How do you know? Have you seen every water-edge on every pond in the world?

He's not trying to make it look like real life, he's only using grass and water from real life in the level, the rest is in his mind. Nothing wrong with that.

That is a particularly weak argument, Crono. By your logic, we can't say that anything is realistic unless we've examined every object in the world. The term becomes meaningless.

The two statements are inconsistent. If he doesn't want it to resemble reality, why is he evoking real-world substances and organisms and structures?

Omfg, stop complaining :rolleyes:

I'm not complaining, I'm criticising. And I'll gladly stop if you'll only refrain from saying stupid things.

Omfg stop criticising then..=)

I already outlined my criterion. You have not yet met it.

Hi. I'm Kai, I like to talk troll and prove everyone wrong.

Anyway, its fine like it is. Making it straight would degrade the level. :/

Man, I just expressed my opinion, and then people started arguing with me. What am I supposed to do?

This assertion would perhaps carry more weight if I had not seen the kind of levels you make.

Would you rather having a level like that, or a level that has straight banks?

Straighter banks. I'm not talking square ponds here, I just think it looks ridiculous when every single bank tile is part of a curve.

I agree, I like it curvy, not boring

Well, that is some pretty unfair representation. I do not think "boring" was one of the options.

What options? I simply said I like it because it is not boring, I hate boring levels (my opinion, of course)

The comparison was curvy vs not-curvy, not curvy vs boring.

The laws of physics seem to not exist in this level.

The pond shouldn't run up the side of the slopey hill. Even though, conceivably, it could happen in real life, the geography of the level is unlikely. I would sandify the top of the lake.

I also agree that some of the water should be straight, but not all of it. It should be unpredictable, not all bendy.



EDIT: I before E except after C. x_x

The water looks crappy. It's utterly unrealistic, I guess I must agree with Kai. The only way water would take that shape is if someone purposely went out with a shovel and carved their yard up like that, it's just unnatural. :)

fine
curvy=not boring
non-curvy= boring

;)

You should probably let the major dictionary companies know about these developments.

I say we just ban you. :)

Anyway, you can't really compare Graal to real life geography because of the tiles. We dont have billions of tiles to represent all the many curves of a lake, ponds, or streams.

I've seen streams in forests with alot of curves and stuff, so... meh... :/

Well, obviously you only looked in Canadian forests.

We can't get a perfect replication of reality so therefore it's okay to make stuff more unrealistic than it has to be? There is no logic in your head.

And yeah, the Graal style purposefully moves away from realism. But it does so in the opposite direction - it makes things simpler than they are in real life. Turning ponds into fractals goes against this tradition for no good reason.

LOL @ picture


Anyway, I agree that the water is a bit over-done.
While I have seen "fractal" ponds and swamp water in real life, that goes way beyond it.

Basically, it looks too "chaotic" to look good. Take out some of the randomness, give it a little more straightness and less curves, and it would look a lot better.

Kai, that is a funny picture. :D

But, like I said, I have seen streams shaped similar to that. :/

If you ever get bored with scripting, you should really consider a field in graphics.