Is computer evolution slower then ever?

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Foebane

how "2D is better than 3D".

The same way, Rembrandt painting is better then this:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3oyF25WGTZM/maxresdefault.jpg

LOL - what are you talking about?

The best 3D looking games have their core in 2D concept arts.
The best looking movies have their core in 2D concepts and color scripts.

Pixel art is one of the hardest forms of painting.
Especially with limited numbers of colors... however, what some people pulled of with it, is stunning.
3D modeling is piece of cake for that (in majority cases)

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

The same way, Rembrandt painting is better then this:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3oyF25WGTZM/maxresdefault.jpg

LOL - what are you talking about?

Up until your last line, I thought you were being really sarcastic and/or obtuse.

The best 3D looking games have their core in 2D concept arts.
The best looking movies have their core in 2D concepts and color scripts.

There you lot go again, I'm not talking about the "best 3D looking", I don't give a SHIT about the "best 3D looking", I'm satisfied with games like Quake 3 Arena or Doom 3, that were remarkable in terms of their engines and looked gorgeous, but in no way looked "realistic". I look at modern games in the last ten years, and they look like crap. For example, Bioshock Infinite was meant to push the envelope visually for the scope of the game it was, but all I remember thinking was how PLASTICKY everything looked.

Pixel art is one of the hardest forms of painting.
Especially with limited numbers of colors... however, what some people pulled of with it, is stunning.
3D modeling is piece of cake for that (in majority cases)

I appreciate pixel art for display, not for games necessarily. Leave that stuff for Demoscene slideshows, I say.

IS 3D modelling a "piece of cake"? Have you ever developed a AAA game on PC and console in the last ten years? Or worked on a Pixar movie, ever? I haven't neither, but I've seen documentaries, and it requires more skills (of a different kind, I grant you) than pixel pushing.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Foebane

I don't give a SHIT about the "best 3D looking", I'm satisfied with games like Quake 3 Arena or Doom 3, that were remarkable in terms of their engines and looked gorgeous

Ok, fair enough.
But I am reminding you.
All the atmosphere you see and like in Doom 3 and Quake 3, is not their engine's "press magic button", but it's the stages designed with careful observing 2D drawings and concept art.

Originally Posted by Foebane

IS 3D modelling a "piece of cake"? Have you ever developed a AAA game on PC and console in the last ten years?

Yes I did.
Actually, right now I am involved in game cinematic creation.
As an FX guy, I don't model much these days, but I did a lot's of modeling, and occasionally I model stuff when I need it (though, it's very boring for me personally).
Here is my (old) demoreel:
[ Show youtube player ]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Or worked on a Pixar movie, ever? I haven't neither, but I've seen documentaries, and it requires more skills (of a different kind, I grant you) than pixel pushing.

Haven't worked on Pixar movie, but I know some guys that worked over there. My very close friend is guy that worked on majority of new AAA movies last 10 years (Lion King for example).
I am 100% sure if I told him what you wrote here, he would say he strongly disagree with you, because we are talking all the time about similar topics.

I repeat...
Let's take a chair for example:
- 3D Model
- Pixel Art
Modeling is peace of cake.
You just build several boxes, and position them accordingly.
Pixel art drawing is waaay harder.

[Keops/Equinox]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

I repeat...
Let's take a chair for example:
- 3D Model
- Pixel Art
Modeling is peace of cake.
You just build several boxes, and position them accordingly.
Pixel art drawing is waaay harder.

No offense but that's just an incredibly naive and simplistic view of how modern 3D stuff is made. I wish it were that easy, unfortunately it's not.

Go check how high poly characters are made for games (sculpted in Zbrush for example), give it a try and show us the result.

I takes *weeks* of work to get a good looking character with proper modeling/UVs/materials (cloth, skin, hair, eyes etc). And good luck with hair.

And I'm not even counting rigging, facial animation, dynamic wrinkles and things like that.

[Foebane]

Whoops, I guess I assumed, and made asses out of us. Sorry.

I did a small amount of modelling on Real 3D on Amiga, and built a few maps from scratch for Quake 3, so I know what it's like, if that sort of modelling counts.

However, I also tried my hand at pixel art a few times, and while my work more or less no longer exists, except for one example I might be able to take a still of, from a strange source, I was always bothered by the severe constraints placed on me by 32 colours (and this example I mentioned was on the Atari ST!). So what impresses me most about pixel art is the maximum use of constrained resources, using stippling to achieve extra shades, etc.

I can only imagine that building the initial colour palettes for these pixelled images must be a nightmare, as so much planning must be involved before even touching the mouse!

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Keops/Equinox

That's just an incredibly naive and simplistic view of how modern 3D stuff is made. I wish it were that easy, unfortunately it's not.

Go check how high poly characters are made for games (sculpted in Zbrush for example), give it a try and show us the result.

I takes *weeks* of work to get a proper textured character with properly done materials (cloth, skin, hair, eyes etc). And good luck with hair.
And I'm not even counting rigging, dynamic wrinkles and things like that.

You are correct on all points.
I am just trying to explain to Foebane, that 2D art is behind everything.

That's why I mentioned chair.
Inorganic object.

For the Z-brush modeling, and character creation, you'll need to know human anatomy very well! How can we learn it? 2D drawing. Observing, and studying the books.

I am not saying 3D is easy per se... I mean.. trying to explain someone who isn't in this "business", why 2D is so damn important.

Hope you understand me better now.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Keops/Equinox

I takes *weeks* of work to get a good looking character with proper modeling/UVs/materials (cloth, skin, hair, eyes etc). And good luck with hair.

And a little bit of disagreeing here..
Not weeks.. months...

[Foebane]

Here we go, my attempt at pixel art from 1990 (attached).

The reason it looks so dreadful is that it's been taken from a black & white TV connected to the Atari ST, then filmed with a Super 8 camera, then the cine film transferred to DVD, and finally transcoded a couple of times by the time it got to YouTube.

But it does show my efforts to create a piece of pixel artwork, I even had the shading and the lighting effects right, and I'm proud of the rings and the shadows cast by Saturn.

It was meant to be one of many, and I was going to make ST chiptune versions of Holst's The Planets classical music pieces, until I realised it was too much of a tall, unattainable order.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Foebane

I did a small amount of modelling on Real 3D on Amiga, and built a few maps from scratch for Quake 3, so I know what it's like, if that sort of modelling counts.

Why it wouldn't count?
Modeling in Real 3D is waaaay harder then modeling today.
Today, is way easier to observe the model, to add, delete, extrude, vetrecies and polygons.
I also started in Real3D, btw

Originally Posted by Foebane

I was always bothered by the severe constraints placed on me by 32 colours (and this example I mentioned was on the Atari ST!). So what impresses me most about pixel art is the maximum use of constrained resources, using stippling to achieve extra shades, etc.

Exactly what I am trying to tell you.

And you even better described it here bellow:

Originally Posted by Foebane

I can only imagine that building the initial colour palettes for these pixelled images must be a nightmare, as so much planning must be involved before even touching the mouse!

Yeah!
100% correct!
You either try to draw several times, or you must smartly plan ahead.
Either way is very demanding.
One more reason to admire pixel art masterpieces done so far.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Here we go, my attempt at pixel art from 1990 (attached).

That looks great man!
I love the subtle blur and heavy translucent effect.

Waaaaaaaaaay better then anything I draw in the first several years with my Amiga and DPaint.

[AmigaHope]

The next revolution is in AI, and dedicated AI compute hardware. We're already seeing huge gains in functionality. In any situation where a "good enough" answer will suffice, i.e. what regular humans can ballpark on a much smaller scale, AI will yield some amazing results. Code optimization will involve moving heavy lifting out of pure deterministic code, much the same way that current optimization involves moving as much parallelizable code as possible to multiple cores, vector processors, and GPUs.

The next big leap for old fashioned code, where it is unavoidable, will be photonic processors, but this hasn't happened yet. That said, while there is no good turing-complete photonic processor yet, there are already photonic matrix processors coming onto the market that can beat silicon (we may see GPUs and AI accelerators go at least partially photonic industry-wide in the near future).

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

I have a setup that is much better than that - so realistic that it's not just like being there - it is there! Graphic resolution so high you can't see the pixels even with a microscope, frame rates close to the speed of light, physics calculated at subatomic particle level, immersion so good its beyond virtual reality. And to run the game I just have to open my front door and step into it!

now i am only curious what it is like inside your house..


anyway this discussion happened a lot since last i was here, many interesting points made. something that occurs is that it's kind of hard to untangle developments in technology from developments in technique. at the same time as the hardware is getting better, people are learning how to make best use of what's available already, such that if you look at the stuff that people are making now for old hardware it's really amazing! so i wonder what people will be able to make in 20 years time, for our current generation of hardware.

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

nsomething that occurs is that it's kind of hard to untangle developments in technology from developments in technique.

Well said!

[phx]

Originally Posted by Foebane

And do please cite "boring" games.

Let's start with Doom and Quake (and I did one of the first Quake ports for the Amiga, before the source was open). Do you really have fun playing them today? More than Turrican, Cannon Fodder, Monkey Island, Chaos Engine, Kick Off, etc.?

Do please cite various 2D examples, cos otherwise, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, how "2D is better than 3D".

I didn't read the whole thread, so I hope I didn't misunderstand you. I didn't say that doing any type of game in 2D is better than 3D. It's just my observation that most existing 3D games, especially the older ones, have not much depth, and are mostly very simple, boring shooters. While 2D games from the same period cover much more genres.

I respect your opinion, of course. But reading your posting #105
http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=105
basically means that you cannot understand how anybody could prefer a 2D game from the 90s to a 3D game from the 90s.

[Mrs Beanbag]

i liked Mercenary III

[mrsebe]

Originally Posted by phx

Let's start with Doom and Quake (and I did one of the first Quake ports for the Amiga, before the source was open). Do you really have fun playing them today? More than Turrican, Cannon Fodder, Monkey Island, Chaos Engine, Kick Off, etc.?

I didn't read the whole thread, so I hope I didn't misunderstand you. I didn't say that doing any type of game in 2D is better than 3D. It's just my observation that most existing 3D games, especially the older ones, have not much depth, and are mostly very simple, boring shooters. While 2D games from the same period cover much more genres.

I respect your opinion, of course. But reading your posting #105
http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=105
basically means that you cannot understand how anybody could prefer a 2D game from the 90s to a 3D game from the 90s.

Quake in multiplayer mode is still fun.

[coder76]

For classic Amiga platform, we don't need to follow mainstream.
I think most people would be happy with that Amiga games just used better resolution and more colors. For high-quality productions, forget A500, and make it A1200 AGA+accelerator board or Vampire.

For example, intro screen made in 640x512 resolution and 256 colors noninterlaced (or HAM8) works on AGA machines:
https://www.behance.net/gallery/1697...-art-redrawing

This artwork is really on another level, compared to e.g. 320x256 and 32 colors.

Mrs Beanbag proposed earlier the following as a background for an enhanced turrican game:
http://www.glastonbridge.co.uk/amy/m...n-parallax.png

And I believe similar other examples exist too.

[Mrs Beanbag]

hehe well personally i target unexpanded A1200..

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by phx

Let's start with Doom and Quake (and I did one of the first Quake ports for the Amiga, before the source was open). Do you really have fun playing them today? More than Turrican, Cannon Fodder, Monkey Island, Chaos Engine, Kick Off, etc.?

Originally Posted by mrsebe

Quake in multiplayer mode is still fun.

I think this sums up the disconnect between Amiga gamers and PC gamers perfectly.

Phx thinks that by playing Doom and Quake, I'm playing the single-player campaign alone and going through the same levels over and over again.

Phx, no-one who plays those games plays the single-player more than once, unless it's beating it on all difficulties. No, what I and others did on those games was to play MULTIPLAYER DEATHMATCH with REAL PEOPLE ONLINE, which is a helluvalot more exciting, I think, than the single-player Amiga games you mentioned. Believe me, once you've tried games like that and won a few against people with similar skill sets, you'll be hooked! But I gather you and many other Amiga gamers never did that, right?

In fact, that's what I think the problem is: Amiga gaming is solitary, unlike PC gaming. There may be several two-player split-screen games on the Amiga, but nothing on the sheer scale of up to 16 or 32 players on PC, or heck, even 64 or more on specialist maps!

And there's more than just shooting: my personal favourite game for a long time has been Team Fortress Classic, which gives you distinct goals to achieve as well as fighting your opposition, and it can take a long time to master the nine or so classes available. As I said, you'll never know the joy of it if you've never tried it and remained stuck under the Amiga rock.

Also, Phx, unlike the Amiga games you mentioned, there were THOUSANDS of ADD-ON MAPS for the Doom and Quake series, so if one got bored of the maps that came with the games, there were many, many other to try, with extreme diversity in layouts and settings. Indeed, the first year I had my PC, after I got bored of the stock Doom 2 maps, I tried CD-ROMs filled with these extra maps and had a whale of a time that lasted several months in total! I'd like to see Amiga games do that!

This is an example of add-on maps for Quake 3 Arena:
https://lvlworld.com/

[roondar]

I think the real disconnect here is that you assume that Amiga gamers haven't played these games in multiplayer mode. I certainly did. And I still find 1990's 2D games to be excellent fun, often way more than those early 3D games. That said, I'd never argue that someone who has the opposite opinion is therefore 'wrong' or that those old 3D games are 'crap'. After all, what games people like is just their opinion. No wrong or right about it.

Honestly, I don't get why we're not just all accepting that people have different tastes. There's nothing wrong with liking or disliking something