Re: USF4 changes!
- From: Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 22:07:18 +0200
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.
>
> -_-
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
