Thursday, August 4, 2011

Unlimited Detail - The Facts, The Myths, and The Future

...makes sense that the company is called Euclidean.


WARNING!
This blog post is going to be about an experimental technology that is essentially untested in gaming. There are no games made from this tech yet, and there are questions about how real it even is for gaming right now. However, this is all real technology that you can get into right now. 


Alright, to kick things off I'm going to show you a screenshot.


A little small I know, but you can tell that's a gorgeous screenshot. The game that this is taken from is Crysis 2, perhaps the best looking video game out to date.

Now imagine that this screenshot, that is so beautifully detailed, could in a few years be considered 'far below average'.

That is not a pipe dream. There is a very real technology being developed and it has finally begun to take shape, and the initial results look very promising to bring games so close to looking realistic most companies that pride themselves on "photo realistic graphics" are going to look like the biggest liars in the industry. Or at least that's according to Euclidean founder and CEO Bruce Dell.

Now for a technology lesson. Everything that you see in a game, from the sky, to the ground, to the characters, to the weapons is made up of polygons. The reason games continue to look better and better is because of the arms race between the two big graphics card companies, Nvidia and ATI, to find ways to increase the number polygons that can be used to make up objects. The more polygons, the 'rounder' an object can be. The 'rounder' it can be the more realistic it looks. As games are built, the simply slap textures over the polygons. Textures are not standing objects, they're more like a coat of paint. If you've ever played Dragon Age II and seen the citizens of Kirkwall appear as shiny white models because of a glitch in the games design, then you know what character models look like without their textures.

There is another method to making object called point cloud. Point cloud works in an entirely different way from polygons. Instead of making the objects out of flat polygon shapes, you make them out of points. Thousands of little dots that allow designers to make incredibly complex models that look realistic. An example of why this is so much superior is designing the ground of a level. With polygons, you have to put down a basic surface of shapes, and then slap a texture on top of it. No matter how detailed that texture is, it is a flat object. In many games, the ground looks incredibly detailed and life-like. But if you zoom in, you can see that everything is flat. All that dirt is just a flat painting or picture. With point cloud, instead of making a floor out of polygons and then putting a texture on it, you can design the ground, the grass, the flowers, all right there. By using the points you can construct complex shapes. So instead of making a tree out of a bunch of polygons, you can design the tree with points and actually make it round, and add in all the details while designing the object. The result is a tree that looks like a tree. You can see if you zoomed in on a tree made in point cloud that the wood's textures and qualities as far as shape and appearance are concerned are nearly photo-identical.

If the above confused you greatly, let me put it simply: Instead of making objects out of polygon shapes and then adding a texture to it, you can essentially build the object itself.

Now point cloud is something people use all the time when designing objects, the problem with it's application for something on the scale of gaming is the amount of processing power required to animate the world would be unreal. It would, according to the tech demo, "take the same amount of time to process one frame, as it took the Egyptians to build the Pyramids."

Now there are other ways of making graphics, such as voxels and ray rendering. Voxels have some very restrictive problems that make them almost useless in graphics animation. You can only have so many, and the require a lot of processing power to utilize.

Now, Mr. Dell is dead on up to this point. This is the problem with point cloud, is that the amount of processing time is so large, it's impossible to make a game with this technology, and really, it should be at least a decade or two away from even being an experimental option, much less a realistic one. But Dell claims he has developed a complex algorithm that he compares to a search engine, like Google. He claims this algorithm drastically reduces processing power by searching for and then using only the points necessary at a given time.  Thats about the point where, in his tech demo, he gets little bit...dodgy. He explains some of the problems with something like this, such as how big or small an object is, what perspective it's being seen from etc. He simply says "we've found ways around that." No explanation, no nothing.

And then it gets even more hard to believe him. He essentially disappeared for the past year since he announced this technology. He has reappeared recently and has reasserted that this is real tech and that it could be available for developer use in the next two years.

This all sounds amazing right? What could possibly be wrong with it then?

Well what indeed, is the question seeing as how Dell has never once stated any problems or limitations or specifications of unlimited detail technology. Thats a problem because every tech has it;s limitations and it's issues. The fact he has not even mentioned any, and has simply danced around obvious questions with answers like "we can't show you that yet" or "we've found ways around this."

Anyone else smell that?

I've seen a lot of people going nuts about this, and I did too when I first saw the tech demos. But once you sit down and look at it for a bit, you can see a lot of pitfalls and problems with this. Some people are even saying this is all a big hoax. Now I don;t know about that, but there are some obvious questions that need to be answered, and we also need to see more of the things that really make unlimited detail tick instead of just having Dell explain what he's doing without really explaining what is making work the way it does.

For now, it's best for everyone if we just push this to the back corner of our minds and get back to our polygon count battles between ATI and Nvidia. Eventually we will see how much merit is in Robert Dell and his technology.


The rest of this week is going to be lighthearted blog posts about games that are important to me, because this one was REALLY over the top and I need a break after writing this. In the meantime I am sad to say I still haven't raised single cent for Extra Life up to this point. I will put my own money towards this around the day of the event but I seriously would be eternally grateful to those of you who donate to the cause. I know I've got some UK readers out there, and you guys count too! Send me a an e-mail if you want to donate but your not sure how you want to do it, and if you've got paypal, just head over to the donation link on the side of the blog and donate whatever you can. We can make a difference, but I can't do it alone.

Alright that last bit got a little depressing/angry so here's a picture of  a funny sign to wrap things up.



Later.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Originality and the Sequel

...the follow-up post to one of the most critically acclaimed blog posts of the past month!

A heads up, your going to see Mass Effect and Elder Scrolls come up a lot in this one.

It's been a few weeks. Life, and my own struggle to find something I want to talk about have kept me away recently. Recently I played the demo of Catherine and was blown away by how different it was to anything I had played recently, perhaps even ever. It got me thinking about how many uniquely different games I had played recently, and I found myself rather stunned that pretty much every game I was playing or was looking at acquiring had a number in it somewhere.

So why is that weird?

Because I always talk about how there isn't enough originality in gaming these days and how I wish there were more varied experiences to be had.

And yet, here I am playing Elder Scrolls IV, Halo: Reach, and Fable III.

My current time sink. And what a time sink it is...


I understand the need for sequels, I also enjoy them when they are done well (See: Mass Effect 2) and not obvious attempts to capitalize on a games popularity (See: Bioshock 2). And there is room for both the unique and interesting, and for the sequel's in gaming.

The first obvious reason sequels exist is for the same reason books and movies get sequels and trilogy's. The developer is telling a story and needs to spread it out over two or three installments (or more). Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, and Assassins Creed are all examples of this. They are also the franchise's that I would give as the best examples of how to do it right. Bioware and Ubisoft both took fan reaction and criticism into account when making future installments of their games to not only fix missteps and problems, but to keep the experience fresh, and Bethesda is always pushing the limits of how big open world RPG's can get.

The second reason they exist is because they are an easy way for a developer to get a steady stream of cash coming in. Games are a business at this scale, and the first thing a developer or publisher needs to consider is how much money they are making and how much future projects could make. A lot of people out there consistently bash gaming developers and publishers for releasing sequels of games they deem "terrible" or "garbage". Unfortunately as much as I'd like to be on their side in some cases, franchise's like Call of Duty and  Battlefield and EA's yearly sports titles rake in millions of dollars for developers. That money goes three places (and a few others but for our purpose we'll stick with three...), to the people working for these companies, to make more of the games in these franchises, and towards brand new IP's. Without these games raking in millions, developers and publishers can't take chances on anything brilliant or different because there are so many uncertainties.

Of course there is a whole other part to his sequel-original problem. A lot of people also get upset at new games that are released and seem very similar to other games they've played. There are two big reasons for this in my mind. First, there have been so many stories written in across many mediums that at this point, everyone is copying something from somewhere or someone at some point in the game (also known as inspiration most of the time). Second, developers adapt already in use game engine's and interfaces and designs for their own projects. Bethesda has a good thing going with the Elder Scrolls game design. So much so that they adapted the play style and game design for Fallout 3 when they acquired the game's rights from Interplay. People don't often realize how much work goes into a game, and to do everything from the ground up takes a lot of hard work and time. Very often a design team is given a certain amount of time to complete a game, so for many developer's it is simply a matter of how much time they want to spend in what area's of a game's development. Few games have the luxury of being lovingly crafted by a team given as much time as they need to work with it, and it isn't hard to spot games that fall into that category because they are often very detailed, very deep, and very good.

I will say though, there has to be other concept art and cover art ideas out there other than "faded background guy".


It;s very easy to play a game and say, "Oh this game isn't original, this dev team just didn't care." If you spend all your time looking only for the truly unique and interesting games, like Catherine, your going to miss a lot of really good games, just because the resemble something you already played. Of course if the game is lacking originality in the sense that it is very average, then I can understand a bit more, but to miss a games like Mass Effect or Battlefield just because you've played something similar is a shame.


Before I end this, I just want to once again mention Extra Life. My donation page as well as my team's page, are now live and ready for your spare change and dollars to go towards a great cause. Anything you can contribute will be greatly appreciated, and it will help some children who really need it. I know there's a lot of things you'd rather put money towards, or maybe the economy crunch has you saving as much as you can. But even the smallest contribution is going to make a difference. If you can only send a few dollars, then that's more than fine.

http://www.extra-life.org/participant/polaris


And so with that out of the way,  I must be on my way. I need some sleep at some point today after all.

Take it easy.

Monday, July 4, 2011

A Very Special Notice

...

You may notice that there as no message after the dots. You may have also noticed that this is a notice, not an actual blog update. Well let me explain why...

Video games are one of the things I am most passionate about in the entire universe. I am also very passionate about helping those in need. Some people who need help the most are children with life-threatening diseases. In 2008 the Sarcastic Gamer Community started Extra Life to help raise money for children with life threatening illnesses. You can read the whole story and find out more about Extra Life at the website link below, but to sum it up, Extra Life is a 24 hour marathon where we have a blast playing games, while helping children around the world when they need it most.

This is a very important event to me, so I want everyone reading this to pitch in in one of three ways:

#1. Once my fundraising page is up, donate as much as you can spare to the cause. I'll take pennies if you've got 'em.
#2. Become a participant yourself, I could use the company on the Marshmellow Fluff Team!
#3. Spread the word to EVERYONE you know. Even your pets!

If you want to donate, head to my page here: http://www.extra-life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.participant&eventID=501&participantID=4394. If you want to play go here: http://www.extra-life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=cms.home and sign-up and select the hospital closest to you (or which ever one you want to have your money go to if you have one in mind outside of your area.)

The day to play is October 15th, so there's plenty of time, but the sooner the word is out, the more we can do to contribute to this worthwhile cause. As I said, this is a very important event to me, and every thing you guys do to help will mean the world to me, and to these kids who really need the support.

Together, we can make a big difference. So let's do just that.

Nolan.

P.S. Oh you can also check out my team and donate to the others participating with me here http://www.extra-life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.team&eventID=501&teamID=5029

Friday, July 1, 2011

I Never Want To Go Back To Kirkwall

...a nice place to visit once or twice though.

*BEWARE! HERE BE (MINOR) SPOILERS!*

Anyone who knows me as a gamer even sort of well knows I love two things: Great stories, and Bioware.

Bioware is my favourite company. I try not to let it tip my opinion of their games, but it probably does. However, can you really blame me? Knights of the Old Republic, Baulders Gate II, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect. Bioware has spoiled us with some of the best RPG's not just of the last decade, but some are among the all-time great RPG games.
Most developers would kill for their track record...

You may have noticed I left one game in particular off that list. Dragon Age: Origins is also a great RPG. Maybe not the best Bioware has ever made, but as a spiritual successor to the Baulders Gate games Dragon Age is pretty good. The world is fascinating, the characters are deep and have a wide range of motives and personalities, and the story provided an interesting spin on the "save the world" plot.

And then Hawke and Dragon Age II came along...

Dragon Age II improves on a few areas over Origins, so to help you see why I am so conflicted by this game we'll look at what Dragon Age II did better over Origins.

First, the characters are actually more interesting to me in Dragon Age II than those who appear in Origins. Now don't get me wrong, I still love the characters from Origins, especially some of the fan favourites like Zevran, but overall I felt the characters this time around had more depth to them and had better acting behind them. Merril and Varrick are particular standouts. Dragon Age II also sports a much better combat and leveling system. I liked the combat involving you to actually mash buttons to keep your attack going (you could turn this off and go back to the automatic "point and click" style that was in Origins if your preferred it though) , and the skill trees and options you had when leveling were much better than Origins. Dragon Age II also sports some much better graphics than it's predecessor.

So with all these things that Dragon Age II has going for it, what makes it so much worse than Origins? Two very simple reasons really...

#1. You can NOT set an RPG in one small town.

There are a lot of stairs in Kirkwall.


Kirkwall is a pretty interesting place. When I first reached the city and got to actually explore around, I found it very different from any place I had really seen in Origins, and I enjoyed my time in it for a while. But by the end of the game I had seen the same exact places a hundred times. Even the few exterior locations outside the city stayed the same. This game takes place over the course of a ten year period. Change SOMETHING for crying out loud! Set each part in a different season, blow a section of town up and introduce a new one, but don't just copy paste the same places throughout the whole course of the game! I understand the story is about the main characters rise to prominence in this one particular place but that doesn't mean you can't go anywhere else. Oh, and that segways into number 2....

#2. You can not have the story START in the "third act."

If you played Dragon Age II you know exactly what I'm talking about. Everything Hawke does until the third act plays more like a collection of short stories with hints of of an overarching plot that will boil over at some point than of one story with the same plot. There is no real enemy or antagonist at any point in the game until about the last three hours or so. The Arashok doesn't really count in my mind as his problems are not revealed until about midway through, and it gets resolved almost as quickly. It;s not until the last section of the game when the "real" plot and antagonist show themselves, and it's over within a few hours of their emergence. The game just felt rushed and disjointed in this aspect. Almost like EA just wanted a quick cash grab sequ...oh. The ending to Dragon Age II does imply something bigger is going on, and given what is already occurring at the end of the game, that's certainly a story I want to have told.

Ever feel like you've been here before?


That said, Dragon Age II might be Bioware's worst game. Don't misunderstand me, I still love plenty about the game that I will probably play it plenty in the future. But Bioware can not let this happen with Dragon Age III. They need to take their time with the third one, and make sure that it is much stronger in story and setting than Dragon Age II. Dragon Age has a great world to set games in, and there are plenty of places that fans of the games would like to visit, and there are certainly lots of stories that could be told in the universe, and it would be a shame if Dragon Age II ruins any real chance at having that happen.

Next time I'll be posting up a series of smaller thoughts and stories, so nothing like what I've been doing so far.

See you folks next time!