AC has a lot of nice touches. I walked out to my balcony and Arno did this. Game is buggy as shit, but the animators put in work.
The animators of AC have always been fucking god tier.
The problem is everyone else sucks.
It was absolutely amazing to watch Ezio's animations change from early AC2 to the end of Revelations.
Early AC2 he is a spry young man that can land on his feet and keep going, but old man Ezio leans on his feet, holds his back, and nearly cries out in pain.
The series has always had fantastic and beautiful animation, and its disappointing that its surrounded (mostly) by crap.
>>Very basic idle animations
It's not an idle animation though, it's a context sensitive thing. There's a whole bunch of em for just the balcony edge too, 3 different ones in fact. I know it's not like HOLY SHIT, but it shows that someone cared.
I'd like so too but then I recall that N64's Perfect Dark had shooting lights out and games from that period had reflective mirrors, two things you barely see anymore these days.
Ocarina of Time did this sixteen years ago.
I thought that once too
seriously, what is up with mirrors?!
i think we can't argue with the fact that there are some very very talented people at ubisoft that do care. im just waiting for the company to go to shit and the most talented ones to get together and form a company.
The animators, the art designers and asset creators. They do absolutely wonderful work, attention to detail everywhere, and do their damned best to make sure they're as accurate as they can be to the historical periods, among other things.
And then the programmers focus on implementing things like the somewhat-dynamic animations and movement and botch almost everything else. And the writers lose their touch and create generally bland casts with the occasional standout, as the disliked modern day portions are near-completely removed for the sake of inaccurate history porn with over-the-top fictional conspiracy theories thrown about.
It's actually somewhat depressing how much of a difference between the two sides of the coin there is. And that's not even getting into Ubisoft's problems as a publisher.
>but m-m-muh 2deep4u storyline!1!!!1!11!
If I had to guess it's that while graphics have become more complicated, I guess it would be more work to implement reflections. Or something. I dunno man, it just seems like laziness to me.
Not sure if you're serious here but I do fucking love that about GTA V, and I'm not even a fan of the franchise. But that game has so many little things and it really, truly adds so much to the game, I have to give credit where it's due.
I wish all of the animators would leave Ubisoft and go work somewhere else, because they all have a fucking love of the craft, man. As: >>272869951 said, they put in so much work for those games its actually mind boggling. Nearly every animation was changed when Ezio got old to show off how he was slowing down and getting older. Its beautiful.
>horribly stretched, muddy textures on the rock formations
>uneven distribution of texture resolutions along the landscape
>unusually calm waters with a suggestively thick viscosity like gelatin
>paper-cutout bushes, trees, and ponytails
>non anti-aliased view that makes distant objects look worse and jagged
>plastic-looking girl that looks far too clean to be in a natural environment like this.
>the spear on her back is obviously floating on her back
>unrealistic hair that looks like it took 5 cans of hairspray to stay stiff.
>You can also see the hair clip through her neck-pauldron thing
>the armor, while suggested to be leather or some sort of cloth mixed with mail, looks as stiff and thick as metal plate
>while they raycast her feet dynamically to the rock, her feet are not angled and she should be slipping off that rock by the next frame
>is this green shit on the landscape supposed to be moss or bushes, because I think they really like moss
Suspension of disbelief ruined, would not even entertain the idea of looking at the game website.
Thinking about it, there's literally a handful of times water appears in Infinite if I remember right, area-wise. And two of them were during non-combat sections.
Man, I don't even hate the game like the massive bandwagons out there, but it just was pretty disappointing. I'm glad my pre-order was mostly for XCOM and the other two Bioshocks instead of Infinite alone.
>Make the best FPS mechanics of all time
>Ten years later still da bes
>TECHNOLOGY and physics out the ass
>Couple it with mandatory SOSPOOKY parts and make the game some shitty pseudo-horror thing instead of going all out FPS goodness
Shit's actually dynamic. The thing is, everything's fucking flat so what's even the point.
It's no an animation but dynamic IK blending with the existing animations. You do a trace from the foot downwards to set the last feet bone to the position of the ground.
Please never talk in threads like this again when you don't know basic shit like this.
To be fair to the devs, it isn't really laziness. Its the fact they have a publisher breathing down their fucking neck telling them when to get everything done. If the people making AC, etc had the time they actually needed it would probably be amazing, with attention to detail everywhere.
>Are you literally comparing Link having one or two different animations
it wasn't different animations, link's feet would move according to the ground, which was and is still something rare to see.
The procedural animation stuff with Max Payne's movement systems and the different guns he carried were all really impressive.
Nearly any game that has slow-motion as a gimmick has some impressive work gone into it. I guess because you can scrutinize a shit animation easier in slomo
I don't even know, but it was intended for the Disk Drive addon until that flopped in Japan, and they had to chop the game down and rework a lot of stuff for the cartridge. Also, it wasn't being paraded as 'new', just as very fluid and dynamic to a reasonable degree.
It's called inverse kinematics. It's an old animation technique, but OP's AC example is a bit more complex in that it's affecting movement animations in realtime rather than the way Link would sort of hover/clip and then fall into that pose when you stop moving.
I remember hating ratchet and clank just for that reason, most western games don't use inverse kinematics, they use animations like sprite would, unlike pretty much all 3d capcom games, I'm not sure but from what I've seen western games are the lazy ones.
i think what really matters here is that no matter what link's feet could actually do, it gave you the impression that he was really there and touching the ground unlike... i dont know, take fallout 3's hover running for example.
>ubisoft PR trying to turn their dead game into a success
you already failed, you are the new EA.
also why don't you actually turn on the prediction instead of leaving it off so the characters look completely retarded.
or you know, make it so the game can actually run at a constant FPS instead of being completely worthless.
nintendo can get their games to run 60 FPS and they don't waste hundreds of millions of dollars on a game
then get over there and fuck em up, champ!
Sure you will.
Come on over.
I dare you. Come to my doorstep.
99% of all internet death threats never follow through. Why don't you come here and prove me wrong.
Fly your ass over to Norway right the fuck now.
>I'm not sure but from what I've seen western games are the lazy ones.
Like that other anon said, you only played weabooshit.
Oh no. Whatever should I do?
What if this schmuck rings my doorbell? I'm too socially anxious to even touch my front door. I'd have to call my mother to roll me out of my room and open it for me.
My one weakness!
max payne 3 sound track is god tier, i hope gta5 has a custom station because pretty much the whole soundtrack would fit on so well while driving around the city, especially shells and painkiller.
I remember watching something that mentioned how EVERY significant event or death of a significant historical figure seemed to be the result of the Assassins or Templars.
Brotherhood broke new ground by having Cesare be the murderer of his own father instead it being Ezio, but even that's technically the result of a Templar, it was just a Templar killing another Templar.
What the fuck happened to this thread we've got internet tumblresque death threats flying everywhere now
I don't need a fucking cream puff telling me what's what, I'll meet you and I'll beat you like a lil bitch nigga. 21.30, Sola flyplass, Brisen Bar.
See you there sugartits.
makes me so fucking mad that the game runs like shit on my computer
goddamnit i like the ac games and would love to play the new one ;_;
>pic related my fucking shit
Another waste, because they could have done pretty neato thing with water and the electric vigor, but no ... all we got was a water puddle here and there in a huge fucking area where no enemy even gets close to the puddle to get electrocuted.
envionment feedback is soo cool
i love distroying everything
its quite boring when objects are completly indestructible and you can't even knock out things
somewhat unrelated, this made me remember about the first assassins creed game where you could glitch and jump inside the bureau without trigerring the fixed camera cutscenes, so you'd free run inside it, and you could knock off Malik's mug/cup on the ground. it was amusing
>fighting over TECHNOLOGY
A once great man said "the wind is the war and our dreams the salt of the earth". Why do you anons keep fighting? 4chan should be a place of discussion not shout battles. I'm not sure if this is just something norweagens do, I've never met one, and after this thread I never intend to. You seem a bitter and an angry race. Just enjoy your video games and participate in peaceful discussion, 'tis the 4chan way.
>That feel when you want to get into AC but just can't get along with Stealth games or half of the settings.
you're a frenchman in precisely one of the what, seven, games. typically the best solution to a problem is to slaughter everybody around you, running away is actually more difficult. I made it a habit of trying to knock out people who weren't my target instead of killing them just to make the game more challenging.
>thinking it's pseudo-horror
Don't know about you but the backstory alone is already fucked up and very much horror.
>tfw they will never make a F.E.A.R. movie like the short movie on the game disc
>play Dead Space 1
>walk onto bridge
>meteorite crashes through the bridge
>Isaac gets startled and reacts to it
It's something so little but it still impresses me to this day because there are so very few games where the characters react to things happening around them.
>get in cover
>baddies shoot at cover, stone splinters are going everywhere
>Drake Fortune cowers lower and uses his hands to protect his head
Seriously, devs. Implement those things into your game.
>get in cover behind a pillar
>enemy gets in cover behind a diffrent pillar
>he jumps out of cover to shoot and hides after that, like dumb A.I. always does
>one time while he is in cover I change my position to a third pillar
>enemy jumps out again and shoots at my previous position
>A.I. is smart enough to simulate a dumb pirate
Some day, 20 some odd years down the road the children will ask 'what where video games wolves like in your day grandpa?"
Because we were there. We were there when video game wolves changed.
>daily reminder that nintentoddlers are the cancer slowing down graphics and new technology, we would all be playing 8k by now if nintendo didn't exist.
>to be a true assassin, you must learn to crouch
>no, not that simple bent knee crap, you must TRULY crouch! Crouch until you and the floor are one, for no man suspects their own floorboards
>seriously, what is up with mirrors?!
It's a difficult issue. The old mirrors from around 2000, like in Perfect Dark, or Deus Ex, were done by having a transparent wall (mirror) and geometry behind this wall. That geometry looked identical to the room the character was in. Rendering such a mirror is ZERO overhead. It's in no way any different to rendering a normal hallway.
However there's a problem with it: it does not work well when physics are involved. Why? Because physics act on certain objects in the room. When you do a mirror the conventional way though, you would have to duplicate all these objects AND make sure they behave identical on both sides of the mirror, which is a bad special case for physics engines. That's a pain to manage. On top of that, these mirrors are perfectly flat, no distortion or damage possible, which makes them ill-fitting for most mirror use cases.
Now, modern mirrors in games are done differently. Instead of mirroring the geometry, the mirror shows a texture. A texture that's computed in realtime. To produce this texture, a virtual camera is placed behind the mirror, where the player would stand if mirrored, and facing into the room the player is in. Then the entire scene is rendered, to a texture. This texture is then put on the mirror. As you can tell from the description it effectively means TWICE the rendering work. The bigger the mirror, the more expensive the rendering process is. Such mirrors will work with physics though. On top of that, they even handle mirrors that are not perfectly flat. Puddles, car paint reflecting the environment, it's all the same mechanism.
tl;dr: old mirrors were very cool, easy to make, but limited in application. New mirrors are more versatile, but more expensive to use
How can you be immersed when there are floating words and a bunch of post processing at your face at every corner. I played all of them again recently and Max Payne 1 is still the best.
You want some gaming technology? Have some fucking gaming technology.
It's the year 1999, just a little before the aforementioned Perfect Dark. What do we have here though?
- terrain unbounded by polygon count
- insane viewing distance
- full screen antialiasing
- dynamic LOD (not just LOD levels but transparent adjustment)
- depth of field
- interactive water with reflections and refractions, based on viewing angle
- particle engine
All that on a freaking SOFTWARE engine. Outcast did effects that we wouldn't see again for almost a full decade, when shader technology finally was powerful enough to replicate these effects
modern gaming isn't different. All the shit there will not be used in real time in most game, they will run a simulation, save the data and replay it in game as a standard animation with a few condition parameters. Because no matter what, the game is in control of its environment. It's especially true for special effects involving particles and light. It's easier to record a sed of animated textures than run a dynamic lighting. Most games only have one or two real light source at once. the rest is texture tricks.
By 1999 standard? it was one of the best looking game.
Physical interactions are usually not recorded and played back. Way too many variables. I'm talking about particle interactions, not walls crumbling.
While the game is indeed in control of the environment, physics engines usually do not account for any potential object existing twice. The only workaround is to have a second object, with its own computations. Then you run the problem that it might not be entirely deterministic and the mirror does not match the original.
As for lighting, Doom 3 was famous for having NO baked in light sources at all. The textures in Doom 3 are diffuse maps in the sense of the word. They merely determine what light from light sources is diffusely reflected.
The darkness in the game is in part because of the limited number of sanely managable light sources at the time. Also a reason why outdoors environments would slow to a crawl.
It's not been repeated though, I give you that. Most modern games use massively baked in lighting, with only minor shadow effects multiplied on top
The GBA was very 3D capable since day one. I blame people thinking of it as a portable SNES, that held back a lot of its abilities. When developers embraced the hardware they managed some interesting feats. While that Asterix game looks not bad, I prefer V-Rally 3 as my showcase example for GBA abilities.
Yes, it is, and not really pushing its abilities either. The key was figuring out efficient division, since the GBA only had a software version of that instruction, and it's kind of crucial for 3D. Once a developer had an engine though, this was fairly standard
most of those physical effect are only applied to the MC in most games. or are just applied individually to each mobile without caring about effect interactions. The only thing they do in real time is reverse kinematics like the leg following each stair steps. But even those tends to be hacked by providing imperfect, simplified hitboxes.
That's because you're thinking in terms of physical space. You can trivially produce overlapping rooms in 3D. Then you make sure that the overlapping room is only visible through certain "holes" (called portals). There are a bunch of games out there using that effect in more disturing ways, by allowing the player to enter the room. Stanley Parable is a recent example, Antichamber another
Maybe we are talking about different things. When I talk about physical interaction and mirrors I refer to stuff like the usual physics puzzles, with barrels falling down and junk, interacting with each other, glass shards falling down, etc. That stuff's usually done by a simple rigid body dynamics engine, and done in realtime. However these engines tend to act a little non-deterministic, because order of processing matters. So there's a realistic chance the two would get out of sync
to clarify: portal not in the sense of the swirly blue or orange disk from the game of the same name. In level design a portal is nothing but an invisible polygon. It could "cover" a door, for example, and the player could walk through there without ever realizing it. You only see the other room through the door. Normally they're used to cull objects (if you don't see the door, don't bother sending the other room to the GPU), but you can do neat little mindfucks like mirrors or antichamber with it
notice how this video is not a game? Your system is usually busy doing a lot of game related stuff on top of the graphics. That means you have less power available than during this entirely "static" simulation. Consoles have nothing to do with it
dude, the game is console exclusive now, maybe in future they will release it on the pc too.
No. It doesn't look like wet bath tiles, it looks like exaggerated wet plastic.
All they had to do was tone the shininess down and reflections, to give it a more matte look.
I don't prefer any weapons at all in my horror games. Call of Cthulhu DCoTE went to shit as soon as you got the first pistol.
I'm not saying that it's because of just that one reason, but the shift in tone and way you played the game once you acquired weapons changed drastically.
But the guns are not to fight the horror elements. They are there to kill some clones inbetween Alma tries to rape you.
P.S: funny thing about the AI is that even if you are supossed to be fighting telepathic controlled clones, they act more naturally than most of the enemies in games. They curse, they try to outsmart you, they FEAR you when you go matrix.
Yes,I know it's smoke and mirrors.
>always played Lovecraftian table top games like Mansions of Madness as the thick headed tough guy
>loved every second of it
>try it out in horror themed video games
It's not the same when my shooting and dodging isn't tied to a die roll, it's way too fucking easy to shoot my way straight through all the baddies and bitch slap the elder gods
Mfw theres nothing wrong with the new system
Technology and just needs to
But what if the telepathic controlled clones seem unrealistic because of how realistic they act.
This is going to be one of the few games that can use VXGI on a console. It's not like SOVGI like Nvidia/Unreal engine, it's the Cone Tracing verision.
It's runs in real time, and the only reason why deformed model is because of the limitations to the consoles and the amount of space in the game.
It's ok, but not impressive.
Driver 3 use the same engine of V-rally, even the Stuntman port.
Conker's Bad Fur Day on the N64 could be the most technologically advanced, hardware pushing title from that generation of console hardware. They're low resolution, but the game even has real time character dynamic shadows that move accurately alongside moving dynamic light sources.
Rare did wonders.
The advantage of Voxel rendering is not in the visual quality. It's in the rendering mechanism. It can be pretty much set up without polygon count limits, so it does not matter how "busy" a scene is, and a fair share of voxel engines produce gradually more detailed imagery, so the algorithm can be interrupted at any time. The net result is a guaranteed framerate and highly dynamic LOD native to the engine
woah, i think there is a new technology ubisoft should introduce called, something happens when you press the button. half the time in unity when you press the button arno doesnt do shit like he's charizard and you dont have enough badges to train him.
>that lightning striking the ground
Ramuh fight confirmed
and? The sprite works very well. Why is that a problem? Why would I accept blocky looking cars because "muh polygons"? The job of games is to play well and look nice, by any means necessary
And shit dude.
We are talking about "mhu technology" shit, not about how fancy are some disgusting, static, sprites.
This is all abot the power m8, we don't care about how it looks.
>sprites detection hit on driving games are shit
It looks great but it also looks way too boring and uncreative to be a Final Fantasy game, which is exactly why it will flop.
That and it's guaranteed to be a fucking movie game of course.
>We are talking about "mhu technology" shit
Right, and V-Rally has some nicer looking physics and less glitchy environment than Smash Cars, has more stable looking cars, was two years earlier and the first game to pull this stunt.
>This is all abot the power m8, we don't care about how it looks.
That's not how game tech works
>sprites detection hit on driving games are shit
The visuals of the car are unrelated to the collision detection, in both games
I'm happy as long as I can look down and see my feet and shoot a corpse and actually have it react rather than the bullet clipping through it and hitting the ground/wall/whatever on the other side.
i fucking love beamng
but you niggers are forgetting about "fuel" that game was WAY ahead of its time, with the way the map generated.
Just FYI, in a post-BSP design era, portals are no longer "trivial" to implement in this way.
Go find anyone trying to implement noncontiguous geometry in any modern 3D engine and see the hoops they have to fucking jump through.
The problem is typically that rendering geometry across a noncontiguous space isn't difficult but passing objects and traces through it, and trying to calculate lighting across it, is.
Antichamber got around this by using basically no lighting and a first person view with very few moving objects, which masked the discontinuity. And there are still places where you can see the seams, places where the resolution of the capture render isn't sufficient to convince you of the continuity.
you don't understand what an accomplishment it is to put a map that size into a game that fits onto 1 cd
The game is groundbreaking, sure it wasn't particularly fun, but i play it just because of the map
It is the future of game map generation
maps are only there to provide a scene, atmosphere and house other objects if you take any game, remove all the NPCs, actionable objects and such it will be just the same.
If you think otherwise youre not thinking
>Go find anyone trying to implement noncontiguous geometry in any modern 3D engine and see the hoops they have to fucking jump through.
Do they have to jump through the hoops because of the engine, or because of the editors? It sounds a little like the latter, to me. I do recall that Doom 3 generations like a couple dozen portals for even simple rooms, to cull stuff as early as possible. So they're still there and used heavily.
>The problem is typically that rendering geometry across a noncontiguous space isn't difficult but passing objects and traces through it, and trying to calculate lighting across it, is.
I suppose that makes sense with indirect lighting, like radiosity and stuff, where they need to figure out propagation beyond simple rays, because for rays portals and odd geometry are no special cases at all.
>you can see the seams, places where the resolution of the capture render isn't sufficient to convince you of the continuity
I don't get that bit, do you have a screenshot or something at hand to show this issue?
>you don't understand what an accomplishment it is to put a map that size into a game that fits onto 1 cd
It's probably just a fraction of the disc as well. Procedural generation is cool like that. See also Elite for one of the earliest examples of stupidly huge worlds in stupidly little memory
>sure it wasn't particularly fun
Please elaborate. I'm still a bit on the edge about the game, but after having played TDU 1 and 2, I'm seeking a similiar "driving" experience
Fish Files did high color and large sprites on the GBC much better, in my opinion.
Of course the uncrowned king of demos on the GBC will forever be Tyrannosaurus Tex.
Apparently it had a low metacritic score because it skimped out on being a good racing game.
Like someone just wanted to sell the massive world and the quickest way to make it into a game was to put roads and cars on it.
TDU and TDU2 both got ripped to pieces for their physics, but I enjoy them a lot. Also, I deliberately said "driving" experience, because it seems like Fuel has intentions to be one, instead of just a racer
Mainly from playing the game.
But, the last time I heard it mentioned was during one of those developer commentary videos on ratchet and clank 1 (one of the last few, where they're talking about insomniac and their experience with only having one piece of 3d modelling software and making the rest of the game in excel)
That's what the pic is trying to show? Seems like 2nd row right is the actual model used during development. Bottom right is SOME model textured, maybe the model from top right, which seems to be derived from the high polygon model. Stuff on the left looks like autogenerated something, but no idea what for. Looks too low poly to be useful in a modern racing game.
It was actually mentioned in some other threads, in an old interview an autistic programmer spoke about that. Let me see if I can find the video.
No, it's the engine.
The problem is, you can create these noncontiguous spaces, but they still have to be defined in terms of world coordinates. Just to trace across a portal actually requires that the portal be able to determine where it was hit with a trace and at what angle (trivial), what the nature/function of the trace was (nontrivial), and create a new corresponding trace on the partner portal to carry it on.
To actually transport visible physics objects across the plane without error is especially challenging because of the lack of contiguous space in world coordinate terms. If you read the stuff on it, getting the actual portal continuity working in Portal was an extremely complex process.
Believe me, I wish it WERE trivial to implement. So many types of game would benefit from a little non-euclidean geometry. But it's surprisingly challenging to get working with all the other stuff the game is expected to do.
For Antichamber all I can think of is a portal back to "Walk?"; the detail there is high enough that you can see where Bruce is using like a 480p scene capture actor and until you pass through the UTPortal plane everything looks low-def.
>create a new corresponding trace on the partner portal to carry it on.
There is no partner portal. A portal is just a polygon. The geometry is directly attached on either side. I'm not talking about teleporting mechanisms, like done in Build engine. The world coordinates of spaces simply overlap. As in, there is more than one piece of geometry at the same place.
>getting the actual portal continuity working in Portal was an extremely complex process
Yeah, I emphasized that I am not refering to the teleport stuff done in Portal, the game.
Oh well if we're JUST talking about using portal rendering for mirrors, then yeah.
I thought we had drifted into a conversation about using them for noncontiguous spaces like in Antichamber, which is significantly more complicated.
No, it's not. It's the exact same thing. The only difference between a mirror and noncontiguous space is that the mirror causes wall collisions.
To elaborate: In this gif there are two hallways, at orthogonal angles. You can see the initial one right at the start of the gif. The other hallway already exists right across it, but it's invisible because there's no portal to it in sight. Once the character sidesteps, the portal (space between the two pillars) comes into vision and the other hallway is shown there. When the player crosses that portal, he ends up on the exact same world coordinates than if he went straight ahead at first. There's no warping, teleporting or jumping. The collision detection is blissfully unaware of portals either. If the player goes straight, he crosses the portal into the straight hallway, which has walls left and right. If he goes the orthogonal hallway, collision checks are simply performed against different geometry, at the same place.
Now, it's valid as far as technology is concerned. However I'm not sure what's special about this animation, what makes it stand out from other sprite animations. I was under the impression that this thread is about highlighting technology. I do not see what this image tries to highlight
I got halfway through Black Fag and then never bothered playing it again, haven't played Unity either, do we ever find out what happened with Juno taking over the world and shit or have they just completely abandoned that part of the world just because the "wahh modern parts suck" crowd kept crying rivers of tears?
Dammit, meant to say "no". The animation looks like prerendered 3D, which was common back then. Maybe it's about the fluidity? Sprite size? Quality of the model? I don't know
That scene in Stanley Parable is particularly telling, in fact. Because the impossible hallway does not EXIST in those world coordinates. It exists somewhere else on the map entirely. Looking at it is fine, but moving across it is another matter. You have to enable objects to "leap" to a different set of world-space coordinates.
Now, with a First-Person game with nothing mobile in it, this isn't a particular challenge. But consider the OP post, which uses traces on a third person character to build procedural walk animations. When the player crosses that plane, his legs will break to shit. For an instant, one of the IK traces will be in the main level and one of them will be halfway across the map in some isolated corner (which contains the impossible hallway, by itself, with portal surfaces on either side), causing his skeleton's legs to explode.
What about when the player capsule's center is still on the "main geometry" portion of the map, but part of it is passed through the portal? The object itself has yet to be teleported to the new location, so it clips incorrectly. If we had a second player on the other side of the portal, for instance, our player's capsule would be unable to detect that it had collided with him until he was far enough through the portal for the capsule to be teleported to the other side.
This is the kind of stuff I mean. Rendering the space is one thing, but moving around it is another. It's noncontiguous, and even the most basic physics or collision systems HAVE to assume that geometry is contiguous.
Get a load of this shit
Go to 12:50
>That scene in Stanley Parable is particularly telling, in fact. Because the impossible hallway does not EXIST in those world coordinates
Then that's definitely a bad level model. There is no reason to not overlap the geometry.
I fully understand the difficulty of a teleporting portal. Why you would want to use that though, I don't know. Portals for visible geometry are absolute standard fare. Like I said, Doom 3 has dozens per room, to cull geometry early on. I still think we're talking about entirely different things.
I don't know what's going on here. Either the editors restrict overlapping geometry, or devs can't deal with it. An engine shouldn't give a damn about overlapping geometry, just what's connected where.
>When the player crosses that plane, his legs will break to shit. For an instant, one of the IK traces will be in the main level and one of them will be halfway across the map in some isolated corner
Not if the portal is merely a polygon for visibility purposes and the geometry is in the same place.
>What about when the player capsule's center is still on the "main geometry" portion of the map, but part of it is passed through the portal? The object itself has yet to be teleported to the new location, so it clips incorrectly
All geometry is in the same location, there is no splitting or teleporting.
>This is the kind of stuff I mean. Rendering the space is one thing, but moving around it is another
Not if you don't do teleporting.
Sorry if I repeat myself, but we're talking about entirely different concepts, really. You're refering to a mechanism connecting two entirely different segments of the world, and the portal acting like some kind of screen. I'm talking about an invisible polygon that sits in the BSP and determines what's behind it and what not. Look at >>272891010 (thanks, mate, I was trying to find it). There's no teleporting there. You just can't see the room unless you look through the portal(where it says "cell block")
Right back to the same place. Think of it as an elongation of the space between those two columns; if you walk through it, you wind up on the other side, just like with the rest of the columns, it's just stretched out to an impossibly long size.
FYI you can only see it if you follow the Adventure Line. If you try to skip forward and turn left, it isn't there, but if you follow the line and turn right, it's there, leading out to the place you WOULD have been when you skipped forward and turned left.
A clever effect, actually.
>Enjoying the technology thread
>Start to think about Spore.
>But from all I know you CAN not make overlapping world spaces in Hammer Editor (Source Engine).
Which brings us back to >>272886850
>Do they have to jump through the hoops because of the engine, or because of the editors?
If the editor restricts overlapping geometry, that's their problem. There is no computational reason to make that restriction. It's only for the sanity of the person using the tool that the space acts "normal"
Build engine above, is real 3D. All mirrors found in Perfect Dark, P.O.D., Deus Ex or Doom 3, are real 3D, built using rooms behind the mirrors. In many of these cases there is not enough physical space behind these mirrors to fit the mirrored rooms in there. It's fine, because the geometry overlaps. In the case of Unreal/Deus Ex, the editor allows to declare mirrors and then the editor takes care of generating the duplicate geometry, without showing it to the user
> There's no teleporting there. You just can't see the room unless you look through the portal(where it says "cell block")
Which is not how the Stanley Parable did it, nor COULD it have, because of where the hallway spits you out.
Think about it. If you walk a straight line starting at (10,0,0) and ending at (20,0,0) and in between you cover 800 units of geometry, SOMETHING has to be teleported. Your example of overlapping-non-colliding invisible geometry only makes sense when the difference between the entrance and exits to the "portal world" are the same for both the main map's geometry and the portal maps geometry.
That isn't how it worked in Stanley Parable, that isn't how it worked in Antichamber, that isn't how it worked in either Portal game, it isn't how it works in UT or Nexuiz or Xonotic, it isn't how it worked in Star Fox 64, in fact apart from that one example you just quoted I've NEVER seen it work that way.
>thinking about any game where "we had x amazing mechanic but it was removed because we found it was too complicated"
>Think about it. If you walk a straight line starting at (10,0,0) and ending at (20,0,0) and in between you cover 800 units of geometry, SOMETHING has to be teleported
I will give you that, for sure. My points merely work for overlapping geometry, not for covering odd distances
>That isn't how it worked in Stanley Parable, that isn't how it worked in Antichamber, that isn't how it worked in either Portal game
All of these games (you convinced me regarding Stanley and I suspect the same for Antichamber) do more than overlapping geometry and actually have non-euclidean distances. That requires indeed porting.
>it isn't how it works in UT
I don't recall any non-physical geometry in UT. Mirrors aside, obviously, and they were indeed the described overlapping geometry, because it's so trivial and straightforward to implement
jaysus christ these boyos are a qwere pair a bollocks
So, in >>272891010 there's actual teleporting or not?
because sure, i think you can work out the visuals with those invisible polygon-portals, but how about the colliders? are those enabled or disabled right as duke crosses the portal?
UT (or maybe 2?) had a couple maps with non-euclidean space.
I know this because of all the players bitching about how trace weapons dead-ended at them because they teleported actors but traces weren't programmed to continue through them.
Building a map out of overlapping geometry and using a trigger volume to disable collision with one set or another is clever and solves quite a few problems but it only works for that narrow set of circumstances where the entrances to the non-euclidean space are positioned exactly the same relative to one another in both the main map and the alternate map.
For stuff like infinitely wrapping maps, impossibly large hallways/rooms interior relative to exterior, doors that work differently from each side, infinite circular hallways, etc., i.e. every "staple" example of non-euclidean geometry, you have to teleport stuff.
You don't need warping if the coordinate system stays intact, I stick to that. There is no main or alternative map, as they exist in the same place.
No question regarding the cases you mentioned in the last paragraph. That requires teleporting. I suppose the majority of our argument was a misunderstanding of the actual model. I was assuming the model is overlapping, but not distorted. You assumed exclusively distortion
>but how about the colliders? are those enabled or disabled right as duke crosses the portal?
Pretty much the same way the geometry works. It's connected. Cross the portal to trigger which set of "colliders" as you call them, is active.
Pace notes. They encode the direction and "tightness" of turns, as well as anything else the driver needs to be aware of, like bumps, ditches, places where they can't cut corners, etc. The exact form of pace notes varies from team to team. Some call out the tightness of the turn as a number, others call out the recommended speed, or the gear or what ever else.
Also, that dude is high as fuck
so you can "pack" like ten different 10x10 m rooms in a single 10x10 space, taking care that no door to another room ends up in such space perimeter?
if it's so, it's neat
I saw the facial animations of that one "Hidden Ending" of FC4 and I don't have any desire to play, download, or buy that game.
I haven't touched FC since FC2, or an Ubi game since I pirated Blood Dragon since they started forcing Uplay down my throat.
But GODDAMN can those people learn to animate and sync up voice actors.
>In Ultima Online, the player was a container — one you couldn’t open, but which held your equipped items, your backpack which was the container you could actually see, etc. Because of the freeform “gump”1 style containment system used in the Ultimas, you could position anything to any location in a container, which meant they were basically treated like maps, with coordinate systems in them.
>Then we added mounts.
>When you rode a horse, we simply put the horse inside the player, and spawned a pair of pants that looked like your horse, which you then equipped and wore.
>When we first did this, however, we forgot to make the horse stop acting like a horse. Pretty soon there was a rash of server crashes because the horse inside the player was wandering around, picking up the stuff it found inside the player, rifling through the player’s backpack and eating things it thought were edible, and eventually, wandering “off the map” because the player’s internal coordinate system was pretty small, and the edges weren’t impassable.
It certainly looks cool
It's been in development for a very long time if that's any indicator. At least 6 years.
It's currently in early access on steam so I'm not touching right now.
I haven't played in a long time due to low playerbase and lag the last time.
The first time it was years ago when they had a playable demo on their site. The level switched lightning ever so often. When it turned nearly pitchblack it had really neat fighting with no one wanting to use their flashlight or laser first because you'd get spotted and die.
They showed some teasers of more levels with the same theme of light vs dark. One being an asteroid base that rotated around making for pretty rapid day/night cycles.
I think the steam release has brighter darkness but I can't be too sure if it's still that way. It was nothing like the first demo.
Well, it's a real game, and a pretty good one, actually. It's an action adventure. Graphics aside it also has some distinguishing features. The story takes place in 4 or 5 worlds (it's been long ago, sorry). There's a central hub with the bad dude you're trying to get rid of, and outside worlds providing resources to the bad dude. By completing the story lines of the individual worlds you reduce resources for the bad dude, weaking their guards. You could pretty much attack the bad dude right away, but he's fiercly difficult until weakened as far as you want.
Also, cool stuff like NPCs having a but of a (mis)trust thing going on with you, NPCs showing you where to find objectives/buildings, etc.
The game did a lot of really cool stuff and is definitely worth a playthrough. You will have to accept dated graphics though. Even at its release the 640x480 (800x600) was a bit too low. But that was due to using a software renderer. The resulting visuals though, make up for the low resolution, and the gameplay itself is quality
I'm not sure how much is trolling and how much is curiousity, but just for the sake of it: It is possible, and normal, to compile code on one platform that targets another. For example nobody wrote GB games on a GB. Instead a normal computer was used, targetting the GB hardware.
As for that editor, the case is even weirder there. While the binary of a game is platform specific, assets aren't necessarily. You could load a jpg image on a playstation, if you got a jpg library, just like you could load the same jpg on a computer, if you got a jpg library. The libraries are specifc, but the data they use, works cross platform. The same concept applies to meshes, models, textures, even high level scripts. All these things can be developed on one platform and readily used on another.
So you're telling me that people develop console games on PCs but can't test the games on the PC because they only run on the console even though they code it on PC wat
I actually just don't understand why they don't run on PC when they program the entire thing on PC
The window grabs are really terrible in that game
>eh its +/- 10ft for getting through a windows, no one will notice
i would have just had built in jump arcs for when you were going to jump into a window
maybe to clarify normal development process a bit: Games are developed on PC workstations. Windows or Linux doesn't really matter. What ever the Software Development Kit (SDK) of the platform requires. The code written on these Windows or Linux machines is then translated into machine code for the target system, for example a PS4. The Windows machine the code was compiled on can not run this binary. It is then transfered to a development system, an ugly looking PS4, and ran there. It's possibly connected for additional logging and debugging data. The cycle of writing on computer, compiling on computer, copying to ps4, running on ps4 continues until the game is done.
As for why these games don't run on PC: the machine code, the result of the compilation, is very different. The combination of hardware and libraries is the so called "environment" where a program runs. For a windows game that's the PC, the drivers, and Windows itself. Games for Windows do assume all these things are in place, will call drivers to poll input or write graphics.
None of this exists on the PS4, obviously, it is a different environment. When writing the code, you can assume the PS4 environment, and, for example, call instructions that only a PS4 understands. The compiler will translate this into the instructions the PS4 expects. That code can not run on Windows, because the instructions and environment are wrong
I suppose is like mobile development but without a emulator, you connect the hardware and the thing you compiled is uploaded to the device that may or may not be a proper development hardware, I think old consoles all had dev hardware
You're missing the point. Imagine you have a high end computer, most powerful thing imaginable. Then you write the coolest shaders and physics to make really stunning graphics. When you're done, your PC is 100% busy running these bleeding edge effects. That means you can not write a game around this. A game needs a game loop, world update, AI, networking code, all this stuff. The demo sucked up all your resources and there's nothing left for the game. That is a problem independent of the system it's written for. Graphics demos do not contain game logic, because game logic consumes resources you want to use for the looks
no, it gets pantnted for like 200 years and will never see the light of day and if anyone wants to do somthing similer it is the technological development cycle from the ground up all over agian.
>tl;dr: old mirrors were very cool, easy to make, but limited in application. New mirrors are more versatile, but more expensive to use
Isn't it funny how it's really the opposite in real life? Wow.
First off nobody said anything about importance or even popularity, the relevance is in the specific techniques. Secondly you'd probably be dead wrong in defining what made OoT groundbreaking or otherwise important despite it being well-liked by many including myself.
Doom 3 had this in 2004 and it was a first person game
This post is too logical for /v/.
There can be no intelligence here, only shitposting.
>space sharks fucking everything up
>fire suppresion system is covering your face in water
>can't see shit, can't hear shit
>gotta yell over to your buddy
>actually have to remove your mask
this game has promise, I can't wait for it to be done.
It's been in development for 10 or something years and only has 2 playable weapons. An SMG and a rifle. It's STILL in early access and uses the shitty Unity engine. This should tell you enough
The devs said back then they were fed up with the low polygon limits of accelerators at the time. They didn't allow for vast organic landscapes. So they decided to just not use them, and instead did a voxel engine. There were other famous voxel games, like most things by Novalogic, but that was before the accelerators took over
>that goes for most games
You said it yourself, it applies to most, not all. Could it be that, just like almost every other engine, Unity still requires developer skill? You can produce junk with everything. The question is, can you do good stuff with Unity? Even you admitted just now, you can.
>John Carpenter's The Thing
This game is cursed. I've tried it maybe on three computers and it never runs correctly. You'd think that being software would mean that it has less obscure dependencies or points of failure, nope.
the graphics are software rendered, but there are still plenty things that can go wrong with the remainder, like DirectPlay, or folder structure. On top of that, games that need to be stingy with cycles often don't have any form of timing loop, since that would cost cycles. That can be a problem when CPUs become vastly more powerful (like, they have, since 2000)
Voxels are a very capable alternative, even today. The main problem is, they are not natively supported by modern hardware. Thanks to ever growing shader capabilities though we're starting to do voxel rendering in the shaders, which is effectively massively parallel software rendering, but at least it performs. Regardless, NovaLogic's voxel engines were gorgeous. Even the later commance stuff
Why do game devs still use unreal engine? It's the biggest anti technology ever.
It can't not make every surface look wet and shiney.