Frequently Asked Questions

Through my years of publishing I have been sent many messages from adoring fans, interested individuals, lawyers and princes. In order to answer many of the questions that I receive on a daily basis, I’ve decided to put together a short section that deals with those which I am most frequently asked in order to better serve the needs of today’s generation of future virtual dendrologists.

Q: What kind of qualification is required for one to be considered a virtual dendrologist?

A: I have worked long and hard in this field in order to bring you the very best of virtual dendrology and it isn’t an easy road to travel. I have been published in numerous journals; in particular my lauded and widely viewed publication The Appropriate Ratio of Leaves to Polygon Count in Modern Tree Modelling and my widely submitted but unpublished paper Virtual Dendrology: A Field onto Itself. I currently hold a BComm Degree.

Q: What is your methodology for assessing the quality of trees in a particular game?

A: Although I have never played any of the games that I review, I do frequently look at “screen-shots” of the game in question in order to get a better understanding of trees as they appear. The actual hands-on experience is done by my research assistant, who spends many hours on a daily basis playing video games to compile the massive amount of data I require for my research.

Q: How long have you been involved in this field?

A: 42 years.

Q: Which tree is your favourite tree?

A: Although I am a professional virtual dendrologist, I do not in particular enjoy the sight of natural trees. When rendered properly, my favourite tree is the larch.

Q: Why are your posts so sporadic?

A: Every post that I make has to go through a process of approval (including this one) involving standard procedures in the scientific journalistic community: through an approvals board, a legal board and finally through a copy-editing board. I have also recently going through divorce proceedings and have been unable to update my blog at this time due to ‘legal issues’ which give my former spouse half of the proceeds from any post I publish on this blog as ‘child support’ for supposed ‘negligence’ and ‘lack of interest’. And, as my wife now has custody of my research assistant on weekdays and Sundays, the amount of data I process on a daily basis has nearly halved.

Q: What is your favourite food?

A: Hamburgers! :)

Tree Games

At the inception of this blog, I made a promise that I would review and expose the deficiencies of a web-page claiming to be devoted to games involving trees. Tree Games, a site that made me jump in jubilation when I first visited it, turned out to be nothing more than a hodge-podge of games that merely use trees as a background, and never take into account that a virtual dendrologist might, at some point, pop in for an inspection. Let’s look at a couple of the so-called ‘tree games’ offered by this site.

The first game I had the bravery to test is called Jumpy Monkey, here is a typical screenshot:

There are trees, certainly, but they are unidentifiable hunks of green and brown. The ‘monkey’ (My virtual zoologist colleague was as stupefied as myself.) is guided via keyboard from platform to platform in order to climb to out of the forest. At least, I believe this is the goal, as the game is entirely in Japanese.

Lack of identifiable trees, and the ‘monkey’ jumps from platform to platform rather than tree to tree, gives this game a 2/10 rating.

The next game I had the nerve to test is called Forest Challenge, and it sounds very promising and has a very woodsy loading screen. I was quite excited until I clicked the play button and what greeted me was the following:

Yes, fellow tree enthusiasts, it is a mini-put golf game set in a forest, or rather, set in a brown field with several shrubs growing nearby. My notions of a game involving intense themes of forest survival vanished quicker than the Amazon and I once again sat in disappointment cursing the name Tree Games.

I cannot go on.

As I write this, I am clutching a wooden bowl of Yerba Mate extract, trying to calm myself, my head full to the brim with the thought that anyone would have the gall to attempt to pass off these horrific flash games as games involving trees in any capacity. Certainly, the website is designed like a tree, and the Google ads on the trunk do their best to promote tree-related businesses, but despite it all, I give this site my worst possible rating:

Do Not Bookmark

I will now cuddle up with a good book made of 100% post-consumer material and ponder why life must be so frustrating for us virtual dendrologists.

Second Life

Recently, a friend of mine posted a blog entry praising my blog and my dedication to the subject of trees within the virtual community, and I was struck by the image he used as an introduction to my blog, this one:

At first glance I thought that this oak tree was one of many rendered by an eminent tree-lover and video game designer working for Maxis - he later went on to design mountains at SCE and will therefore not be referred to by name for security reasons - during the early 90s, but after looking up the filename of the image I found out that it was in fact a rendering done in the game of Second Life and was originally posted here.

Apparently this community only came into being 2007, a full 12 years after the early 90s had come to a close! What a disgrace for those of us passionate about trees and tree-design, that this sort of outdated design model is still allowed to exist in this day and age.

Now, I myself had never given a thought to Second Life, for I am far too busy with my first life, what with work, train schedules and writing a blog on virtual trees. But it was this injustice done to an oak tree, and the almost jejune manner in which it was committed that prompted me to examine the game.

Another image was posted on the very same website:

Now, I’m not sure about you, but had they not specifically written those were oaks, I would not have been able to guess. The game’s website is unhelpful at best, and is festooned with all sorts of facts completely irrelevant to virtual dendrology.

Some further injustices:

And not only is this small pine clearly suffering nutritional deficiencies, they’ve barely bothered to render the holiday lights, let alone the needles:

And this next one, frankly, has rendered me speechless:

It is at this point where I would review the game according to stringent categories, but I find myself unable to formulate a grade that doesn’t involve a single digit zero. So, I am saddened to announce the first ever no-star review in the history of this blog.

For shame, Linden Research, for as we have all learned through the years, you cannot increase technological inclusion at the expense of virtual flora.

Age of Empires II: The Conquerors

Though perhaps a bit similar to its predecessor in terms of game-play to be truly revolutionary, Age of Empires II falls nothing short of masterpiece designation in isometric form. I have enjoyed the game’s representation of foliage since its release in 1999, and that of its expansion in 2000. This is a game in which trees and their product ‘wood’ are a major part of game-play. Indeed, wood is a centerpiece in the game and is required in almost every scenario.

One can see wood designated by the meticulously crafted piece of lumber, taking the primary position, prior to food, stone and other laughable excuses for resources. Wood is required for construction of all buildings, save for the castle and the obviously deficient stone wall; it is therefore the most important resource in the game.

The trees presented in this game, besides serving as the only source of wood, are also obstacles to troop movements. At times, one has to clear entire forests to get troops from one position to another, a process that takes a considerable amount of time, especially if one does not have siege weapons. These combined functions of trees in the game make for a truly integrated “forest experience” and a ‘tree-t’ for tree enthusiasts everywhere.

A note to the tree-huggers: As these are virtual trees, you need not worry about their demise, only the example they set.

In terms of appearance the trees, for their time, are very carefully crafted. Here you see an example of traditional European village forestation during winter.

But the game does not stop there! Indeed, there are representations of trees in rainforests and desert oases too; the former shown here. There are also trees near hills, trees near rivers, you name it.

This brings us to the third criterion in terms of rating, the identifiability of trees. As this game is somewhat older, it had not been exposed to the recent trends of tree enthusiasm during production, and should therefore not be shamed for including absolutely no documentation of trees and the rendering thereof. Despite the lack of documentation, one need only look once to identify the Quercus robur, the Cocos nucifera and the Pinus cembra.

So, a summary:

• Tree Involvement 5/5
• Tree Appearence 4/5
• Tree Identifiability 4/5

With all of this considered, I rate this game at a:

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

Empire: Total War

After much hype and much praise from those in the know (Re: PC Gamer), we have finally gotten a glimpse of the much awaited Empire: Total War. For the ignorant among you, the Total War series consists of hybrid tactical/strategic games set in various periods in history; the newest game takes place during the 18th and 19th centuries and allows one to take command of any of the relevant world powers during that period. However, is the 94% rating from PC Gamer a rating Empire is worthy of?

First and foremost trees serve as merely a backdrop to the actual game, and do not take any active role in game or storyline development. They can often become obstacles for armies, but only minor ones; the trees, therefore, serve no purpose but that of ornaments. Naturally, we cannot expect a game about imperial warfare to involve trees to a great extent, but we could at the very least expect the trees to be identifiable. The game comes with absolutely no documentation concerning the trees rendered, nor does it give any statistics in terms of polygon count of the trees.

Indeed, if one were to look at this picture, they could not possibly figure out what those trees were, especially not from a distance. This is due to, not only low polygon count, but a serious lack of care for the tree appreciation community by the game's designers. Through careful observation, I have determined the trees in the distance are of the family Pinaceae, but of their Genus, I know not.

Summary:

• Tree Involvement 2/5
• Tree Appearence 1/5
• Tree Identifiability 1/5

Taking into account a lack of documentation, along with gross under-design of trees in this game, I award it:

⋆⋆

Next week, an examination of http://www.treegames.net: are they truly what they seem?