RE: USF4 changes!
- From: Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:49:46 +0000
Generating tree's and animals could use the same kind of level generation
algorithms I reckon.
A "exotic" animal could have 1-8 legs. Its ass cant be too close to its mouth,
the legs need to be in usable positions. Or tree's, cant have all the
branches/leaves be too close together or oddly spread out... so there will be
some sort of algorithm to make them look "natural".
I dont see how it is any different.
I still have no real idea what you actually have to do in the game... other
than "explore". Gather stuff? Trade? Fight? Do what and to what end?
Hopefully they can make it fun.
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:35:15 +0200
Subject: Re: USF4 changes!
From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you have a base template and just tweak a few variables, it's not really
procedural. It's just randomly assigning values to different properties. eg.
When you click "Random Appearance" on the character build menu in an RPG.
There's no real algorithm behind it. Procedural level generation on the other
hand does require an algorithm eg. exit can't be too close to the start, every
room must have an entrance etc etc.
I also think don't think they're going to be able to deliver what they
mentioned, or at least make it fun without some big changes. They said the
gameplay will take place in on true Universal scale. Ignoring the mathematics,
it honestly sounds like the most boring MMO ever. The odds of you running into
another player is exceedingly small, and they even acknowledge it! What's the
point of an MMO where there's little-to-no interaction with other players? It
might as well be a single-player game. I think this is one aspect of the game
they will need to rethink very carefully.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I dont take any marketing jargon seriously... dont see why this is any
different.
Only thing im worried about is that they have bitten off more than they can
chew. The game sounds and looks good but im not sure if its doable properly
with a Indy team/budget.
If the size of it is really what they claim it to be then procedural generation
would be the only way to go. Nobody would create that big of a universe by
hand.
"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."
Why is it different? Diablo 2 levels where procedurally generated... they were
never the same. (Maybe not never but the odds are that it happened). Using
sets of preconstructed base items/areas/stuff.
Its just varying degrees. If they builds stuff modular or interchangable
enough they could "hopefully" generate a shitload of different "Stuff".
The scope of the universe alone sounds amazing tho if they can keep it from
beeing too samey after you have seen too much of their "constructions"
Would be cool if they pull this off
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:57:36 +0200
Subject: Re: USF4 changes!
From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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:
