digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at shacknews.com

Video Teases GTA 4 Animation Technology

shacknews.com — New animation technology for GTA 4.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • musntSurfatWork, on 04/26/2008, -64/+1EPIC LAWL!
    • arcooke, on 04/26/2008, -1/+43Please go somewhere else.. and never come back.
    • santaliqueur, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7Yes, those are two words that should never be used again.
      • PotentChr0nic, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1Just like Teases shouldn't have been used in the title.
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2edit.
  • Kakemonstere, on 04/26/2008, -41/+4If this is real, I take my hat of for the creators of euphoria. Even though it looks like it has to have atleast SOME key frame animation in it.
    • Oronar, on 04/26/2008, -0/+14It doesn't.
    • specialK16, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Erm, care to read the article?
    • Pritchard, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3There's a difference between objects with states and key frame animation. State Machines are still an amazingly useful way to control how to manage objects. They seem really procedural, and you might think you're working with something linear, but they're just a way to bundle up a lot of changes in an object without having to code a million-line AI database for the object :P
    • cryonix, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2he is right on some aspects. they use blending to utilize pre-animated segments into the simulated animation. as seen in this video from almost exactly a year ago.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdImUIhbG9E
      • dinostabOMG, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3That's the ticket - although this video shows different simulation technology. It is a little disingenuous of euphoria to claim that they are eliminating, well, what we animators call animation. There is still animation work being done on these rigs, even if a lot of the stuff is happening procedurally. You can see a lot of secondary motion on the body when their character waves, which they probably did to emphasize the simulation, but where is that wave coming from? In the end this will be a step forward for when lots of characters need to be thrown around in different ways, but it is still a technology for treating characters as objects, not a substitute for character acting.
      • DatoeDakari, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1That would be two years ago.
  • Kakemonstere, on 04/26/2008, -4/+99Found higher quality of the video:
    http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm
    • suspid, on 04/26/2008, -6/+23It's basically a bunch of buffed up stick figures on a white background, so why the ***** would I need higher quality?
    • dinostabOMG, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2Very cool, but I am not sure how much I buy that there is no keyframing involved. Expressive animation, like the waving, has to come from somewhere, even if various interactions can be done procedurally.
    • cks3, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Check it out: live gameplay footage: http://www.mahalo.com/Grand_Theft_Auto_4_Live_Stre ...
  • sobe86, on 04/26/2008, -2/+234That's very impressive. I was playing EA skate the other day with a mate, and we were talking about how whenever the character falls off his board he just becomes a ragdoll, even if he just clipped his hand on something. We both agreed that it would be a long time before a computer could accurately simulate a skater bailing a trick and trying not to fall on his ass. The logistics of it are mind boggling. Looks like we were wrong though.
    • gdehms, on 04/26/2008, -0/+22When I was watching this video I was thinking the exact same thing. Whenever i trip over a curb in the game, the skater just becomes lifeless and falls off. In real life, however, a skater would at least try to keep on his feet by running with his momentum. Hopefully technology like this can make it into skate 2.
    • operationcougar, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2i agree 100%, just last night i noticed if you ollie, do a christ air(all on flatland) then you will see a guy that is to incompetent to stand on his feet
    • Abno, on 04/26/2008, -1/+10EA would definitely benefit from licensing the Euphoria engine for their other sports games too. The tackle animations in that football game "Backbreaker" being developed by Natural Motion are a lot more impressive than what I've seen in the Madden games. Though I'm not really into football games, so I'd be looking forward to this kind of technology making its way into Hockey games.

      It could give an edge to 2K Sports if they use the Eurphoria Engine before EA has something as impressive.
      • Starch, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4Sadly, given EA's monopoly over more and more sports franchises, 2K Sports would be making a fantastic game nobody will play.
      • theodenking, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4I can't think of a game that wouldn't benefit from Euphoria. I'm betting the guys Natural Motion are going to be very rich.
        • Thogster, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1They're probably not, I'm afraid. Backbreaker won't have any licensed teams or players, so it won't sell that much in the States. And the US is the only country where there's a huge market for "football" games. Though you are right, any game, and especially sports games (I'm thinking FIFA, NHL etc. here), would be amazing if they had such realistic technology implemented.
        • calibration, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3He was referring to Natural Motion licensing out the engine to get rich, not getting rich with the football game.
      • AL7AIR, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1If the EA Take2 takeover is successful there is a pretty good chance that EA is killing off the 2K Sports brand :(
    • lunarcanary, on 04/26/2008, -8/+1Some of you "simple-minded" plebs may think the above comment is plain, dead-ended, and merely an opinion people digg up because they are "fanboys". Sure, "empirically" it may be a "useless" comment that solved nothing. That's because you don't see the true beauty of digg.

      I think it added to the conversation, delivering true intellectual discourse to the matter at hand.

      This guy is no normal digg user. He doesn't have that couch-bound bully mentality. He doesn't protect the silver-lining of corporations like some fanboy. He makes legitimate contribution that make the abstract mind enter new perceptions of reality. He really breaks the barrier. I would like to say, what the hell are you doing here?

      Hang 10 Sobe. Nonya bidness.
    • jumico, on 04/26/2008, -4/+0Honestly I really don't care if my character falls down like a rag doll. Many awesome games have this affect but the game play is still awesome.
      • AL7AIR, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1In a racing game where your driver goes flying through the windshield, or in a one shot one kill FPS I don't care either. But if I play a game where the player character running for cover just turns ragdoll when shot and drops to the floor to become a stationary target and does not try to stumble and roll into it after being hit, it might make a _big_ difference.
      • Lavarock, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"it's less important than the most important thing, and is therefore unimportant"
  • Gaybacon, on 04/26/2008, -0/+30This technology has actually been out for a few years now, it just hasn't been implemented in real-time into games until recently. For any skeptics, you can try out the Endorphin Learning Edition at the Natural Motion website for free...
    • Sliperyfish, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7It hasn't been used in games for the few years that it has been out because the hardware was never readily available to render it in real time. Even using my top end computer, i can only render up to 5-6 of the characters on my screen before serious framerate issues. On the 360/PS3 there are going to be hundreds of people on the screen, each doing individual activities. Then take into account the environment, lighting, textures, vehicles, debris, and everything else that needs to be processed and you will start to understand just what kind of power these machines have.
      Now that the developers are using some of its potential, it's really becoming quite exciting. Look at the difference between GTA3 and GTA:SA and try to imagine what GTA:5 will be like.
      • therightclique, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12wait. you're saying your "top end" computer isn't more powerful than an xbox or a ps3. do you even know what "top end" means? you can get a computer more powerful than one of those consoles for like $1200. hardly top end.
      • phort99, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3There are a few big differences between Endorphin on a high-end PC and Euphoria on a next-gen console. On PC, the simulation is designed for repeatability and accuracy, since real-time calculations aren't important. On a game like GTA, it's not important that given the same circumstances a character will tumble out of an exploding car the same, it just needs to be optimized to run at full framerate and be convincing. Also consoles are dedicated processors but your computer has background processes, and the code is optimized for the PS3 and 360 architecture.
      • knetworx, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I hate to break it to you, but there aren't hundreds of people on the screen, each doing individual activities. They stream in and out, and in most games, you won't ever see more than 20-30 at any given time (yes, there are exceptions, but I guarantee you won't see 100 fully-animated people on-screen at one time). You'd be surprised at the amount of work that goes into making it *look* like there are hundreds of people, or hundreds of cars, or tons of high-res textures, but the fact of the matter is that these consoles can't really handle that much. The next time you're playing a game where you think there are "hundreds of people on screen", I encourage you to pause it for a second, count the number of people, count the number of cars, and look closely at the textures on anything more than, let's say, about 50 meters away from the player. I promise you'll be surprised at what you find. (Note: fans in sports games are not fully-animated, they generally just have one long, looping animation, or a series of animations picked at random, so there's no complex AI involved.)
    • clearwaterlab, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8http://www.naturalmotion.com/ele.htm
      • specialK16, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Cool, something to play with this weekend.
  • hark, on 04/26/2008, -17/+7DAMNIT.. stop teasing me.. im dieing over here... breath breath.. 3 days, 37 minutes.... breath breath
    • mongrel, on 04/26/2008, -5/+16Spelling lesson; it's "breathe." Breath is a noun (thing), Breathe is the verb (action).
      • ace4261991, on 04/26/2008, -18/+2Life lesson; don't be a douche.
        • sleepwalkers, on 04/26/2008, -1/+12He wasn't being a douche. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact.
        • acetv, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Take your own advice.
    • springo, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Actually I felt that 'dieing' was worse.
  • timisondigglol, on 04/26/2008, -3/+95Its hard to imagine that physics in game play was best introduced in HL2 which was *3 years ago*. This looks like a solid next step in standard gameplay: Physics + "State Based AI" or whatever you want to call it. Its nice to know game studios aren't getting lazy about things anymore.
    • SquigglyP, on 04/26/2008, -9/+7I don't think it's really fair to call HL2 the best introduction to physics in a game. Physics has played a role in games since the SNES. There were physics-based games back on the old Apple IIe, and probably even before that. There were a number of FPS games that had pretty advanced interactive physics simulations, tho it may be true that HL2 implemented theirs in a way that prevented the physics from being annoying all the time, which was always an issue with FPS games that had physics sims.
      • mattcoady, on 04/26/2008, -0/+34Pong had physics. When he says best introduced, it all depends on what angle you're looking at. I think my best introduction to physics would have been The Incredible Machine, but as for best introduction in a realistic human invironment from the first-person perspective, then it probably would go to HL2.
        • honesttussey, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2dugg for Incredible Machine reference :)
        • Pr0v0st, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Talk about a game in need of a remake!
        • DeadlyAlpaca, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1It had monkeys on bicycles! Greatest game ever.
      • Rizmaster, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6Anyone remember that old DOS game where monkeys would throw fruit or ***** or something at each other? I only mention it because it seemed to have a fully kinematic physics system, where the weights of various fruits were simply plugged into the kinematic equations and the motion was accurate for the circumstances.
        • honesttussey, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Gorillaz! I liked it when the banana blew up your opponent and your gorilla did the victory dance!
          • mattcoady, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Didn't that come packed in with qBasic along with nibbles, the snake game.
        • DubiousDrewski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2I first learned to program with QBasic and Gorillas was one of the first programs I modified and tried to imitate.

          The algorithm for the banana's flight was very, very simple. Like:
          x=x+x1
          y=y+y1
          y1=y1+gravity

          That's it. That's all it was.
        • Lanlost, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Why did he get dugg down?
    • Bennito, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1I think we ought to call it "Natural Artificial Intelligence."
      • therightclique, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2"we" aren't calling it anything other than the name it is given by the creators.
    • Pake, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2HL2 didn't really do that much outside of making more objects react. If you were to go back and play Painkiller, it's the same physics engine (Havok 2.0), just less crap to play with.
      • sleepwalkers, on 04/26/2008, -0/+9But it was the puzzles and the logical use of the physics to progress in the game that made it.
        • SquigglyP, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1there weren't really that many physics-based puzzles to solve in HL2. There were the occasional floating barrel / box puzzle and some gravity gun challenges, but the bulk of the game was really just throwing switches and killing stuff. A lot of stuff that happens in the game is scripted stuff. The majority of the cool bits, really. I've been playing with the SDK since the game was released, and while there are some really nice options for physics, it's really less of a gameplay mechanic and more of a bonus feature to make things look good when they go "boom". That's not really a bad thing, tho. But I'm sure there will eventually be games where the geometry is fully malleable, where material properties will affect things like stress points, flexibility, 'crumbling' (there are some pretty awesome looking tech demos where they destroy part of teh mesh of an object using a particle system to simulate the exploding / crumbling debris) and I think at that point it will be much more possible to make a game where shooting out a beam really does create a physics reaction that collapses a ledge or something. In HL2 all of that stuff was done via scripting.

          Garry's Mod is probably the reigning physics game out there right now.
    • curtis87xc03, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6Half-Life 2 uses Havok physics which first came out in 2000. Unreal Tournament 2003 used Havok as well as many other games. Its unfair to credit the Source Engine (HL2) as inventing physics in gaming when it was really a third party.
      • goosnargh, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3He means first to use physics of this degree for gameplay elements. Max Payne 2 was the first game to use Havok 1.0 but it was only eye candy.
        Havok worked with Valve to create Havok 2.0, although HL2 uses a heavily modified version of it.
        Also UT2003 used something called Karma, not Havok.
    • Atomic05, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2No matter what your stance on which game best implements physics, you have to admit it was pretty cool the first time you shoot a CP in the face and he just flops like a real body. Especially that one on the stairs.
  • borez, on 04/26/2008, -1/+130Dugg for built in self preservation,
    • oo7evan, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12I don't how many times I've said to myself: "Damn, this game needs some built in self preservation!" And finally my dreams have come true, in GTA4. Now only if my 360 gets back from the repair shop.
      • pixelate, on 04/26/2008, -1/+19Damn, your console needs some built in self preservation!

        /wokka wokka

        /360 owner

        /sorry
      • chrisduser, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1If the next gen trend continues, we'll have to check our consoles' oil and get a tune-up every six months...
    • bluepass, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5One step closer to realistic virtual reality.
      • garageboy101, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3and one step closer to eliminating reasons to leave our house.
    • Atomic05, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7Yeah, I actually felt bad for the dying little blue men.
  • Albo23, on 04/26/2008, -20/+2I'll be honest, GTA 4 gameplay DID NOT look like that. Getting close though.
    • Tyorant, on 04/26/2008, -1/+14Go watch yourself the video of Niko and his cousin drunk.
      GTA 4 DOES look like that.
      • Albo23, on 04/26/2008, -12/+3I don't care about the cutscenes I'm talking real gameplay.
        • Oronar, on 04/26/2008, -1/+11You should have seen the guy streaming live while he played. It does look like that, especially when Niko's drunk.
        • specialK16, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1lolololololol.

          *****.
      • grumbel, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3And yet something basic like the run animation in GTA4 looked pretty terrible, since the character tilts far to much to the left or right when changing directions.
    • HerrSchnuff, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Here is the live stream of some dude playing GTA IV: http://www.justin.tv/widgets/jtv_live.r6734.swf?ba ...
  • mkone7, on 04/26/2008, -27/+0its not GTA 4, its GTA IV
    • pukiman, on 04/26/2008, -2/+25IV = 4, just for your information.
      • Klowner, on 04/26/2008, -2/+38I swear I heard some degenerate say "GTA I've" during my short visit to Gamestop the other day.
        • santaliqueur, on 04/26/2008, -1/+17Sounds about right for the average gamestop customer/employee's intelligence.
        • Hoogs, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Wow.
      • cmscott, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2No it's IV cause this ***** is siiiiick!

        /lamejoke
  • bgale246, on 04/26/2008, -1/+12You should have come to new milton in the UK, we have a store called total entertainment that started selling GTA4 yesterday. Anyone with a preorder here already has it!
  • tonich03, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8That technology is a great idea and well executed. Imagine the possibilities. With similar technologies emulating real life, designer would be able to just lisence and implement them, while focusing on the game desing itself. Games would be better and cheaper to make. And the result makes the whole difference, this definitely is the future right here.
    • curtis87xc03, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2Thats what games have been doing with Havok physics for the last 8 years; HL2, Halo 3, you name it, it's Havok.
    • ajb2015, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1why is curtis being dugg down. most games are built on engines that are licensed from other developers. you guys are dumbasses.
  • rdolishny, on 04/26/2008, -10/+2Too bad their flash video player is crapping out. I'll check it later today.
  • chris9902, on 04/26/2008, -0/+74You can download a free copy of endorphin from natural motion and play around with the technology.

    http://www.naturalmotion.com/ele.htm
    • p0tent1al, on 04/26/2008, -8/+4Windows only unfortunately (unless you virtualize, etc)
  • Brandoskey, on 04/26/2008, -2/+45rag dolls have always sucked, i'd rather have scripted deaths than ragdolls any day. ragdolls were cool for about 5 minutes in farcry when you'd find a dead NPC in some compromising position, after that they just looked stupid.

    this on the other hand looks excellent, one step closer to completely blurring the edge of the real world and a game.
    • eyepatch100, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I've always disliked scripted deaths, somehow i didn't buy that when you shot someone in the head, he fell down in one of three different ways.
      • ThankTheCheese, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I agree. It sounds morbid, but killing a ragdoll enemy in a game is far more satisfying than a scripted kill.
  • andyboy2k2, on 04/26/2008, -6/+17Those poor blue guys...
  • etx313, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7Wow. Really great work there, I can't wait to see it in action. This is the stuff that really makes video games cool for me, the technology.
  • stridox, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2I've been messing around with Endorphin for a while now. Pretty cool what you can do.
  • alexcroox, on 04/26/2008, -4/+7i think "teases" was the wrong word, i was expecting the video to "take the piss/make fun of" gta4 graphics, not give us a "taster" of them!
    • Pedlya, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3I thought the same thing.
    • RobotLeAwesome, on 04/27/2008, -1/+5In America "tease" can also mean to arouse hope, curiosity, or desire - such as "teaser trailers" for upcoming films.

      Also, in America – take a piss means to urinate.

      oh, and fag means you're gay.
      • alexcroox, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1video teaser of GTA 4 Animation Technology would have been more appropriate then! (remind me why we are analysing the title so much!)
  • masterskill, on 04/26/2008, -0/+135http://i27.tinypic.com/mv43h0.gif
    • Snakedal337, on 04/26/2008, -0/+12And he gets right back up! Woo!
    • Fartbandit, on 04/26/2008, -1/+34Wouldnt mind a few more GTA4 gifs like that one...

      (i refuse to type MOAR :/ )
    • ryan926, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6He shoots!.......ANDHESCORES!!!
    • Pr0v0st, on 04/26/2008, -7/+2Tell me he's playing on god mode.
    • Hoogs, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Looks painful, but oh so beautiful at the same time.
    • specialK16, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2OMG, I'm not getting a bike anymore!
    • Pritchard, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Oh God, and he bled... Amazing.
    • acetv, on 04/26/2008, -0/+20You guys haven't seen anything until you first kick an old lady down a flight of stairs. I nearly died laughing.
      • JudgeMonkey, on 04/26/2008, -1/+29Yeah, it is damn fun. I wonder if it will be as much fun in the game.
    • richmomz, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I think I found my new avatar
  • TheTjalian, on 04/26/2008, -1/+26No blue dolls were harmed during the making of this movie, right?
  • yrtsiger, on 04/26/2008, -9/+0www.GTAIV.com wait i mean www.digg.com, you are driving me crazy digg, stop teasing me with gtaiv stuff. god i can't wait for gta iv and the engine looks amazing
  • haentz, on 04/26/2008, -0/+11Oh man, I want to push these little puppets around... Got to wait another three days...
  • lcmatt, on 04/26/2008, -0/+27Gary's Mod would be great with this engine, positioning ragdolls in that game is a nightmare.
  • Versh, on 04/26/2008, -1/+49I can't imagine the amount of "if then" statements under the surface. Nice work.
    :]
    • TheTjalian, on 04/26/2008, -3/+13Chances are it uses something a LOT more complex then that. Even switch cases wouldn't be enough probably.
    • DubiousDrewski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+24If-Then and Switch flow controllers are the basic fundamentals of all programming in any language. That's like saying the new F22 Raptor is so complex, it's probably built out of something better than regular molecules and atoms.
      • dmoore764, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Did you not pick up the joke or do you just like making metaphors?
      • NanoStuff, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"If-Then and Switch flow controllers are the basic fundamentals of all programming in any language."

        Perhaps you've never worked with simulation, particle systems and physics processing, or perhaps programming altogether. The amount of conditional statements involved are few and far between compared to the amount of raw algorithmic floating point manipulation. The next physical state is determined by the variables of the previous state, it's a mathematical function, it doesn't execute only IF something is true. There are likely conditional statements involved in the engine, I'd be surprised if there weren't, but he is right, the software is for the most part not based on conditional statements or switches.
        • NanoStuff, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1This also happens to explain why this type of computation is particularly well suited for GPU-like hardware over CPUs. CPUs have strong branch prediction, GPUs have strong floating point output. Rasterization doesn't consist of billions of if-then statements, I assure you.
          • DubiousDrewski, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0I assure YOU that Euphoria uses tons of flow-control statements. The virtual characters have to make decisions about when to stop-drop-and-roll, tumble after falling, wave their hand, cover a wound, shield their head from a falling projectile, etc, etc. That type of logic processing is only possible with If-Then and Switch (Or variants). The physically-simulated movement would be controlled by other means of coding, of course.

            By the way, "Perhaps you've never worked with ... programming altogether." You're an ass. I am familiar with programming, thank you.
    • Pritchard, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1 I've been playing around with physics for a bit. Ragdolls get boring real soon. The next logical step is something like what these guys are doing. I wouldn't imagine a muscle system being any more hackish than a ragdoll physics system. Just more CPU usage along with tools necessary for managing muscles and motions.
    • identitymatrix, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3The actual algorithm is probably using methods of momentum-based inverse kinematics and motion blending to generate real-time interactive motions. As described in this paper: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0576323/projects/re ...
      • onedigg, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2I clicked on that expecting a rickroll. Now I wish it was one.
  • cl2yp71c, on 04/26/2008, -0/+17Almost makes me not want to hurt these little buggers, seeing they're so lifelike and all.


    ...almost
    • Killah_xxx, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2I want to be able to control them some more, to be honest.
  • thaSpotsDOTcom, on 04/26/2008, -5/+0The making of a pepsi commercial, and the commercial, using their software

    http://youtube.com/results?search_query=glue+boy+p ...
  • vodakov, on 04/26/2008, -7/+3Can't wait for the new technology where the blue dolls don't look costantly drunk
    • DubiousDrewski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Impossible to satisfy?

      If you were given ten million dollars, would you complain about the picture on the money? No! Just enjoy the damned 10 mill!
    • cryonix, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2i was thinking the same thing, however i saw it like a toddler just learning how to walk... i was just impressed and excited when i first saw this technology about a year ago as if i were watching my own child's first steps, sure there not the best. its a little uneasy and wobbly, but it shows signs of vast improvement.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdImUIhbG9E
    • Qumahlin, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1ummm, the "dolls" don't look drunk at all in GTA4. That was just the "behavior" that was implemented in that video. Everything is customizable as they said.
  • awm4, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2I can't wait for tuesday.
  • GamerSDG, on 04/26/2008, -3/+32days and 9 hrs 31min

    http://www.gamestop.com/
  • Ratteler, on 04/26/2008, -0/+8Can't wait to start modding this engine.
    • Evi1d33d, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2We need a PC version.
      • Asheis, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Thats the question.. if and when a PC version is going to be released! they should have simultaneously released it with the XBOX, and PS3 versions.
  • PetroSan, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Anyone see the link to the informational page for the football game implementing this technology? It looks pretty amazing. Don't judge it by the mini-preview, check out the one on the page for the game itself. oh PS it's called "Backbreaker"
    • GamerSDG, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2agree i am not into football games but i would play this one
  • ULJarad, on 04/26/2008, -6/+11http://i25.tinypic.com/iv9069.jpg

    *drool*
    • ApeInago, on 04/26/2008, -3/+24how the hell is that jpg animated?
      • Fmunkey, on 04/26/2008, -1/+10someone just renamed a gif's extension to jpg thinking that it would change the file format too.
        • Nath2k8, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1woah i never knew that
          • ers35, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1It does not matter what the file extension is as long as you set the proper MIME type. The GIF header information is still present in the file. The browser can still recognize it as an animated gif.
  • demonemo, on 04/26/2008, -4/+9The only thing that matters is whether this will produce more realistic boobies, and looking at this video I think I'm gettin' a chubbby already.
  • highlyhigh, on 04/26/2008, -9/+0doesn't seem as 'revolutionary' as the video hopes to make it out to be. just seems like smarter ragdoll. my gripe with current animation technique is that they move too slow. you know what i mean. if a body is rolling down the hill, it doesn't roll slow enough for you to admire all it's animated motions. it just rolls down being raped by gravity. make a system for faster animation computing please.
    • DubiousDrewski, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5You have no idea what you're talking about.
    • highlyhigh, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1you have no idea what im talking about
  • danwallace, on 04/26/2008, -7/+3"Euphoria is also used in the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed."
  • kurtsmom1, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1I'm glad we have great animation and graphics but I hope it doesn't deter from innovative creative gaming.
  • rowlodge, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2probably go unnoticed but it is more realistic. its usually too much or too little motion in games.
    • AlMightyBob90, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Unnoticed, my ass. It'll add an extra level of awesomeness.
    • unclejimbo88, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Well that's pretty much the point.
  • Evi1d33d, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4Looks very cool in GTA but Star Wars is abusing it http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/2/1/
  • Vektuz, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3So everyones going to look drunk?
  • reapergun9, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2That's really amazing! No wonder IGN gave this a perfect 10
  • calon9, on 04/26/2008, -0/+13The michelin man has apparently gone lo-carb.
  • hermes369, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3And the guys inside Tron thought they had it bad.
  • JonnySokko, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Ragdoll, meet the new euphoric pimp. He can protect himself :)
  • RyanSF, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Does anyone know where I can find the 3 minute video review of GTA? It is the one with in game video for most of it. I saw it a few days ago and I haven't been able to find it.
  • cryonix, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6so animation is simulated now!? great now I'm out a job.
  • babylonian, on 04/26/2008, -1/+11This is basically the perfect example of why Euphoria in GTAIV is awesome:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=9dkuw3BEqSs
    • Tikisam, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Why wouldn't he just let go lol... there's no way your hand gets THAT stuck
      • JudgeMonkey, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Ah, thanks for that comment, I know what the video was now, which is gone. It's an interesting video, but an excellent point. I wouldn't want my car stolen, but if someone else is in the driver's seat, and I'm latching onto the door as we do 40 down the road... it's kind of already a lost cause. Ah well, no matter how we cheer at the physics, remember it is just a game and silly things happen.
    • mathew_bug, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1mirror anyone?
    • ThankTheCheese, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Take2 took is down, ffs. What the hell are they afraid of? DO they really think watching a 10 second low-res YouTube capture is going to stop us from buying the game?
  • Muncher, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2I'm noting somewhat of an analogy here...
    "Ragdoll" is to "dead" as "euphoria" is to "drunk."
  • pyro789x, on 04/26/2008, -10/+2I remember thinking that, once we design and create a 'true' artificial intelligence system, if we also coupled the artificial intelligence with things such as instincts, emotions, desire, the ability to feel pain (which is tied closely to a combination of emotions and desire), and the desire for self preservation, that the accomplishment of this would be when machines would become indistinguishable from human beings, from an intellectual perspective. Of course, we would still have to deal with and integrate things such as the ability to acquire and retain knowledge, as well as the ability to speak and understand language, but I would argue that these two things would not matter nearly as much as the first in the long run.

    The most important part of all of this, however, is that human beings would be responsible for the complete and utter control of a sentient being, and I don't know if the average person could handle that kind of power. Think of the amount of torture a sadistic individual could bring upon such a construct, it would be on par with animal cruelty, if not worse.

    If you think about it, what is pain other than signals that are sent to your brain from your body that inform you of a specific stimulus, and an impulse embedded deep within your primal brain that marks these signals as undesirable, coupled with an instinct to stop this stimulus from occurring no matter what the cost, as this instinct less and less restrainable the stronger the signal gets and the longer you have to suffer in these circumstances? I would argue that there is none, and that with proper programming, these exact conditions could be replicated within machines. This along with the desire for self preservation is kind of thing that would give the machines motivation to do something unforeseen, like kill people, in an effort to cause a change of state within themselves, the same way a desperate, tortured man may eventually kill his captors, if he believes it to be the best course for his salvation.

    I'm getting quite beyond myself though, unfortunately I do not have the time or desire to touch upon all these cans of worms that I just opened, I just want to focus on one aspect of this for now: the desire for self preservation. We are closer to realizing the future that I outlined above than I previously anticipated.

    http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm (watch the video)

    Of course, I'm not worried yet because I don't think that their AI is deep enough to create any cause for concern, but this has the potential to become a problem.

    As things stand right now, I don't think it should be considered morally reprehensible to kill these actors unless the programmers of the game give the individual actors their own unique set of AI modules, where each one is capable of feeling pain and fear, among other things. I think the best solution would to create a broader actor AI in charge of controlling each actor in the game, where the broader AI is aware of the restrictions and rules for each character, including not giving the characters the ability to know things they should not know, even though the computer knows of them. It would be this AI's duty to attempt to keep the player immersed in the game's narrative through the actions of the actors should that be desired, just as it would be this AI's duty to impose other challenges on the player(s) through the actor.

    In that sense, it would be like playing dungeons and dragons with another person who is trying to make it as hard as possible on you while still keeping the world realistic, instead of fighting against individuals with the will to fight back. The key is keeping the consequences of failure detached from the AI itself, so that in the end the desire to live is not something that is inherent in the AI, but something that is emulated by the AI. As long as the AI itself does not have a desire to live, I think we should still be morally in the clear.

    ===============

    All moral issues aside, however, I still feel like they are approaching this the wrong way from a gaming perspective. When people are playing games, they aren't looking for advanced intellectual death animations. I've played a few games where, through a cutscene, one of my enemies starts to beg for his own life, full with his lower lip quivering and his begs for mercy. Contrary to popular belief, gamers don't want to be filled with these kinds of guilt trips.

    Gamers don't have any issue with running around killing people in games for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that it's just a game and nobody actually gets hurt as a consequence for fighting back, and even though it may appear that the people you are fighting against may die as a consequence for failing to best you in the game, simply staying alive and remaining unhurt for the purposes of staying alive and not getting hurt alone are not a part of the game's atmosphere. If you're trying to stay alive and not get killed, it's from a strategic perspective, in an effort to best your opponent.

    I feel that this is where naturalmotion took a wrong turn. The next step in video game AI programming should have been to make each enemy more responsive to player input in an effort to make them more strategic. Essentially, the enemy and the player should react in the same way. In most games, the goal of the player is not to flinch, stumble, scream and fall whenever he gets hit by bullets. For the most part, the goal of the player is to ignore the amount of 'pain' his character must be taking and only take into account his current health status as a way to mediate his own actions, and decide whether or not he should try a different approach, or retreat for more health to come back and try again. This is what the enemy AI should be doing as well, and this is why players enjoy playing online games so much. They want the challenge that a skilled player can present to them, they don't care particularly that the players don't scream out in fear and terror while being shot at. That is, essentially, what makes all the murder and violence part of a fun gaming atmosphere, and not part of some "sadistic murder simulator," as the media loves to scream.

    That's part of why gamers haven't minded for so long about the unrealism of ragdoll physics. I can't speak for everybody here, but personally when I play video games I'm not looking for realism. I don't look for people to bleed and stagger around or plead for their lives when shot, and I don't look for my environment to be a graphical mirror image of everything around me. What I look for is to have a good time, and to be entertained. When I shoot somebody three times in halflife with a pistol to have them barely flinch, then finish them off with a final shot that sends them flying into the air, limbs flailing, I don't mind that it's unrealistic and impossible to accomplish in real life, the only thing that I care about was that it looked amazing. In fact, if it's over the top enough, I may even find it hilarious. Who wouldn't want to be walking across a scaffolding in a video game only to find a corpse flying at rocket speed into the wall and bounce comically up into the sky, limbs flailing? If done right, that could be a hilarious scene in its own right.

    Now imagine the same scene but the man holding his hands out before he hits the wall, then crawling a few inches towards you before collapsing dead on the floor, blood seeping out of his crushed leg. That's a different atmosphere entirely, one that would turn a lot of gamers off to gaming. Of course, there are always the games that seek primarily to convey a story and an atmosphere, and these kind of effects may be well suited to these kinds of games, but I would make an argument that one day these type of interactive narrative games will split and became a different genre entirely than games played purely for fun and challenge.
    • dinostabOMG, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Relax. This is about animation, that's all.
    • TecK415, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Dude....
    • Verz, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Interesting read! You may want to start a blog. Or a vlog, since you would easily find video examples of what you're talking about.
    • Impact0115, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3Holy ***** you had a lot of time on your hands.
    • Teacup, on 04/27/2008, -2/+0tl;dr
    • Zalyster, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2I agree.
  • away8907, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5^ WTF?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.