Editorial Gameplayer Australia says Fallout 3 will rock because...

[DraQ]

Just so you know, between the 8bit times until nowadays the size of a team required to make a game, and the costs, already quite skyrocketted. There used to be a time where only one dude, sometimes with the help of friends, could make a game that sells. Your comparison is null. From such a time where gaming was in its infancy, to today already large teams there was a comfortable margin of growth possible. The gaming market cannot grow infinitely, there is a peak, maybe still not reached as of today, until which it won't be possible to put more and more money into production.

You forget about growing automation of content creation. It's quite possible that your objections will be about as valid in near future as saying that it'd be impossible to make a 3D game, because costs of making so many animation frames for high-res sprites would be prohibitive, besides sprites will never be perfect as they are flat, thus unaffected by perspective would be in the past.

Besides, even if you are right, it only means that the "1337 gfx" avenue in game developement will dead-end even sooner forcing developers to try different things to attract the buyers. Undoubtedly, there will be a lot of outrageously stupid shit on the market after that, but there might also be some true gems dwarfing even the likes of Fallout and PS:T.

 

[Dark Matter]

"My God, you are ignorant. Fallout was conceived as a P&P simulator from day one. The main design principle behind the game is to emulate pen & paper roleplaying as closely as possible.

Word of advice: before attempting to debate a subject, make sure your knowledge of that subject extends beyond passing familiarity. Otherwise you risk making yourself look like an idiot. You know, like you did just now. '

*sigh*

I'm well aware of that fact, you guys need to learn to comprehend basic logic before making assumptions.

Let me spell this out for you guys:
FO is a cRPG. It tries to emulate P&P RPGs to some extent, but in the end, it's just a cRPG, which is a loong way from a P&P RPG. If you think the experience FO gives is equal to that of a P&P RPG, you suck and should probably kill yourself.

Now, my point here: FO3 tries to emulate the original FO to some extent. FO3 is not a true FO sequel, the same way FO is not a true P&P RPG. If FO managed to translate every aspect of P&P RPGs into the game, then by necessity, FO3 would also have to emulate P&P RPGs in order to have any significant resemblences to the original FO. But in reality, FO is a cRPG and not a P&P RPG. As such, only certain aspects of P&P RPGs can be included in the game. FO3 wouldn't directly need to emulate P&P RPGs itself to create a game that is vaguely similar to the original FO.

GET IT?

 

[mjorkerina]

You forget about growing automation of content creation.

Automation ? you think you can make content out of thin air ? you can automate a part of the 3d model process for example but you still have to create the original content with care, with your own tiny hands. There are tools that can create a 3d model out of a real life sculpture but you still had to make the sculpture, duh. And you still have to do a lot of fine work on the computer before it is usable.
Beside, it's not really growing, more like perfecting existing techniques. Nothing revolutionary has been made in the past ten years. Incremental progress makes for incrementally better productivity but not to the point where it would be economically feasible in any era to come.

It's quite possible that your objections will be about as valid in near future as saying that it'd be impossible to make a 3D game, because costs of making so many animation frames for high-res sprites would be prohibitive, besides sprites will never be perfect as they are flat, thus unaffected by perspective would be in the past.

Having to pull analogies from your ass only shows how weak your argument is to begin with. Even the best of analogies cannot stand by themselves without a good reasoning behind it. You don't seem to understand the differences between the era in computing, it's fine but you to make your ignorance so glaring.

Besides, even if you are right, it only means that the "1337 gfx" avenue in game developement will dead-end even sooner forcing developers to try different things to attract the buyers. Undoubtedly, there will be a lot of outrageously stupid shit on the market after that, but there might also be some true gems dwarfing even the likes of Fallout and PS:T.

Really, not. Just because we won't do actual photorealism in games doesn't mean there isn't a lot of room for incremental progress. Indeed, marketing claim for life-like games will still be for every new generation of hardware and consoles and the "next-gen" wave ain't dying, we will hear of the nextgen buzzword as long as we breath. You don't want to know how many littles things here and there in decades can progress without really achieving photo realism.

You don't only have to take my word. Just look at the cycle behind the creation of game engines nowadays. It takes a lot of years only for what is incremental in the end. Crysis is all good and shiny for what it is but there is nothing that made me go wow as much as I did the first time I saw Doom 3. It has incrementally better physics, models, textures and lighting. It's still very far from life like and it took time and a lot of money to produce what is essentially incrementally better. It will take a lot more money to do twice as better as Crysis. It will take truckloads of it for something really, really better.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Re: New guy in town

Do you believe raw power is the only thing that matters ? What about the freaking cost of making the game ? Making insanely high resolution textures, 3d models, landscapes, varied and interactive animation and building a stable game and physics engine will make the costs skyrocket even if computers had the power to do it in real time.

Aren't textures and models generally made in much higher detail than the hardware can actually handle, and then scaled down? Game engines use tricks like bump mapping to approximate the appearance of a much higher polygon model which exists beforehand.

Final Fantasy the movie, which was not as photorealistic as possible sank in its own costs. And it was a movie rendered in a computer farm, not a real time game with all the implied work going on.

The Spirits Within is almost a decade old. Already the computer farm would have to be an order of magnitude smaller, and there is little reason to believe that the same could not be done by a single computer in another decade. No one is saying that it'll happen tomorrow, only that it eventually will.

What about Beowulf, guy? Higher level of realism than the Spirits Within, and it's certainly made its money back, this despite of rather lukewarm reviews. Since we already see models and textures produced for film-making that approach photorealism, then what exactly is the problem with doing the same for games? Cost? Team size? You could increase the size of the Halo team tenfold, and the game still would've made money. It's all about computing power constraints, nothing else.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I don't need to provide a real comeback, because the argument that I was refuting simply explains why FO3 is not a true FO sequel (which I've heard lots of times). They haven't convinced me that it's closer to Oblivion than FO.

So... If someone made a Fallout mod for Quake 3, it would be more like Fallout than it would be like Quake because they put a vault suit on a Quake 3 model? Or made some maps with buildings that looked similar to those in Fallout? Or replaced the out of ammo weapon with a 10MM pistol?

The mechanics are a lot closer to Oblivion than they were to Fallout and Fallout 2. It's mechanics that determine how the game plays more than the art direction.

 

[mjorkerina]

Re: New guy in town

Aren't textures and models generally made in much higher detail than the hardware can actually handle, and then scaled down? Game engines use tricks like bump mapping to approximate the appearance of a much higher polygon model which exists beforehand.

True but even the source material is far from what we'd want to achieve photo realism any time soon.

The Spirits Within is almost a decade old. Already the computer farm would have to be an order of magnitude smaller, and there is little reason to believe that the same could not be done by a single computer in another decade. No one is saying that it'll happen tomorrow, only that it eventually will.

And people used to think we'd have flying cars by 2000.

What about Beowulf, guy? Higher level of realism than the Spirits Within, and it's certainly made its money back, this despite of rather lukewarm reviews. Since we already see models and textures produced for film-making that approach photorealism, then what exactly is the problem with doing the same for games? Cost? Team size? You could increase the size of the Halo team tenfold, and the game still would've made money. It's all about computing power constraints, nothing else.

Beowulf spent $150 millions, that's actually more money spent than the Spirits Within. It has made more money because it reached a larger audience, not because technology made it any cheaper.
True that Halo 3 made a truckload of money (Halo 3 budget was $50 millions btw.). But making a game as realistic as one of those movies would obviously cost a lot more than just the cost of the movie itself, that's why I used the example. Just having the models and textures are not going to be enough for a seamless real time gaming experience.
You have to put solid work and testing on it, you don't want to see glitches everywhere for every action you do, right ? it's not just about the 3D artists but also the programming.
As for approaching photorealism, Beowulf does it in some way but unless you don't think about it at all it's obvious they still have a lot of work to do before they'll get to truly achieve it. I don't like it much the abuse of buzzwords like photorealism. Something is photorealistic when I can't tell the truth from looking at it. For me, saying we'll hit the "photorealism barrier" does not make sense. Unless you can cheat me on a "blindtest" where you put real photo and 3d scenes and I can't tell, it's not photorealistic.
The only time I've been had by such a thing is on a comparison of abstract things, with comparison of photographs taken under weird, studio lighting that actually made the photograph look artificial and the comparison harder. But comparing a "natural" photo with a 3d scene trying to look natural it's obvious to tell which is which.

 

[DraQ]

You forget about growing automation of content creation.

Automation ? you think you can make content out of thin air ? you can automate a part of the 3d model process for example but you still have to create the original content with care, with your own tiny hands. There are tools that can create a 3d model out of a real life sculpture but you still had to make the sculpture, duh. And you still have to do a lot of fine work on the computer before it is usable.

The point is that the tools are growing more and more powerful often relieving developers of much of their work. There is no denying that, for example, skeletal animation (dated technique, I know) saves animators a lot of hassle by making vertex-by-vertex modification of a 3D mesh unnecessary. The developement curve might be a bit flat ATM, but that's only because the developers are gleefully exploiting the goldmine provided by modern 3d accelerators.

Having to pull analogies from your ass only shows how weak your argument is to begin with. Even the best of analogies cannot stand by themselves without a good reasoning behind it. You don't seem to understand the differences between the era in computing, it's fine but you to make your ignorance so glaring.

If you were so kind to pull your head out of your ass you'd have noticed what I'm talking about. As long as the tools assisting generation of content are possible, they will be developed as they give game making companies an edge. So far nothing, apart from several plateaus, disturbed this trend.

Really, not. Just because we won't do actual photorealism in games doesn't mean there isn't a lot of room for incremental progress. Indeed, marketing claim for life-like games will still be for every new generation of hardware and consoles and the "next-gen" wave ain't dying, we will hear of the nextgen buzzword as long as we breath. You don't want to know how many littles things here and there in decades can progress without really achieving photo realism.

The photorealism ceiling exists and is finite. Moreso, we are diefinitely closer to photorealism than to early sprite and wireframe graphics. This means that there are two kinds of growth possible if we are asumed to be incapable of reaching this ceiling - growth till some value is reached and asymptotic growth towards some value. In practice (not theory) they are one and same thing, as there will be point where huge investments resulting only in miniscule visual improvement will no longer be a valid strategy.

So, there really is the final station the next-gen train can reach.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Re: New guy in town

True but even the source material is far from what we'd want to achieve photo realism any time soon.

What's "far", and what do you base this assessment on? How much more manpower would it cost to get this up to photorealistic level?

And people used to think we'd have flying cars by 2000.

Now who's pulling analogies out of his ass? One should be careful about extrapolation, of course, but Moore's Law has held for a while, at least. There is little reason to assume that computing power won't increase in the future; we can only argue about the realistic expectations of the speed with which said increase will occur.

Beowulf spent $150 millions, that's actually more money spent than the Spirits Within. It has made more money because it reached a larger audience, not because technology made it any cheaper.

So what? Angelina Jolie and Anthony Hopkins aren't cheap. The point is that a movie utilising similar technology to the Spirits Within looked more realistic and actually made money. You can't point at the Spirits Within and go "hey, look, it's impossible, see". That would be rather disingenuous, and you wouldn't be disingenuous just to try to win an argument, would you/

True that Halo 3 made a truckload of money (Halo 3 budget was $50 millions btw.). But making a game as realistic as one of those movies would obviously cost a lot more than just the cost of the movie itself, that's why I used the example. Just having the models and textures are not going to be enough for a seamless real time gaming experience.
You have to put solid work and testing on it, you don't want to see glitches everywhere for every action you do, right ? it's not just about the 3D artists but also the programming.

They're doing what they can given the technological constraints. They will always do what they can given these constraints -- once the technology allows photorealism, that is exactly what we will have. The games will be dumber than dirt, of course, but hey.

As for approaching photorealism, Beowulf does it in some way but unless you don't think about it at all it's obvious they still have a lot of work to do before they'll get to truly achieve it. I don't like it much the abuse of buzzwords like photorealism. Something is photorealistic when I can't tell the truth from looking at it. For me, saying we'll hit the "photorealism barrier" does not make sense. Unless you can cheat me on a "blindtest" where you put real photo and 3d scenes and I can't tell, it's not photorealistic.

When I first saw the Beowulf trailer, I did not realise until about halfway in that it was wholly computer-generated. I thought they had used CGI heavily with all kinds of filters, but I actually believed what I was watching was real-life. Once you know it's CGI, it's easy to see the flaws, of course -- but we're certainly close enough. Beowulf was past the uncanny valley, and pretty damn close to actual photorealism.

The only time I've been had by such a thing is on a comparison of abstract things, with comparison of photographs taken under weird, studio lighting that actually made the photograph look artificial and the comparison harder. But comparing a "natural" photo with a 3d scene trying to look natural it's obvious to tell which is which.

The point is that it's becoming less and less obvious all the time.

 

[mjorkerina]

The point is that the tools are growing more and more powerful often relieving developers of much of their work. There is no denying that, for example, skeletal animation (dated technique, I know)

Oh god, you support your point of technological progress by having a really dated tech as an example, you admit it but you still think it was insightful. Yeah right.

If you were so kind to pull your head out of your ass you'd have noticed what I'm talking about. As long as the tools assisting generation of content are possible, they will be developed as they give game making companies an edge. So far nothing, apart from several plateaus, disturbed this trend.

Incremental progress is nothing revolutionary.

So, there really is the final station the next-gen train can reach.

But will it do so in your own lifetime ? probably not. The cycle of development of new engines and hardware isn't nearly fast enough to allow it, short from a new, revolutionary discovery.

Now who's pulling analogies out of his ass? One should be careful about extrapolation, of course, but Moore's Law has held for a while, at least. There is little reason to assume that computing power won't increase in the future

My analogy is flawed, like all analogies but it fits quit well in the context of people who are predicting a bright future and the marvels of what technology allows. Unlike the 8bit example that was comparing an *hypothetical case* and had nothing to do with reality, the flying car was a popular prediction, just like everyone nowadays thinks technology will never cease to double in power every year or so.

You can't point at the Spirits Within and go "hey, look, it's impossible, see".

But I didn't say it was impossible, I took the budget of Spirits Within as an example of the money that you have to just make a *movie* that *tries* (is not) to be photorealistic, and then said that if you were to make a game, the cost of doing it would be way higher than the movie because of all the other complications.

That would be rather disingenuous, and you wouldn't be disingenuous just to try to win an argument, would you

You people on teh tubes are not important enough to make me care about anything, you do realize ? I'm not here to "win" anything. If I had the whole codex go nerdrage on me I couldn't care less. I find it interesting reading other people opinion and stating mine but I'm not out there to convert the infidels.

When I first saw the Beowulf trailer, I did not realise until about halfway in that it was wholly computer-generated. I thought they had used CGI heavily with all kinds of filters, but I actually believed what I was watching was real-life. Once you know it's CGI, it's easy to see the flaws, of course -- but we're certainly close enough. Beowulf was past the uncanny valley, and pretty damn close to actual photorealism.

Either you were not paying enough attention, or were watching a trailer heavily compressed.

The point is that it's becoming less and less obvious all the time.

No, it is. If you were to do a gallery of real pictures of people dressed up in medieval fighter clothes mixed with CGI pictures, I'm sure I would be able to tell that one you are linking to, no doubt.

 

[kingcomrade]

boobies!

 

[sabishii]

GET IT?

It's not a P&P game but a CRPG because it is a CRPG! What revelation are you going to reveal next?!

Now, "the main design principle behind the game is to emulate pen & paper roleplaying as closely as possible." I hope you understand these bolded words, because it nowhere implies that "the experience FO gives is equal to that of a P&P RPG." I'd try to rephrase it but it's mindnumbingly clear what the original quote means. The argument is not that FO has X number of P&P aspects and all FO3 needs is the same X number. It's that FO tries to be like P&P whereas FO3 does not.

So, don't be a retard, and at least try to understand what people are saying before spewing off nonsense arguing against a non-existent point. I'd accuse you of a strawman but I doubt you were even trying for one.

 

[Ratty]

*sigh*

I'm well aware of that fact, you guys need to learn to comprehend basic logic before making assumptions.

Let me spell this out for you guys:
FO is a cRPG. It tries to emulate P&P RPGs to some extent, but in the end, it's just a cRPG, which is a loong way from a P&P RPG. If you think the experience FO gives is equal to that of a P&P RPG, you suck and should probably kill yourself.

Now, my point here: FO3 tries to emulate the original FO to some extent. FO3 is not a true FO sequel, the same way FO is not a true P&P RPG. If FO managed to translate every aspect of P&P RPGs into the game, then by necessity, FO3 would also have to emulate P&P RPGs in order to have any significant resemblences to the original FO. But in reality, FO is a cRPG and not a P&P RPG. As such, only certain aspects of P&P RPGs can be included in the game. FO3 wouldn't directly need to emulate P&P RPGs itself to create a game that is vaguely similar to the original FO.

GET IT?

I get that you're trying to save your face and failing miserably. Emulation of pen&paper roleplaying is such a fundamental principle of Fallout's design that any game not attempting to emulate P&P roleplaying is not attempting to emulate Fallout. Period. While superficial similarities may exist between old Fallout games and FO3, the latter is so firmly based around Oblivion's immersionist philosophy that it's about as far away design-wise from the original Fallout as any RPG can get and still be called an RPG. Your assertion that Fallout 3 is closer to FO1 and FO2 than Oblivion in terms of design is therefore incorrect. You lose.