Al_B on 21/7/2012 at 09:33
We wouldn't want that now, would we... :)
catbarf on 22/7/2012 at 00:41
Quote Posted by Melan
Maybe there will be a way to drive down development costs and complexity some day by automating some segments of the workflow, or relatively cheap asset databases, although they can only be a partial solution.
This is definitely a valid point. As tools improve and become more user-friendly and automated, the cost of creating assets goes down. Development of tools, as well as licensed resource libraries, may drive asset costs down and allow them to be more detailed for the same amount of work.
Since the process is pretty much entirely creative, it's all about how much you can get for a given employee's work-hour. The more that gets produced by each team member for the same cost, the more content we'll see in games.
A great example, I think, is raycasting and luminosity. If lighting a map goes from hand-placing lots of light sources to just putting in the sun and some lamps and letting the lighting engine do the rest, then lighting will be a much quicker process, freeing up time for other things. The same goes for AI- if you can use an algorithm for the AI to calculate its own pathing, then that saves a lot of tedium in placing and testing pathnodes.
Even if that doesn't happen, though, continual development of tools for known techniques and processes will continually improve efficiency, albeit not by the huge leaps we saw from about 1998 to 2005 or so.
Yakoob on 22/7/2012 at 06:21
Quote Posted by catbarf
High detail content is a lot more expensive to make than low detailed content. What would take one person a couple of minutes in Doom (making a single room) now takes days of work, collaboratively amongst several people all working together to produce that single environment.
Amen, this is what has been a bottleneck in my 3D game dev and why I've scaled down to 2D for my current project. Same reason so many indies go for the artsy-fartsy cartoony / 8bit retro / blocky design.
Quote Posted by demagogue
I think real time radiosity is going to push the envelope to a limit. When I look at a room with really good radiosity, it looks like a real room... And if that could be done in real time with the light moving around and realistic soft shadows then I think it's serious diminishing returns from there.
Have you seen the (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8) UE4 tech demo? It provides real time radiosity and looks mighty impressive!
Quote Posted by zajazd
I liked more how AAA games looked till mid 2000s, nowadays they have too much details that only serve as expensive decorations that most ppl don't even notice and appreciate. E.g. now I'm playing Max Payne 3 and I read these reviews saying how great graphics it has but to me Max Payne 2 was prettier, it was more.. streamlined and added to the drive of the game.
Hmm, I think you are in a minority opinion here, and I disagree about the "useless" detail. Yes, you don't notice 95% of it consciously, BUT it does register on a subconscious level and helps convey immersion and sense of believability. Tho it's not so much that details makes things more believable, but rather, lack of details makes it less so; if that makes sense.
Quote Posted by catbarf
A great example, I think, is raycasting and luminosity. If lighting a map goes from hand-placing lots of light sources to just putting in the sun and some lamps and letting the lighting engine do the rest, then lighting will be a much quicker process, freeing up time for other things. The same goes for AI- if you can use an algorithm for the AI to calculate its own pathing, then that saves a lot of tedium in placing and testing pathnodes.
Well all this stuff HAS been around for the past decade, so I don't see what your example illustrates here. The problem is not so much in the engine rendering/lighting/etc. pipeline, but rather, the sheer amount of needed assets and their increasing level of detail requiring more man hours to produce. What you are suggesting would be better exemplified by automatic content-generation software that goes beyond mere randomized levels/loot/object placement, but can actually generate stuff like furniture, chests, fridges, etc. There's some interesting solutions already available for foliage, like SpeedTree, but more man-made objects would be challenging.
heywood on 22/7/2012 at 06:43
I haven't had a Wow! experience with game graphics since HL2 and Far Cry in 2004, and it's hard for me to see any significant improvement since Crysis and UT3 in 2007. I think we've reached the "good enough" point in texture resolution and poly count/level detail, and going any further costs a lot of money for diminishing returns. I also think NPCs already look more realistic than they behave.
AI, interactivity, and environment are the limiting factors. You can have the best facial animations and motion capture and whatnot, but it's wasted as soon as the illusion is spoiled by simple AI programming. And beautifully detailed levels with fancy lighting and effects don't excite me anymore if they're static. At least half the reason why the outdoor levels in Crysis were so impressive was dynamism; the vegetation blowing in the breeze, the sea lapping at the shore, jungle sounds, animals moving around. And then there's the passage of time, which you sense through environmental changes in some RPGs and games like STALKER, but it's missing in most shooters. So is interactivity, as in the kind that SiN and HL started and HL2 showed off.
SubJeff on 22/7/2012 at 12:23
Well that Unreal 4 demo was very impressive.
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
My eyes are more than capable of doing what they do when it comes to depth of field, peripheral blurring, and adjusting to lighting changes.
This seems to be a common misconception. Your eyes cannot do this because those effects are a function of the real world interacting with your central nervous system. Adjusting to light changes, for example, only occurs on a minor level compared to the effects use in games. See the Unreal 4 demo for a good example.
Muzman on 22/7/2012 at 13:23
Somewhat aside: it's funny how Unreal #whatever always looks fake to me. Nice and detailed, sure. But still fake.
I'm sure the right art assets would fix that. But Crytek always impresses me with its realism more.
ed. I think the point was that the DX11 video is using focus much more shallow than your eye would show in the same scene. It is an interesting question as to what games should spend more effort replicating. I doubt they'll be able to help themselves resisting the seduction of movies for a while. Also, accurately replicating the eye is difficult, and then it's not terribly impressive when you've achieved it since everyone's already seen it. Just means the attention is on the scene and the lighting, models, animation etc even more. Camera tricks on the other hand are "cool"
Jason Moyer on 22/7/2012 at 13:30
I finally own Crysis and Crysis Warhead (I've had Crysis 2 for awhile) and I can't honestly say they look any better than the Dunia engine.
Jason Moyer on 22/7/2012 at 13:33
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
This seems to be a common misconception. Your eyes cannot do this because those effects are a function of the real world interacting with your central nervous system. Adjusting to light changes, for example, only occurs on a minor level compared to the effects use in games. See the Unreal 4 demo for a good example.
The lens effects in that Unreal 4 demo make me want to punch someone. I want graphics to show what I actually see (or what my character would actually see), not what I would see if my character had a camera mounted where their head is.
Bakerman on 22/7/2012 at 16:13
Quote Posted by heywood
I also think NPCs already look more realistic than they behave.
Notice how that face in the Crytek demo was completely stationary? :p
I really look forward to seeing serious procedural generation take off in level design. Again, not random loot placement or whatever, but tools like Yakoob is talking about that generate tables, buildings, or entire cities. (
http://roguelikedeveloper.blogspot.be/2008/01/death-of-level-designer-procedural.html) This is a great blog about procedural generation. It's somewhat sensationally titled 'death of the level designer', but its main point is that level designers will be able to become just that - designers, not prop-pushers. I think. That's my opinion, anyway.
SubJeff on 22/7/2012 at 16:21
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
The lens effects in that Unreal 4 demo make me want to punch someone. I want graphics to show what I actually see (or what my character would actually see), not what I would see if my character had a camera mounted where their head is.
Oh, I'm not saying that there isn't a bunch of stuff they do that is silly and that lens flare is just one of them. But depth of field, adjusting to the dark and motion blur need to be simulated, though obviously not over done, as Muz has pointed out.
