|
|
| Page 2 of 4 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 27th Jul 2006 20:24 Post subject: |
|
 |
we must have misunderstood each other, I know it is not in any game the technology you are referring too and what you are stating is indeed pretty cool.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 27th Jul 2006 20:29 Post subject: |
|
|
I would be satisfied with FPS games gfx from 1999, but with perfect AI for ten years in the future.Thats all I need.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheDuck
Posts: 148
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu, 27th Jul 2006 20:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeap, it will be very cool when it happens.. someday. There's one game which seems to be a precursor of this method (partially) - new Indiana Jones, mutated rag-doll engine for realistic fight scenes and damage animations.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 27th Jul 2006 20:38 Post subject: |
|
|
watergem, freedom in a game is indeed a strong point yet it does not necessarily apply to all game types.
It is to note that free roaming and freedom in game is already present in many games (gta series, driver, getaway, true crime, oblivion, fable, morrowind, etc.) and will be in future games. For example, the game Dark Messiah will feature vertical freedom with its advanced physics. The freedom factor is already used in many, many games and the only genre really holding it back is still the FPS although it is being worked on.
Freedom has been established and can only be expanded for next-gen games.
A very good game on the notion of Freedom is the game Ultima Online. With today's technology, you don't have to pay to play, you can simply download the emulated server such as RunUO and play it. The game itself leaves you to do whatever you wish to do. You can successfully play Ultima Online without ever killing one monster or the total opposite if you wish. What is even better is that with today's emulated server such as RunUO, you have even more freedom for you can write whatever script you wish for the game making it a totally different game from EA's Ultima Online. The emulated version of Ultima Online is a good base for someone willing to do something with a great freedom aspect. The only downside (if it can be considered as one) is the graphics. Ultima Online's graphics are very bad and old (still isometric 2d and don't tell me about the crap 3d client). But that won't stop alot of players for the simple feeling that you can log on, go to your farm house, harvest a bit of wheat and then go to your shop and start crafting chairs and tables while your friend is crafting swords and shields for your mighty warrior friend. You can even do more: control economy, be a mayor, be a king, create a full city that is ran by players only. Build the city and shape it the way you want or even let your players build it!
Finally, on the notion of freedom, we already have alot of magnificient content available and for next-gen games, it can only be improved.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 27th Jul 2006 23:09 Post subject: |
|
|
I dont want to rain in your parades but these screenshots are FAR inferior to any CG produced in Hollywood several years ago.
I already posted in a forum sometime ago saying that I only will play a game again when we reach Final Fantasy The Spirits Within graphics quality (a 2001 film by the way).
What Malveous said, that we dont need more polygons is pure bs. We need 80 millions polygons PER FRAME for pure photorealism (some people say these numbers are not enough, but it is what FF uses). And this is only polygons. We need too radiosity lightning (or any decent form of global ilumination), true displacement mapping, higher order surfaces, ray-tracing, subdivision surfaces, etc...
These screenshots dont impress me a bit. Those fake Half Life 3 screenshots posted in these forums yesterday (real photos by the way), made me think: If these are true, then I will play games again... but it was only a dream.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006 02:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006 08:52 Post subject: |
|
|
GoW screens look better that FF TSW screens IMO... and the animation in that movie was a downside.. from what ive seen in GoW trailers & E3 presentations it will have great animations.. (this is related to he comparissance above)
[url=http://www.tvcafe.ro/lg/1837 ]Bet you don't have the guts to click here!![/url]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006 09:54 Post subject: |
|
|
UE3 is a next-gen engine as much as anything else, and it can be extended by a lot. There are many different games running on UE3, it's hard to compare one to another; Gears of War, Unreal Tournament 2007, Stranglehold, Rainbow Six Vegas, and a dozen other. Heck, half the world has licensed the engine by now 
Those two screenshots of FF and Heavy Rain are not really comparable. Just look at the different image size and the FF character is much closer to the camera. Also note that FF looks good on a full blown screen (cinema, tv, projectors), whereas Heavy Rain would not. But I fully agree that games should not be made into movie-quality CGI.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Posts: 3074
Location: San Diego, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohen
Posts: 7155
Location: Rapture
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006 18:37 Post subject: |
|
|
watergem, that's the Uncanny Valley;
Realism has its limits, if it looks too real the human mind will reject it in some way simply because it unconsciously knows it's not real.
That's why there is something strange with the Heavy Rain chick...she is too real to look real.
If you wish to know more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
That is also the reason why most game developers are staying away from reality.
You can pretend it's real yet you always leave a hint where it's fake.
So, in other words, you don't want to make your character look as real as possible using polygons and realistic mapping. You leave a hint where it's just a model and to compensate on that you use good lighting and animation. This balance is hard to reach when willing to go for realistic.
That's also why the japanese have dropped realism and are favoring fantasy in their game, the best example for that is the next Metal Gear Solid.
When looking at that old Snake, we think what the hell a mustach?!
Well imagine Snake without the mustach and you'd have a hard time getting attached to him. The mustach kills the uncanny valley.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Posts: 3074
Location: San Diego, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006 19:01 Post subject: |
|
|
For the case of Heavy Rain, AI has nothing to do with it since it's a cutscene, better animation and much different modelling would be needed.
If you model a character according to a physical chart and that is to the inch you sure will fall in the uncanny valley.
If physically speaking, the eyes are too small and too spread apart yet it makes the character look cool well you'd better leave them as they are.
It's a game thus you do not copy reality.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Posts: 3074
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006 19:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 00:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| SirSmokesAlot wrote: |
in 5-10 years what can we expect to see?l] |
We all gona cyber in virtual riality and forget about real life, just plug your dick in cyber "interface" and push button...
| SirSmokesAlot wrote: |
HIGHLY doubt you can get 3D graphics to look much better then this here. Watching 3D cinematics before while playing diablo I knew one day games would be played at that detail |
| Malveous wrote: | The amount of polygons does not even make it more photorealistic or whatever.
With next-gen mapping we don't even need that many poly to get to the same results.
Plus nobody wants photorealistic games since it's too close to the uncanny valley.
Now you might think the amount of polygons on screen would make a difference but that is a previous-gen way of thinking. |
Total noob or idiot who dont understand how computer games work?
We all need photorealistic games, we want escape from reality or take simulation, we want it to be as much realistic as possible, not only physycs but look and feel, if we can simulate real life on pc, envision there will no more be word gamer, because it gona be simulation, trainin anything, but not game, its same as you can do in real life...
For this who think its not realistic to make games look better, get a life.
More poly, more detail, more detail, more you can do, so we need like like 20 time faster machines to build anything closer to reality.
If we had that faster hardware its not hard with current knoweledge to rewrite directx9 to create realistic enviroment, more poly, realistic textures (photos from real life or whatever), more realistic light and all physycs like in real world and make it one super realistic engine, so game developers dont need to create engines they just create scenarios and models. develop levels etc.
I belive this way we would find more advanced games becsause sometimes talented people work on cheap games which no one playing and theyr work is missed. Ans in case with 1 single superrealistic engine they could create greater deposit in overall gaming world.
Think of human model where each hair on his head is 3d model with as much polygons as needed to simulate real look and animation, now example full stadium of models and this all happens on your pc at 100 FPS without single drop of fps, then we can talk about making something farly close to what i described.
Pitty this wont be any time soon since all world leading creators of cumputers dont run for inventions they just selling what goes good at moment increasing speeds a little and gona do it untill this strategy works.
I say they should start making 5 times faster machines within a year and make new standard for cpu its small enough now, they could double size or tripple.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 00:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| Malveous wrote: | | Realism has its limits, if it looks too real the human mind will reject it in some way simply because it unconsciously knows it's not real. |
Well i dont know what you talking about but if you make pc game to look like movie you wont think its not real i guess.
And that chich is not any real to me.
Robots man what robots can i remind you we dont even know how human mind works we only can measure so impulses thats all we dont know how information stored, nothing. Thats even good cuz uncle sam will want to wash your brain, they already doing it example wehen they know as good so they can actually program you, then its gona be like resident evil cuz we all gona be zombis. So back to robots where is robots hello mr robot where did you go, oh i forgot there was never any robot yet only walking vacuum cleaners. Its not question how to build robot its question how to make him think, and its not so hard to do for computer programmers actually, when you understand how brain function, or at least try simulate it without this knoweledge but its kinda offtopic... anyway wtf i was about oh ye this valley is bullshit because no body yet written artifical intellegence and i doubt someone will do it before we build photorealistic games.
The only reason devs dont do it its because it will require like 10 times more money and time, and we dont have hardware run anything like that, and we dont have API's and game devs are not programmers they just work with graphics, so creating photorealistic game will require large investment also and you may fail in the end not because of this pseudo valley of shit but cuz you may end up acomplished nothing or to time when you got solution this game will be out of date already.
Also game devs act like computer hardware manufacturers they selling what goes good and gona do it untill they hit wall, they dont have to rush no where since they making solid profit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 04:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| MikiMouse wrote: | | SirSmokesAlot wrote: |
in 5-10 years what can we expect to see?l] |
We all gona cyber in virtual riality and forget about real life, just plug your dick in cyber "interface" and push button...
| SirSmokesAlot wrote: |
HIGHLY doubt you can get 3D graphics to look much better then this here. Watching 3D cinematics before while playing diablo I knew one day games would be played at that detail |
| Malveous wrote: | The amount of polygons does not even make it more photorealistic or whatever.
With next-gen mapping we don't even need that many poly to get to the same results.
Plus nobody wants photorealistic games since it's too close to the uncanny valley.
Now you might think the amount of polygons on screen would make a difference but that is a previous-gen way of thinking. |
Total noob or idiot who dont understand how computer games work?
We all need photorealistic games, we want escape from reality or take simulation, we want it to be as much realistic as possible, not only physycs but look and feel, if we can simulate real life on pc, envision there will no more be word gamer, because it gona be simulation, trainin anything, but not game, its same as you can do in real life...
For this who think its not realistic to make games look better, get a life.
More poly, more detail, more detail, more you can do, so we need like like 20 time faster machines to build anything closer to reality.
If we had that faster hardware its not hard with current knoweledge to rewrite directx9 to create realistic enviroment, more poly, realistic textures (photos from real life or whatever), more realistic light and all physycs like in real world and make it one super realistic engine, so game developers dont need to create engines they just create scenarios and models. develop levels etc.
I belive this way we would find more advanced games becsause sometimes talented people work on cheap games which no one playing and theyr work is missed. Ans in case with 1 single superrealistic engine they could create greater deposit in overall gaming world.
Think of human model where each hair on his head is 3d model with as much polygons as needed to simulate real look and animation, now example full stadium of models and this all happens on your pc at 100 FPS without single drop of fps, then we can talk about making something farly close to what i described.
Pitty this wont be any time soon since all world leading creators of cumputers dont run for inventions they just selling what goes good at moment increasing speeds a little and gona do it untill this strategy works.
I say they should start making 5 times faster machines within a year and make new standard for cpu its small enough now, they could double size or tripple. |
Maybe hes just not a geek like you? but Im guessing he prolly is, your tryin to carve somone because they dont know how computer games work? get real dude.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 05:39 Post subject: |
|
|
Guys we live in the perfect simulated world... Have you never seen the Matrix?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 05:42 Post subject: |
|
|
I just had a de-ja-vous...oh noes....SOMEONE IS HACKING US!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 06:16 Post subject: |
|
|
copecowboy, I don't consider myself a geek but a simple game designer. I must admit I am a gadget freak though.
MikiMouse,
Maybe it's your age or maybe it's your lack of skills in english (on a side note, do not take this as an offence, my mother tongue is not english) but in the end I am having quite a hard time understanding what you are writing.
You mentionned something related to creating textures with photo in future games... Perhaps you are still stuck with BioMenace but most if not all games' textures come from photographies nowadays. The amount of polygon will not make a game look more realistic. Why model every hair when a good texture will emulate it and the difference will not be visible to the human eye?
On PC, most users play games with monitors around 17 to 19inches and are standing approximately 13inches from the monitor with a resolution of 1024x768 and the most played game genre is the FPS where it is usually fast-paced, action-driven and violent. Why in hell would you model a bad guy's freaking hair if you're gonna blast him in half without even looking at him?
On stealth games, the bad guys have a detailed back and face. On action games, the bad guys have a detailed chest and face simply because on action games you run head first and rain down on enemies and on stealth games you kill from behind. Developers focus on the fun factor first so instead of wasting 50 hours plus 60 000polys to model a guy's hair they concentrate on making your game fun like modelling physics props and whatnots.
Thinking you want more polys is just non-sense mostly when adding to it that we can rewrite directx9 for whatever reason. Polygons are indeed limited to hardware but it is also limited by the human eye. If you try to copy reality you will end up in the uncanny valley, and Miki how about you google that.
Games are for people to escape reality so why simulate reality? What we want and what you might be having a hard time expressing is the ability to do more things, we want the current limits to be broken or expanded. We want AI that can fool us, we want features that appear limitless, maps that seem gigantic, non-linearity, detailed and interactive environment, we want power, a balanced risk vs reward, challenge, grandiose finale and most of all, we want to have fun. We Don't Want To See Modelled Hair.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheDuck
Posts: 148
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 10:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, I've read all about this uncanny valley before - It's a bullshit from the a to z. Look - If game looks real you impersonate yourself with the hero in-game, same goes for the movies - human brain is VERY adaptive and there will be no problem with playing realistic games. And on that screen from the game - she looks blind, here eyes are not focused on any 3d point connected to what she's doing in that moment.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 10:57 Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley - here you go 
| Malveous wrote: | | The amount of polygon will not make a game look more realistic. Why model every hair when a good texture will emulate it and the difference will not be visible to the human eye? |
Indeed, just think about processes like Normal Mapping,Parallax Mapping, Displacement Mapping, etc, etc just to name a few examples.
| MikiMouse wrote: | | Well i dont know what you talking about but if you make pc game to look like movie you wont think its not real i guess. |
I watch a lot of movies, and have watched a lot of movies containing a bit of CGI and 90% CGI like the newer Star Wars movies, and I never think about them as real, not for one second.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Posts: 3074
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 10:59 Post subject: |
|
|
malveous im a 3d artist, and we could still do with more polys, i notice blocky models all the time when playing games, also why have all this technology for normal maps and parrallax maps? To give the illusion that there is more detail/depth faking the look that there are more polys, it would alot less time consuming if we didnt have to spend time making these maps and just have alot of polys at our disposal. You seem to misunderstand uncanney valley, its gotta look pretty damn realistic to fall into it and it can also be surpassed, its not a case of this game uses a realistic style and thus falls into uncanney valley :rollseyes: EG Max Payne, Half life 2 just doesnt fall into uncanney valley, it has characters modeled realistically but just not to such a level yet to unsettle people.
the key to acheiving this is in the eyes, you know you can look at another human and you know theyre alive by their eyes theres just something there that instantly you recognise they are real. Games now are very nice looking, but yes ai and the way we display human behaviours needs to start matching the graphics.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006 15:01 Post subject: |
|
|
MasterJuba, my poylgon count was in reference to next-gen games and not the ones out already or soon to come out. For the current-gen games, I do agree with you and some would need much more polys.
Also, about the Uncanny valley, I do understand its concept very well and they match your explanation however I might have had difficulty expressing it.
Besides, characters from Max Payne are far from realistic while characters from HL2 are quite exagerrated in many ways. This exagerration is exactly what I meant; they look real yet they do not copy reality thus avoiding the uncanny valley.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006 01:17 Post subject: |
|
|
You mentionned something related to creating textures with photo in future games... Perhaps you are still stuck with BioMenace but most if not all games' textures come from photographies nowadays.
Ye sure but what i ment is very high resolution photographic textures that will give impression of what you see in real life.
The amount of polygon will not make a game look more realistic. Why model every hair when a good texture will emulate it and the difference will not be visible to the human eye?
Cuz i was talking about games of future. Example for ferst person shooter, you know splinter cell guy can hand between 2 walls and knick out guys who walk beneth him, well example he drag his hair (if guy got long hair of course) and cut his throat. Well when you see models with long hairs they basically just fixed to head they dont move at all thats the problem with textured hair, and only reason why they textured is to save pc resources.
Since this topic is about future games and not how to make realistic game with what we have now, i assume we can talk about modeling hair.
On PC, most users play games with monitors around 17 to 19inches and are standing approximately 13inches from the monitor with a resolution of 1024x768 and the most played game genre is the FPS where it is usually fast-paced, action-driven and violent. Why in hell would you model a bad guy's freaking hair if you're gonna blast him in half without even looking at him?
Same as i told before, for sake of realism (when resources will allow this, not yet).
If you try to copy reality you will end up in the uncanny valley, and Miki how about you google that.
Sure i'll waste some time reading this crap if i manadge to find russian verison.
Games are for people to escape reality so why simulate reality?
Well because we dont want this people to be some kind of retarded exiles who live in virtual riality, they go outside they cant use any knoweledge they gathered in computer game, because for now its just violence.
When we really build realistic games this people will get more knoweledge of life than they would going outside...
What we want and what you might be having a hard time expressing is the ability to do more things, we want the current limits to be broken or expanded. We want AI that can fool us, we want features that appear limitless, maps that seem gigantic, non-linearity, detailed and interactive environment, we want power, a balanced risk vs reward, challenge, grandiose finale and most of all, we want to have fun. We Don't Want To See Modelled Hair.
And why we cant have all that in ultra realistic enviroment with all details of real life including modelled hair, of which i told just to describe what kind of hardware we need to simulate reality.
I understand you try to explain how games done now, i on other side speaking of future (like 10+ years) games.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006 01:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| Parallax_ wrote: | | I watch a lot of movies, and have watched a lot of movies containing a bit of CGI and 90% CGI like the newer Star Wars movies, and I never think about them as real, not for one second. |
Whats CGI btw, if u mean movies like final fantasy then of course its not even close to real movies.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006 01:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| Malveous wrote: | | MasterJuba, my poylgon count was in reference to next-gen games and not the ones out already or soon to come out. For the current-gen games, I do agree with you and some would need much more polys.. |
Can you tell me at least one sance reason why we dont need much more poly's in next gen games? Are having 50 times more polys will make models look bad or what?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006 10:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| MikiMouse wrote: | | Whats CGI btw, if u mean movies like final fantasy then of course its not even close to real movies. |
Computer Generated Imagery, you should know the terms you are talking about. You must have missed my point in the previous post.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006 11:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| Parallax_ wrote: | | MikiMouse wrote: | | Whats CGI btw, if u mean movies like final fantasy then of course its not even close to real movies. |
Computer Generated Imagery, you should know the terms you are talking about. You must have missed my point in the previous post. |
When i watch movies withCGI i always think its real, e.g. space fiction movies, only sometimes when its obvious that it is graphics then you can understand other parts its very realistic, btw what you think of matix 2?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006 11:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| MikiMouse wrote: | | When i watch movies withCGI i always think its real, e.g. space fiction movies, only sometimes when its obvious that it is graphics then you can understand other parts its very realistic, btw what you think of matix 2? |
Matrix Reloaded, you mean? It was a step down from the original Matrix, less acting more action. Effect-wise the highway scene impressed me when I saw it the first time, but not anymore.
To get back on-topic; it is pretty obvious why more polygons is not the important factor when we are talking about next-gen. Why is that? Because more you can only add so much more polygons before they become redundant. All they do in the end is smooth the edges, which anti-aliasing does anyway. The most important thing is concentrating on textures and shader to improve the quality of a model. If you look at a model in any game, the first thing you see is not lack of polys, but low resolution textures, lack of normal mapping, and such things.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
