How long have I waited to hear these words from a game developer?
"...it's all about graphical design, artistic design and direction; not only about high-resolution textures and bump-mapping." --Tomasz Gop, Senior Producer on The Witcher 2
I'm glad there are developers who push the limits of graphic technologies. It's thanks to them that we have the options presently available. But sometimes it seems too many developers fail to recognize that the tools and resources already commonly available enable greater results than are typically seen.
Limits do not always affect creativity adversely. Restraint can be a catalyst for invention.
It's like the evolution of console hardware. Every year, Xbox 360 developers make better use of the hardware than they did the year before. We need people to push the boundaries. But most are better served by exploring the untapped potential of what we already have.
I'm a musician. After thousands of years of use, we're still finding ways to arrange the same 12 notes into exciting new forms of music.
Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata and Ode to Joy, Michaelangelo's David, Da Vinci's Mona Lisa — countless works by their contemporaries are far more complex, yet far less popular. Complexity of design is meaningless to most audiences. It's the refined effect that matters. Simple designs can be powerful. It's like the beauty of a child's love: simple, uncomplicated, but Earth-moving.
Art directors should focus on effect, not on tech. What can you achieve with last year's graphics capabilities?
If you want a concrete example, look at World of Warcraft.
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Friday, June 03, 2011
Thursday, September 24, 2009
game masters
Sometimes, technology is a boon to progress. I've been thinking about how technology could help Game Masters by facilitating speech and movement.
First, it would be great if GMs could speak to players through voice, rather than text. Imagine a GM speaking to players through voice chat and the GM's avatar simulates lip movement accurately. Animators already try to make characters lips move semi-accurately when they speak. If a program could isolate sounds in a GM's speech (like the "i" and "f" in "if"), then a slight delay between the GM and avatar could allow that program time to translate live speech into virtual conversation.
Next, you give the GM a headset which displays his avatar's view on a visor. The helmet works with a sensor in front of the GM to tell the game how he turns his head. The head movement is translated into avatar head movement, and the visor relays the avatar's changing view back to the GM. In this way, the GM's avatar will turn to look at the specific player the GM wants to talk to.
Together, I think these uses of technology could make interaction between GMs and players much more personal and immersive. What do you think?
First, it would be great if GMs could speak to players through voice, rather than text. Imagine a GM speaking to players through voice chat and the GM's avatar simulates lip movement accurately. Animators already try to make characters lips move semi-accurately when they speak. If a program could isolate sounds in a GM's speech (like the "i" and "f" in "if"), then a slight delay between the GM and avatar could allow that program time to translate live speech into virtual conversation.
Next, you give the GM a headset which displays his avatar's view on a visor. The helmet works with a sensor in front of the GM to tell the game how he turns his head. The head movement is translated into avatar head movement, and the visor relays the avatar's changing view back to the GM. In this way, the GM's avatar will turn to look at the specific player the GM wants to talk to.
Together, I think these uses of technology could make interaction between GMs and players much more personal and immersive. What do you think?
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
body language
As I said yesterday, technology might soon enable game characters to respond to players by reading our faces. There's a flip side to that. Players could better respond to characters if facial animations and body language were improved.
The most basic benefit of this is obvious: improved empathy. A character's dialog and actions have more emotional impact when those actions correspond well with the character's physical expressions.
Another benefit is to replace dialog entirely. Animating is not simple, but it's cheaper and easier to refine than hiring voice actors. It also saves valuable memory space. Silent expressions often have the greatest effect. But I expect refining such animations would be very difficult, considering that even good actors have difficulty replicating some emotions, like despair and terror.
The use of animations that brought this subject to mind is translation. Having taken many linguistics courses in college, I know that not all body language is universal across the globe, but the basics are.
On the one hand, you have games like The Saboteur. The game is set in Paris, so one might expect some of the dialog to be in French, even if the majority is English with a French accent. A bit of dialog local to the setting can add flavor, and good body language can make that dialog more meaningful.
On the other hand, there's the inherently national nature of any game. Games published worldwide either pay translators to adapt the dialog or apologetically ask foreign players to enjoy the game as it is. Something is always lost in translation, and body language helps to counteract those losses. And while great facial animations won't allow foreigners to play a dialog-centric game, it can be pivotal in action and puzzle games for making environmental dialog bearable.
Anyway, the usefulness of better facial animations and body language in games seems obvious. What's less obvious is whether or not each developer must tackle this issue on their own. Might it be possible for a company to develop a program for such animations to be used in a wide variety of games by different developers, similar to something like SpeedTree? Or must representation of the human face evolve only as a collective effort, like the modeling of skin or eyes?
The most basic benefit of this is obvious: improved empathy. A character's dialog and actions have more emotional impact when those actions correspond well with the character's physical expressions.
Another benefit is to replace dialog entirely. Animating is not simple, but it's cheaper and easier to refine than hiring voice actors. It also saves valuable memory space. Silent expressions often have the greatest effect. But I expect refining such animations would be very difficult, considering that even good actors have difficulty replicating some emotions, like despair and terror.
The use of animations that brought this subject to mind is translation. Having taken many linguistics courses in college, I know that not all body language is universal across the globe, but the basics are.
On the one hand, you have games like The Saboteur. The game is set in Paris, so one might expect some of the dialog to be in French, even if the majority is English with a French accent. A bit of dialog local to the setting can add flavor, and good body language can make that dialog more meaningful.
On the other hand, there's the inherently national nature of any game. Games published worldwide either pay translators to adapt the dialog or apologetically ask foreign players to enjoy the game as it is. Something is always lost in translation, and body language helps to counteract those losses. And while great facial animations won't allow foreigners to play a dialog-centric game, it can be pivotal in action and puzzle games for making environmental dialog bearable.
Anyway, the usefulness of better facial animations and body language in games seems obvious. What's less obvious is whether or not each developer must tackle this issue on their own. Might it be possible for a company to develop a program for such animations to be used in a wide variety of games by different developers, similar to something like SpeedTree? Or must representation of the human face evolve only as a collective effort, like the modeling of skin or eyes?
Monday, August 31, 2009
facial recognition
As I'm reading IGN's interview with Peter Molyneux, I think about pets. No, not because Fable 2 has a dog. Pets come to mind because they demonstrate how personal something can be without verbal communication.
All a dog needs from you to respond accordingly is your face. Project Natal currently includes accurate enough facial recognition to distinguish one player from another, but I doubt it can detect all the subtle signs of emotion in a human face.
If a game publisher can create a camera system with that kind of accuracy at an affordable price, the sympathetic connection between players and game characters will be able to strengthen exponentially.
All a dog needs from you to respond accordingly is your face. Project Natal currently includes accurate enough facial recognition to distinguish one player from another, but I doubt it can detect all the subtle signs of emotion in a human face.
If a game publisher can create a camera system with that kind of accuracy at an affordable price, the sympathetic connection between players and game characters will be able to strengthen exponentially.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
3-D gaming
It will probably be a long time before 3-D gaming becomes mainstream. I doubt that news to you, because this new wave of 3-D tech and research is only beginning.
Every major Hollywood film publisher has at least one or two 3-D films in the works, and some reputable studios (like Spielberg's Dreamworks) have even spoke of making nothing but 3-D films soon. As Andrew Oliver at Blitz Games pointed out, it seems logical for game adaptations of 3-D films to also be 3-D. While such games might not be the next big thing, they are definitely coming.
Modern 3-D technology is far superior to the old tech. So it's unsurprising that a lot of people I've spoken to about it over the past couple years are not really excited about this movement among Hollywood directors. It's a technology that can be used poorly to make shoddy work, a tech that requires wisdom and imagination, so there are doubtlessly bad 3-D movies on the horizon. Some great directors believe all films will be 3-D eventually, but I think that's very debatable at this point.
Games. Yes, I know. I'm getting there slowly.
How many of you have been to an IMAX theater? I've been to several IMAX movies. They're impressive, but many people have trouble viewing them. IMAX presentations begin with a warning about nausea and point out the theater exits. People who are prone to motion sickness are especially vulnerable, but even people with stronger dispositions have trouble looking down into a canyon with startling scope and clarity.
So, finally, the point. The same problems will arise with 3-D games. The experience will be too intense for many gamers. Poor use of the technology by some will make 3-D a hard sell for better designers. But even when it's used masterfully, there will be questions of health, not to mention a whole new wave of concerns about interactive violence and mature content.
Anyway. What experiences have you had with 3-D technology? Did you enjoy it? Do the glasses bother you? Do you get disoriented? I'm looking forward to the 3-D shift, but I expect it will be many years before it hits television broadcasting or TV sales, despite Hollywood's apparent interests.
Every major Hollywood film publisher has at least one or two 3-D films in the works, and some reputable studios (like Spielberg's Dreamworks) have even spoke of making nothing but 3-D films soon. As Andrew Oliver at Blitz Games pointed out, it seems logical for game adaptations of 3-D films to also be 3-D. While such games might not be the next big thing, they are definitely coming.
Modern 3-D technology is far superior to the old tech. So it's unsurprising that a lot of people I've spoken to about it over the past couple years are not really excited about this movement among Hollywood directors. It's a technology that can be used poorly to make shoddy work, a tech that requires wisdom and imagination, so there are doubtlessly bad 3-D movies on the horizon. Some great directors believe all films will be 3-D eventually, but I think that's very debatable at this point.
Games. Yes, I know. I'm getting there slowly.
How many of you have been to an IMAX theater? I've been to several IMAX movies. They're impressive, but many people have trouble viewing them. IMAX presentations begin with a warning about nausea and point out the theater exits. People who are prone to motion sickness are especially vulnerable, but even people with stronger dispositions have trouble looking down into a canyon with startling scope and clarity.
So, finally, the point. The same problems will arise with 3-D games. The experience will be too intense for many gamers. Poor use of the technology by some will make 3-D a hard sell for better designers. But even when it's used masterfully, there will be questions of health, not to mention a whole new wave of concerns about interactive violence and mature content.
Anyway. What experiences have you had with 3-D technology? Did you enjoy it? Do the glasses bother you? Do you get disoriented? I'm looking forward to the 3-D shift, but I expect it will be many years before it hits television broadcasting or TV sales, despite Hollywood's apparent interests.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
mind games
If I were designing a game with mind control, I'd pit players against their own gut reactions.
In a normal video game, the player can imagine multiple moves before choosing one to activate with their hands on the controller. But if the game could discern what, generally, is going on in the players' minds, then it could test their instincts by removing that ability to consider before activation.
It would be kind of like removing the super-ego. In fact, it might be more fun if the game had something like the sanity meter of Eternal Darkness in which the player gradually succumbs to the danger of losing the super-ego's intervention. If the player's character becomes too sad or too angry, then the game temporarily shuts off the filter between the player's mind and character's actions, thereby simulating a fit of hysteria.
If you tell someone "Don't look!", he's probably going to look, right? Likewise, if you place a player in a situation in which his character would probably want to do terrible things (exact revenge, for example), effectively tell him "Don't do it!", and then turn off that mind-control filter... :)
It would be a hard game to design, but potentially a fresh sort of fun and storytelling. I hope the technology advances quickly.
In a normal video game, the player can imagine multiple moves before choosing one to activate with their hands on the controller. But if the game could discern what, generally, is going on in the players' minds, then it could test their instincts by removing that ability to consider before activation.
It would be kind of like removing the super-ego. In fact, it might be more fun if the game had something like the sanity meter of Eternal Darkness in which the player gradually succumbs to the danger of losing the super-ego's intervention. If the player's character becomes too sad or too angry, then the game temporarily shuts off the filter between the player's mind and character's actions, thereby simulating a fit of hysteria.
If you tell someone "Don't look!", he's probably going to look, right? Likewise, if you place a player in a situation in which his character would probably want to do terrible things (exact revenge, for example), effectively tell him "Don't do it!", and then turn off that mind-control filter... :)
It would be a hard game to design, but potentially a fresh sort of fun and storytelling. I hope the technology advances quickly.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
a natural slow-down for graphics tech?
Tipa said something interesting in this thread about PC gaming and graphics, as inspired by Tim Sweeney's ridiculous comments.
She's absolutely right that gaming has long been the driving force behind most PC hardware innovation. Without gaming, PCs would have developed akin to calculators, simple and small machines that perform just a handful of tasks and remain basically the same from decade to decade. Major advances would have been seen in laboratories, not in households.
But I'm wondering...
Last week, I watched a great video interview with Dennis Dyack of Silicon Knights. He spoke about the basic premise of Too Human, the moral and pragmatic questions surrounding technology, and mentioned how we in the post-industrial era place technology on such a high pedestal. We put tremendous faith in it as a solution to our problems and desires.
Perhaps, in our admiration for computing technology in the past 20-30 years, we've mistaken the rate of progress we're used to as sustainable. Perhaps Moore's Law is actually just the steep beginning of a curve which is soon to level out. The computer industry might still be only in its infancy, and the next stage of slower growth is nearing.
Or maybe we're nearing something similar to the Uncanny Valley, a point at which equal innovation produces less thrilling results. The jump from Halo graphics to Crysis graphics is not nearly as impressive as the jump from 2-D to 3-D environments.
We've been thinking that hardware progress will continue as it has forever, but we will eventually find ourselves in a situation where the systems we have are so adequate for our needs that progress is no longer a priority. Eventually, more people will be interested in fully exploring utilization of our present resources than expanding our resources.
My thoughts on this aren't clear in my own mind, so it's come out muddled. But can you see what I'm essentially getting at?
"Games requiring high-end graphics demand high-end gamers keep upgrading their systems, spurring the need for even better graphics cards, which means more games must take advantage of them in order to return the investment; and more processor is needed, requiring more development in processors and the supporting software to make them work.
High end games DRIVE THE ENTIRE PERSONAL COMPUTER INDUSTRY."
She's absolutely right that gaming has long been the driving force behind most PC hardware innovation. Without gaming, PCs would have developed akin to calculators, simple and small machines that perform just a handful of tasks and remain basically the same from decade to decade. Major advances would have been seen in laboratories, not in households.
But I'm wondering...
Last week, I watched a great video interview with Dennis Dyack of Silicon Knights. He spoke about the basic premise of Too Human, the moral and pragmatic questions surrounding technology, and mentioned how we in the post-industrial era place technology on such a high pedestal. We put tremendous faith in it as a solution to our problems and desires.
Perhaps, in our admiration for computing technology in the past 20-30 years, we've mistaken the rate of progress we're used to as sustainable. Perhaps Moore's Law is actually just the steep beginning of a curve which is soon to level out. The computer industry might still be only in its infancy, and the next stage of slower growth is nearing.
Or maybe we're nearing something similar to the Uncanny Valley, a point at which equal innovation produces less thrilling results. The jump from Halo graphics to Crysis graphics is not nearly as impressive as the jump from 2-D to 3-D environments.
We've been thinking that hardware progress will continue as it has forever, but we will eventually find ourselves in a situation where the systems we have are so adequate for our needs that progress is no longer a priority. Eventually, more people will be interested in fully exploring utilization of our present resources than expanding our resources.
My thoughts on this aren't clear in my own mind, so it's come out muddled. But can you see what I'm essentially getting at?
Monday, November 05, 2007
Crossing worlds
Keen and Graev just introduced me to The Eye of Judgment. Thankfully, I don't own a PS3, because I'd be completely obsessed with that game right now. I'm hoping it will eventually make its way to the 360, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Nothing I've seen has seemed so close to the holographic boardgame in the original Star Wars film (surprisingly, YouTube doesn't have a clip of that scene). The Wii games might also approach that dream, but the PS3 game captures some other element.
How else might a virtual world and the real world be connected in such a visceral way? How might you use the basic technology of The Eye of Judgment to create a fresh game experience?
I'll come back with some ideas of my own later.
Nothing I've seen has seemed so close to the holographic boardgame in the original Star Wars film (surprisingly, YouTube doesn't have a clip of that scene). The Wii games might also approach that dream, but the PS3 game captures some other element.
How else might a virtual world and the real world be connected in such a visceral way? How might you use the basic technology of The Eye of Judgment to create a fresh game experience?
I'll come back with some ideas of my own later.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The future of modeling?
http://labs.live.com/photosynth/video.html
By itself, that technology's awesome. I expect I'll be able to take excellent 3-D tours of half the major tourist attractions in the world 15 years from now. In addition, this seems to be a major step toward easier modeling of real objects.
If the human eye can discern an understanding of depth in 2-D representations, like photographs and paintings, then someone should be able to create software that does the same. We already have a rough ability to do this (apply the "sharpen" filter to a photograph half a dozen times and notice how it takes on a 3-D effect), though I'm not suggesting the invention of such software should be easy. Two-dimensional representations could be made three-dimensional.
If that can be accomplished to an acceptable degree of accuracy, think of how these two technologies could be combined! If software could accurately detect depth and distance in 2-D representations, and if those representations (now 3-D) could be linked into a combined model (similar to the products of Photosynth), then an entire real-world environment could be represented in a 3-D computer model by little more than taking a lot of photographs and processing them through the software.
The model would be almost entirely realistic (i.e., past the Uncanny Valley). No more trying to simulate the endless and unpredictable variety of textures, all of the minor flaws and eccentricities that give real objects believable character. The model of a house would have chipped paint in all the right places, settled supports in all the right places, windows with smudges, bricks with holes, and so on.
Of course, I realize that this technology won't come without significant hurdles. Even after it's accomplished, game developers would then have to figure out how to assign physics to the art which they didn't build piece-by-piece. They would have to go in after-the-fact to divide the art into sections for gameplay purposes. And that's just one hurdle.
Still, Photosynth seems to be an exciting development for game developers in particular. =)
By itself, that technology's awesome. I expect I'll be able to take excellent 3-D tours of half the major tourist attractions in the world 15 years from now. In addition, this seems to be a major step toward easier modeling of real objects.
If the human eye can discern an understanding of depth in 2-D representations, like photographs and paintings, then someone should be able to create software that does the same. We already have a rough ability to do this (apply the "sharpen" filter to a photograph half a dozen times and notice how it takes on a 3-D effect), though I'm not suggesting the invention of such software should be easy. Two-dimensional representations could be made three-dimensional.
If that can be accomplished to an acceptable degree of accuracy, think of how these two technologies could be combined! If software could accurately detect depth and distance in 2-D representations, and if those representations (now 3-D) could be linked into a combined model (similar to the products of Photosynth), then an entire real-world environment could be represented in a 3-D computer model by little more than taking a lot of photographs and processing them through the software.
The model would be almost entirely realistic (i.e., past the Uncanny Valley). No more trying to simulate the endless and unpredictable variety of textures, all of the minor flaws and eccentricities that give real objects believable character. The model of a house would have chipped paint in all the right places, settled supports in all the right places, windows with smudges, bricks with holes, and so on.
Of course, I realize that this technology won't come without significant hurdles. Even after it's accomplished, game developers would then have to figure out how to assign physics to the art which they didn't build piece-by-piece. They would have to go in after-the-fact to divide the art into sections for gameplay purposes. And that's just one hurdle.
Still, Photosynth seems to be an exciting development for game developers in particular. =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
