Interesting technology...
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Interesting technology...
| ||
| http://www.lucasarts.com/games/theforceunleashed/gameinfo/news/technology.html |
| ||
| Yup, procedural animation is the future. Been saying it since Trespasser came out in 1997. |
| ||
| Buzzwords are not interesting technology. I feel as if I've lost my innocence. I wish LucasArts would stop screwing up their franchises. Am I the only one who thinks this is totally absurd? Let me elaborate: If a structure exists -- big or small, dense or thin, floppy or rigid -- DMM causes it to react in the same way dictated by reality. Fine. But then: His violent Force push hurtles a helpless stormtrooper through a stone column, blasting it apart. Moments later, the sudden lack of support causes the building to smash to the ground, piece by piece. Just like in real life. May I be so bold as to suggest that any stone column support, sturdy enough to support a whole building, is not going to shatter at the combined mass of a stormtrooper, regardless of how violent the force push is. The Stormtrooper is going to give way first!I assume there where a lot of workplace accidents a long time ago in a galaxy far far away |
| ||
| I assume there where a lot of workplace accidents a long time ago in a galaxy far far away Slave labour, what do you expect.Anyway, I think your supposed to assume that the "force push" doesnt stop at the stormtropper, but continues on, and that its the "Push" and not the actual storm tropper that breaks the column |
| ||
| If that where the case, why didn't they just say that "By force pushing a stone pillar, which is often a buildings single point of failure, you can bring several tonnes of stone crashing down upon the heads of anyone in the building, killing them indiscriminately". Again, just like in real life. |
| ||
| > I assume there where a lot of workplace accidents a long time ago in a galaxy far far away In a galaxy where important controls for a spaceship are at the top of a chasm with just a little handrail to keep the operator safe, the same space station has a bridge across another chasm which is not always in place for some other reason (and when not in place there is no guardrail at all, and for which every door will kill you instantly if you are standing in the wrong spot when closing I would say that is an understatement... |
| ||
| @FlameDuck May i ask if you have any experience in using a physics engine in realtime environemts like games? I somehow get the impression that you did not get the point. |
| ||
| May i ask if you have any experience in using a physics engine in realtime environemts like games? Yes you may, and yes I do, although technically the term here is dynamics. I somehow get the impression that you did not get the point. I got the point fine. They're basically hyping the technology that drove Pontifex, as being something new. I mean never mind the absurd use of "reality" to describe a science fiction game, but their entire concept of what constitutes realistic dynamics is at best wrong. |
| ||
| Sounds like a lot of BS terms just to say they made a rigid body engine. |
| ||
| @FlameDuck Okay, you didn't get it... |
| ||
| Well you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm thinking you're the one who doesn't get it. |
| ||
| Wasn't meant as an offensive but the things you're moaning about strongly indicate that this seems to be the case and you oversee the practical usage which people who never use a technology beside of reading about it or playing around for private usage and where the result does not have to show up in real products are likely to do. |
| ||
| Part of the reason I'm not excited is that we have hear about this before. Twice now. First time I heard about it was "Red Faction". Destructable environments! You can have an effect on the terrain of everything they claimed, but in the end it meant that you could blow up a couple of walls. Second time was the Physics card thingy that works with GRAW, it really didn't add all that much to the experience. Then there was Half Life 2, they added the physics and made it part of the gameplay, and it DID add to the experience of the game. |
| ||
| I was in a GDC session where they demonstrated Euphoria (which they just lisenced, not invented) and DMM - DMM was pretty cool looking and far from simple rigid/softbody stuff. But like always: sure, tech demos looked nice, but I'll wait until I see the actual game and good gameplay too! |
| ||
| I alone would be happy in having a easy to use toolbox from where i can drag&drop physics materials alter a few properties and then the material splits accoding to the defined material like shown in the first video. This would spare you a lot of work if it works properly. |
| ||
| I'm not sure why there's any hostility at all towards these technologies. Don't people realize that it's through procedural technologies that the holy grail of gaming - a super-interactive and expressive game world will come to be? This is not just another pixel shader technology being born here, these simple little gimmicks are the beginning to the truly interactive gaming worlds that everyone so fervently complains they don't have in today's games. Game worlds are beginning to move away from scripted action to procedural action. If you can't see how this might benefit gameplay, then you're either not understanding what you're seeing or you're a ludite. Nothing wrong with being either, really, as long as you don't make a big fuss to everyone else about it. Just boot up your Atari 1600 and dream of the "Good Ol' Days" of gaming while the world moves on. I'm not necessarily defending this particular game, it might turn out to be crap, What I am defending is these sorts of technologies because I can see what they will inevitably lead to. |
| ||
| I'll take stylised hand-animated stuff over this every time. Procedural animation might be the future, but I suspect that most developers will misuse it in the same way they misused motion capture back in the day (and in the same way that physic systems are misused by being shoehorned into games that really don't need them today). |
| ||
| Point taken. But remember, there isn't a solid line between "stylised hand-animated stuff" and what procedural can do. You can program a motion into a character and still have it governed by dynamics the same way us real-life humans remember a dance move or silly gesture and perform it with our bodies. You see what I mean? |
| ||
| That tech is amazing, the level of detail that they can put into a game with this will be breathtaking. |
| ||
| procedural technologies that the holy grail of gaming - a super-interactive and expressive game world will come to be? No it isn't. That's like saying that the Handycam is the holy grail of hollywood blockbusters. truly interactive gaming worlds that everyone so fervently complains they don't have in today's games. Who's "everybody"? What "truly interactive" game worlds are they looking for? Haven't they played Katamari Damacy? Having a fully interactive game world is absolutely possible today (see: Second Life). It's just not an enjoyable game.That's the tricky part - applying technology in such a way as to make the game play choices you are faced with interesting. For example True Crime: Streets of New York lets you go into practically every building there is (as opposed to GTA for example) However there is no REASON to enter 99% of all the buildings in the game. At all. Ever. If you can't see how this might benefit gameplay I can see how it will effect gameplay, but I don't see how a more bland and uninteresting game is going to have a positive effect on gameplay experience. Do you think GTA would be better if, instead of playing through a story, the computer would just give you an endless stream of unconnected menial tasks to perform? I don't see that as being of benefit. What I am defending is these sorts of So can I - I suppose we just have different opinions on what constitutes a good and enjoyable game. You think it's fun to do the same thing over and over again, while I prefer to play a game where my actions (as they where) have some impact on the gameworld (apart from destroying property).technologies because I can see what they will inevitably lead to. That tech is amazing, the level of detail that they can put into a game with this will be breathtaking. Yes. So breathtaking it won't ever happen because no-one will be able to afford it. |
| ||
| Blablablablablablabla...blabla...blablablablabla Free after Erich Kästner's "The Animals Conference". ;O) |
| ||
| Very construct. I concede to your overwhelming arguments. |
| ||
| Flameduck... did taumel take your ball away ?? M8 I really think you should try cracking a smile just once, you really cant be that depressing all of the time, its not healthy. |
| ||
| No it isn't. That's like saying that the Handycam is the holy grail of hollywood blockbusters. LOL! Almost exactly what I was thinking. hese simple little gimmicks are the beginning to the truly interactive gaming worlds that everyone so fervently complains they don't have in today's games. This must be a completely different everyone to the everyone I see complaining that all the fun has already been sucked out of games by the obsession with more realism in physics and graphics. |
| ||
| Oh brother, tough crowd! lol. First, let me say that I'm no proponent of superficial, meaningless "Dumb-Blonde"-type advancements in game technology. I'm with you. I hate that too, and I don't support that. Why I'm excited about this type of advancement more than the others, and what you can't seem to see is that procedural algorithms give tremendous power to a developer. It can allow game development from a higher level. For example, early 3D animation software required the "artist" to input mindless amounts of coordinate data to animate a simple set of polygons. Character animation was a tremendous hassle and so not much could be done. Now with Euphoria (In 3DSMax or in games) the developer can be concerned with more important things like "Walk with a bounce in your step", "swing your arms like this", "When you see a friend, wave your arm very silly, like this", etc. Can you seriously not see how this is better? It's obvious. True Crime: Streets of New York lets you go into practically every building there is (as opposed to GTA for example) However there is no REASON to enter 99% of all the buildings in the game. At all. Ever. So the developers misused a simple form of the technology and filled a city with meaningless buildings, that's the fault of the developers, not the technology. The True Crime games are slightly low-quality anyway, if you ask me. A bad example. Now Shadow of the colossus, an excellent game, relied on a heavy mix of handmade animation and procedural animation. That is an undeniably good application of the technology (even if it's a little glitchy) - and that's what I'm talking about and arguing for. So with that context, you can see how I think this quote You think it's fun to do the same thing over and over again, while I prefer to play a game where my actions (as they where) have some impact on the gameworld (apart from destroying property). makes me think you might have missed my point. That's like saying that the Handycam is the holy grail of hollywood blockbusters. That's a bad analogy and you know it.FlameDuck, you seem to think that using procedural techniques in a game will take all of the authorial control away from the developer. While some people will definately try to hand over the controls entirely to an algorithm, you will also see wonderful, intelligent uses of it(Ie Shadow of the Colossus). It's not an inherently superfluous technology and your harsh resistence towards it is a little illogical, especially because it has the potential to be an incredible tool at your disposal. Anyway, no harsh feelings here. I write like a bit of a jerk, but really, I'm just into the debate, that's all. No bad feelings, ok Flameduck? |
| ||
| Flameduck has really been missing the point of things lately.. Maybe always.. But certainly lately.. I'm worried about him. Makes me wonder if he has some injury to his brain. The most simple of connections is illuding him. Flame... No one is talking about procedural storylines, or entire game-worlds being created by the computer... We are talking about a storm-trooper flailing his arms when you force-push him. Or plate-glass breaking where you hit it, without someone having to animate it. Walls made of wood or weak sheet-rock or plaster can break 'realisticly' without someone else animating it. Which means you can include a lot of destructable things without any real thought to it. Without the desctructable content being part of the major elements of design. They can be as commonplace as, well, animation itself is. No one sits in the design room trying to decide if they should have 3D models that animate. And with technology like this, you don't have to decide if you want destructive elements. Anything that isn't important to the gameplay or story can be beat to crap... oil drums will dent, boxes can be broken. Glass broken, and one-day, water in a vat can run out when you crack it. Sure... you can use these things to make some kinds of gameplay easier to make... But you can also use it to just make the game-world more interesting. Cutting the roots in Oblivion, smashing boxes and barrels. breaking things all over. Cutting apples. Smashing bottles. It wouldn't add anything to the gameworld, but if they could have just mindlessly slapped it into the gameworld, it would have added some more 'toys' to play with on the way through the game. |
| ||
| Can you seriously not see how this is better? It's obvious. Sure. It's an incremental improvement over what exists today. Anyone can see that. That's not the point I was trying (and obviously failing) to make tho'. So the developers misused a simple form of the technology and filled a city with meaningless buildings, that's the fault of the developers, not the technology. Of course it is. Unfortunately, and this is my whole point, technology does not make games. Developers make games - and historically, the more and better technology they get, the worse the games get. Now Shadow of the colossus, an excellent game, relied on a heavy mix of handmade animation and procedural animation. I agree completely. Shadow of the Colossus is an excellent (if quirky) game, and if more games where like SotC we wouldn't be having this argument. Unfortunately most games are like True Crime New York, and games like SotC are one in a million, if that. Unfortunately I don't think Lucas Arts has any intention of using this new technology to make another Shadow of the Colossus. I think they intend to use it exactly the way they said they would. Anyway, no harsh feelings here. I write like a bit of a jerk, but really, I'm just into the debate, that's all. Don't we all? :o> Which means you can include a lot of destructable things without any real thought to it. Without the desctructable content being part of the major elements of design. They can be as commonplace as, well, animation itself is. Thank you for proving my point entirely. Adding things to a game without putting any real thought into it and without consideration to the design is exactly what I was worried about in the first place. |