I still have no idea what this game even is, and all the worlds I see in these trailers look the exact same.
[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;48995431]Haha of course not yet but it definitely will. You have no faith in math.
Computers have already started analyzing art and generating new art in styles of old:
[img]http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE1LzA4LzI5Lzc3L3RybnNmcm0xLjMyYmFhLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/0759661a/74b/trnsfrm1.jpg[/img]
I wouldn't worry about software engineering problems. I'm sure there are multiple methods that deal with this, either analytically or through other techniques like Simulated anealing, genetic programming, mesh deforming, w/e.
Yes, they use L-systems which model living organisms using math and language. So they started with a whole bunch of hand made templates to start with, parameterized everything, made a system of hierachy/ancestry which governs the passing of traits between related species. They then trained this system to have some understanding of art and coherence so that each planet fits aesthetically.[/QUOTE]
I think you are missing the point here. In some games you can wander of, find some funny looking door, open it and find a joke, a secret, or some personal message from some random dev. At that moment you realize some guy out there was not just coding a game, he was having fun doing it, and he left something personal right there. No math or algorithm can match that.
This can be said for the entire game too. That is why I don't really like proceduraly made content, it just isn't personal.
[QUOTE=Giraffen93;48994225]thanks for the laugh mang
no procedurally generated anything will come even close to the detail and structure made manually[/QUOTE]
you're so wrong. get ready becasue in ~10 years when dev tools will rely on procedural creation. the industry is already taking a sharp turn in this direction.
Dat 30° Field of view.
Hype and expectations for this game have reached such a ridiculous level that no matter what the game does and how good it is, it will disappoint people.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48996005]I think you are missing the point here. In some games you can wander of, find some funny looking door, open it and find a joke, a secret, or some personal message from some random dev. At that moment you realize some guy out there was not just coding a game, he was having fun doing it, and he left something personal right there. No math or algorithm can match that.
This can be said for the entire game too. That is why I don't really like proceduraly made content, it just isn't personal.[/QUOTE]
Procedural content does not imply a lack of personal drive. That accusation is ludicrous and the example you gave is one that will never be seen. A new technology doesn't prevent a dev from sticking an easter egg wherever they want.
Currently most development software is moving in the direction of using procedurally driven systems to enable designers to focus on creating. This is the total opposite of what you're trying to claim. These videos are surely not anything nobody's seen before. However, it takes a lack of understanding to not realize that procedural generation will allow us to make better art (read: games).
[video=youtube;N6pdeECc5d4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6pdeECc5d4[/video]
They used procedural materials on H2A which enabled [B]3 artists[/B] to remaster the game. Later in the talk he stretches this into the logical future and explains how procedural generation can allow better art. [B]Jump to 42:10 for the juicy stuff. And watch to the end because it's too cool![/B]
[url]http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020162/Crafting-a-Next-Gen-Material[/url]
Jump to slide 50 on this and scroll down. The majority of AAA pipelines are moving towards using Substance or in-house systems to create better materials much more efficiently. Substance has already replaced Photoshop as my go to toolset for creating textures and materials.
[video=youtube;dORoTIEOyEg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dORoTIEOyEg[/video]
The Snowdrop Engine uses a design remarkably similar to the new Assassin's Creed in its level design. In the future, games like this will be made by procedural generating the game space and modify the seed parameters until they have places they like. The last part of the Halo 2 talk covered that well. This is great because it allows us to take a shortcut to a more finished space and inspires new ideas based around what's been generated. Your final game won't necessarily be stock procedural, but it will definitely be influenced around it.
This line of logic even extends in a degree to designing the game systems themselves. It's tedious to have to program game logic and it locks the door on artists. It's also been a huge bane for the professional game designers of yesteryears because they are not seen as having as vital of a role in development. To the higher-ups who don't give a shit about what they're making, the role of a games systems designer is seen as someone who comes up with ideas that they can't implement or create the art for themselves, so we're in this situation where games are driven by monetization strategies and the like. This is the biggest problem for our industry right now as these people have left in droves due to being unable to find jobs.
A great example of how the procedural line of thought can be extended to solve the above problem is through state-machine-like systems such as Blueprint in Unreal 4. From what I've heard they are on track to have Blueprint to be optimized to the speed of working with the source code by 4.12. This means anyone who can understand a basic UML diagram can make a professional, performant game. And don't underestimate how powerful BP is, you could make damn near any of the AAA games out there totally in Blueprint. This feeds back into procedural work because you could create systems to construct the world without needing to touch code. This lets programmers focus more on creating powerful creation systems with a performant engine, revitalizes the role of the game systems designer, and opens the door for artists who were previously unable to create a game.
I just wanna wrap this all up with a comment to drive home the role of creation. The tools that we use and processes we must go through to create [I]anything[/I] will only get better by striving to take out the layers between us and our work. This is something that many people don't want to admit to themselves, at least in the fullest scope. A programmer may not want to admit it, but the goal of programming is to make it so nobody has to program! Likewise the goal of art tools is to make it so artists don't have to waste time sculpting a fuckin rock or worry about what their texture resolution or polygon count is. That's not to say that those things don't have a place (or can be rewarding endeavors in themselves), but the level of work that we have to put in to create what we've got in our heads is only going to get smaller and smaller and that is ultimately a really fantastic thing.
It's pretty much Space Engine.
It won't live up to the hype at all. The game-world will be abysmally huge but will have very little content to sustain it.
[QUOTE=NightmareX91;48996503]It's pretty much Space Engine.[/QUOTE]
Honestly I'd rather have Space Engine instead of all these space sims that so far seem to be going towards the inevitable flop. Elite has the shitty expansions costing the same price as the standard retail game, and I was sold on it being the best of the multiple space explorers currently in development.
[url]http://en.spaceengine.org/forum/21-11-1[/url]
Imagine if this one-man developer had a full paid team to do this shit. It would be fantastic.
I stopped being hyped for this and just see it realistically now. Its going to be a very lonely game thats supposed to be relaxing and just made for exploration.
Cool I guess, all I'm giving this game is cautious optimism though.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;48996502]-informative post about procgen-[/QUOTE]
Hell, procgen doesn't even have to look like it's procedurally-generated. Star Citizen is using procgen in a few different ways, and one of the more 'invisible' ones is the building-block prefab system they have for building environments semi-procedurally.
[video=youtube;ezqhS4WFu-Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezqhS4WFu-Y[/video]
Ignore any buggy-related mayhem, that's mainly there to give players something to do for now as well as test the respawn system. Most of the buildings you see in this video are procedurally built from components and prefabs, and then there are some unique assets (the ArcCorp gear ball, the big Astro Armada sign, etc.) thrown in to set zones apart.
For example, and I understand this is concept art but it's intended to be built using most of the same parts, just arranged entirely differently, this is Crusader, the planet neighbouring the planet in the video above:
[t]https://i.imgur.com/ric2nTD.jpg[/t]
SC's also developing multiple architectural style sets, adding to the variation.
One of the much more visible and dramatic applications of procedural generation in Star Citizen is the procedural damage system:
[video=youtube;sMkOOqgJgh4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMkOOqgJgh4[/video]
Notice how the laser blasts glow with heat and fade instead of instantly vanishing. Pieces of skin get ripped away and reveal underlying components. Holes are carved clear through the hull. The hull is scorched and burned around bullet/laser impacts.
This procedural system is much faster than manually building damage state meshes (what the devs used to do), takes a lot less resources (up to 80% less video ram required), and looks much much better than the old damage system:
[t]http://i.imgur.com/dFB3akx.png[/t]
Procgen doesn't have to suck, nor does it have to look soulless or repetitive. It can be if you do a shitty job.
I worry that NMS is going to fall into this trap and planets are going to be random, but the same few kinds of random where, after about 10 hours, you've seen it all. I hope that it's not the case, but so far, in the name of not revealing spoilers, the NMS devs say they are not showing later-game content.
[QUOTE=tom1029;48996962]Cool I guess, all I'm giving this game is cautious optimism though.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, It might be as content and activity barren as we feared, or it might pleasantly surprise us.
Though I think I might be too busy playing Fallout 4 and Dark Souls III if FROM doesn't fuckup too bad on the PC version to care either way.
If it releases and it's well worth the money 'yay' I'll buy it, if not I don't think many of us will care much anyway.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;48996235]you're so wrong. get ready becasue in ~10 years when dev tools will rely on procedural creation. the industry is already taking a sharp turn in this direction.[/QUOTE]
Procedural generation is good for MMO games, but IMO make for bad gameplay if you're note very social/dont play multiplayer games
When I heard "Ive seen things" I immediately thought of "Ive seen things you people wouldn't believe"
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48997299]Procedural generation is good for MMO games, but IMO make for bad gameplay if you're note very social/dont play multiplayer games[/QUOTE]
What you've said here doesn't really provide a basis for either comments you've made. How does procedural generation necessarily work to the strengths of an MMO game, but conversely affect a single player experience negatively? It seems you're mixing up these concepts for some reason. Procedural generation and game systems design are fundamentally disparate concepts. Games in the vein of Minecraft or No Man's Sky are not tied to their world generation and could exist exactly the same without them. It's just a different approach to building the world in which the game systems unfold. Put simply, if you can't strip down the game to its bare mechanics and have it still be good then you've got a shit game.
Please take a look at the post I made on the previous page. It gives specific examples of the benefits of the future engine tools you'll see. Particularly make a point to check out the latter end of the Halo 2 Anniversary talk I linked to. From building an entire game to a single corridor procedural generation has a place in the pipeline.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48996843]I stopped being hyped for this and just see it realistically now. Its going to be a very lonely game thats supposed to be relaxing and just made for exploration.[/QUOTE]
I'd be down with that really, if it's a super comfy game like Euro Truck Sim 2 except once in a while you meet another trucker and hang out.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;48998568]What you've said here doesn't really provide a basis for either comments you've made. How does procedural generation necessarily work to the strengths of an MMO game, but conversely affect a single player experience negatively? It seems you're mixing up these concepts for some reason. Procedural generation and game systems design are fundamentally disparate concepts. Games in the vein of Minecraft or No Man's Sky are not tied to their world generation and could exist exactly the same without them. It's just a different approach to building the world in which the game systems unfold. Put simply, if you can't strip down the game to its bare mechanics and have it still be good then you've got a shit game.
Please take a look at the post I made on the previous page. It gives specific examples of the benefits of the future engine tools you'll see. Particularly make a point to check out the latter end of the Halo 2 Anniversary talk I linked to. From building an entire game to a single corridor procedural generation has a place in the pipeline.[/QUOTE]
To me, procedural generation and exploration work best with MMO because the focus of the game ought to be on the interaction with players and environment. But I prefer a more linear, manually designed singleplayer experience. I imagine no man's sky would be really boring without multiplayer. I couldn't imagine the point really.
[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;48994973]this game is going to be incredibly shallow[/QUOTE]
1 inch Deep, 2 lightyears wide.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49005718]To me, procedural generation and exploration work best with MMO because the focus of the game ought to be on the interaction with players and environment. But I prefer a more linear, manually designed singleplayer experience. I imagine no man's sky would be really boring without multiplayer. I couldn't imagine the point really.[/QUOTE]
Idgi this still doesn't provide any reason to support itself and ignores everything I pointed to.
Do you actually know what procedural generation encompasses?
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;49011845]Idgi this still doesn't provide any reason to support itself and ignores everything I pointed to.
Do you actually know what procedural generation encompasses?[/QUOTE]
Yeah dude I understand it's just my opinion. I don't think procedural generation is a very good tool for singelplayer; i think single player is better off with a more linearly designed campaign mode. I think the exploration factor of procedurally generated environments doesn't work in single player because I think the incentive of a single player mode should be to accomplish specific goals. The fun in exploration is doing it with someone but if there's nobody else it's just not that fun to me.
[editline]29th October 2015[/editline]
Procedural generation feels like I'm playing the same thing over and over.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49012820][B]Bad[/B] procedural generation feels like I'm playing the same thing over and over.[/QUOTE]
Fixed that for you... but really you're speaking very generally about something that has been and continues to be used effectively for a variety of systems in perfectly good games. Including singleplayer.
[QUOTE=Socram;49012891]Fixed that for you... but really you're speaking very generally about something that has been and continues to be used effectively for a variety of systems in perfectly good games. Including singleplayer.[/QUOTE]
You can't really speak for my opinion on something. In my opinion, Procedural generation feels like the same game over and over in single player.
No Man's No Man's Sky
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
