5 ms·

This guy isn't thinking outside the box. He's trying to solve the problem using techniques from the past. Obviously the solution isn't to manually make levels,

by robmcm 13y ago

This guy isn't thinking outside the box. He's trying to solve the problem using techniques from the past. Obviously the solution isn't to manually make levels, it would be to automate them. Where are EA on flying scanning drones around football stadia in order to save artists thousands of man hours? They already use these techniques to scan actors faces, I can imagine someone from 10 years ago predicting it would be impossible to script all the movements of lips and eyelids to produce realistic characters. Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about, but thought my off the cuff theory would have more weight if I wrote like I did.

msandford 13y ago
That kind of tech is definitely coming, but the game studios aren't developing it. They'll buy it once it comes out though. Game studios aren't VCs. A VC buys pieces of HIGHLY speculative companies trying to maximize his/her odds of a 1000:1 exit. Game studios fund a small portfolio of games and try and make a profit on every single one. The culture in a studio is so completely different it's very unlikely that anyone high enough up at a game studio to have the budget and other resources to try and develop it in-house won't have the risk appetite to actually do so. And the people who have the risk appetite won't have the budget.
chasing 13y ago
> Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about, but thought my off the cuff theory would have more weight if I wrote like I did. Ha. I like the cut of your jib.
Gracana 13y ago
iRacing scans racetracks, but that's for physical accuracy; it likely increases the time and money involved rather than decreases it. http://www.iracing.com/track-technology/ http://www.iracing.com/track-technology/
pizza234 13y ago
The author's point is more abstract. Yes, you can certainly work out a few problems, scaling up the computations in some way. Some problems though, are inherently hard (eg. animations), and it's hard to imagine some breakthrough even in the next decade.
- bigd 13y ago
  That's why they are called breakthroughs! :)
- agumonkey 13y ago
  I'm puzzled. IIRC a decade ago Endorphin brought hybrid keyframed / ragdoll / physics animation to studios and a few years back on consoles. Am I wrong ?
  - benched 13y ago
    You are not wrong. The majority of comments in this thread, and the original article, are all written as if by people who do not actually know what the current state of the art even is. They just know their favorite video game is disappointing. If someone wants to make you wrong, all they have to say is that they don't care for the aesthetics of Endorphin/Euphoria. Never mind that the tech didn't even exist 10 years ago. I was working on Euphoria-like technology in 2001, 5 years before Euphoria was announced. Ultimately, I just wasn't smart enough to solve all the problems, but I could see that it was possible and I knew it was coming. And arrive it did, only 5 years later. Likewise, I think I have a pretty good view of what the next steps are, and the next 5 years should be very exciting, especially in the voxel and procedural spaces.
    - agumonkey 13y ago
      I'm sure this is all private thoughts, but if you write publicly about it or know some interesting mailing lists / sources to follow I'd be glad to hear about, be it animation, light transport, geometry ...
chongli 13y ago
Scanning and other forms of automatic content generation do not replace manual 3D modeling and texturing; just as cameras did not replace painting and sculpting. Personally, I'm more excited about procedural generation than any of these other ideas. Programming seems to be the most powerful tool humans have ever devised. Why not apply it to create art?
- MartinCron 13y ago
  If you could use automated scanning (or other means of observing the real world) combined with procedural content generation, that could be huge. Buildings that look and feel like buildings because they were procedurally generated with a deep understanding of how buildings actually exist? Yes, please!
  - JetSpiegel 13y ago
    No, please! I already have the real world. That's not What I'm looking for in a game. If you want a Boringness Simulator, there's always Farming Sim, or something.
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      A false world that's at least informed by the real world can be more compelling than something totally abstract. I'll always remember riding around in stolen cars in Vice City, a city that, while not real, is lovingly informed by the real world. If someone made a procedurally generated Vice City that I could drive through forever, yes, please!
      - JetSpiegel 13y ago
        I sort of agree with you. I haven't been to Florence, but after playing so much Assassin's Creed 2 I recognized real photos. On the other hand, if it's procedurally generated, it's not informed by the real world. There's a reason even procedural generation needs game design, you can't just throw random stuff together and expect it to be coherent. Or it could take chunks of the real world and randomly sprinkle them through the game world. It would get boring fast.
RaphiePS 13y ago
That only works if you're doing a game that takes place in real-life locations. If you want a made-up world, like most games do, then scanning won't help at all.
- sp332 13y ago
  Debevec (yes that Debevec) is working on capturing a performance in a way that lets you re-light afterward. https://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/skipping_the_light https://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSp...
dragontamer 13y ago
Ironically, procedurally generated levels was a big thing in the early 90s. Castle of the Winds, Rogue, Nethack, and more were 100% dynamically generated. Truly dynamic agents existed in Rollercoaster Tycoon, where every single person that walked into your theme park would have Nausia ratings, money, and make individual decisions at every point in the game. G-force was measured on every ride, and would effect different people in different ways. The amount of vomit in front of rides would disgust people in differing amounts. Etc. etc. True AIs, agent theory and dynamic games were the norm in the mid-to-late 90s. But this approach to gaming isn't what people want. The truth of the matter, is that what makes money are these pre-scripted game-movies that sorta-kinda look photorealistic. In fact, true-AIs have been implemented in games by probably every game development team. When AIs fear for their own life and run away from players (instead of standing and fighting), players tend to get bored. When AIs become so good at the game that they crush the player, players become frustrated and quit. Believe it or not, few people are willing to put up with realistic and dynamic challenges. There are no game guides, no assistance, no "help menu" when a game is created dynamically. It is hard to share experiences with friends, because everyone is sort-of playing a different game.
- azernik 13y ago
  People didn't turn away from these games because they don't want realism; they turned away because primitive world-generation and AI are not very convincing. Creating a building layout and a story by hand are much closer to reality than whatever Nethack can generate; the only problem is volume (Nethack could create one very unrealistic dungeon for every playthrough).
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Reality has nothing to do with making a successful video game. Of the top 10 video games of 2013 were Animal Crossing, Monster Hunter, Pokemon X/Y, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock Infinite, and Grand Theft Auto. Only Fifa 2014 can claim to be somewhat realistic, maybe Call of Duty: Ghosts. But we all know what _real_ war is like... not fun. http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-game-features-awaiti,14382/ http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-... I mean, doggies taking down Helicopters is cool and everything and makes for an exciting storyline... but no one is going to convince me that the action inside of Call of Duty: Ghosts is "realistic". http://kotaku.com/oh-my-god-its-a-dog-taking-down-a-helicopter-1284574206 http://kotaku.com/oh-my-god-its-a-dog-taking-down-a-helicopt... With regeneration (Bullet shots to the chest recovers in seconds), Medpacks that magically heal you and so forth... the modern FPS is hardly realistic... but a fantasy designed to make gameplay fun. After all, "campers" make games go stale, even if it is the most effective and realistic tactic of games. Modern games discourage camping and encourage close-up action. ---------------------- Those who fight for "realism" don't understand the typical gamer. Why have a realistic fight when you can instead, turn into a dragon? http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Dragon_Knight http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Dragon_Knight
monkton 13y ago
The guy is also ignorant. Speedtree generates all sorts of photo-real foliage for a million games and film/TV CGI, has done for years. Even Forza Motorsport uses Speedtree for trackside stuff. Also, loads of materials are generated procedurally - fur and hair are the obvious examples. For games, MGS V uses lots of procedural stuff in its modelling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZFR4H4LORU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZFR4H4LORU is the GDC 2013 presentation. Has a lot of neat tricks and optimisations for content generation in general, all in search of the photo-real. The other problem is research. Loads of people are working on dynamics, rendering and materials. Not very many are working on contextual object distribution to detail an interior so it has decent complexity and realism, or ways to procedurally create Skyrim villages. Even less are working on generating complex quests, but when these things get "good enough", it'll be a huge step forward.
wmil 13y ago
That's more problematic than you think. Many architects and / or building owners assert intellectual property rights over the building. Movies can be sued if they are used prominently in shots without permission. So scanning could open devs up to lawsuits.
archagon 13y ago
Miguel Cepero of the Procedural World blog said something similar: that with the increasing complexity of AAA games, the only way forward is to procedurally generate much of the content. He talks the talk, too: the engine that he's currently building can algorithmically create varied terrain and architecture while still allowing you to manipulate the game world like in Minecraft. http://procworld.blogspot.com http://procworld.blogspot.com Personally, I don't necessarily agree. I've had way more fun with simple-looking games over the past few years (Super Mario Galaxy, all the crazy indie platformers, Minecraft, Counter-Strike, etc.) than with any AAA games. I think the way forward for the medium is to focus more on tight and innovative game design rather than shiny graphics and enormous (but ultimately empty) spaces. No procedurally generated world will ever contain the intelligence of a single cleverly-designed level. On the other hand, I've also had a lot of fun with roguelikes, and I really look forward to the innovations in procedural generation over the next few years.

by robmcm 13y ago

msandford 13y ago

That kind of tech is definitely coming, but the game studios aren't developing it. They'll buy it once it comes out though. Game studios aren't VCs. A VC buys pieces of HIGHLY speculative companies trying to maximize his/her odds of a 1000:1 exit. Game studios fund a small portfolio of games and try and make a profit on every single one. The culture in a studio is so completely different it's very unlikely that anyone high enough up at a game studio to have the budget and other resources to try and develop it in-house won't have the risk appetite to actually do so. And the people who have the risk appetite won't have the budget.

chasing 13y ago

> Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about, but thought my off the cuff theory would have more weight if I wrote like I did. Ha. I like the cut of your jib.

Gracana 13y ago

iRacing scans racetracks, but that's for physical accuracy; it likely increases the time and money involved rather than decreases it. http://www.iracing.com/track-technology/ http://www.iracing.com/track-technology/

pizza234 13y ago

The author's point is more abstract. Yes, you can certainly work out a few problems, scaling up the computations in some way. Some problems though, are inherently hard (eg. animations), and it's hard to imagine some breakthrough even in the next decade.

bigd 13y ago
That's why they are called breakthroughs! :)
agumonkey 13y ago
I'm puzzled. IIRC a decade ago Endorphin brought hybrid keyframed / ragdoll / physics animation to studios and a few years back on consoles. Am I wrong ?
- benched 13y ago
  You are not wrong. The majority of comments in this thread, and the original article, are all written as if by people who do not actually know what the current state of the art even is. They just know their favorite video game is disappointing. If someone wants to make you wrong, all they have to say is that they don't care for the aesthetics of Endorphin/Euphoria. Never mind that the tech didn't even exist 10 years ago. I was working on Euphoria-like technology in 2001, 5 years before Euphoria was announced. Ultimately, I just wasn't smart enough to solve all the problems, but I could see that it was possible and I knew it was coming. And arrive it did, only 5 years later. Likewise, I think I have a pretty good view of what the next steps are, and the next 5 years should be very exciting, especially in the voxel and procedural spaces.
  - agumonkey 13y ago
    I'm sure this is all private thoughts, but if you write publicly about it or know some interesting mailing lists / sources to follow I'd be glad to hear about, be it animation, light transport, geometry ...

chongli 13y ago

Scanning and other forms of automatic content generation do not replace manual 3D modeling and texturing; just as cameras did not replace painting and sculpting. Personally, I'm more excited about procedural generation than any of these other ideas. Programming seems to be the most powerful tool humans have ever devised. Why not apply it to create art?

MartinCron 13y ago
If you could use automated scanning (or other means of observing the real world) combined with procedural content generation, that could be huge. Buildings that look and feel like buildings because they were procedurally generated with a deep understanding of how buildings actually exist? Yes, please!
- JetSpiegel 13y ago
  No, please! I already have the real world. That's not What I'm looking for in a game. If you want a Boringness Simulator, there's always Farming Sim, or something.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    A false world that's at least informed by the real world can be more compelling than something totally abstract. I'll always remember riding around in stolen cars in Vice City, a city that, while not real, is lovingly informed by the real world. If someone made a procedurally generated Vice City that I could drive through forever, yes, please!
    - JetSpiegel 13y ago
      I sort of agree with you. I haven't been to Florence, but after playing so much Assassin's Creed 2 I recognized real photos. On the other hand, if it's procedurally generated, it's not informed by the real world. There's a reason even procedural generation needs game design, you can't just throw random stuff together and expect it to be coherent. Or it could take chunks of the real world and randomly sprinkle them through the game world. It would get boring fast.

RaphiePS 13y ago

That only works if you're doing a game that takes place in real-life locations. If you want a made-up world, like most games do, then scanning won't help at all.

sp332 13y ago
Debevec (yes that Debevec) is working on capturing a performance in a way that lets you re-light afterward. https://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/skipping_the_light https://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSp...

dragontamer 13y ago

Ironically, procedurally generated levels was a big thing in the early 90s. Castle of the Winds, Rogue, Nethack, and more were 100% dynamically generated. Truly dynamic agents existed in Rollercoaster Tycoon, where every single person that walked into your theme park would have Nausia ratings, money, and make individual decisions at every point in the game. G-force was measured on every ride, and would effect different people in different ways. The amount of vomit in front of rides would disgust people in differing amounts. Etc. etc. True AIs, agent theory and dynamic games were the norm in the mid-to-late 90s. But this approach to gaming isn't what people want. The truth of the matter, is that what makes money are these pre-scripted game-movies that sorta-kinda look photorealistic. In fact, true-AIs have been implemented in games by probably every game development team. When AIs fear for their own life and run away from players (instead of standing and fighting), players tend to get bored. When AIs become so good at the game that they crush the player, players become frustrated and quit. Believe it or not, few people are willing to put up with realistic and dynamic challenges. There are no game guides, no assistance, no "help menu" when a game is created dynamically. It is hard to share experiences with friends, because everyone is sort-of playing a different game.

azernik 13y ago
People didn't turn away from these games because they don't want realism; they turned away because primitive world-generation and AI are not very convincing. Creating a building layout and a story by hand are much closer to reality than whatever Nethack can generate; the only problem is volume (Nethack could create one very unrealistic dungeon for every playthrough).
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Reality has nothing to do with making a successful video game. Of the top 10 video games of 2013 were Animal Crossing, Monster Hunter, Pokemon X/Y, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock Infinite, and Grand Theft Auto. Only Fifa 2014 can claim to be somewhat realistic, maybe Call of Duty: Ghosts. But we all know what _real_ war is like... not fun. http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-game-features-awaiti,14382/ http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-... I mean, doggies taking down Helicopters is cool and everything and makes for an exciting storyline... but no one is going to convince me that the action inside of Call of Duty: Ghosts is "realistic". http://kotaku.com/oh-my-god-its-a-dog-taking-down-a-helicopter-1284574206 http://kotaku.com/oh-my-god-its-a-dog-taking-down-a-helicopt... With regeneration (Bullet shots to the chest recovers in seconds), Medpacks that magically heal you and so forth... the modern FPS is hardly realistic... but a fantasy designed to make gameplay fun. After all, "campers" make games go stale, even if it is the most effective and realistic tactic of games. Modern games discourage camping and encourage close-up action. ---------------------- Those who fight for "realism" don't understand the typical gamer. Why have a realistic fight when you can instead, turn into a dragon? http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Dragon_Knight http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Dragon_Knight

monkton 13y ago

The guy is also ignorant. Speedtree generates all sorts of photo-real foliage for a million games and film/TV CGI, has done for years. Even Forza Motorsport uses Speedtree for trackside stuff. Also, loads of materials are generated procedurally - fur and hair are the obvious examples. For games, MGS V uses lots of procedural stuff in its modelling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZFR4H4LORU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZFR4H4LORU is the GDC 2013 presentation. Has a lot of neat tricks and optimisations for content generation in general, all in search of the photo-real. The other problem is research. Loads of people are working on dynamics, rendering and materials. Not very many are working on contextual object distribution to detail an interior so it has decent complexity and realism, or ways to procedurally create Skyrim villages. Even less are working on generating complex quests, but when these things get "good enough", it'll be a huge step forward.

wmil 13y ago

That's more problematic than you think. Many architects and / or building owners assert intellectual property rights over the building. Movies can be sued if they are used prominently in shots without permission. So scanning could open devs up to lawsuits.

archagon 13y ago

Miguel Cepero of the Procedural World blog said something similar: that with the increasing complexity of AAA games, the only way forward is to procedurally generate much of the content. He talks the talk, too: the engine that he's currently building can algorithmically create varied terrain and architecture while still allowing you to manipulate the game world like in Minecraft. http://procworld.blogspot.com http://procworld.blogspot.com Personally, I don't necessarily agree. I've had way more fun with simple-looking games over the past few years (Super Mario Galaxy, all the crazy indie platformers, Minecraft, Counter-Strike, etc.) than with any AAA games. I think the way forward for the medium is to focus more on tight and innovative game design rather than shiny graphics and enormous (but ultimately empty) spaces. No procedurally generated world will ever contain the intelligence of a single cleverly-designed level. On the other hand, I've also had a lot of fun with roguelikes, and I really look forward to the innovations in procedural generation over the next few years.