The future for gaming?
Discussion
Im sure the future lies in realism, ie far far better graphics.
Look how far 3D games have come in the last 10 years. In the next ten, the gap between environments and characters 'looking like they belong in a game vs being convincably realistic' will hopefully diminish significantly.
Look how far 3D games have come in the last 10 years. In the next ten, the gap between environments and characters 'looking like they belong in a game vs being convincably realistic' will hopefully diminish significantly.
graphics are slowing in advancments at the moment, DX10 will change this a little but the next big thing for this and mabe next year will be the addition of physics cards handling all the physics.
just need to wait for the games to come out with the code for the cards then you will see more interactive goodness.
for games to be near realistic like a movie I think we are about 5 years away minimum.
just need to wait for the games to come out with the code for the cards then you will see more interactive goodness.
for games to be near realistic like a movie I think we are about 5 years away minimum.
DucatiGary said:There are different levels of realistic. We have definitely reached the milestone marker now, whereby player models and environments are being compared directly to real life.
the next big thing will be physics cards
for games to be near realistic like a movie I think we are about 5 years away minimum.
This looks good, really good!
But there is still a very a significant gap between the realism of current games, and real life. The amount of extra data processing needed to close the gap, the sheer enormity of the processing power required... I wondered if 10 years might be a tad optimistic. Character faces (I dont know if anyone agrees with this argument?) are in the first stages development, having just entered the "realistic enough to be compared to reality" stage. (random google pic below)
Cant complain though(!) and we will all live to see/enjoy the next phase (except steve who is going to die young of video game burnout
) Its a positive thing that we are comparing reality to games, so its all good!
I've done a fair old bit of artwork for games now and then. Modelling, texturing, level making and the like.
All the new tech is lovely, but the workload is just punishing.
I'm currently working on a digital recreation of six miles of UK blacktop. The undertaking is huge and I've already spent a good 50 hours, and am just beginning to finalise the most basic layout.
OK, if I had money behind me I could get data readers, GPS equipment etc, but the task is still enormous. It'd take years to make a games worth of such quality material.
What I fear will end up happening is "Oblivion" esque fractally generated seeded environments, that have stunning detail, but no diversity.
Look how long for example GT4 took to make. Their recreation of the Ring for example was immense. Their next version in GT5 will move the game on again, but it'll probably take more effort for that one track than ALL the tracks in GT4 for example, unless of course they resort to fractal seeding to fill in the blank spaces. Something I hope we don't do. If something isn't worth adding properly, it shouldn't be added at all imho with respect to game art!
Dave
All the new tech is lovely, but the workload is just punishing.
I'm currently working on a digital recreation of six miles of UK blacktop. The undertaking is huge and I've already spent a good 50 hours, and am just beginning to finalise the most basic layout.
OK, if I had money behind me I could get data readers, GPS equipment etc, but the task is still enormous. It'd take years to make a games worth of such quality material.
What I fear will end up happening is "Oblivion" esque fractally generated seeded environments, that have stunning detail, but no diversity.
Look how long for example GT4 took to make. Their recreation of the Ring for example was immense. Their next version in GT5 will move the game on again, but it'll probably take more effort for that one track than ALL the tracks in GT4 for example, unless of course they resort to fractal seeding to fill in the blank spaces. Something I hope we don't do. If something isn't worth adding properly, it shouldn't be added at all imho with respect to game art!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:Whats fracal seeding?
Look how long for example GT4 took to make. Their recreation of the Ring for example was immense. Their next version in GT5 will move the game on again, but it'll probably take more effort for that one track than ALL the tracks in GT4 for example, unless of course they resort to fractal seeding to fill in the blank spaces.
And coming from someone within the industry, is that an accurate comparison in terms of development time? (Remind me how many tracks were in GT4?)
Dunno if its been discussed elsewhere, but why was the 360 version of oblivion double the price of the PC version?
_VTEC_ said:
I dread to think how much all this new tech is going to cost the gamer. I hope it turns out to be worth it though, and that in the push for graphical excellence we don't leave game play behind.
It's rare but games can be both fun and technically cutting-edge, Half-Life 2, FarCry and the Quake series are good examples.
UKBob said:
There are different levels of realistic. We have definitely reached the milestone marker now, whereby player models and environments are being compared directly to real life.
This looks good, really good!
crysis looks good but the pics your seeing above are technology demos of what will be the best availible this time next year (with physics processing unit - PPU)
when the game is out.
they (the developers) are playing this fact down but we know the truth.
true to life gameplay will happen but not for a fair few years yet and the PPU will play a major part in this it will have to mature before this starts to happen.
oblivion costs alot more on eggsbocks 360 cos MS has to make money for subsidising the hardware somehow, with a PC, no one is paying for you to have the hardware but you.
>> Edited by DucatiGary on Tuesday 25th April 21:37
>> Edited by DucatiGary on Tuesday 25th April 21:38
UKBob said:
And coming from someone within the industry, is that an accurate comparison in terms of development time? (Remind me how many tracks were in GT4?)
Well, GT1/2 cars took around 2 days to make, the ones in GT3/4 took around two weeks to make.
So, thats about seven times work?
If the next generation pushes the envelope that far again, which it probably will, we will be seeing almost two months per car!
The same applies to tracks. You can only put so many high res textures on low density meshes and add no real quality. GT4's Ring' was stunning, the graffiti and everything looked real to life. However bung up the resolution twice as much, and those textures look naff, so we double those up too, and then it starts to look bare, because the meshes need more density and detail.
Doubling the detail isn't as easy as it sounds.
This is why I think they'll just add fractal scattering of objects. Ie, make a 2d 2 sided plane about 0.25m x 1.5m in size, apply an alpha mapped transparrent grass texture, and just scatter it ALL over the track sides where there is generic "grass" and then leave it at that.
A good method to fill in large areas, perhaps with tree's too, or random rocks. Add procedural noise to the road surface topography, and so on.
OR, we might see PD work on GT5 the way they have in the past, and make EVERY pixel and polygon count, and really go to town optimising the game, and putting in every tiny real life detail.
PGR2's Ring was a procedural/fractal seeders dream! GT4's Ring was a work of art in comparison!
So if GT5 follows the same ethos as past versions, I think the single 13mile Ring (hopefully with the 24hr track too maybe?!) will take as much effort to make as ALL the tracks in GT4 did.
Look at HL1 vs HL2, how much work must have gone into HL1 vs HL2. Can they keep ramping up the workload?
I think, looking at Oblivion, they can't. They are resorting to letting a PC make a huge random environment for them, then putting things in it. Thats fine for fantasy, but you do loose diversity where landscapes just feel to go on forever and all look the same where the artists are sloppy, but for things like recreations, fractal "spreading" props ala PGR2 Ring' is just disgraceful from an game artist point of view.
Still, there have always been naff games since gaming began, but all this extra power can just be as badly mis-used and wasted. I expect though that the *best* games on newer tech will have huge development times, there is no escaping the fact that to make richer worlds and proprs will take more time, and it can't be done for free unless it's done fractally/procedurally, and that is erring on the edge of laziness and repetitiveness! Has it's place and works well when used right, but it does take time to integrate it with thoughtfully placed objects too! Again, PGR2's Ring is an example of total abuse and pretty much the same is seen in Oblivion just with more objects to seed with for a tad more diversity!
Dave
Fantastic reply dave, very informative.
Admitedly Im not a teenager without a job anymore (act like one from time to time though) but Id pay £80 for a game, if as a whole, the environment was immersive enough and the game play good enough, to provide a genuine next next-generation experience which was as playable and enjoyable as the best modern games out today.
Although oblivion blew me away when first fired up on the 360, the faces are far from realistic. Sure, we are pleased with the game as a whole, just as we felt Super Mario 64 was one of the first 3D games which genuinely felt "properly 3D"
Wild guess, but If I was a developer, faced with the task of developing a game which required 10 times more work, Id harness the power of those who would work for free (millions of wannabee guru's on the net) in exchange for credit/recognition, to do most of the dogwork.
Whilst games have suffered in the past, in terms of gameplay vs cutting edge graphics, perhaps games of the future will have far higher QC levels as regards gameplay (a good thing) a necessary safeguard for the investment of time required to complete the bhemoth graphics-related undertaking.
Admitedly Im not a teenager without a job anymore (act like one from time to time though
) but Id pay £80 for a game, if as a whole, the environment was immersive enough and the game play good enough, to provide a genuine next next-generation experience which was as playable and enjoyable as the best modern games out today. Although oblivion blew me away when first fired up on the 360, the faces are far from realistic. Sure, we are pleased with the game as a whole, just as we felt Super Mario 64 was one of the first 3D games which genuinely felt "properly 3D"
Wild guess, but If I was a developer, faced with the task of developing a game which required 10 times more work, Id harness the power of those who would work for free (millions of wannabee guru's on the net) in exchange for credit/recognition, to do most of the dogwork.
Whilst games have suffered in the past, in terms of gameplay vs cutting edge graphics, perhaps games of the future will have far higher QC levels as regards gameplay (a good thing) a necessary safeguard for the investment of time required to complete the bhemoth graphics-related undertaking.
UKBob said:
Wild guess, but If I was a developer, faced with the task of developing a game which required 10 times more work, Id harness the power of those who would work for free (millions of wannabee guru's on the net) in exchange for credit/recognition, to do most of the dogwork.
This is already happening in PC gaming which is really good.
If you look at RFactor, many small independant teams working for free make the majority of the content.
The base game has about 8 random generic un-branded cars, and the tracks are fantasy, but the physics and game engine is quite impressive. They put all the effort into a few good generic example cars, decent multiplayer and a stunning graphics engine and physics engine.
The point of the game was to let modders make content for it, and it's working well. I'm already starting to put several project cars into it, and helping a few friends put in yet more cars. There is a 24hr Ring to the quality of GT4's but even nicer in the works too.
It really is the future for PC games at least, and I think the game will last longer that way too, because it has so much content made for it, and continuing to be made for it. Look at GPL and how the community is still quite strong, GTR with it's addon cars and strong multiplayer focus!
Now, back to slowly but surely building that 5 miles of UK road bit by bit for the perfect simulation, rather than just bodging it ala PGR2/Ring'
Will finish it eventually and then have it open source for anyone to put into any game/sim in the communities! It really is the way forward, the big game companies *can* make big locked up games (Polyphony, EA etc), but the games have 2 week shelf lives and then people move on because it goes nowhere. People like Simbin and RFactor's ISI really know where the market is going and providing for the community, not a quick few quid like EA who to be honest have ruined their community by locking all their latest games up so tight no one can add to them.
The old EA NFS4 from 1998 still has some sublime work being made for it, while all the newer versions have just faded into nothingness within a year, but probably made a few $$$ for EA
The equivalent Micro$oft of car games (EA/PD) are loosing the PC market imho to those who are aiming for community led games!
Dave
>> Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 28th April 16:47
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff