安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
They added life to the game be pointing and cheering when your dinosaurs roared, holding hands, jotting stuff down on clipboards (if scientists)... You know, all the stuff you'd expect park visitors to do. That said, I'm with you. Overall I think I'd rather have Planet visitors, because the games are ostensibly in the same line of products. Plus it draws more attention to the animals when the guests have so little comparative detail.
Define "management". I think most of us are assuming that you're talking about upper management, whose primary job is handling finances and rolling out projects from a business perspective. (For example, "Our last release is starting to lose monthly sales, it's time for a new game.")
If you mean it's a team lead's decision, in that case it's almost certainly either the art director's decision or the project lead's. In either case, they're not in managerial positions. They coordinate the process of game development, but they're not strictly speaking "managers". They don't, for example, hire and fire team members.
Thus, when you get down to it, it was in fact a design decision. Someone in the "game design" segment of Frontier's offices made the decision on an aesthetic basis. This is the sort of thing that likely took place during early meetings on what the game would become, after the barebones concept was delivered to the dev team.
In regards to OP... Planet Coaster guests might have LOOKED rather basic, but their inner workings were present. They had specific levels of happiness for things like ride availability, health, safety, hunger, thirst, and exhaustion, and if they got too disgruntled, they'd outright leave your park. I expect the same sort of thing here, plus concern for the animals (interfacing with the enclosure ratings).
No they aren't.
Engine, I think they meant. While I'm not certain it's identical (in fact I'm fairly sure it's not), the engine's core does seem very familiar when compared to Planet Coaster.
Models in these types of games can be a bit taxing. If you have High Poly Animals and guests, You have to take into account how high the objects, trees, toys, buildings are.
If everything was high poly, i highly doubt things would run so smoothly.
It's why game most game dev's focus on making the scenery look nice as well as the main focus of the game. Which in this one it's the animals.
The more Animals you have in your zoo, the more High poly models the game's got to run.
Now what's actually good about today's modelling, is that you can sculpt a high poly model, Make 4K textures of the model, then retopo the model into a lower poly, but at the end result, still looks like a 200+k faces model.
From someone who's trying to make their own game, I couldn't imagine the massive amount of work it'd take for the dev's of this game to not only make them look realistic, But give each one their own appearance. For a zoo game, with the guests not being the main focus of the game, it's not worth it. When all that time and money could be used on making sure the main focus looks good (The animals), and that it runs well.
But mods are a thing. If something bothers you so much because it's not done to how you want it. Learn modelling, and make your own mod.
Every Frontier game from the last 25 years runs on the same engine. Their own bespoke engine named "Cobra". In fact it pre-dates Frontier as a company having been originally created for Frontier: Elite 2 between 1988-1993. There's a bit more history here[www.frontier.co.uk] if anyone's interested.
Engines don't remain static, they get iterated upon with each new game or as new middleware gets employed, new functionality is coded from scratch or better ways are found to do things than previously. Similarly Unreal 4 is the culmination of 21 years of iteration by Epic devs.
Even though there is a common engine you can't necessarily back port improvements to an older game as you may end up breaking the game for a sizeable portion of your pre-existing customers who's hardware may not be up to the task and you can't do that unless you're prepared (and willing) to payout potentially millions in refunds.
You don't really have that problem in a new game as you get to start with the latest and greatest iteration of the engine and set your Minimum Specifications to ensure your customer's hardware can do everything the engine requires of it.