4 ms·

I think game engines are the most complex software category to be engineered. They aim to simulate reality for a given piece of hardware. It seems as hardware g

by proc0 6y ago

I think game engines are the most complex software category to be engineered. They aim to simulate reality for a given piece of hardware. It seems as hardware gets better game engines implement something closer to the physics equations that describe the universe. With some AI as shortcuts for biological formations, we'll soon have to reinvent the wheel less and take less algorithmic shortcuts whenever we need a basic simulation with gravity, lighting, materials etc.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
Then there’s the other impossible half of the problem: making a game that’s fun. Such a hard nebulous problem that it’s easy to procrastinate by focusing on the technical stuff as a break.
- gabereiser 6y ago
  This. More game companies need to focus on core fun and play than technical achievements and micro transactions.
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    In mobile games the motto seems to be "why make it fun when you can make it addicting instead".
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Isn't that intentional now? Interesting enough players want to continue yet uncomfortable enough they want to pay to bypass arbitrary gating.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Indeed. It's one of the pitfalls I see a lot of first-time game developers fall into: they don't actually have a fun game, but rather than work on that they keep adding complex systems and digging in technically in the likely vein hope that fun will somehow emerge from that.
ReactiveJelly 6y ago
How do you know that simulating reality is the most complex thing software can do? How do you measure "complex", anyway?
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Probably because reality is indefinite complex and that it would take a whole reality to correctly simulate a reality. So the hard part is to make aproximations that run in REAL TIME (unlike scientific simulations, that have some time to run). And how do you measure complex? Well, how about the number of changing variables involved? Simulating and solving chess is very easy in comparison. You have only very limited and fixed variables. Simulating a physic sandbox game with advanced chemistry and even biology that is supposed to run in real time - seems impossible at this moment on the other hand. Too many connected details.
- proc0 6y ago
  Complexity as in software. It has many moving parts, and I think it includes most if not all of computer science areas, like networking for multiplayer, cutting edge rendering, client-server applications for managing updates and also the multiplayer, AI for NPCs but now AI for animations and environment generation, and the list is really long. The only exception I can think of is software for rockets/spaceships and rovers, which have to operate under very unique circumstances.
yurishimo 6y ago
And that's assuming we want to play/make games with "realistic" simulations! I'm sure we've all played those sandbox physics games where a few values were tweaked just to far in one direction. Sometimes that can be really fun! I'd e interested to know if these more advanced tools take that into account, or will there be frequent cases of needing to roll your own physics engine? I'm trying to think of an example, but I believe I remember reading about a game that purposefully used a slightly lighter gravity for some models to help the player feel more powerful (?) than other characters. I wish I could remember, but the idea is the same. Physics that are dynamic could be a fun/useful gameplay mechanic and I hope we don't see those types of games go away because everyone decides it's too complicated/not worth it to use a different physics algorithm than the one shipped in some console SDK.
- proc0 6y ago
  Yeah, movement speed is also perceptively slower in a game for some reason and realistic speeds are boring so most FPSs have the player running at car speeds. These tweaks will always be there to "fix" our limitations in reality. Teleporting is another example where nobody is really interested in traveling distances like IRL.
  - allo37 6y ago
    Hey if I could fast-travel IRL I probably would :p

by proc0 6y ago

hombre_fatal 6y ago

Then there’s the other impossible half of the problem: making a game that’s fun. Such a hard nebulous problem that it’s easy to procrastinate by focusing on the technical stuff as a break.

gabereiser 6y ago
This. More game companies need to focus on core fun and play than technical achievements and micro transactions.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  In mobile games the motto seems to be "why make it fun when you can make it addicting instead".
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Isn't that intentional now? Interesting enough players want to continue yet uncomfortable enough they want to pay to bypass arbitrary gating.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Indeed. It's one of the pitfalls I see a lot of first-time game developers fall into: they don't actually have a fun game, but rather than work on that they keep adding complex systems and digging in technically in the likely vein hope that fun will somehow emerge from that.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago

How do you know that simulating reality is the most complex thing software can do? How do you measure "complex", anyway?

hutzlibu 6y ago
Probably because reality is indefinite complex and that it would take a whole reality to correctly simulate a reality. So the hard part is to make aproximations that run in REAL TIME (unlike scientific simulations, that have some time to run). And how do you measure complex? Well, how about the number of changing variables involved? Simulating and solving chess is very easy in comparison. You have only very limited and fixed variables. Simulating a physic sandbox game with advanced chemistry and even biology that is supposed to run in real time - seems impossible at this moment on the other hand. Too many connected details.
proc0 6y ago
Complexity as in software. It has many moving parts, and I think it includes most if not all of computer science areas, like networking for multiplayer, cutting edge rendering, client-server applications for managing updates and also the multiplayer, AI for NPCs but now AI for animations and environment generation, and the list is really long. The only exception I can think of is software for rockets/spaceships and rovers, which have to operate under very unique circumstances.

yurishimo 6y ago

And that's assuming we want to play/make games with "realistic" simulations! I'm sure we've all played those sandbox physics games where a few values were tweaked just to far in one direction. Sometimes that can be really fun! I'd e interested to know if these more advanced tools take that into account, or will there be frequent cases of needing to roll your own physics engine? I'm trying to think of an example, but I believe I remember reading about a game that purposefully used a slightly lighter gravity for some models to help the player feel more powerful (?) than other characters. I wish I could remember, but the idea is the same. Physics that are dynamic could be a fun/useful gameplay mechanic and I hope we don't see those types of games go away because everyone decides it's too complicated/not worth it to use a different physics algorithm than the one shipped in some console SDK.

proc0 6y ago
Yeah, movement speed is also perceptively slower in a game for some reason and realistic speeds are boring so most FPSs have the player running at car speeds. These tweaks will always be there to "fix" our limitations in reality. Teleporting is another example where nobody is really interested in traveling distances like IRL.
- allo37 6y ago
  Hey if I could fast-travel IRL I probably would :p