|
I remember one mission in Guerrilla that had to rescuing some assholes inside a building. Took me a few tries to figure out why ramming my truck into the quest marker wasn't working like it normally does. No, it never really got old.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
"you are the product not the customer" promo/scare-site up, they're really playing the cross-media stuff pretty hard here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Red Faction guerrilla was faux next gen. Everything was prefab. I'm talking about a non prefab destruction system. An environmental destruction system that doesn't require damage modeling because algorithms take care of most the work on the fly. Much like euphoria physics. Except for building destruction modeling. You're probably telling yourself that would take a loving super computer to pull off. Well the sad part is we'd probably be there if the focus on graphics wasn't so great. I have no words for the first Red Faction. It was pretty dull and the level design was pretty bad. Also what's the point of having destructible terrain if many of the missions are inside buildings that are made out of mythril? Its own concept was way too ahead of its time. Really think hard about it, did the destructible terrain affect gameplay enough to be a primary mechanic? I don't think so, especially when stalagmites perfectly placed over enemies harmlessly crumble entirely if you try to shoot it's base with a rocket. I don't even think shooting above enemies to cause debris to fall on them was even in that game. RF1 is a perfect example of a next gen mechanic gone wrong. Sure it's loving cool but the only real use it had was to make foxholes and occasionally burrow behind an enemy line. In the end it was just a fun little gimmick. NeoSeeker fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Red Faction was pretty ballin in 02 or whenever it came out. Like many games it hasn't aged well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
NeoSeeker posted:I'm talking about a non prefab destruction system. An environmental destruction system that doesn't require damage modeling because algorithms take care of most the work on the fly. Much like euphoria physics. Except for building destruction modeling. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here because that's what RFG did. It "modeled" the damage with "algorithms" and destroyed only the parts of the buildings that had been affected by the impact. Sure, it could look better, but you seem to think they had an artist create the buildings in partial states of destruction and that's not what was happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Why would this game even have destructible environments?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
NeoSeeker posted:Red Faction guerrilla was faux next gen. Everything was prefab. You are really underplaying the actual technology in RFG if you think it was a cheap hack reproduceable elsewhere. The fact that it hasn't been is a testament to the difficulty encountered in making a game like that. The actual mechanics of destruction weren't prefab (which is what every other game does). The buildings were all pre-fragmented into 1'x1' chunks, but the stress/connectivity/weight system that makes it function, along with the tremendous amount of data management required to keep it persistent and consistent as it moves through LOD pops is the clever and important part of destruction. A "non-prefab" system providing at least as much fidelity as the RFG stress-based destruction system is still going to have to sample an arbitrary number of points and perform the same calculations across the same data that the RFG fragments are representing, just that now you're adding (a useless, since the points of data/number of fragments are what matter) realtime fragmentation, which is only going to add to the overhead and actually reduce the amount of real destruction you can get. Offline, pre-fab fragmentation is allowing you to get more impressive destruction than a runtime fragmentation system because the runtime fragmentation system is going to be more expensive and therefore represent each building as fundamentally fewer points. For a comparative example, you can look at the RFG vs RFA destruction - in RFA the shard size was increased in size significantly to reduce the number of shards/area, to allow for more destructible meshes to be loaded in at once. All else equal, you're going to get destruction that looks more like RFA's than RFG's with your magic runtime fragmentation. RF1 is very simplistic and basically spawns a bunch of booleans to boolean the geo in real time which is no longer impressive (a similar system is used in Left 4 Dead 2 for gore/dismemberment, though), but RFG's technology was pretty sweet and has yet to be matched in another game. RF1's technological merits are more on the management of that system to get it to run on a PS2 than on the high level concept of the execution. Euphoria is not doing a lot of powerful secret magic, it's just playing an animation(s) and weighting between those animations and ragdoll physics with joint constraints. Other physics systems can do the same thing (and do). It's a lot more comparable to RFG's destruction than your "no prefab" magical destruction system. e: Euphoria is not doing a lot of powerful secret magic as a high level concept. I'm sure their execution is clever. Sigma-X fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Okay so I guess I was misinformed about how the destruction system works. It's a good example of what I'm talking about, It's also an example of my other side of the view. I dunno how the consensus came to my mind that everything was prefab. Probably because prefab does exist blatantly in the game.. I don't care if it looked like poo poo, it was actually decent. Only problem being that there weren't too many buildings. It would have been better if there were actual cities there. Which is sort of my point... Why weren't there giant glorious cities with high rises just sitting around waiting to be cleverly smashed onto each other with a bunch of well placed explosives? Euphoria is also only just an example. It is a good one though. Basically gameplay needs to transition from scripted bullshit into things that are generated entirely on the fly. Maybe with a little help by including actual animations. But eventually we could get to a point where a game completely runs itself. And development is way more about programming rather than pretty poo poo. RFG didn't have the most perfect system, there are plenty of times I found it to be wonky and display signs of things being more prefab than on the fly. Not EVERYTHING destructible was apart of that algorithm. Some parts I can understand, but others were more signs of the limit the magic the developers could produce. To answer the question of what the gently caress does this have to do with Watch Dogs. This is a completely rhetorical, metaphorical and tangential question: What would Watch Dogs be like if the entire city was fully destructible? Think beyond current development and ask yourself how could that be worked into gameplay. It could change the entire game entirely. The point isn't about destructible environments per se, they are just a representation in this discussion of next gen gameplay mechanics. Like what exactly is next gen about this game besides the graphics? Honestly I don't know the answer to that question, I go blind for releases I actually want to play. I haven't watched a whole lot of footage, there are probably things in this game that require next gen tech for actual gameplay elements. I don't have a beef with this game, I'm sure it'll be great. Just the focus on graphics utterly disgusts me. I read articles about visual effects with made up names, then a pair of before and after stills that look exactly alike. Then the entire thing goes on about how loving great this hardly noticeable visual element is. All it does is waste processing power in my opinion. NeoSeeker fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
And voice acting is a useless expense and should be done away with entirely, as well. In favor of ~cloud algorithmic procedural rainbased nongraphical adventure time~. And gently caress looking pretty. Because GPUs can certainly handle procedural generation of content and calculations instead of graphics. Because you literally have no idea what you're even talking about, not even a tiny bit. (I know that GPUs can handle a lot of calcs outside of rendering, but that's not even close to what he's talking about) No, seriously, do you even know what one of those techy, ~nextgen~ words you're trying to use even means?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Red Faction Guerrilla (the only good one) was also fantastically labor-intensive to make, despite the smallness and relative emptiness of its world. Each building not only needed a detailed interior, but it also needed to be tested to make sure it destroyed properly and didn't break the game while partially or fully destroyed. Fun fact, a lot of the designers had to take engineering and architecture courses to make their buildings stop falling apart under their own weight 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Naturally Selected posted:No, seriously, do you even know what one of those techy, ~nextgen~ words you're trying to use even means? No, but I know they are mostly useless in the end. You also completely miss my point. It's not about the prioritizing of power, it's the mindset itself, think outside the box for a second. I'm done bitching about this topic for the billionth time anyways. \/Do you understand the concept of time and the influence a mindset has over a concept over the passage of this thing called... time? This has nothing to do with GPUs, I'd rather not talk about an off base topic. oooh i see a bunch of worms on hooks coming down from the sky cubicle gangster posted:Neoseeker, put down the bong. No NeoSeeker fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
GPUs are basically just stupid-wide processors with a different memory and programming model now, all the fixed function poo poo is gone. They can do all kinds of things, very much including generating procedural stuff (that from 2007), doing pathfinding, image analysis (both training and matching), physics simulation of some kinds, etc. The limitation on a bunch of this stuff is, from conversations with GPGPU wizards at work, more "figure out how to map the problem" than "GPU programming model can't apply". I really can't stand his "those lazy fucks chasing the shiny, they owe me a better dream game" either -- especially since he apparently couldn't tell when RF cast the magic spell in question -- but raw GPU capability isn't likely to be the biggest of hurdles. (And I'm pretty sure that modeling cubic-foot physics of a dense modern downtown would melt even a Titan Black, but that's a quantitative issue rather than a qualitative one.) People often get all hyped up on "what if I could dent every manhole and the NPCs tripped on them?!?", but it's pretty rare that someone actually elaborates on why that would make a game more fun. Why would I want to bust through a washroom stall door in Watch Dogs? If the complaint is that developers are spending time on things that don't matter, making everything destructible doesn't seem like an improvement for many cases at all. Edit: NeoSeeker posted:think outside the box for a second 
Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
NeoSeeker posted:No, but I know they are mostly useless in the end. You also completely miss my point. It's not about the prioritizing of power, it's the mindset itself, think outside the box for a second. I'm done bitching about this topic for the billionth time anyways. So wait, you don't understand how any of it works, but they're doing it wrong anyways? So the massive improvement in graphics over time is due to everyone abandoning an ideology of design, and is not due to the development and ridiculous advancement of discrete graphics processing units. And there hasn't been any advances in destruction/deformable terrain/procedural generation/AI at all because literally everyone in game development is now a graphics/art major and not a coder. And  Subjunctive posted:GPUs are basically just stupid-wide processors with a different memory and programming model now, all the fixed function poo poo is gone. They can do all kinds of things, very much including generating procedural stuff (that from 2007), doing pathfinding, image analysis (both training and matching), physics simulation of some kinds, etc. The limitation on a bunch of this stuff is, from conversations with GPGPU wizards at work, more "figure out how to map the problem" than "GPU programming model can't apply". I put in the bit about GPUs handling other stuff/GPGPU at the end, but I'm ignoring it in this argument simply because it would give him another fancy-tech word to grab on to with zero understanding. Agreed on the rest of what you said, though. Naturally Selected fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
You can blow up every building in the city in EDF and that leaves the map an empty boring wasteland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be great if we could fly! yeah, we'd like skip the elevators and go straight to the roofs of buildings, man that would be sweet. Neoseeker, put down the bong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
NeoSeeker posted:Okay so I guess I was misinformed about how the destruction system works. It's a good example of what I'm talking about, It's also an example of my other side of the view. I dunno how the consensus came to my mind that everything was prefab. Probably because prefab does exist blatantly in the game.. holy poo poo you're either gonna save the entire games industry or you're just retarded
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
friends watch porn posted:holy poo poo It's kinda funny how nobody with the ability to make games has ever thought about how to make them better, and only those with no ability to make them are willing to step up and think about how to make better games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
If the entire city of Watch Dogs was destructable, it would pretty much run any computer no matter how powerful to a halt. See, all the graphical fidelity that games are showcasing is all a matter of "cheating". The polygon count on objects remains really small, it has since the turn of the century, but we've instead found ways to circumvent the amount of polygons our video cards have to render, which is why video games can look nicer than they really are. It's also why game still look like rear end once you start to turn off these windows dressings. Something like destructable buildings would require following one of three ways of thinking: 1) Extremely expensive polygon shaping, where every building is designed to have their polygons come apart and it not looking like rear end as if someone started playing minecraft but with polygons and just threw some dynamite on your buildings. Would still tank your computer. 2) Cheaper rendering options that are better at displaying destructable environment, the problem with these options are that they are... Decent at doing terrain, albeit not very realistically, but it will look like the buildings are melting, and it will not only look like rear end, but can behave unpredictably and might even crash the application if under enough duress. 3) Predetermined explosions. This is used in a lot of action games like Call of Duty where the builds are set to explode in a certain patterns and fall with debris falling in exact positions all the time. Ultimately this will work the best, but it means you'd really be no better off than participating in some long cut-scene in terms of how you really blew up the building. It would also be horribly expensive in terms of assets, since the art team wuld need to design, animate and predict every exploding building in the city. There are other ways to get around destructible buildings, but we're talking much of the same cheating as we're using to make the game look nice to give the illusion of exploding buildings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
NeoSeeker posted:Do you understand the concept of time and the influence a mindset has over a concept over the passage of this thing called... time? what the gently caress is this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:It's kinda funny how nobody with the ability to make games has ever thought about how to make them better, and only those with no ability to make them are willing to step up and think about how to make better games. 10 plus call of duty games and fifteen or so final fantasy games later, survey says... for the most part the industry couldn't give two fucks about innovation. Look at The Last of Us, Look at Bioshock Infinite. Standard fare, 5/10 games getting passed off as games of the decade. They did gently caress all that was new, nothing in either of those games was an improvement on something that has already been done. Dishonored came out before Bioshock 3 and was a much better game, but which one gets higher scores?... Since the gently caress when do we give 8's and 9's even 10's to games that have been done before MANY times? 5 out of ten is for games that are fully functional and passable, but they're loving average because they don't do anything new. What did either TLoU or BI introduce that can now be used in other games? Nothing, but the game that does contain that mechanic/s is the game that deserves the above average score. At best the two aformentioned games deserve a 6 MAYBE a 7 just for some stupid gimmicks they put in (the rails system in bioshock was absolute poo poo, especially in a post-dishonored-blink market). Thinking back this really all started between HL2 coming out and the 360 and PS3 coming out. OH poo poo THE SWEAT ON THE BOXER'S FACE DRIPS AND REALISTICALLY SPLATTERS OFF HIS FACE WHEN POWER-HOOKED. \/ A. Don't have to be a chef to know if something tastes good B. Yes actually. NeoSeeker fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Do you make games, Neoseeker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
NeoSeeker posted:
True, but you are kinda saying that the "chefs" need to add more salt when they realize more salt will just end up killing the taste of the steak. I would be interested in hearing what you are working on, assuming you are not under an NDA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
It's a different meal I'm talking about all together... Just to play into this little metaphor and be all cute. But seriously it's like you think I'm talking about steak when I'm not talking about it, or salt, at all. Am I the only one to notice when they released that Fight Night video or whatever GDC or E3 with the ps3 and 360 it was almost purely about graphics and nothing else for fuckin years. Then that nice little indie scene came along I place my hope and locate in the indie scene. NeoSeeker fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
What kind of game are you making?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
The Saddest Rhino posted:What kind of game are you making? Something a bunch of other people probably have the idea for but are too lazy to pull off. I get hard thinking about it actually. That and a shitload of concepts. You know I can write shitloads so... Well here's a hint at least. It was inspired by receiver. NeoSeeker fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Do you see the whole world in lines of glowing, green code?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
You want better gameplay, right? In other words, sauce. But making new sauce is risky, because it can taste either very awful or very good. The problem is that the owner of the restaurant doesn't want to investigate new sauces. He just wants you to stick with the sauces you're already familiar with and perfect them, so that you can provide the best experience for the customers. The same is true for the gaming industry, you won't find triple-A publishers risking investigating new gameplay features because it's fairly risky to do so and when you've got a few million dollars hunkered down on a project, a collosal failure is kinda unacceptable. Ubisoft kinda has the right idea with Child of Light, which is a smaller branch of Ubisoft working with a much smaller budget so that they can freely experiment in a way that a bigger budget title like watch_dogs can't do. It wouldn't entirely be wrong to say that watch_dogs is directly funding the experimentation with studios like the ones making Child of Light, in order to avoid becoming a stale, sterile company that gets stuck in a rut and can suddenly not sell games like they used to because the competition does it so much better. Later, they are expecting these experiments to pay off by proving their worth and bringing elements that work into newer titles and dropping off ideas that fail. Basically, what I am saying is that this is the wrong thread for innovative ideas, I am afraid. This is the thread for the stale risk-free title that will pave the way for new ideas. e: I believe we have a game designing thread or game development thread, that'd be a good place to discuss with people in real know-how. Mordaedil fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Do you see the whole world in lines of glowing, green code? Not quite that but something like that. It's like Dr. Manhattan, your little mind couldn't comprehend it. I hover over the ground. But seriously my game is an incredibly simple concept that creates shitloads of awesome organic sequences due to the... I wouldn't call it depth, more intricacy of the mechanics. And yeah this is the watch dogs thread. Talk about sauce somewhere else. NeoSeeker fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Are you bitter because people are sick of the 8 bit graphics your game is going to have?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Would you describe yourself as an "idea guy"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
NeoSeeker posted:Something a bunch of other people probably have the idea for but are too lazy to pull off. What is receiver-inspired game mechanics?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
The Saddest Rhino posted:What is receiver-inspired game mechanics?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
NeoSeeker posted:Not quite that but something like that. It's like Dr. Manhattan, your little mind couldn't comprehend it. NeoSeeker posted:Something a bunch of other people probably have the idea for but are too lazy to pull off. NeoSeeker posted:It's a different meal I'm talking about all together... you're full of bullshit
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Saw the trailer for this a long time ago, see its up for pre-order on steam and decide I'll drop in and see what the hivemind consensus is on this one.NeoSeeker posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
This thread suddenly got really stupid. Can we go back to arguing about whether ubisoft made this game super ugly or not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:This thread suddenly got really stupid. Can we go back to arguing about whether ubisoft made this game super ugly or not? or if tablet support is available in the pc version and what exactly are you able to do with it? It's probably stupid but I really care Or we can talk about Assassin's Creed and Red Faction in the Watch Dags thread.. whatevs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Not to distract anyone from quite possibly the <stern superlative adjective> derail I've ever seen, but we're about 3 minutes away from a large WD infodump from the Paris event last week. Should be on Giantbomb and others. e: A couple of the previews: http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/unfinished-watch-dogs-04-22-2014/2300-8779/ (video) http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/watch_dogs/preview-3622.html http://www.gamersyde.com/news_gamersyde_preview_watch_dogs-15226_en.html Leb fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Dvlos posted:or if tablet support is available in the pc version and what exactly are you able to do with it? It's probably stupid but I really care I don't see why not, both Battlefield and Assassin's Creed have PC support for their companion apps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
losonti tokash posted:I don't see why not, both Battlefield and Assassin's Creed have PC support for their companion apps. Do they have Windows 8 apps?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
The Verge has theirs up as well. "We played Watch Dogs, and it's not just Grand Theft Auto with hacking on top" http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/23/5640896/watch-dogs-preview
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 17:22
|
|
