The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was in a graphics lecture today and i started to wonder where all the new advancements were taking us. I mean, i currently know only basic OpenGL but the level to which games designers have taken the abilities of packages such as Direct X is quite unbelieveable. We got shown a DVD today from the latest graphics fair (or something like that) where our lecturer and researcher had attended. It was incredible - they had modelled the inside of a human body and showed things like sinapses and brain signals whizzing around (technical term). Ok, i know it wasn't real but damn it looked good.
Anyway, back to my point. With all these new, more powerful abilities being handed to programmers, where will we end up? Consider first person shooters for example. These are constantly having new graphics engines designed for them as they evolve. At the moment, these are all based around standard polygon engines (LithTech and Quake 3 engines to name two). My point is this: just how long can developers continue to make new engines based around these polygons?
Personally, my answer to this is quite simple. I think that we have a long way to go yet. As processors become more powerful, the scope for more impressive graphics increases and developers increase the power of their engines to fit. Eventually, if the engine is seen to be out of date, a new one is developed from the ground up based on newer technology. I suppose the only limitting factor is how small can they get the polygons?
However, this bodes another question... something along the lines of 'how long can new engines be simple rebuilt from the ground up?' I mean, 10 years ago, a game engine was a small piece of code which simply brought the game to life. It was small and didn't have to be anything special because the game itself was not complex. A few blobs moving around a screen and vaguely resembling a person would suffice. Then, about 5 years ago (maybe a little more), we started getting games which needed more power. The main one that springs to mind is the original quake game. The graphics were considered revolutionary and the engine used had been carefully planned to get the best out of the current computer systems. Other companies realised that to compete, they either had to buy the right to use the quake engine, or build a decent one of their own. Either way, game engines were beginning to be recognised as being important.
Continuing down to today, we have the Unreal engine, Quake 3 engine and LithTech engine etc which are still being built from the ground up when required. They take a lot more designing than the now obsolete original quake engine, but it is still relatively possible to code a new engine from scratch when writing a game.
Now lets jump another 10 years into the future. I know as much about the future as you do but i am going to make a few speculations. At the moment we can see some nicely textured yellow and take it as sand. We can look at some rendered green and take it as grass. In 10 years time though, it may not be unreasonable to think that each grain of sand or blade of grass may be modelled individually. Intel have suggested 25GHz processors in about 3 years so i think this could be a very real possibility. I would like to see a games company rewrite one of these engines from scratch when they make a new game!
I think that we will start seeing companies being formed who specifically concentrate on making game engines. I mean why not? Games designers who are full of inspiration, do not want to have to rebuild a new games engine (which could double production time of the game) when they could be designing the game itself. The game design in itself is constantly having to become more complex to compete with the standard of today's games. We may start seeing companies who develop and sell new engines to the games companies. Either that or there will be a few dominating engines which swallow the market Micro$oft style. In other words, it will be too expnsive to develop a rival to whats already available because of the amount of time involved. Either way, in future, games engines will certainly be one of the most important parts of a game.
I have rambled on long enough now i think. Hopefully i have made my point somewhere in the the mess above :D. Any comments are appreciated and cheers for reading.
In the (highly appropiate) words of Dringo:
"Heres to the future"
GH
Anyway, back to my point. With all these new, more powerful abilities being handed to programmers, where will we end up? Consider first person shooters for example. These are constantly having new graphics engines designed for them as they evolve. At the moment, these are all based around standard polygon engines (LithTech and Quake 3 engines to name two). My point is this: just how long can developers continue to make new engines based around these polygons?
Personally, my answer to this is quite simple. I think that we have a long way to go yet. As processors become more powerful, the scope for more impressive graphics increases and developers increase the power of their engines to fit. Eventually, if the engine is seen to be out of date, a new one is developed from the ground up based on newer technology. I suppose the only limitting factor is how small can they get the polygons?
However, this bodes another question... something along the lines of 'how long can new engines be simple rebuilt from the ground up?' I mean, 10 years ago, a game engine was a small piece of code which simply brought the game to life. It was small and didn't have to be anything special because the game itself was not complex. A few blobs moving around a screen and vaguely resembling a person would suffice. Then, about 5 years ago (maybe a little more), we started getting games which needed more power. The main one that springs to mind is the original quake game. The graphics were considered revolutionary and the engine used had been carefully planned to get the best out of the current computer systems. Other companies realised that to compete, they either had to buy the right to use the quake engine, or build a decent one of their own. Either way, game engines were beginning to be recognised as being important.
Continuing down to today, we have the Unreal engine, Quake 3 engine and LithTech engine etc which are still being built from the ground up when required. They take a lot more designing than the now obsolete original quake engine, but it is still relatively possible to code a new engine from scratch when writing a game.
Now lets jump another 10 years into the future. I know as much about the future as you do but i am going to make a few speculations. At the moment we can see some nicely textured yellow and take it as sand. We can look at some rendered green and take it as grass. In 10 years time though, it may not be unreasonable to think that each grain of sand or blade of grass may be modelled individually. Intel have suggested 25GHz processors in about 3 years so i think this could be a very real possibility. I would like to see a games company rewrite one of these engines from scratch when they make a new game!
I think that we will start seeing companies being formed who specifically concentrate on making game engines. I mean why not? Games designers who are full of inspiration, do not want to have to rebuild a new games engine (which could double production time of the game) when they could be designing the game itself. The game design in itself is constantly having to become more complex to compete with the standard of today's games. We may start seeing companies who develop and sell new engines to the games companies. Either that or there will be a few dominating engines which swallow the market Micro$oft style. In other words, it will be too expnsive to develop a rival to whats already available because of the amount of time involved. Either way, in future, games engines will certainly be one of the most important parts of a game.
I have rambled on long enough now i think. Hopefully i have made my point somewhere in the the mess above :D. Any comments are appreciated and cheers for reading.
In the (highly appropiate) words of Dringo:
"Heres to the future"
GH
AH right... I get you now gangsta...
Good post btw, check out my one on PC gaming, and tell me what you think...
Sonic
Good post btw, check out my one on PC gaming, and tell me what you think...
Sonic
AliBoy wrote:
> Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
> Wheres Aliboy? He always reads long posts.
I guess I do : )
If someone takes time to write something long I take time to read it.
LOL - cheers man. I knew i could count on you to read it if no-one else!
> Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
> Wheres Aliboy? He always reads long posts.
I guess I do : )
If someone takes time to write something long I take time to read it.
LOL - cheers man. I knew i could count on you to read it if no-one else!
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
> Well this one went down well! Bit long I guess
Wheres Aliboy? He always reads
> long posts.
I guess I do : ) If someone takes time to write something long I take time to read it.
Anyway good post. The way I see it is gaming engines are already a huge part of games today and will always be a huge part.
It is true that the potential that technology has to make this industry better is huge, infact it is almost impossible to predict where it is going to go.
> Well this one went down well! Bit long I guess
Wheres Aliboy? He always reads
> long posts.
I guess I do : ) If someone takes time to write something long I take time to read it.
Anyway good post. The way I see it is gaming engines are already a huge part of games today and will always be a huge part.
It is true that the potential that technology has to make this industry better is huge, infact it is almost impossible to predict where it is going to go.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
Middleware, as it's called, are prerendered games graphics engines, physics engines, and now even characters and maps of cities that can be bought off the shelf and used in games.
I don't actually know much about the PS2 and didn't know this existed. I was trying to refer to the PC market because that seems to be where the main battle is between engines. This middleware sounds like it is very contrived and a quick way out - i wasn't talking about a quick way out, simply a new avenue of business.
PS2 engines casn only be as good as the machine will allow - the PC market constantly changes and allows for new technology (eg z-buffering and the like). It was this i was refering to.
Cheers for your reply Sonic.
Middleware, as it's called, are prerendered games graphics engines, physics engines, and now even characters and maps of cities that can be bought off the shelf and used in games.
I don't actually know much about the PS2 and didn't know this existed. I was trying to refer to the PC market because that seems to be where the main battle is between engines. This middleware sounds like it is very contrived and a quick way out - i wasn't talking about a quick way out, simply a new avenue of business.
PS2 engines casn only be as good as the machine will allow - the PC market constantly changes and allows for new technology (eg z-buffering and the like). It was this i was refering to.
Cheers for your reply Sonic.
Sorry bout the double post. OH, it is meant to say development times are SHORTER in the last line- the price is exactly the same due to the high cost of middlware.
Sonic
Sonic
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
I think that we will start seeing companies being
> formed who specifically concentrate on making game engines. I mean why not?
This is VERY old news!
Middleware, as it's called, are prerendered games graphics engines, physics engines, and now even characters and maps of cities that can be bought off the shelf and used in games.
It was brought about by the difficulty of PS2 games development- the idea being that while developers are getting used to the console they could use middleware.
It has, however, become a disater. Middleware just won't go away! This means that games are becoming more and more similar as they all use the same code!
OF course... it makes development times cheaper, which is why it's used.
Sonic
I think that we will start seeing companies being
> formed who specifically concentrate on making game engines. I mean why not?
This is VERY old news!
Middleware, as it's called, are prerendered games graphics engines, physics engines, and now even characters and maps of cities that can be bought off the shelf and used in games.
It was brought about by the difficulty of PS2 games development- the idea being that while developers are getting used to the console they could use middleware.
It has, however, become a disater. Middleware just won't go away! This means that games are becoming more and more similar as they all use the same code!
OF course... it makes development times cheaper, which is why it's used.
Sonic
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
I think that we will start seeing companies being
> formed who specifically concentrate on making game engines. I mean why not?
This is VERY old news!
Middleware, as it's called, are prerendered games graphics engines, physics engines, and now even characters and maps of cities that can be bought off the shelf and used in games.
It was brought about by the difficulty of PS2 games development- the idea being that while developers are getting used to the console they could use middleware.
It has, however, become a disater. Middleware just won't go away! This means that games are becoming more and more similar as they all use the same code!
OF course... it makes development times cheaper, which is why it's used.
Sonic
I think that we will start seeing companies being
> formed who specifically concentrate on making game engines. I mean why not?
This is VERY old news!
Middleware, as it's called, are prerendered games graphics engines, physics engines, and now even characters and maps of cities that can be bought off the shelf and used in games.
It was brought about by the difficulty of PS2 games development- the idea being that while developers are getting used to the console they could use middleware.
It has, however, become a disater. Middleware just won't go away! This means that games are becoming more and more similar as they all use the same code!
OF course... it makes development times cheaper, which is why it's used.
Sonic
An interesting topic, with one correction needed. Intel reckon they'll have 20GHz chips by 2007. But that's still damn fast.
As for the idea that seperate companies would just create game engines, I don't think that will happen compltely. The bigger companies will still want to create their own engines.
Why?
Becuase then they can get it to do EXACTLY what they want.
It's similar to the idea of Middleware in the PS2 at the moment. Companies are creating tools to help developers get to grips with the PS2 hardware quicker.
Only if they use the middleware tools, they won't be able to get 100% out of the hardware, as the middleware is very generic. It has to be able to handle all the different possibilities, so it might not be good enough in some specifi areas.
It's like buying a ready made suit. It looks good and does the job, but for the very best you want one made specifically for you.
Having said that, GTA3 was developed using Middleware, so it does show the kind of potential there.
I suspect that we'll see a continuation of what occurs at the moment, in reagrds to game engines. An engine will be written by a big company, to do exactly what they want, like the Unreal 2 engine, or whatever.
They will then licence this engine out to other companies who will be able to make any changes necessary to optimise the engine for their particular game.
As for the idea that seperate companies would just create game engines, I don't think that will happen compltely. The bigger companies will still want to create their own engines.
Why?
Becuase then they can get it to do EXACTLY what they want.
It's similar to the idea of Middleware in the PS2 at the moment. Companies are creating tools to help developers get to grips with the PS2 hardware quicker.
Only if they use the middleware tools, they won't be able to get 100% out of the hardware, as the middleware is very generic. It has to be able to handle all the different possibilities, so it might not be good enough in some specifi areas.
It's like buying a ready made suit. It looks good and does the job, but for the very best you want one made specifically for you.
Having said that, GTA3 was developed using Middleware, so it does show the kind of potential there.
I suspect that we'll see a continuation of what occurs at the moment, in reagrds to game engines. An engine will be written by a big company, to do exactly what they want, like the Unreal 2 engine, or whatever.
They will then licence this engine out to other companies who will be able to make any changes necessary to optimise the engine for their particular game.
Well this one went down well! Bit long I guess
Wheres Aliboy? He always reads long posts.
Wheres Aliboy? He always reads long posts.
I was in a graphics lecture today and i started to wonder where all the new advancements were taking us. I mean, i currently know only basic OpenGL but the level to which games designers have taken the abilities of packages such as Direct X is quite unbelieveable. We got shown a DVD today from the latest graphics fair (or something like that) where our lecturer and researcher had attended. It was incredible - they had modelled the inside of a human body and showed things like sinapses and brain signals whizzing around (technical term). Ok, i know it wasn't real but damn it looked good.
Anyway, back to my point. With all these new, more powerful abilities being handed to programmers, where will we end up? Consider first person shooters for example. These are constantly having new graphics engines designed for them as they evolve. At the moment, these are all based around standard polygon engines (LithTech and Quake 3 engines to name two). My point is this: just how long can developers continue to make new engines based around these polygons?
Personally, my answer to this is quite simple. I think that we have a long way to go yet. As processors become more powerful, the scope for more impressive graphics increases and developers increase the power of their engines to fit. Eventually, if the engine is seen to be out of date, a new one is developed from the ground up based on newer technology. I suppose the only limitting factor is how small can they get the polygons?
However, this bodes another question... something along the lines of 'how long can new engines be simple rebuilt from the ground up?' I mean, 10 years ago, a game engine was a small piece of code which simply brought the game to life. It was small and didn't have to be anything special because the game itself was not complex. A few blobs moving around a screen and vaguely resembling a person would suffice. Then, about 5 years ago (maybe a little more), we started getting games which needed more power. The main one that springs to mind is the original quake game. The graphics were considered revolutionary and the engine used had been carefully planned to get the best out of the current computer systems. Other companies realised that to compete, they either had to buy the right to use the quake engine, or build a decent one of their own. Either way, game engines were beginning to be recognised as being important.
Continuing down to today, we have the Unreal engine, Quake 3 engine and LithTech engine etc which are still being built from the ground up when required. They take a lot more designing than the now obsolete original quake engine, but it is still relatively possible to code a new engine from scratch when writing a game.
Now lets jump another 10 years into the future. I know as much about the future as you do but i am going to make a few speculations. At the moment we can see some nicely textured yellow and take it as sand. We can look at some rendered green and take it as grass. In 10 years time though, it may not be unreasonable to think that each grain of sand or blade of grass may be modelled individually. Intel have suggested 25GHz processors in about 3 years so i think this could be a very real possibility. I would like to see a games company rewrite one of these engines from scratch when they make a new game!
I think that we will start seeing companies being formed who specifically concentrate on making game engines. I mean why not? Games designers who are full of inspiration, do not want to have to rebuild a new games engine (which could double production time of the game) when they could be designing the game itself. The game design in itself is constantly having to become more complex to compete with the standard of today's games. We may start seeing companies who develop and sell new engines to the games companies. Either that or there will be a few dominating engines which swallow the market Micro$oft style. In other words, it will be too expnsive to develop a rival to whats already available because of the amount of time involved. Either way, in future, games engines will certainly be one of the most important parts of a game.
I have rambled on long enough now i think. Hopefully i have made my point somewhere in the the mess above :D. Any comments are appreciated and cheers for reading.
In the (highly appropiate) words of Dringo:
"Heres to the future"
GH
Anyway, back to my point. With all these new, more powerful abilities being handed to programmers, where will we end up? Consider first person shooters for example. These are constantly having new graphics engines designed for them as they evolve. At the moment, these are all based around standard polygon engines (LithTech and Quake 3 engines to name two). My point is this: just how long can developers continue to make new engines based around these polygons?
Personally, my answer to this is quite simple. I think that we have a long way to go yet. As processors become more powerful, the scope for more impressive graphics increases and developers increase the power of their engines to fit. Eventually, if the engine is seen to be out of date, a new one is developed from the ground up based on newer technology. I suppose the only limitting factor is how small can they get the polygons?
However, this bodes another question... something along the lines of 'how long can new engines be simple rebuilt from the ground up?' I mean, 10 years ago, a game engine was a small piece of code which simply brought the game to life. It was small and didn't have to be anything special because the game itself was not complex. A few blobs moving around a screen and vaguely resembling a person would suffice. Then, about 5 years ago (maybe a little more), we started getting games which needed more power. The main one that springs to mind is the original quake game. The graphics were considered revolutionary and the engine used had been carefully planned to get the best out of the current computer systems. Other companies realised that to compete, they either had to buy the right to use the quake engine, or build a decent one of their own. Either way, game engines were beginning to be recognised as being important.
Continuing down to today, we have the Unreal engine, Quake 3 engine and LithTech engine etc which are still being built from the ground up when required. They take a lot more designing than the now obsolete original quake engine, but it is still relatively possible to code a new engine from scratch when writing a game.
Now lets jump another 10 years into the future. I know as much about the future as you do but i am going to make a few speculations. At the moment we can see some nicely textured yellow and take it as sand. We can look at some rendered green and take it as grass. In 10 years time though, it may not be unreasonable to think that each grain of sand or blade of grass may be modelled individually. Intel have suggested 25GHz processors in about 3 years so i think this could be a very real possibility. I would like to see a games company rewrite one of these engines from scratch when they make a new game!
I think that we will start seeing companies being formed who specifically concentrate on making game engines. I mean why not? Games designers who are full of inspiration, do not want to have to rebuild a new games engine (which could double production time of the game) when they could be designing the game itself. The game design in itself is constantly having to become more complex to compete with the standard of today's games. We may start seeing companies who develop and sell new engines to the games companies. Either that or there will be a few dominating engines which swallow the market Micro$oft style. In other words, it will be too expnsive to develop a rival to whats already available because of the amount of time involved. Either way, in future, games engines will certainly be one of the most important parts of a game.
I have rambled on long enough now i think. Hopefully i have made my point somewhere in the the mess above :D. Any comments are appreciated and cheers for reading.
In the (highly appropiate) words of Dringo:
"Heres to the future"
GH