Movement in the background...

[Technocrat]

How important, do you feel, is it for backdrops to have some kind of activity going on even if the player isn't moving. I see in things like Space Quest (4 through 6 particularly) that there is always *something* active - neon lights, people walking past, fans spinning - ans I was wondering how much importance you folk placed on making sure something was going on. I seem to have had a mad quest to shoehorn any kind of movement I can into it lately, and was wondering if there were any precedents for not having to put quite so much in.

[Babar]

It depends mostly on the mood of background itself, I think.
If you've got a background in a deceased person's house, or an ancient tomb or an old warzone or something, you wouldn't really expect movement.
If you've got a background in the middle of a bustling city, you'd expect neon lights, cars whizzing by, crowds of people, etc.

[Chicky]

I find the best thing to do is to draw your backgrounds static and then once you have the characters, objects and music added test the game and see how it feels! I have gone back to quite a few backgrounds and added motion post scripting.

I find it's nice to have at least one thing animating each room, even if it's only a drip from a leaky roof or the slow flow of a river.

[kconan]

  I agree with Babar...I think it varies depending on the environment and story.  Maybe you have a obnoxious character in an over-the-top ridiculous story who enters a loud, crowded bar.  Or maybe you have a serious, dark character in a noir type story who enters the quiet, dim bar.  And if you have something key to the plot going on the foreground, it might make sense to keep background movement to a minimum.

[m0ds]

Nice question! For me it's more about the number of characters dropped into a background. If the backround is to have action, that's an added bonus. I used to hate entering large locations and there would only be one or two characters plus yourself. The carnival in Sam & Max, I always thought was far too sparse of other people. Some of the streets in Grim Fandango seemed too empty. In FoA the college was WAY to quiet to be a college.

But saying that these games also got it exactly right in other scenes. The parade in Grim Fandango didn't feel lonely. Neither did Monte Carlo in FoA, and Sam & Max..... Ok, actually, they still had far too many scenes with far too little other people/characters/background action.

In true terms, I'd say - if you draw a street, animate the street. If you draw and airport, pack it out, etc. Understandably it's not easy to do all this extra art; but I strongly advise it is tried at least. I know that in FoY for example I want the major, larger and open area scenes where you might see people, to have a lot of people. But for Lost in Paradise...Well, I just don't have the ability to pack backgrounds out with extra people or animations. Games that lack crowds in areas where they should be are, surprisingly, one of the biggest factors in what I think makes a scene in a game a great scene or not. Noctropolis was another example of not so great. It's a gigantic city yet you and maybe ONE other person were they only people in all the streets, buildings and stuff... So it is a major factor for me. And admitedly when AGS developers get this aspect wrong in my eyes, I notice it and it influences my decision to continue, or even play from the beginning. Take a game like Robbing The Princess, famous screenshot of the dock - and there are a few other people. Thats great If it was a sparse dock, I wouldn't be tempted to play. In this manner I'd expect people to expect of my games, other people in scenes where they should be.

I think people, other characters especially NPC's - are the most important thing. Background action like fans turning, chimneys producing steam - are essential, but not as off-putting to me as lack of people.

If we remember what mise en scene is it's about getting things into a scene/location that fit that style or place. So if you have a race track and no punters or a select few, it doesn't work. If you have a race in action and a static crowd, it doesn't work. If you have a bar in the background but it's not animated, that still works, because at least it's meant to be there. If a developer falls on the first step and doesn't get the mise en scene right, background action doesn't matter too much IMO. I'd rather feel I'm not the only person wandering around a place than whether the place is fully animated. I dunno, I'm sure this is a very personalised approach. I'm sure a lot of people walk around and do stuff like an adventure game and they're on their own, but that's never been an experience for me. And if we're trying to make games like real life, for me it starts at who is about /who I'm with before it does what I am seeing in nice animation.

These are very difficult things to achieve in 2D games because of all the extra art and animations they use. But hell, when they do happen - I for one am very impressed You will certainly always get bonus points for animating every backround thing that might "move" in real life. You will still get bonus points from me for adding just a few, even just one.

[Jakerpot]

One interesting thing would be make some characters (people) walking in distance between a random amount of time... I think this could be done using variables, while conditions, and other stuff like this. It would very impressive to see a background of times square with some people in the back of the background walking, maybe some admiring a shop (??), this kind of things (details), increases pretty much the quality level/ realistic level of the game. This give me ideas... 

[Chicky]

You should play pleughburg: dark ages (sp?) Jakerpot.

I totally agree with M0ds on Monte Carlo vs Barnett college, it always struck me as a deserted college which was nothing like the packed hallways of Barnett in Last Crusade. The streets of Monte Carlo on the other hand were brilliant!