7 ms·

Tech to games is equivalent to the medium an artist uses. Crappy tools and materials can ruin the experience (i.e. if Michelangelo's David was made out of, say

by fsloth 11y ago

Tech to games is equivalent to the medium an artist uses. Crappy tools and materials can ruin the experience (i.e. if Michelangelo's David was made out of, say mashed potatoes it would have not survived and it would have looked silly after a while), but good materials do not make an artist (i.e. give a non-visual person marble and give Michelangelo mashed potatoes and what Michelangelo produces will probably be better than what the other bloke produces).

shimshim 11y ago
it would have been delicious initially :p
nosideeffects 11y ago
I agree. It uses the term "tech" in the article and fails to mention everything that isn't graphics related. Even if you decide as a game maker to forgo 3D for whatever reason, you still have REAL technical limitations when it comes to the game mechanics. Physics, AI, and Feature X can cost just as much processing power as some fancy 3D graphics, regardless of whether it is realtime or not. Major game makers already know this fact, and that is why optimization of the tech isn't optional: not doing so means there is a lot less you can actually do.
- jsnell 11y ago
  I don't think the article makes that mistake, there are plenty of non-graphics examples: AI / simulation of thousands or RTS units, motion controls, companion apps.
  - nosideeffects 11y ago
    Two lines out of the entire article mention those. I would not exactly call that "plenty of non-graphics examples". There are many more CPU intensive processes besides just those that result in real technical challenges, as well. My point is that since the article doesn't do them justice, it shouldn't be the phrased as the "tech" arms race, but instead as the "graphics" arms race.
    - mreiland 11y ago
      It was definitely more than 2 lines.
- cognitvesystem 11y ago
  yes there are many technical aspect in game development Game Engine Architecture(non affiliated) http://www.amazon.com/Game-Engine-Architecture-Jason-Gregory/dp/1568814135 http://www.amazon.com/Game-Engine-Architecture-Jason-Gregory...
- pgeorgi 11y ago
  The author tells a story about being a graphic developer, so that's probably the reason for focussing on graphics. Telling the AI people that their efforts are wasted on an arms race with little effect on the game play is a much weaker argument than 'hey, I need to revisit what _I_ am working on'.
  - lloeki 11y ago
    Re AI I was just recently thinking about Half-Life 1 marines AI (low tech, required hint nodes) against which I definitely had memorable experience, compared to the slew of titles that followed, with "improved" AI that looks like a game of whack a mole alternating with scripted sequences. Guess what? I booted HL1, and that wasn't just nostalgia tinted memory. Smartly applied low tech produces fantastic results in the proper hands.
    - Crito 11y ago
      Something that kills me today is many modern games still have worse facial animations than Half-Life 2.
mathattack 11y ago
I use the Louis Armstrong example. On a mediocre trumpet he'll outplay me on the best. But the added tools will let him transcend into something magical that can't be reproduced.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Not if that 'best trumpet' takes more effort to play. Every new generation of games hardware brings extra demands on the artists making the games (through expectation of increased level of detail). Their creativity isn't being unleashed, it's being forced into a narrow specialism.
  - mtinkerhess 11y ago
    Better trumpets are actually often more difficult to play because of extra weight and wider bore. Depends on the model of course, and in other ways they'll be easier to play, like for intonation, smoother valves, etc. A player might also choose to use a mouthpiece with a deeper cup, which gives a warmer / bigger sound but makes it more tiring to play, especially in the upper range. That said, I'm sure Pops could handle just about any trumpet you threw at him! It's said that Charlie Parker played a plastic saxophone at times because he would pawn anything he owned of value to buy heroin. Bet he still sounded great! I'm not sure how this applies to AAA game dev, though... maybe something like, every new performance venue built is larger than the last, which results in bands getting more members, longer arrangements, lighting and set design, signers, dancers, etc.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "Better trumpets are actually often more difficult to play because of extra weight and wider bore. Depends on the model of course, and in other ways they'll be easier to play, like for intonation, smoother valves, etc. A player might also choose to use a mouthpiece with a deeper cup, which gives a warmer / bigger sound but makes it more tiring to play, especially in the upper range." That's interesting. I know next to nothing about trumpets, but the situation appears to be different than for guitars. Generalising, guitars are setup differently depending on the style of music and the technical demands, which has an impact on how easy they are to play. For example, tonally you can get a richer sound with slightly heavier than usual strings and higher than average playing action (more space for the strings to vibrate), however from a speed point of view you generally want lighter strings and lower action. These are just general rules of thumb, it's possible for heavy strings to sound 'muddy' and possible to get great tones out of lighter strings (guitarists like Page and Iommi are reported to have used light gauge banjo strings on their guitars, and I don't hear too many complaints about their tone). > "I'm not sure how this applies to AAA game dev, though... maybe something like, every new performance venue built is larger than the last, which results in bands getting more members, longer arrangements, lighting and set design, signers, dancers, etc." It tends to be the larger the team, the harder it is to build something with an interesting personality. Plus, to use your concert venue analogy, more creative effort is spent in overcoming how to fill the venue with sound, rather than exploring what that sound could be.
digi_owl 11y ago
Find myself reminded of the late micro era when people came up with all manner of crazy tricks to produce 3D effects and such on the C64 and like. It may well be that PC gaming producers have gotten "lazy", as they are working with a ever improving platform. Thus they can target "future" hardware rather than attempt to optimize and push what they already have. This because we see something similar to the micro era in gaming consoles. There games towards the end of a platform generation are more refined and elaborate than those released at platform launch, because the producers have gotten to know the ins and outs of the hardware.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Refined technically, but not necessarily refined from a gameplay point of view. Look, I get it, it's cool to see hardware get pushed beyond what people previously thought was possible, it demonstrates ingenuity and can produce a captivating spectacle. But it doesn't make the games better (beyond the wishy washy 'immersion' stuff). To be honest, this sort of 'pushing the hardware' focus makes me look forward to the end of Moore's Law. When games can no longer meaningfully compete just by looking prettier, when there are no new console generations, I hope there'll be a renaissance of games as a form of expression and interesting experiences.
  - jaegerpicker 11y ago
    There is already a huge renaissance of games as expression. The Indie game scene has been and will continue to be huge and a lot of those games approach the artform as something more than a tech demo.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      I'm grateful for the growth of the indie game scene for that reason, perhaps I just need to be patient as gaming takes time to evolve.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    Depends. While i perhaps gave a poor example initially, consider the difference between SMB1 and SMB3. The latter have all kinds of one off and crazy mechanics (walking behind the apparent background, a sun that attacks, windup shoes one and enter and exit) that keep the various worlds fresh, in part because they show off the greater understanding the developers have of how to work the hardware available. Then again i may be that working with two dimensions provided the ability to put in more elaborate game mechanics because the player had better situational awareness. 3D games seems to have a severe issue with this because enemies can walk behind the camera. Thus many games with free camera movement and/or zoom ends up being played in a kind of overhead position at the furthest zoom possible to improve situational awareness. something that ends up defeating all the work put into elaborate detailing on both characters and enemies unless there is heavy use of cinematic pans etc.

by fsloth 11y ago

shimshim 11y ago

it would have been delicious initially :p

nosideeffects 11y ago

I agree. It uses the term "tech" in the article and fails to mention everything that isn't graphics related. Even if you decide as a game maker to forgo 3D for whatever reason, you still have REAL technical limitations when it comes to the game mechanics. Physics, AI, and Feature X can cost just as much processing power as some fancy 3D graphics, regardless of whether it is realtime or not. Major game makers already know this fact, and that is why optimization of the tech isn't optional: not doing so means there is a lot less you can actually do.

jsnell 11y ago
I don't think the article makes that mistake, there are plenty of non-graphics examples: AI / simulation of thousands or RTS units, motion controls, companion apps.
- nosideeffects 11y ago
  Two lines out of the entire article mention those. I would not exactly call that "plenty of non-graphics examples". There are many more CPU intensive processes besides just those that result in real technical challenges, as well. My point is that since the article doesn't do them justice, it shouldn't be the phrased as the "tech" arms race, but instead as the "graphics" arms race.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    It was definitely more than 2 lines.
cognitvesystem 11y ago
yes there are many technical aspect in game development Game Engine Architecture(non affiliated) http://www.amazon.com/Game-Engine-Architecture-Jason-Gregory/dp/1568814135 http://www.amazon.com/Game-Engine-Architecture-Jason-Gregory...
pgeorgi 11y ago
The author tells a story about being a graphic developer, so that's probably the reason for focussing on graphics. Telling the AI people that their efforts are wasted on an arms race with little effect on the game play is a much weaker argument than 'hey, I need to revisit what _I_ am working on'.
- lloeki 11y ago
  Re AI I was just recently thinking about Half-Life 1 marines AI (low tech, required hint nodes) against which I definitely had memorable experience, compared to the slew of titles that followed, with "improved" AI that looks like a game of whack a mole alternating with scripted sequences. Guess what? I booted HL1, and that wasn't just nostalgia tinted memory. Smartly applied low tech produces fantastic results in the proper hands.
  - Crito 11y ago
    Something that kills me today is many modern games still have worse facial animations than Half-Life 2.

mathattack 11y ago

I use the Louis Armstrong example. On a mediocre trumpet he'll outplay me on the best. But the added tools will let him transcend into something magical that can't be reproduced.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
Not if that 'best trumpet' takes more effort to play. Every new generation of games hardware brings extra demands on the artists making the games (through expectation of increased level of detail). Their creativity isn't being unleashed, it's being forced into a narrow specialism.
- mtinkerhess 11y ago
  Better trumpets are actually often more difficult to play because of extra weight and wider bore. Depends on the model of course, and in other ways they'll be easier to play, like for intonation, smoother valves, etc. A player might also choose to use a mouthpiece with a deeper cup, which gives a warmer / bigger sound but makes it more tiring to play, especially in the upper range. That said, I'm sure Pops could handle just about any trumpet you threw at him! It's said that Charlie Parker played a plastic saxophone at times because he would pawn anything he owned of value to buy heroin. Bet he still sounded great! I'm not sure how this applies to AAA game dev, though... maybe something like, every new performance venue built is larger than the last, which results in bands getting more members, longer arrangements, lighting and set design, signers, dancers, etc.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "Better trumpets are actually often more difficult to play because of extra weight and wider bore. Depends on the model of course, and in other ways they'll be easier to play, like for intonation, smoother valves, etc. A player might also choose to use a mouthpiece with a deeper cup, which gives a warmer / bigger sound but makes it more tiring to play, especially in the upper range." That's interesting. I know next to nothing about trumpets, but the situation appears to be different than for guitars. Generalising, guitars are setup differently depending on the style of music and the technical demands, which has an impact on how easy they are to play. For example, tonally you can get a richer sound with slightly heavier than usual strings and higher than average playing action (more space for the strings to vibrate), however from a speed point of view you generally want lighter strings and lower action. These are just general rules of thumb, it's possible for heavy strings to sound 'muddy' and possible to get great tones out of lighter strings (guitarists like Page and Iommi are reported to have used light gauge banjo strings on their guitars, and I don't hear too many complaints about their tone). > "I'm not sure how this applies to AAA game dev, though... maybe something like, every new performance venue built is larger than the last, which results in bands getting more members, longer arrangements, lighting and set design, signers, dancers, etc." It tends to be the larger the team, the harder it is to build something with an interesting personality. Plus, to use your concert venue analogy, more creative effort is spent in overcoming how to fill the venue with sound, rather than exploring what that sound could be.

digi_owl 11y ago

Find myself reminded of the late micro era when people came up with all manner of crazy tricks to produce 3D effects and such on the C64 and like. It may well be that PC gaming producers have gotten "lazy", as they are working with a ever improving platform. Thus they can target "future" hardware rather than attempt to optimize and push what they already have. This because we see something similar to the micro era in gaming consoles. There games towards the end of a platform generation are more refined and elaborate than those released at platform launch, because the producers have gotten to know the ins and outs of the hardware.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
Refined technically, but not necessarily refined from a gameplay point of view. Look, I get it, it's cool to see hardware get pushed beyond what people previously thought was possible, it demonstrates ingenuity and can produce a captivating spectacle. But it doesn't make the games better (beyond the wishy washy 'immersion' stuff). To be honest, this sort of 'pushing the hardware' focus makes me look forward to the end of Moore's Law. When games can no longer meaningfully compete just by looking prettier, when there are no new console generations, I hope there'll be a renaissance of games as a form of expression and interesting experiences.
- jaegerpicker 11y ago
  There is already a huge renaissance of games as expression. The Indie game scene has been and will continue to be huge and a lot of those games approach the artform as something more than a tech demo.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    I'm grateful for the growth of the indie game scene for that reason, perhaps I just need to be patient as gaming takes time to evolve.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Depends. While i perhaps gave a poor example initially, consider the difference between SMB1 and SMB3. The latter have all kinds of one off and crazy mechanics (walking behind the apparent background, a sun that attacks, windup shoes one and enter and exit) that keep the various worlds fresh, in part because they show off the greater understanding the developers have of how to work the hardware available. Then again i may be that working with two dimensions provided the ability to put in more elaborate game mechanics because the player had better situational awareness. 3D games seems to have a severe issue with this because enemies can walk behind the camera. Thus many games with free camera movement and/or zoom ends up being played in a kind of overhead position at the furthest zoom possible to improve situational awareness. something that ends up defeating all the work put into elaborate detailing on both characters and enemies unless there is heavy use of cinematic pans etc.