What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
119 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+126"i hope you don't think that the operating system determines the awesomeness of the graphics"
yeah, not like directX 10 is Vista exclusive or anything - spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+60I think the biggest thing that is holding back "Ultra-realism is not the graphics anymore, but control now. I want to be able to walk around easily, I want to be able to jump over something. I want to be able to climb on top of something. If I see a ledge I should be able to grab it. I should be able to use my legs to prop myself up and climb. Despite my awful explanation, I want a more freeform style of movement, not a set style of movement or pre planned climbing objects.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51If Molyneux is known for anything, it is the fact that he proposes his games as genre-busting, revolutionary masterpieces that feature dozens of things never before seen in gaming.
The bad part is that his games never deliver on it.
Black and White 2 was a disaster, it didn't move past what was accomplished in Black and White.
The Movies was pretty bad. They promised to give you the ability to make your very own machinima movies, but what shipped was a very on-the-rails movie maker with very little customization. You were given a few canned animations, a few static cameras that could not be moved, and a few backdrops and costumes.
Fable promised to be the ultimate RPG where every action you took sent ripples through the entire universe. What shipped, while it was still a pretty solid game, was nothing near what Molyneux promised.
So, this is just another example of Molyneux's great powers of hyperbole, but I doubt Lionhead will ever produce something that truly revolutionizes games. They had their time, but I think Lionhead's true innovation ended in the 90s - taybay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+47All you need to watch is the segment about 9/10 of the way through where he makes the 'man' figure. XD
- Battlecry, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48Shame the guy says it'll never be released.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+46Dugg down both your posts thanks to that. Welcome to my ***** list.
- knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35This is like what they were talking about a year before fable came out. Remember all the hype of ultra-realistic open-ended environments?
I hope the room gets leaked onto a torrent site or something, i'd love to play around with it. - asspants, on 10/12/2007, -64/+98what do you mean wow and it was able to run on xp?
i hope you don't think that the operating system determines the
awesomeness of the graphics.. because that would be.... stuipd. - CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35I think it's hilarious how 'it' snaps off.
- MSTK, on 10/12/2007, -15/+42My idea of Hyper-realism is every molecule is modeled. In fact if you want to go even more detailed, every atom could be modeled. Without going into quantum mechanics, you could in theory represent the the three main sub-atomic particles (electrons and the two quarks), from which almost everything in the world is made.
It might seem overkill, but you're not going to model every molecule so you can see them. Instead, you're modeling molecules so you can simulate their reactions on a large scale. Need a fire? Don't pull out a fire script and add lights. Instead put some Carbon Molecules in a room full of Oxygen and heat up the carbon. There is no need to create a separate script for the fire. If the carbon molecules are modeled correctly, then they should burst into flames in a natural way.
If you need to create a liquid, don't create the blob, adjusting viscosity, opacity, etc. Find what the liquid is made of and create a bunch of molecules for it. Drop it in and it'll look real without any extra work.
Say you have a bowl of vinegar. You wouldn't need to define the ph level with a variable. It is already assigned a ph level because of the amount of Hydrogen Ions in the molecule. The # of hydrogen ions will give it a wealth of whole new properties.
And drop a spoon of baking soda onto the vinegar. In normal modeling you'd have to write a script that asks if there is any instance of the baking soda object touching a vinegar object, and then create fizz. With this new way, the molecules of baking soda will naturally react with the molecules of vinegar.
When you shoot a gun in an FPS, all you do is create a bullet (metal, gunpowder). The gun has a piston which strikes the bullet. The force will cause the gunpowder to explode and shoot the bullet out.
Too bad it'll never happen. The complexity is unnecessary.
The scary thing is...if you take this even further (down to the subatomic particles) and model, exactly, a human being...then would you have a real living, sentient being on your hands? - Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28pardon me, I got Lionhead mixed up with Bullfrog. Molyneux worked for Bullfrog, which produced Dungeon Keeper, Populous, Theme Park and Syndicate. Talk about classics
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26their innovation died before their first ever game came out in 2001?
- PopeOfDope, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32Realism is over rated. One of the reasons I like to play video games is to escape reality.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Unfortunately, according to IGN, it will never be released. :/
"Even though the portals, physical manipulations, and digital clay could be used to create exciting puzzles that could redefine the Myst genre, The Room is still not a game and will never be released. Hopefully Project Dimitri will make a public appearance soon and incorporate The Room's better ideas though. Rest assured, if it does, we'll report."
Source: http://pc.ign.com/articles/594/594829p1.html - kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Father of gaming?
He's got some good stuff under his belt but has a big problem with featurecreep. He packs too much in, causing too much to test and too much to balance. Sometimes not all of it has a real purpose in the game. He's a great dreamer and hopefully if he can get some of this stuff working, he'll help drive the industry forward, but as a game developer, his recognition surpasses his record. - Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF055AD-Game_System.jpg#124
- Bean945, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16More realistic than real?!?!?!
What the bloody hell - m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Yea because I mean, obviously, you can just apt-get install directx10.
- CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Myst was a pain in the ass on it's own.
- Easty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19And if we gamers know anything, it's that Peter Molyneux keeps his promises.
I can't get angry though. He's got such a lovable face. - ericeman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I understand that Molyneux is overly ambitious and sometimes talks about things that won't get done for another decade or so but it's not like I can complain about his games Black and White is one of my favorites.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14this would require the developers to have immense knowledge of chemistry and physics, and it would make the games entirely too complex to create.
- ajzahir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14i don't know if anyone posted this already but if you liked the portal idea........check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdo0npuzWeA - Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19It wont be released because it isn't really anything new. Realistic textures and movement has been around for several years now. Make into a game where there is real AI and then it might make money.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The problem with tech-centric game development is that the stories told and the experienced offered are gorgeous but vacuous, promising but empty. Peter is a genius of technical design, but he spent so much time on the technology of Black & White he forgot to actually make it fun to play.
This is the same problem that plagued George Lucas in his latest films - so obsessed with the technology that he left out the soul.
Can you imagine Sidney Lumet or Steven Spielberg or even Peter Jackson, who is certainly CG-aware, giving a keynote lecture at a film industry gathering all about the latest lens or camera-dolly he developed? And have that be virtually ALL he and other presenters and attendees talked about?
As long as games are all about "wow, check out these graphics", they will fail to live up to their potential. Lord of the Rings subordinated FX to story - and great stories were told even in the most primitive days of movie-making technology - or before motion pictures altogether. Shakespeare didn't need ILM to endure.
Besides, products that depend on today's latest graphics just end up looking dated and obsolete tomorrow. It's a losing proposition. Stories (and games) that move people survive forever.
Molineux is capable of so much more, he is one of the more intellectual and broadly educated people in the industry; I just hope one day he outgrows the technical fascination and starts making games that change our world.
Technology in the service of story, in the service of experience, in the service of transcendence, that should be the motto of game design, not technology in the service of spectacle. - Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"this was a waste of a front page story"
do we have a limited supply?!? - grumbel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I don't think the point is to get games that are just realistic, but to create games that have a far greater internal consistency then todays games, i.e. games that follow their own rules and don't butcher them in every second scene (classic example: a guy can jump three meter high, but a tiny piece of police tape provides an impassably barrier or you get shot a dozen times, health pack heals without problem, person gets shot in cutscene, however results in instant death). Games today are full of shortcuts, workarounds and stupid stuff that is simply there because either the CPUs aren't fast enough or because the APIs aren't far enough, so that time constrains limit what the developers can do.
I think in the future games will be more like things that evolve then things that get created from scratch, so instead of simply painting a dirt texture, the virtual vehicle, might drives through virtual mud and gets dirty all by itself, instead of planting each and every tree, the forest grows itself and stuff like that. - SamKellett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Bullfrog released some of the funniest damn games ever.
- kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8No need to model molecules just the resultant behavior. Unless your game has electron microscopes, you won't need it, and even then you can use LOD(Level of Detail) to convert the immediate area into molecules. There is not enough material in the universe to model the universe.
Science is not reality. What we have is a set of rules that have thus far been true, or have been "true enough". The universe does not do math, so it doesn't need to calculate its own operations. We don't have that luxury and thus we need to explain things with math.
Our games do need math, and we need such simplifications in order to make the games we have. There are definitely limits. - jnosanov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Molyneux is talking about bringing chaos to games. This would be a very interesting effect: imagine an RPG where the world ages as you progress. That combined with Spore-like procedural asset generation and animation would make for a game, or experience, almost unimaginable today. This does not mean it would be fun, of course, just new.
- bmson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If things become more "real" than "real", is it called abstract
- veggiemoore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This made me think of the simulation game Ender played in 'Ender's Game,' where you kill the giant and the kids turn into wolves.
- neoian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i want to play that so bad. even if it is a demo. i love physics in games
- grumbel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Have a look at what LucasArts that with Euphoria engine, while it doesn't try to model molecules, it does try to model and simulate materials. So if there is a chair build out of wood, it will break if you throw stuff against it, if you change its material to steel it will behave totally different. They also went away from the fixed breaking points, so if you throw a steel ball into a wood wall in the lower right, it will splinter in the lower right. The also did a lot of stuff with animation and character behaviour, so that characters will try to keep balance, grab on stuff when they fall and such. Shouldn't be to hard to make stuff out of wood flameable, while other materials not or less, if they havn't already done it. Its really the next logical step after we now had simple rigid body physic engines for a few years.
- culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If this type of "hyper realistic" detail IS ever brought to gaming, there will likely be a whole new market for clearinghouses of virtual objects (complex models, textures, mass and friction information, ability to perform basic aging, etc.) for the gaming industry. Imaging picking out virtual furniture, books, kitchen utensils, electronic components, etc. out of a massive virtual library and apply them to different 3D engines, etc.
The computer hardware isn't that far away from being able to handle it. The industry, OTOH, still seems to be focused on trying to recreate the wheel for every game. - Flamekebab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I wish this was possible.
One day perhaps. It'd certainly be a sight to see.
What's with all the naysayers today? - J3Holaday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That was priceless.
- beaumont911, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes, we all know Peter Molyneux exaggerates certain things, but you have to admit, he has some pretty cool and revolutionary ideas.
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7DirectX 10 is just an API. It's just software. As such, it's quite possible (and quite likely), that you'll see APIs that are just as capable on other systems. The PS3 isn't using DirectX. Anything that's in DX10 will wind up in OpenGL in one form or another.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Ultra-realism? Because in reality we all have magic portals in our rooms?
- Jarasmen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And how the hell am I supposed to run this game? My pc would rather stab itself than render that level of detail.
- kazem, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Talk about not getting to the point. That was the most long-winded demo ever.
- Ltgeo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@Spidoman -
Check out some movies of Assassin's Creed, every architectural object allows u to interact with it just like in real life. You can climb/swing/jump on anything that you could and real life and some. - CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yeah, can't wait for Half-Life: Episode 2. That comes bundled with it, along with Team Fortress 2.
- Shadow503, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10We're calling him crazy, but in 30 years I think he'll be the one laughing.
Think of what you could do with a machine like that. It's taking years to build that giant particle accelorator. With a system like this they could incorporate the blue prints and have it done in a month.
Think of what science could be if our only necessary resource was computing power! - junk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3With development time and costs skyrocketing I'm surprised this is not happening already.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I hate you and your unrealistic games
- scratched, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8It could be interesting if they took the engine and made it into a sort of puzzle game. I remember playing a flash game where you're stuck in a room and you have to find a series of objects and solve a bunch of puzzles to get out of the room. The whole game took place in just one room.
If they took the super realistic rooms that they created there, and turned it into a puzzle game like that, I'd buy it if enough thought was put into it. Perhaps a storyline and a few more rooms, or a bigger room, or perhaps a house. With the level of detail the demo had, it could get very interesting if enough thought was put into it. - beatbox32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well *****, I have tons of ideas about flying cars and monkeys with 10 pairs of titties, but no one is singing my praises!
- Battlecry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That, sir, is a fascinating theory and I am glad to have read it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 