Spore/Sim Everything...

[Adagio]

As with most of Maxis' games, it'll be more of a toy, than an actual game, whether you like it or not

[lightblue]

I think it'd be amazing, although i will probably screw around with initial few phases (up to sentience) the most. I loved SimLife even with its limitations (12 years ago or so it must be, maybe 15).

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Adagio
As with most of Maxis' games, it'll be more of a toy, than an actual game, whether you like it or not

Yeah, something to fill the Sunday hours............

[Adagio]

Anything wrong with that? Some people like to spend a few sunday hours playing solitaire, others like to spend those hours creating weird creatures

[DrSpike]

Sunday is GW time.

[vovan]

Originally posted by Adagio
Anything wrong with that? Some people like to spend a few sunday hours playing solitaire

Dude! It's totally all about FreeCell.

I don't know, I think the game might be pretty popular if only because it's like the Sims taken to the next step. That's more or less logical. But then... logical things I guess are pretty much known to not be blockbusters when it comes to games. They don't flop, but they don't do Sims-well, either, it's the weird new things. So who knows.

Vovan

[FrostyBoy]

Procedural: the next big thing to come for games.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Bkeela
I get the impression it will be a game for people who love to create content - one vast sandpit for people to play around with.

Sandboxs are awesome. The bigger the better

[FrostyBoy]

I only wish the planets were bigger.

I wonder if the AI and Gameplay can be customised aswell? *thinks Civ Mod*

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Sandboxs are awesome. The bigger the better

If I want a sandpit I'll go to the beach. When I buy a game I want..........a game, with an actual game in it.

[lightblue]

Don't see it as a game then, but as a hobby.

[FrostyBoy]

I've just being doing some more research into procedural programming, procedural textures and animations.

If you have not heard of the 96KB Doom 3 style game, click here: http://www.theprodukkt.com/kkrieger.html#dload

The game uses procedural programming for all graphics (except maybe 1 or 2 rendered textures) The game itself is quite simple, but no less simple than most FPS games really. It goes to show you the power of procedural graphics.

I had also created a thread on another game which also uses procedural programming: Infinity.

Anyway, as I was looking into it all, I came across www.speedtree.com which shows you the level of graphics capable using just procedural programming, texturing, animation. Download the demo and the video's and you will be convinced this is the way games will go in the near future for 2 main reasons:
1. CPU's are faster than they were 10 years ago (FYI, procedural programming came before pre-rendered texures and models, but had to stop because of CPU speed and instead switched to utilizing memory).

2. Generating models, textures, animations, etc, takes a crap load of time, costing millions.

[Nostromo]

They used speedtree in Elder scrolls 4: Oblivion, with great results.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sn00py
It goes to show you the power of procedural graphics.

I guess what you mean is generating graphics from the output of an iterative system. The most famous examples are fractals.

Originally posted by Sn00py
I had also created a thread on another game which also uses procedural programming: Infinity.

Not sure what you mean. Procedural programming was what we did before the advent of object oriented programming. We still do it for quick and dirty stuff.

Originally posted by Sn00py
(FYI, procedural programming came before pre-rendered texures and models, but had to stop because of CPU speed and instead switched to utilizing memory).

That's a classic case of speed vs size.

Originally posted by Sn00py
2. Generating models, textures, animations, etc, takes a crap load of time, costing millions.

I guess that depends on the models in question and the precision required. For example, Newton's laws are still very good in most cases (for macro objects not moving very fast).

[vovan]

Anyway, as I was looking into it all, I came across www.speedtree.com which shows you the level of graphics capable using just procedural programming, texturing, animation.

I haven't seen that before. It is, indeed, quite impressive. Thanks for the link, Sn00py.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I guess what you mean is generating graphics from the output of an iterative system. The most famous examples are fractals.

He means precisely what he said - generating textures and models using code, instead of by hand. The system may or may not be iterative.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not sure what you mean. Procedural programming was what we did before the advent of object oriented programming. We still do it for quick and dirty stuff.

If you honestly don't know, he meant procedural content generation, not procedural programming. However, I think that is obvious, and you are just picking on words. Just MHO. And just a point of technicality, since you are being picky: procedural programming is definitely not just for 'quick and dirty stuff'. That little language called C is still alive and well.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I guess that depends on the models in question and the precision required. For example, Newton's laws are still very good in most cases (for macro objects not moving very fast).

I suppose that's the beauty of procedural generation of model animations - you aren't restricted in the kinds of physics models you use. Whether you wish to use fast and crude algorithms, or complex and precise ones, you can plug the one desired in, and get the results.

Vovan