Tired Of 3d Polygonal Games...

[Radek]

Hi,

This is my first post on this forum. I soon (luckily) will have a GP2x, a small machine I'm very excited about. But to the topic...

I like 3d games especialy the first person shooters. I was stunned by oryginal Wolfstein3d, then Doom1/2, then Duke3D, etc. But the more "3d" games I had seen, the less and less I had ben impressed. To a point I was disgusted with "Doom3" and recently tested demo of F.E.A.R.

We have the 2005 year now and how is looking today's top 3d game?

- it has everything bumpmapped what makes everything like it was foiled
- it uses stencil buffer for dynamic shadows with big slowdowns when more objects shows
- it still uses lightmaps extensively (using s-buf only would kill perfomance totally)
- it still has ugly alphatested textures
- there is still (with rare exception) a syndrome of just one room with up to three opponents at once. The same way like it was in Quake.
- levels are mostly static, almost nothing can be destroyed, moved or bended (save the few barrels or chairs)

Forget for a while about graphics and focus on game's features alone and say what today's game have a feature wise better now?

Imho nothing I would say.

The oryginal Doom has:
- lots opponents at once
- very big levels
- levels could be dynamic to much greater degree
- you as player could run where you want - no a "tunnel" like only movement
- slowdowns were much smaller even at hectic action
- lighting could be changing even globally
- you could see the whole level from one point and it won't crawl

The "build" based games extended this significantly.

The first SystemShock was an 2.5d game, the second was a full 3d.
Which engine was more capable from game's features standpoint (not graphics)?

So you can say I'm a sorry old prick. :lol:

Yeah, but don't you think there are other techs to do games?
Think about DivX encoded sprites, about improved voxels,
about such things like sphererendering (someone remeber Ecstatica)?

 

[Nova]

Hey Radek, and welcome to GP32x.

 

[Rico]

- it has everything bumpmapped what makes everything like it was foiled
- it uses stencil buffer for dynamic shadows with big slowdowns when more objects shows
- it still uses lightmaps extensively (using s-buf only would kill perfomance totally)
- it still has ugly alphatested textures
- there is still (with rare exception) a syndrome of just one room with up to three opponents at once. The same way like it was in Quake.
- levels are mostly static, almost nothing can be destroyed, moved or bended (save the few barrels or chairs)

​

I partially agree with you but we're currently seeing a lot of progress in gaming. First off was the next-generation graphics, which mean the stencil buffered shadows are going to be commonplace and aren't slow on Geforce 6+ really. Bumpmapping looks great on most games (Riddick and Doom 3 perhaps take it too far). Obviously graphics are high priority for developers.

But many customers are tired of this focus and so we have a sort of 'next-generation gameplay' that isn't really all that impressive. For example, the physics in Half-Life 2 and the wall-destruction in Red Faction will make it into a lot of modern games. The major blocker is single player, where the player needs to be confined to a small area for certain types of games. If James Bond needs to infiltrate a base, he has no need to take a rocket to the walls and explore the surrounding mountains.

Much more promising are the efforts towards semi-multiplayer gaming and procedural generation shown in Will Wright's Spore, as well as Nintendo's work on the Revolution which, while not especially novel in itself, may spur on truly innovative games for the platform. 3D gaming is getting stale and I, along with many others, are just not all that impressed by a more realistic world anymore. I'm particularly looking forward to non-linear games like Oblivion/Fallout 3 where you can roleplay any character you want and not worry about the constrained, 'two doors, but one is locked' path of most FPSs. Far Cry 2 should also be promising in that regard.

Basically I'd like games to break free from the cinematic linear narrative - fixed stories are for movies, not games. Games should be built around gameplay, not a series of events. And gaming is 'a series of interesting choices', as Peter Molyneux put it - which is most evident in non-linear games. Think about how much more fun Far Cry's open-ended outside levels, giving you the choice between stealth and all-out gunning, were in comparison to the Doom 3-style inner levels with boring, predictable monster spawns. How well KOTOR 2's massive array of dialogue choices complimented your path to the light or dark side, and your influence with other party members. These are all things 16-bit games and below didn't really touch, and are far more important to me than graphics.

 

[Radek]

- it has everything bumpmapped what makes everything like it was foiled
- it uses stencil buffer for dynamic shadows with big slowdowns when more objects shows
- it still uses lightmaps extensively (using s-buf only would kill perfomance totally)
- it still has ugly alphatested textures
- there is still (with rare exception) a syndrome of just one room with up to three opponents at once. The same way like it was in Quake.
- levels are mostly static, almost nothing can be destroyed, moved or bended (save the few barrels or chairs)

​

I partially agree with you but we're currently seeing a lot of progress in gaming. First off was the next-generation graphics, which mean the stencil buffered shadows are going to be commonplace and aren't slow on Geforce 6+ really. Bumpmapping looks great on most games (Riddick and Doom 3 perhaps take it too far). Obviously graphics are high priority for developers.

I know, the image sells. But this is a very natural for a human beings.

But many customers are tired of this focus and so we have a sort of 'next-generation gameplay' that isn't really all that impressive. For example, the physics in Half-Life 2 and the wall-destruction in Red Faction will make it into a lot of modern games. The major blocker is single player, where the player needs to be confined to a small area for certain types of games. If James Bond needs to infiltrate a base, he has no need to take a rocket to the walls and explore the surrounding mountains.

You know I understood many people have a different needs. But simply betting everything on the polygonal/z-bufferd graphics is something sad to me.

Much more promising are the efforts towards semi-multiplayer gaming and procedural generation shown in Will Wright's Spore, as well as Nintendo's work on the Revolution which, while not especially novel in itself, may spur on truly innovative games for the platform. 3D gaming is getting stale and I, along with many others, are just not all that impressed by a more realistic world anymore. I'm particularly looking forward to non-linear games like Oblivion/Fallout 3 where you can roleplay any character you want and not worry about the constrained, 'two doors, but one is locked' path of most FPSs. Far Cry 2 should also be promising in that regard.

"Realistic world" should not be be goal itself! Isn't enough we already exist in a realistic world?

Basically I'd like games to break free from the cinematic linear narrative - fixed stories are for movies, not games. Games should be built around gameplay, not a series of events. And gaming is 'a series of interesting choices', as Peter Molyneux put it - which is most evident in non-linear games. Think about how much more fun Far Cry's open-ended outside levels, giving you the choice between stealth and all-out gunning, were in comparison to the Doom 3-style inner levels with boring, predictable monster spawns. How well KOTOR 2's massive array of dialogue choices complimented your path to the light or dark side, and your influence with other party members. These are all things 16-bit games and below didn't really touch, and are far more important to me than graphics.

Thats depends. I understand some games should be strictly linear, some others not. I'm not arguing this. I'm just worried that many of interesting techniques were forgotten for a sake a z-buffer based solutions. Don't understand me wrong - I'm not against current 3d hardware coprocessors. I'm just frustrated that many other intriguing technics weren't followed. Yeah, it's a market and consumer are always right. But still... you know...

Look at the GP2x. It does have an 64MB of ram memory! No one PC's games was using such size for a sprites. My pc has a whole 1GB of ram. This is an awesome size of memory. The cpu could easily decode sprites from a jpgs. This is not hard to imagine what could it allow... Almost 1GB of compressed images to 10 to 1 ratio... Almost 10GB worth of true color bitmaps...

Sorry to be such a dreamer but I'm still think a z-buffer isn't end to all graphics technics.

 

[BaDToaD]

- you as player could run where you want - no a "tunnel" like only movement
- slowdowns were much smaller even at hectic action

​

Firstly welcome.

Secondly Give World of Warcraft a try. It eats memory. Needs 512mb to run nicely and a Gig to be real nice but is almost as nice on my 64mb GeForce 2 at work as it is on my 256mb FX5200 at home.

It doesn't slow down too much even when there are loads of people on the screen.

You can wander all over the place in any direction you like. It will take literally weeks of game time to see all the content.

The land is so rich and varied that even though you fly over it on various creatures time and time again you still find yourself looking around. For the first few weeks when I played it I would sometimes just stop and look at the view. It really is awesome.


Even with this amount on the screen everything is still fluid provided you have plenty of ram and a half decent ping.
http://www.wow-europe.com/shared/wow-com/i.../crossroads.jpg

You can see the Coral under the water in this one.
http://www.wow-europe.com/shared/wow-com/i...eday/ss0127.jpg

A nice view across swampland
http://www.wow-europe.com/shared/wow-com/i...eday/ss0098.jpg

someone obviously swam out to get this screenie
http://www.wow-europe.com/shared/wow-com/i...eday/ss0088.jpg

Another nice screenie.
http://www.wow-europe.com/shared/wow-com/i...eday/ss0079.jpg

When you die the whole look of the game changes while you run to your corpse.
http://www.wow-europe.com/shared/wow-com/i...eday/ss0041.jpg

As you can imagine I love the game. The attention to detail is amazing. Go have a look at WoW europe.

 

[Radek]

As you can imagine I love the game. The attention to detail is amazing. Go have a look at WoW europe.

​

Very nice graphics and not overdone with shaders. It does show that getting to much into technological means (newest shaders, parallax bumpmaps,etc.) simply isn't needed to have a beatiful games.

Sometimes I'm wondering if all those flashy new technical capabilities are not just a food for a marketing departments of such firms like nvidia and ati?

This is the reason why I'm so interested in the GP2x. It's will allow me after a long time enjoy some of the best games ever made (and do it comfortably) and could revitalise my interest in a coding as well.

 

[kknd_cf]

"Realistic world"?
umm.. LOL INTERNET

 

[c0ncept]

I have little knowledge of PC gaming so let me open up the discussion to consoles as well.

And I thought I was the only one that was getting highly bored by the style over content mindset that modern publishers seem to be locked into.

Without sounding like a huge fanboy, this is the primary reason that I'm so excited over the nintendo Revolution. I want new ways to play games, not just nicer looking graphics and bigger worlds (I mean, gta:sa was big enough for me, it was a daunting thought to have to go from one end to the other.)

That said there a very few games that manage to break away from this, Killer 7 being the one that springs to mind first. The developers of this game have not only managed to make an exceptionally beautiful game (and I don't use 'beautiful' lightly), but they realised the limitations of the medium and stripped away all the unnecessary complications to produce an rather innovative and interesting experience.


rico said:
The major blocker is single player, where the player needs to be confined to a small area for certain types of games. If James Bond needs to infiltrate a base, he has no need to take a rocket to the walls and explore the surrounding mountains.


This is true, however everything that is placed on screen should ideally be interactive, I fell scammed othewise. The worst example, though this doesn't happen much anymore, is when you attempt to open a door to find its just a texture.

rico says:
Basically I'd like games to break free from the cinematic linear narrative - fixed stories are for movies, not games. Games should be built around gameplay, not a series of events. And gaming is 'a series of interesting choices', as Peter Molyneux put it - which is most evident in non-linear games. Think about how much more fun Far Cry's open-ended outside levels, giving you the choice between stealth and all-out gunning, were in comparison to the Doom 3-style inner levels with boring, predictable monster spawns. How well KOTOR 2's massive array of dialogue choices complimented your path to the light or dark side, and your influence with other party members. These are all things 16-bit games and below didn't really touch, and are far more important to me than graphics.


You have to remember that all the examples you've given have been framed by a larger narrative. Yes, you have the ability to make choices and affect the narrative, but you are still constrained by it. For instance in KOTOR you can't decide to retire to tatooine to become a mechanic for the rest of your days. And have you played Fable? The freedom to choose between good and evil was extremely well done, however the main storyline was basic, unoriginal and boring and the game suffered because of it.

I take the stance that games are more of less a form of interactive storytelling, whether this narrative is external (produced by a script, cut-scenes etc.) or internal (in the case of games such as the sims), the story is what makes us want to play.
Games have evolved beyond simple go for the high-score style games, not that this isn't sometimes satisfying, but modern games have the potential to be an art-form, to make you think, and involve you in stories more deeply than has ever been possible before (people crying over Aeris' death is just the start, oh yes...), rather than just a casual form entertainment, and I welcome that.


/ludology vs. narratology flame wars commence!

btw, nice to see some intelligent discussion on this board, nice one radek!

 

[Radek]

You have to remember that all the examples you've given have been framed by a larger narrative. Yes, you have the ability to make choices and affect the narrative, but you are still constrained by it. For instance in KOTOR you can't decide to retire to tatooine to become a mechanic for the rest of your days. And have you played Fable? The freedom to choose between good and evil was extremely well done, however the main storyline was basic, unoriginal and boring and the game suffered because of it.

I remember times when Jumping Jack on the ZX Spectrum was something special. Just running left and right and going higher and higher... Simpler than a stick yet it had been so seductive.

Then had been coming more and more sophisticated games.

Sometimes game was just that good to be worth played. Sometimes technical improvements were making it alone to play well. The best titles have a both.

The really good ones played very well on an emotions. I was literally scared sometimes in the Fallout the same way I was in the Draconus years before. With time however things get starting to be boring. This is a natural process as the more informations we get, the less we're eager to react as much to the same stimuli.

Well... what it does have with the GP2x?

I found to my own surprise to be excited by it. :rolleyes:
I think because it is a sum of many things I do like very much. The Linux, the portability, the mediaplayer aspect of it... so many uses in so slick appliance. The Gp2x reminds me of time when "home computers" were reigning. No, it's not a nostalgia just practicality of it. This is also why sales of notebooks are increasing - people want a more comfortable computing. The specs just got good enough to not be major aspect of a personal computer.

Blah, enough for now.

 

[Rico]

For instance in KOTOR you can't decide to retire to tatooine to become a mechanic for the rest of your days. And have you played Fable? The freedom to choose between good and evil was extremely well done, however the main storyline was basic, unoriginal and boring and the game suffered because of it.

Well I played a good character in Fable but took the evil ending, yet everyone still praised me. The differences between good and evil are fleeting at best, nowhere near the level of KOTOR's. With respect to that, by the way, there is only so much developers can put in. Retiring on Tatooine is a just a little bit out of the scope of the game, as is a GTA game where you can suddenly drop crime and work in a box factory.

I take the stance that games are more of less a form of interactive storytelling, whether this narrative is external (produced by a script, cut-scenes etc.) or internal (in the case of games such as the sims), the story is what makes us want to play.

I disagree, Tetris doesn't have a story. Nor does Rez, but people still appreciate that as an art-form. Stepmania is one of the most fun games I have ever played but no story is required. People play games for gameplay, but if the gameplay gets poor - say, trawling through a repetitive dungeon, walking a long distance - the story is what keeps people hooked in.

What I really meant in my earlier post is that I'd like to see games give you more choices because I hate railroaded plots and linear paths. That doesn't mean that every game should do that. Ico and its pseudo-sequel Shadow of the Colossus are excellent examples of 'art-form' games with beautiful execution.

 

[aQwaBlaz3]

Someone say Rez? That game kicks ass...

if you have a Nintendo DS, pick up Phoenix Wirght: Ace Attorney....one of THE best games I have ever played...EVER.

 

[PinkSpider]

Games... eh. Well to me a game has to be 'fun'. For me that doesent mean realistic, heck the less realistic the better - I love my fantasy based games and games which just look 'cool' (by cool I mean like Jet Set Radio did or something like Onimusha/ Ninja Gaiden or even something like Burnout 3 - the sence of speed).

The only game apart from Disgaea which has given me the horn recently is Lumines, I almost got a PSP because of it.

What are we on about again?

 

[PSyMastR]

My Dad hates the new FPS engines too, and will only play the Doom 1+2, Wolf3d, Duke, heretic like games.

 

[Macbeth]

The better graphics go, the more they lose their charm, I think...
3D was so much better when it was craply done!

 

[c0ncept]

I'm sorry, but WHAT??!!?

I'm in no way saying that just looking visually nice makes for a good game, but please don't dismiss visuals altogether. I don't think its as simple as old games = good new games = crap. I imagine theproblem is gthat more and more developers and publishers are RELYING on nice graphics to sell the game rather than concentrating on gameplay.

 

[Hanz™]

I'm sorry, but WHAT??!!?

I'm in no way saying that just looking visually nice makes for a good game, but please don't dismiss visuals altogether. I don't think its as simple as old games = good new games = crap. I imagine theproblem is gthat more and more developers and publishers are RELYING on nice graphics to sell the game rather than concentrating on gameplay.

​

Yeah some people here are obviously mentally retarded.

 

[Radek]

I'm sorry, but WHAT??!!?

I'm in no way saying that just looking visually nice makes for a good game, but please don't dismiss visuals altogether. I don't think its as simple as old games = good new games = crap. I imagine theproblem is gthat more and more developers and publishers are RELYING on nice graphics to sell the game rather than concentrating on gameplay.

​

Yeah some people here are obviously mentally retarded.

​

This point would be an absolutely valid if making a game with top visuals wouldn't so expensive. Problem is all the technological revolution (true colour, 3d graphics, shaders and whatever else) not only did improve what we are seeing on a screen but also made all this very costly.

For a "Jumping Jack" I could done the graphics myself.

For a Doom3 sure not.

This is the difference and a very significant one

The result is a game publisher won't risk his money to bring somethink new because to be "just in a game" he must invest a big bucks for a graphics alone.

So we are getting "a pop" games at most. Simply put the games industry isn't so different now from the movies industry or the music industry.

 

[Radek]

My Dad hates the new FPS engines too, and will only play the Doom 1+2, Wolf3d, Duke, heretic like games.

​

Heh.

He doesn't really hate the new games because of theirs engines.

Simply put the new "FPS" games are nowhere near to the level of the old ones.

Yeah, I know I'm a generalising but tell me a single not technical feature the olders doesn't have.

Imho there is a none.

The fps shooter is just a fps shooter and the Doom1/2 in this regard conceptually is (well, almost) no different to the Doom3. Still bad guys to kill, still the levels to be running within. The difference is a Doom1/2 was something really new at its time and its hardware requirements were well justified.

Remember the sentence "Doom is God, God is Doom"?

Are we hearing anything to the same level with any today's FPS shooters?

NO!

And this is so for a very good reason.

 

[Rico]

Yeah, I know I'm a generalising but tell me a single not technical feature the olders doesn't have.

Imho there is a none.

Other people helping you out - squad-based combat. Orders. Voice communication over the internet. More complicated and fun game modes than just deathmatch. Smoke grenades. Sophisticated AI. Hit direction indicators. Real plots, cutscenes, narrative. Gameplay more complex than just killing everything in sight. Stealth missions.

The fps shooter is just a fps shooter and the Doom1/2 in this regard conceptually is (well, almost) no different to the Doom3.

Perhaps because Doom 3 was DESIGNED to be almost identical to Doom 1, as it's a remake? That's not a very good example of a modern FPS.

Are we hearing anything to the same level with any today's FPS shooters?

Half-Life 2, for one.

 

[deadlychicken22]

Are we hearing anything to the same level with any today's FPS shooters?

Half-Life 2, for one.

​

Yep, Half-life 2 is simply amazing (and its fun )