|
|
|
|
|
by AngelOnFira
1566 days ago
|
|
Great question! Core developer here, and I haven't thought about this too much. I think one benefit this gives us is on the artist contribution side. Being an art contributor on the project has a lot less overhead of being a formal "artist", since you can quite easily make fauna or creatures or just concept art. We've seen lots of this in our blog posts! But also, in terms of terrain itself, I think it allows us to really crank up how wild and wacky our procedural generation is, and still have a great looking world (unlike something higher-fidelity like No Man's Sky). We do a lot of cool things under the hood; we have a full erosion system that creates the mountains out of the sea, a site system that places villages in places that make sense, and the ability to mash together shapes that then get "rasterized" into voxel houses. I don't know how much of this would be possible and still look alright if we weren't taking a voxel approach. |
|
Just to parrot back what (it sounds like) you're saying: using voxel-based assets in a game with community-contributed assets that extends itself using procedural generation is that the difficult of integration tends to be lower. This is because voxel shapes allow "artists" (which don't necessarily have to be highly-skilled) to build game-appropriate assets fairly easily, and for the generative process to more easily combine those elements into a cohesive world model than might be possible with polygon-based assets. Does that sound about right?