Maxis vs. gmax and beyond

[Jazzmaster 716]

I wasn't sure where this thread should have gone...but I figured it would be perfectly suitable here.

Just wondering...what makes Maxis buildings so "bad"?  I mean I understand the need for custom content to further diversify each city and all that...or to simply create things that haven't been created.  But I'm talking about this idealism flying around that if it's vanilla or primarily vanilla...it's absolutely terrible...

Don't get me wrong, some of the in-game buildings absolutely suck, but if you actually look at some of them, they blend in pretty well and have a lot of attention paid to detail and such...

This pic is kinda old, but you can clearly see some Maxis content in here and I really don't think it's so terrible.

Thoughts?

[Xyloxadoria 1,098]

Here is my opinion: Modeling wise the maxis models are actullay decent. But there are two things that stand out.

1. There is no sense of scale at all. Its like the people who made the buildings never collobrated with each other, just modeled.

2. While the building modeling is good, the lots the buildings are on are bad.  Thats actullay what im annoyed the most about, the lots, not the buildings on them.

[Jasoncw 12,060]

The models themselves weren't as good as they could have been, but the lots are the main offender. But I think that most of the problems related to the buildings and lots comes down to the fact that the artists don't have any understanding of planning or architecture or the built environment in general.

The lots are just plain bad.  I thought it might be easier to say what they did right with them than what they did wrong with them, but I can't think of anything they did right with the lots.  They would have saved money if they would have had 3rd graders do the lotting for them.

A while ago I made a thread about the real life buildings that Maxis based theirs off of, and I think that almost all of the buildings in the game are actually recreations.  The buildings they referenced are all actually really nice buildings (once I rented a book that had a huge number of Maxis buildings in it, so I'm assuming they just bought a bunch of coffee table books), but you can see that a lot of realism and quality was lost, and many of the buildings feel like charactures when compared to the original buildings.  The modelers had deadlines to meet, and didn't have much time for each building, but with a better understanding of architecture they would have been able to pick out the most important elements in each building to recreate.

But all of that said, I think the majority of people don't know anything more than Maxis does.  I'm not super into CJs, but I occasionally read them, and I'm always happy when I see my and other people's pre-war urban BATs used correctly, because most of the time, common walls and the alley sides of buildings are facing streets, and they shouldn't, and that's something very simple and basic.  Many BATers don't have much of an understanding of architecture either.

[DazzaDazza 35]

Well i like all the res and com, medium, and high density buildings, I still use them,

i don't like the rest of them though

[DCMetro34 577]

What really is bad for me is when 2 or 3 or even 4+ grow beside each other. That can get annoying very quickly.......Some of them, though are ok; but only in moderation.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw

The models themselves weren't as good as they could have been, but the lots are the main offender. But I think that most of the problems related to the buildings and lots comes down to the fact that the artists don't have any understanding of planning or architecture or the built environment in general.

The lots are just plain bad.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw

The models themselves weren't as good as they could have been, but the lots are the main offender. But I think that most of the problems related to the buildings and lots comes down to the fact that the artists don't have any understanding of planning or architecture or the built environment in general.

The lots are just plain bad.  I thought it might be easier to say what they did right with them than what they did wrong with them, but I can't think of anything they did right with the lots.  They would have saved money if they would have had 3rd graders do the lotting for them.

A while ago I made a thread about the real life buildings that Maxis based theirs off of, and I think that almost all of the buildings in the game are actually recreations.  The buildings they referenced are all actually really nice buildings (once I rented a book that had a huge number of Maxis buildings in it, so I'm assuming they just bought a bunch of coffee table books), but you can see that a lot of realism and quality was lost, and many of the buildings feel like charactures when compared to the original buildings.  The modelers had deadlines to meet, and didn't have much time for each building, but with a better understanding of architecture they would have been able to pick out the most important elements in each building to recreate.

But all of that said, I think the majority of people don't know anything more than Maxis does.  I'm not super into CJs, but I occasionally read them, and I'm always happy when I see my and other people's pre-war urban BATs used correctly, because most of the time, common walls and the alley sides of buildings are facing streets, and they shouldn't, and that's something very simple and basic.  Many BATers don't have much of an understanding of architecture either.

quote>

I agree a lot with what has been said here.  I personally don't even understand much about architecture myself...I've only just started on that path with taking a class in high school (and we're working more on the interior than exterior...something inverse of what you work on as a BATer).  I've noticed the understanding of architecture may actually be lacking in general....most movies, tv shows or games with city scenes don't have much attention paid to architecture.  Most common reason?  It's not very important, and they can get away with it unless it's horribly bad modeling period.  Of course, there's no excuse if based off a real life city.   Though like I said, I don't really understand much about it either...yet...I could recreate a building without too much difficulty, but I wouldn't know the first thing about starting from scratch and making it look very real.

Also agreed that the lots suck.  I hate how there's sometimes bare walls facing the streets, with facades facing those horribly designed parking lots (since when do 50+ story towers have little ten car parking lots next to them?).

[madhatter106 3,933]

Originally posted by: Yoshiisland

I've noticed the understanding of architecture may actually be lacking in general....most movies, tv shows or games with city scenes don't have much attention paid to architecture.  Most common reason?  It's not very important, and they can get away with it unless it's horribly bad modeling period.  Of course, there's no excuse if based off a real life city.   Though like I said, I don't really understand much about it either...yet...I could recreate a building without too much difficulty, but I wouldn't know the first thing about starting from scratch and making it look very real.quote>

As someone who has worked in motion pictures and television for over a dozen years (albeit not in the art department), I would take issue with this statement.  There is a huge amount of effort taken by production designers, art directors, set designers, and set decorators to put forth a believeable product, be it entirely recreation or designed/filtered through anothers' eyes. 

What you may perceive to be a blandness about certain movie or TV scenes is often due to scheduling and budgtary concerns - if you are shooting a 22 episode hour-long series, in two units, and you're getting video footage of a press conference on the front of the courthouse steps, you can be sure that they'll use the generic backlot "Gotham" looking courthouse on the Warner Bros lot, because of time/money/availability/feasibility.  But also understand that this same courthouse also serves as the facade for another TV series that afternoon, so there is a constant use and re-use scenario going on.

Also, even if your setting is a "real city," that doesn't mean that you aren't given creative license with certain features of it, as long as there is no hinderance based on the story/script.  The London of Tim Burton's version of "Sweeney Todd" is a very different city than that of "Topsy Turvy" or "My Fair Lady," and all of those probably didn't measure up to the real thing in its time....

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: madhatter106

Originally posted by: Yoshiisland

I've noticed the understanding of architecture may actually be lacking in general....most movies, tv shows or games with city scenes don't have much attention paid to architecture.  Most common reason?  It's not very important, and they can get away with it unless it's horribly bad modeling period.  Of course, there's no excuse if based off a real life city.   Though like I said, I don't really understand much about it either...yet...I could recreate a building without too much difficulty, but I wouldn't know the first thing about starting from scratch and making it look very real.quote>

As someone who has worked in motion pictures and television for over a dozen years (albeit not in the art department), I would take issue with this statement.  There is a huge amount of effort taken by production designers, art directors, set designers, and set decorators to put forth a believeable product, be it entirely recreation or designed/filtered through anothers' eyes. 

What you may perceive to be a blandness about certain movie or TV scenes is often due to scheduling and budgtary concerns - if you are shooting a 22 episode hour-long series, in two units, and you're getting video footage of a press conference on the front of the courthouse steps, you can be sure that they'll use the generic backlot "Gotham" looking courthouse on the Warner Bros lot, because of time/money/availability/feasibility.  But also understand that this same courthouse also serves as the facade for another TV series that afternoon, so there is a constant use and re-use scenario going on.

Also, even if your setting is a "real city," that doesn't mean that you aren't given creative license with certain features of it, as long as there is no hinderance based on the story/script.  The London of Tim Burton's version of "Sweeney Todd" is a very different city than that of "Topsy Turvy" or "My Fair Lady," and all of those probably didn't measure up to the real thing in its time....quote>

Well spoken point.  And I don't doubt at all that higher end, fatter budgeted prodctions have much more in-depth design and execution regarding architecture and other structures.  But I'm speaking more along the lines of those cartoons and such you see, where the buildings are basically rainbow colored legos with misaligned windows and no real architectural details but even as I was watching Disney Pixar's "UP" I noticed as the house floated away from the city, the buildings were essentially just steel and glass boxes that seemed convincing and geographically symetrical, but in terms of what one would see in a real city...well it didn't have the amount of detail and such or the mix of old and new buildings you'd see in most modern American cities (unless I'm mistaken, it was based in an American setting lol).

But albeit, it was perfectly understandable....the scene where they showed the overview of the city lasted less than half a minute.  So why go through all that for such a small amount of the movie?  Monentarily and in terms of time, it wouldn't have made sense.

[madhatter106 3,933]

I can sum up my hatred of many Maxis buildings with this little play I just wrote in my head.

Scene: madhatter106's living room, at the computer.

10 minutes into loading SC4 for the first time and being unaware of all the great custom content available on Simtropolis and elsewhere: "Awww, wow, that little diner is cute.  Depiesse's diner."

25 mintues later: "Hmm, the Rivello Building.  Interesting."

3 hours later:  "I have three Depiesse's Diners in a row on the street.  I wish it weren't so white."

2 hours later: "The Rivello Building has lost its charm.  Plus it looks just like all the other commercial shoebox buildings."

1 hour later:  "If I see Depiesse's Diner built one more time, I'm going to rezone this whole block."

Before we wander on to Simtropolis or any of the other custom content sites for SC4, we're limited to the stable of buildings that Maxis has given us.  And we burn out on them fast - especially the ones that pop up early in the game, when we're starting and restarting and starting yet again new regions and cities.  Things like Honest Carrie's Used Cars and Bob's Grease Pit and (shudder) Depiesse's Diner pop up so frequently early in the game, it's easy to sour on them rather quickly.  And when you take all the great custom content that has been generated over the years, and stand it up next to Gustav's or Honest Carrie's, the chasm widens even further...you love the new stuff, which has been thought through and tweaked and modified much more thoroughly than the Maxis stuff, that much more...