Lighting and Such

A little behind on this one but here goes nothing.  I'm going to do a quick overview of lighting to make sure I know what heck I'm talking about!

Ambient:  An omni-directional light that covers everything around it.  No area has more intensity than others as it is uniform wherever the light hits.  It is based on the diffused lighting parameter multiplied by constant value to determine how much light there is.

Diffuse: Light gets more focused with diffuse, as it can be shone in a certain direction.  There are several rules that help define the properties of diffuse lighting: the illumination falling on a surface and being reflected perpendicularly is relative to the inverse square of the distance between that particular object and where the light is coming from.  The illuminance will always be proportional to cosine of the angle with the normal of whatever object the light is hitting (basically defines the reflection).  When diffuse light travels through an absorbing medium (air, water, etc), then its intensity decreases at an exponential rate from the light source.  

The intensity for diffuse is defined as the intensity of the light source x the constant factor of the light x the angle between the light and a surface normal, which can also be calculated as the dot product between them.  Additionally diffuse lighting can have an attenuation effect by diving by a couple extra parameters in the equation.  This can change the fall-off rate of the light and will change how it looks dramatically.


Specular: This type of lighting is a bit different in that it is dependant on the viewers angle.  The specular highlights will change depending on where the viewer sees the object from.  Specular lighting's equation is fairly similar though; it is the intensity of the light source x a constant factor x cos of the angle between the reflection and the viewer.  Since the angle is between the reflection and the viewer, moving will change how you see the specular highlights.  Certain models like Blinn and Phong's are just specific versions of this kind of lighting, where it will have a certain look based on the equation.

Just combine all these together with the actual emissive light and you get a final result.
 

The Morality of Morals

I'm going to take the side of Yahtzee the game reviewer from Zero Punctuation and comment on the rather thorny game mechanic of choosing good vs. evil.  Yahtzee believes this mechanic in most games is forced rather than being a choice, arguing that it is mandatory to go full good or full evil to unlock the greatest benefits from each.  This means that the player must choose all one side if they want to experience more of the game.  His review on Star Wars: The Old Republic shows his opinion on the matter. (3:30-4:05)

Being a gamer I can agree with his sentiments.  For example, I wanted to experience both sides of the good and evil dynamic in Mass Effect 1 and 2, but they were both lengthy games and upon beating them I didn't feel like going through it all again just to see whats different on the other side.  Or in The Old Republic where some of the items are only available to Light 5 or Dark 5 characters.  It takes a lot of time to max out one of these and once there you are unable to get any items requiring the opposite side.


I see two main solutions to this dilemma which would help players not feel so fenced into one direction.  The first is to reduce the effects of good/evil choice to aesthetic outcomes.  Oblivion comes to mind as it doesn't truly have a morality system.  You are open to do as you choose, and murdering a whole village won't impact the main story line or limit what you can do in the future (except for the whole being attacked on sight thing).  Oblivion makes morality a choice where the player can really pick when and where to do benevolent/dastardly deeds.

Go to jail, pay fine, or run?

The second solution involves reducing the black and white nature of moral choices in games.  Often they are polar opposites and the player might feel as if their choice isn't represented by the two end of the spectrum.  The ending of Fable 2 pulled this off spectacularly, as it was one of the most involving and difficult choices I've ever been faced with in a video game.  After defeating the final boss in Fable 2 you are granted one wish and must choose between three morally grey choices.  (2:33-3:25)

  You must choose between reviving all those who died during the story line,  your family (and your dog) in the game, or gaining an immense amount of wealth.  I chose to save all those who had died, and in the end I felt good about myself but it came with a hollow feeling.  The beloved dog I had grown attached to during the game was gone forever and it just wasn't the same without him.  This powerful emotional tie really made the choice difficult and there was no sense of choosing a certain option just to gain good or evil points: it really mattered.


While the first option is certainly easier to implement, I believe that moral choices in games should follow Fable 2's system to create real and meaningful decision-making.  The difficult choice in Fable 2 had a profound impact and I have certainly not forgotten it.  I believe moral choice systems in games can add a lot the experience if they give the player a reason other than unlocking the best equipment and weapons, and are an excellent game mechanic if done properly.