On the
other hand, making terrain in engines intended for indoor use
such as Unreal and Quake III have far fewer geometry limitations,
but bring with them the huge problem of visible polygons. With
no ability to detail-reduce distant terrain, outdoor levels in
indoor engines must constantly take liberties with reality in
order to keep the number of on-screen polygons down as much as
possible. As a counterpart to the “marbles in rubber” look of
badly-done height mapped outdoors, outdoor FPS levels often have
the “maze of canyons” look.
Finally,
of course, and this is a problem that not even Trespasser solved
very well, despite our best attempts, is the issue of object density.
Sometime, probably before too long, either raw polygon-pushing
power or a breakthrough algorithm will permit the thousands of
trees and bushes that will enable outdoor levels which look like
something other than bare, rocky wastelands that just happen to
be painted in vegetation-like colors. For the time being, however,
there is a tricky balancing act involved in object placement which
many outdoor level designers seem to avoid altogether, going instead
for the “one tree every quarter mile” approach.
Now, I’ve
listed out the problems with making outdoor terrain, but just
knowing what to avoid or work around is not the best way to approach
the difficult task of making an outdoor level. Much of the technique
of making an outdoor level can only be gained through experience,
a belief that nothing is impossible, and an unwillingness to accept
the status quo of outdoor level design. However, I will try to
condense some of my own experiences into a few paragraphs of positive
advice.
The most
important recommendation I can give is to learn a professional
3D modelling package such as 3D Studio MAX and learn how to use
it with the engine of your choice. Internally created editors,
especially those created to make simplistic, indoor shooters,
are becoming increasingly unfit for creating the complex, sprawling,
organic geometry that today’s 3D cards and consoles are actually
able to create. Many companies are actually beginning to move
all their geometry creation, world geometry in addition to object
and character geometry, over to professional modelling packages,
and using their game editor for gameplay editing only, such as
placing objects and enemies and creating triggers for game logic.
Using
a 3D modelling program requires a much stronger knowledge of the
technology behind today’s games than the average level designer
brought up in FPS editors may be used to. MAX and programs like
it allow users to screw around with geometry to its lowest level,
right down to removing or adding in vertices and faces, and designers
using it for game creation must be acutely aware of what constitutes
good and bad geometry for their particular game.
The engines
I’ve worked with tend to go crazy if geometry has any gaps in
it (a missing face – picture a cube with one side gone). Poly-count
has also been a critical issue and removing verts and faces and
then rebuilding the mesh is a very easy way to get into trouble
and accidentally create bad geometry. I tend to start with the
simplest shapes possible and slowly add detail by splitting edges
and tessellating faces minimally. As high poly-counts and curves
become a part of more engines, however, it will probably become
necessary to work with geometry primitives in your modelling package,
and apply modifiers to them, rather than hand-editing their geometry
at the lowest-level.