for grounded semi realistic aesthetic? Cube is functional, grid is functional, simple as.
I hate how this board has no self awareness and thinks they're an expert on absolutely everything. It's worse than youtube comments.
>what are buildings supposed to look like in space?
You should do some drugs and freeform stretch-of-consciousness sketch before you ruin your life fruitlessly toiling in a career that actually requires artistic vision and spark
Hexagonal, duh. Hexagons are future.
Mr Architect wouldn't you argue that function can be expressed in a large variety of different ways to suit different needs? Is your imagination limited to stacking cargo crates in different configurations like lego blocks? Is leaving pre-fab blocks out on harsh planet surfaces even the most efficient way to colonize new planets? How about building into terrain or using machines to dig up materials to build from and making new designs with the native material. How about large dome tarps to create bubbles of breathable atmosphere and help filter radiation. Maybe a science or mining team would make a temporary outpost that they plan to ditch after a contract but people living on a planet for generations would do more and would want a place that actually feels like home. Have you read Red Mars it's a cool book.
https://parametric-architecture.com/life-on-mars-but-how-a-few-architectural-considerations/
Even in the link you posted the examples that are semi realistic are also basically just cubes, especially interior wise. The Arizona Biosphere is interesting, but my bet is it's some sort of a glass house.
There is nothing wrong with building with square shape, it's for sure isn't "uncreative". Across the world spheric plans are the most prominent across all cultures. Its just what comes naturally to humans and their needs. You have a bunch of articles about how spheric houses were a disaster every time someone tried to make such a thing. If were being realistic and think about actual colonization of space, even Starfields vision is far fetched and too luxurious. There is literally no ration reasoning to colonize another planet, except if we find one that is as hospitable as Earth is, which is highly unlikely.
>architect irl
>can't think of a shape for a building that isn't a featureless cube
Checks out, actually.
>I'd love to see some of the soulless buildings you've designed. Post em.
you like?
Ohhh he's israeli
Better men than you have designed better buildings you fricking drone. Thanks more making every modern building look like shit
>Nor do people blame the real culprits: the robotic-minded pajeets that are mentally incapable of aesthetic beauty
if even art direction is outsourced to cheap labor then that's on the white man's greed
If I was being paid pennies to shit out generic assets for another company I wouldn't put in any effort either. It's all designed to be assembly line. You can't blame the workers involved for not being creative, they're not being paid to be.
You know when you mess around Vivec in Morrowind and are jumping around from quarter to quarter that are all like this and then go to the nearest Deadric ruins?
That contrast of going into ruins that have 0 right angles and are all deformed and crazy?
Thats environmental storytelling and atmosphere setting to immerse you into the world.
Losers that made Slopfield wouldnt know how to send an email with a Pentium 3, 256MB of ram and geforce 2, windows 98 computer.
Vivec is widely regarded as the most poorly designed part of Morrowind, and stands in contrast to the entire rest of that game.
Even Telvanny interiors are block assembled, though.
1. The game's 21 years old
2. Still hides it better even in the obviously copy and pasted one
3. The overall soul and vision and drug-inspired spirituality of the game overrides it
4. Regions actually have character, culture, and obviously unique spirits
you have no idea what you're talking about moron.
fricking off yourself
>Verification not required.
they probably still use some outdated level editor from the gamebryo engine.
You have never opened a game engine in your life. Why do you insist on yapping about things you have no clue about?
You can't open a game engine, genius
Not related to gamebryo but source games have this a lot. Its a combination of working with angles in hammer being a chore when it starts getting complex and that the collision hull used for movement and other simple physics calculations is a square that doesnt rotate. The hull likes to get stuck on weird angles and you cant rotate the hull because it creates other issues if youre too close to something. Making the hull a circle would alleviate some of these problems but it creates many more. Also the visleaf system doesnt play nice with angles so trying to optimize complex scenes can become a different type of chore. Bethesda and their outsourced labor is being lazy.
I think it's more(first of all I think this isn't nearly as prominent as OP makes it out to be) about the fact that it's good to have a very clear and readable level when you're making an FPS game. Basically every level begins in the a literal blocking stage, then you just replace basic geometric cubes with actual game assets that have an aesthetic and a theme to them.
>(first of all I think this isn't nearly as prominent as OP makes it out to be
1. open any Starfield video
2. scrub randomly
3. screenshot the first wide shot of an interior you see
I'll start
New Atlantis
literally the first vid I opened has a 45degree angle pathway.
now kys.
You're kidding right? The design elements in that screenshot are 99% 90 degree angles. Even the fricking pipes. Even the wires.
I'm not saying that there are NO examples of non-90 degree aligned items. Some of my screenshots have those. But obviously it's almost exclusively 90-degree snapped bullshit non-art-direction robotic bullshit.
>WHATT!!? ARE THOSE SQUARE DOORS!!!? ARE THOSE SQUARE WINDOWS!??!! PIPES TURN AT A 90 DEG ANGLE?!!? NO FRICKING WAY!
Forget it the guy is a moron, he things things are not designed out of a need to function & are tried & tested & thinks you can come up with goofy weird shapes because his eyes only likes weird shapes. He needs to stay on or off the meds (whichever solves his problem).
>They made an asset that cuts diagonally to another perpendicular asset
BETHESDA ALWAYS BREAKING NEW GROUND
>that one 45degree pathway and perpendicular supporting I-beam
OP BTFO
I get that but some variety here and there is needed so the player doesn't feel, for a lack of better words, boxed in all the time. Don't want your corridor shooter to feel too much like a string of corridors. If what OP is saying is 100% true all the time he should really include screenshots from past Todd titles showing off both grid aligned angle snapped stuff along with non-grid aligned angle snapped stuff. If hes ever used the GECK or ESCK he'll know that all those games build the environment out of prefabs which are contained within a cube and all the prefabs are slotted next to each other on a grid. The art director, modelers and level designers all have to work together to make anything that isn't a square.
There was definitely a deliberate choice on the side of the Starfield art team to make the looks of the game as square and geometric as possible, nobody is refuting that. I'm just arguing that that was a good decision and that the art direction is arguably the best thing about the title. It might be an acquired taste, but isn't Ganker the first one to cry about games not taking risks and shit? Bethesda could've made a knockoff wacky universe with a bunch of alien races and exotic locales, but this sterile vision of space was much more risky, it's not like the people at Beth don't know that 90% of gamers are little children who just want spectacle and nothing more.
It's not because of blocking, it's very common issue in modern games, even in Doom Eternal. Lavish graphics, but wolfenstein-tier level complexity.
It's because you can't sculpt a level like in quake, you have to use assets that are cubical by nature, to fit with each other in order to save production value.
>but wolfenstein-tier level complexity.
FPS level design unironically peaked with Doom. Play Brutal Doom and you'll see that the design and the way enemies stand out actually funnels the fastest type of action you can get in an FPS, rather than the endless clutter and shit that you can't interact with in modern games, that's just there for eye candy and adds nothing really.
But in a slower fantasy setting, that obviously isn't great.
>FPS level design unironically peaked with Doom
Duke Nukem 3d, but that's your only mistake.
True, level design in that sense has still remained very basic. Even titles like Titanfall that have all this parkour movement and mech still have very basic square levels, if only a bit elongated.
>Starfield is bad because squares and right angles
Unironically touch grass.
Record your hallway for 35 seconds so I know your skin color
>Starfield is bad because squares and right angles
OP didn't say that. He criticized the art direction.
Touch glasses.
art direction is the only great thing in the game tho. shame you're a pleb and will never realize that.
>tho
Opinion invalidated.
Yes, that's him criticizing the art direction. Good job.
Erm no his criticism is solely that the game includes too many right angles and squares and not enough "45 degree angles". There's not a semantics game for you to play here.
Autists like you should kys because what are you adding to the world?
>art direction is the only great thing in the game tho
>Why is everything in Starfield 90-degree snap aligned on a grid?
>The places clearly plot-centric enough to have Western eyes on them are still mostly 90-degree grid aligned.
Touch grass, touch glasses and touch your meds with your mouth, moron.
>Why is everything in Starfield 90-degree snap aligned on a grid?
open any level editor from any game engine and you will figure it out in the first 30 seconds. It is much easier/efficient to work this way. Actually, most buildings in real life are also planned/built like this. Only natural and organic structures are truly "gridless".
They lost their best artist in 2012.
Because it's a tile-based game with cover mechanics, like xcom.
Or maybe because there is 0 artists in modern Bethesda.
is that corners in a room? ayyyyeee save me brotherman
I'm starting to think Starfield is a masterpiece
How good a game is typically follows how much Ganker b***hes and copes about it. Going by that metric, Starfield is GotD.
The amount of Ganker b***hing is generally proportional to how much marketing and pre-release press hype a game receives, so naturally big releases make for an easier target when they're shit, or at least have shit aspects. Starfield was overhyped as hell, and turned out to be the same uninspired Bethesda gruel they've been serving for over a decade, with no inspiration or progress to be seen.
Buddy, I already pre-ordered the DLC, you don't need to convince me any further
>Why are buildings made building-shaped?
Which 3rd-world country are you from?
I don't even like this game but you managed to come up with the most moronic complaint I've ever seen, so congrats OP. Keep doing hard drugs or whatever fuels this type of derangement.
Honestly OP you seem like those crazy Christian grandmas that delude themselves into seeing demonic symbols everywhere.
it's supposed to be the future yet the flashlight is a piece of shit baby spotlight you would think in the future there would be better lighting so shit doesn't jump at me in my peripheral
Todd's a big roblox enjoyer
benchod moment
Because that's how the vast majority of buildings are designed? Jesus christ you freaks will complain about literally anything.
they want all buildings to look like their favourite food - the hamburger
Meds.
Everything is built from modules. This is why you see the same copy-pasted assets everywhere.
It's especially obvious when you enable noclip and zoom out of any location (the cities or bases).
Starfield is ... not what I was expecting.
>Everything is built from modules
This is how every game is made.
Frick off moron, don't slide.
Forgot: they obviously wanted to save time.
Game was probably in dev hell for few years and then they rushed it together during last 2 years or so.
Happens to every Microsoft owned company btw. Starfield is Bethesda's Halo Infinite.
>Clueless snoy can't help but toi oust himself
NASA Punk
op is a dunning kruger
I get what you mean. it's just because of asset copy-paste with very few unique locations and buildings. It's not really because of the art direction. It's just Bethesda managing to become even shittier with time.
Blocks were in their games sinse Arena. Take a closer look at your beloved Olblivion, and you'll see same blocks.
>closer look
keyword here, and Skyrim managed to hide those blocks almost completely, except for certain towns like Falkreath
Well, not quite, but alright.
Anyway, in starfield case it's unironically okay. We have custom made architecture in New Atlantis, and for spaceships and stations modular look makes perfect sense.
>The few areas that the Western white men created are pretty good
I've worked with enough poos to know their signature at a glance. The design choices in Starfield reek of it
>I've worked
This is the biggest falsehood in this entire thread, and that's saying something.
Why would someone on Ganker possibly work in tech?
I'm pretty sure this is just how humans build things. Look at the floor plan of most irl buildings. Maybe it is uninspired but this game is soulless in more important ways.
>is... is that a heckin RIGHT ANGLE!?!?!
>AAAAAAA HELP ME TODD I'M GOING INSANE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>When OP goes to any major city and sees 95% of buildings
the question is where does op live where right angles aren't used
It's only about angles, it's about grid.
I see this shit everywhere, even fricking hollow knight is rectangular grid slop.
Bonus point of shittyness is when grid size isn't proportional to player size. Doom Eternal, for example.
Because it's a shitty game made by a shitty company.
because most everything IRL is 90 angled when it comes to architecture that is trying to be functional. its utilitarian.
and even once you get to high end luxury mansions, everything is 90 angles because it's simply the best way to utilize space, and keep things architecturally and aesthetically sound. at least when it comes to the floor plan.
>functional
*kosher
>utilitarian
*homogenous
assuming you're the dumbfrick OP
did you ever question why houses are built as square foundations
I'm not, my house isnt, and I dont care about your flimsy goyboxes
Why wouldn't it?
It's ugly as hell
Just compare amerigrids to eurosprawls
OP's gonna shit himself when he pulls a tape measure irl and realizes his house is built like a grid with all walls/counters etc lined up. And if hes in a modern American house the whole neighborhood is probably a grid.