Wednesday, 28 April 2010

BlueMars vs Second Life, look and feel BlueMars wins

BlueMars produces an atmosphere, light and shade look more real showing the reality is not just a cluster of objects.

Second Life is just a cluster of objects in a vacuum. Sure it has the community, but for look and feel it is very unnatural and at time unnerving.

Lets be honest. The virtual social community is Second Life. Sure Wizards is bigger, but right now if you are going to "hang out" in a simulation universe that is not a game most likely going it is to be Second Life. I am talking about America and Europe here, Asia has its own mass of virtual universes that put use westerns to shame.

But what about the future? I have to give the technology behind BlueMars points for look and feel. You can see for yourself and BlueMars look and feel is far better.

So for look and feel you have to look to the technology behind BlueMars over Linden Labs server. This is bad news for OpenSim which is a cool project.

Learn more about BlueMars from Wikipedia. If you can please improve the Wikipedia article. CryEngine 2 is the rendering behind BlueMars and Twinity and it is just better looking than Linden Labs server.

Rober1236 Jua the Cyber Trekker of Second Life


Dale Innis said...

I don't think those pictures are very representative of *either* Blue Mars or Second Life. They're both of pretty visually boring places, and it's not at all obvious to me that the Blue Mars ones are much prettier than the Second Life ones.

In general, the average picture from Blue Mars may look better than the average one from Second Life; this is just because the bar is higher on the development skills needed to create in BM (so there are no random piles of plywood spheres lying around) and also on the hardware to render it (a machine with lousy graphics will produce lousy SL pictures, but won't be able to run BM at all!).

But on the other hand the *best* pictures from Second Life are far better than the best pictures from Blue Mars, because the open development model (anyone can get hooked on developing in SL by just clicking a few buttons, whereas BM requires registration and downloading a whole toolchain) means that there are orders of magnitude *more* SL developers than BM ones.

Forgive me for saying so, but comparing a nicely-shot picture of a BM garden to a boring snapshot from SL's Help Island, and saying that BM, but not SL, has "atmosphere, light, and shade", just makes it sound like Help Island is the only part of SL you've ever seen.

How about comparing, say, this BM picture with this SL one?

There's this common myth that somehow "BM graphics are better". But I think all that's *really* true is "you need a better graphics card to run BM". Which isn't the same thing at all...

-- Dale Innis (in both worlds :) )

Robert Hooker said...

Thank you for that Dale.

Both pictures so entry level users experience on the same machine. Both are entry areas in both virtual worlds and therefore make the best possible contrast. It would not be fair to BM to compare it rendering technology by looking at the oldest most advanced part of SL IMHO.

Graphic atmosphere for entry users of both platforms was what was being compared here.

It goes without saying that SL has the more evolved social network and in time I plan to post on that. But right now my experience with BM makes it impossible to clearly say that.

In fact I believe I made it clear that socially SL is stil the place to be. I am just looking at a rendering platform that might overcome one of the persistent frustrations with SL.

Dale Innis said...

Ah, okay. If you're comparing the resident entry areas in the two platforms, then you should say so, and I would agree; SL's entry area has never been visually pretty. I kind of think that's intentional, though, to keep it simple so new users can easily find instructional signs and stuff.

Doesn't Blue Mars still have that "flat island with nothing on it but half a dozen TP signs" entry area, though? Talk about random unconnected objects in a vacuum! :)

"I am just looking at a rendering platform that might overcome one of the persistent frustrations with SL." That's exactly what I'm taking issue with; this myth that the rendering in Blue Mars is somehow inherently superior to Second Life. I don't think that's true in any sense, and comparing pictures of the two worlds' entry areas is certainly no evidence for it.

In rendering terms, Second Life set on Ultra looks at least as good as Blue Mars (which basically has no setting *except* Ultra), provided that you run it on a video card powerful enough to run both. There's a sort of urban legend to the contrary, but I've never seen any evidence to support it.

Don't get me wrong, I would very much like to see Blue Mars succeed, and form part of a healthy ecosystem of diverse virtual worlds. I just want it to succeed because it's actually good, not because there are urban legends about how pretty it is...

Robert Hooker said...

Comparing two of the same kind of spaces would make sense to isolate the "look and feel" attributes of atmosphere in rendering.

Look I use SL and find BM pretty dull as well. I have little concern that BM will overtake LL's SL, BUT I am constantly on the look out for new areas to improve the technology set of the Internet.

I was very impressed by the one "city" I looked at in BM for this comparison, it just looked more like a fairly well done movie. I personally find that SL lacks a sense of atmosphere.

I am going to be looking deeper in to this issue as I compare SL to BM and Twinity in the future, since those companies promote bloggers twitter sites and have provided me the kind of traffic that makes ad venue a possibility. Blogging about SL is the best way to get LL to ignore you.

Official Linden Blog