Re: USF4 changes!
- From: Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:04:05 +0200
That's called a Hand Grenade.
One shot of tequila resting against a shot of Jaegermeister in a glass
above some red bull. The tequila is the "pin". When you pull it the
Jaegermeister drops into the red bull and causes the "explosion".
One level up is called a Missile. It's the same thing, but with a shot of
Absinthe as well. You pull the Absinthe and Tequila and drink them quickly
after each other. By the time you get to drinking the Jaegerbomb you feel
like you've been hit by a missile.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Donaldson, Alasdair <
alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Erm... Jaeger bombs and tequila... I don't think I'm making work
> tomorrow...
> Not really following the emails either.
>
> *From*: Ilitirit Sama [mailto:ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent*: Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:07 PM South Africa Standard Time
> *To*: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: Re: USF4 changes!
>
> The gameplay demo of MGSV was awesome, but it does make the Fulton RS
> seem OP. I hope they balance it out nicely in the final version. I mean,
> it costs 1000 GMP for a cardboard box delivery, but only 300 GMP per Fulton?
>
> Game looks incredibly fun though.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Ah k
>>
>> All I know about how its generated is the bit you quoted from Otaku,
>> havent seen any interviews myself yet.
>>
>> While that sounds less impressive it should probably count as a
>> procedurally generated "cat" instead of generated "animal". So I guess
>> they could technically not be lying... :P
>>
>>
>>
>> There will be shortcuts taken. From the 1st time I saw this I was just
>> thinking is how the hell will a Indy team manage this?
>>
>> Will see someday I guess. Hope they take their time and do it properly.
>>
>> Game looks intriguing
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:09:21 +0200
>>
>> Subject: Re: USF4 changes!
>> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> But that's what I'm saying. From the interview it just sounds like they
>> just have blueprints for known animals. Cats, dinosaurs, fish. How many
>> ways can you really generate a cat? Who is really going to be impressed
>> when they see a spotted panther for the 5th time, only in a different
>> colour or size? In Spore, every animal has the potential to look
>> completely different. I'm not getting a sense of any of that from what
>> they are doing here. They didn't mention anything about exotic animals.
>> They mention that deer will exist on different planets but they will look
>> different. That's not impressive. Deer exist in different countries on
>> Earth and they look different. In Spore, no two animals look the same
>> (well, some do by virtue of mutation). So either they're overstating what
>> their engine is capable of, or it's not yet ready for a proper demo.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -_-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail
> by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in
> error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to
> the original sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it.
> If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
> is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this
> e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
> KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information
> in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official
> business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
> KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free,
> as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed,
> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
>
> This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
> International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services
> to you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss
> entity that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent
> firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no
> services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally
> distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. Information
> about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be
> obtained from your KPMG representative.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
> AntiVirus software.
>
Other related posts:
