Re: USF4 changes!
- From: Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:57:36 +0200
There's no way I can take any game that makes claims like that seriously.
They start out by saying all footage is captured in real time. Believable.
Then they start talking about procedural generation. Unbelievable.
So, how much of it then is just marketing blurb? I really doubt they
generated life algorithmically (they have fish and dinosaurs). It's not
impossible (Spore did it), but so now I scratch that off my list as well.
What does that leave you with then? Procedurally generated terrain?
That's nothing new or interesting.
From the article on Kotaku it seems they just have a base template for
various classes of animals and plants and they tweak it to give them
slightly different appearances. That's very different from procedural
generation.
Those systems Ream mentioned are indeed real. Murray and Ream showed me
> their toolset to prove just how infinite the creatures and objects in their
> game are.
>
> Ream pulls up a blue-ish menu with lines of code written across the screen
> and quickly clicks across it to pull up a very specific menu within their
> engine. Before I know it, he's selected an option for trees and I'm staring
> at one. There's a blueprint for a fairly standard-looking tree off on the
> right. He clicks a button that says "view variants." Dozens of new trees—of
> different shapes, sizes, and colors—pop up on the left.
>
> "This is our toolset," Murray says as we scroll through the trees. "We
> built our own engine. It's super crappy, but it's kind of like Unity or
> something like that. We've written it all around procedural generation. And
> that's kind of what we spent the first year, when it was just four of us,
> what we spent our time doing. And then the last month before the VGXs we
> built the trailer using that."
>
http://kotaku.com/how-a-seemingly-impossible-game-is-possible-1592820595
Personally I think they're either just throwing the word around for
marketing hype, or their engine is nowhere near in a state where they can
start demoing true procedurally generated life.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sounds like you are taking a marketing comment a tad too serious...
>
> I fairly sure its just a fancy way of saying the all of the environments
> are procedurally generated.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:44:25 +0200
> Subject: Re: USF4 changes!
> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> This trailer for this game pisses me off so much that I want to smash my
> PC monitor
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-v6R_T1hEs
>
> Every atom procedural? WTF does that even mean you morons?
>
> Did you codify the laws of Quantum Physics into your engine so that quarks
> had no choice BUT to assemble into stable atoms?
>
> And if you got that far, why even bother telling us stuff like leaves,
> rocks and planets are procedurally generated? Surely these things should
> have just emerged from your awesome Quantum Physics engine?
>
> Or let's give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose they just have
> algorithms than can arbitrarily combine electrons, protons and neutrons to
> create new atoms (much easier than even understanding Quantum Mechanics).
> There are about 7*10^27 atoms in 70kg human body. Suppose their algorithm
> can procedurally create 100 atoms per microsecond (100 million per
> second). That means in order to create a human it would take 2.22 * 10^9
> millenia to procedurally generate 1 human.
>
> -_-
>
Other related posts:
