Audio raytracing should be physically based processing of audio as per surroundings. Instead of applying a general reverb to a sound, a trace or so from the player to the surroundings would be used to calculate correct audio responses. Sound would appear very different when standing right next to a wall versus away from it. Taken even further, you could trace sound from source to the player and determine acoustic effects and positioning - eg. Someone to the left of you can appear to the right if they are in a hallway with the door on your right hand side. Such techniques wouldn't be pure raytracing as you're dealing with a 360 degree pressure wave, but with suitable space and material structures, geometry rays could be used to evaluate the sound processing to perform. So I don't think Cerny's comment was unrealistic myself. Although the lack of universal binaural sound via headphones as standard suggests it'd be such a niche feature, devs probably wouldn't bother.
Audio raytracing should be physically based processing of audio as per surroundings. Instead of applying a general reverb to a sound, a trace or so from the player to the surroundings would be used to calculate correct audio responses. Sound would appear very different when standing right next to a wall versus away from it. Taken even further, you could trace sound from source to the player and determine acoustic effects and positioning - eg. Someone to the left of you can appear to the right if they are in a hallway with the door on your right hand side. Such techniques wouldn't be pure raytracing as you're dealing with a 360 degree pressure wave, but with suitable space and material structures, geometry rays could be used to evaluate the sound processing to perform. So I don't think Cerny's comment was unrealistic myself. Although the lack of universal binaural sound via headphones as standard suggests it'd be such a niche feature, devs probably wouldn't bother.
Yes, this was all stuff that was done by Aureal and Creative Labs over a decade ago. But as far as I can recall they didn't call it ray-tracing of sounds. They did use rays to describe it. Likely even using some derivative of tracing rays in order to describe the technique. In fact at their height they would trace multiple bounces in order to model the sound properties of an environment. But I don't believe they ever actually referred to it as ray tracing and hence stepping on the toes of what is traditionally associated with that terminology.
Hence, why I just feel the term ray tracing is being repurposed this generation as a marketing buzzword as it's being used to describe everything that might possibly be using a ray at some point during the process.
They call it wavetracing to fit the sound domain. You can find papers on raytracing audio too.
Raytracing is an overloaded term like FLOP. As long as the context is clear, it should be fine.
I had a college professor who tried to avoid buzzwords and overloaded terms, it confused everyone and made his paper unnecessarily longer. Eventually he just try to be more careful and concise.
In science, we always revisit old ideas and innovate from there. Nothing wrong with that.
EDIT:
With all the compute jobs coming together, it may be interesting to see if we could trace once for "everything", instead of graphics, physics, AI and audio doing their own things.
The Last of Us will also feature a breed of mushroom people who detect enemies by sound (e.g., path finding by hearing). So yeah, should be fun to play hide-and-seek with the zombies.
New interview from Edge. Not a lot of technical detail but it does go into some of the design choices they made along with a lead into the February Reveal demo. Thought this was interesting too:
I thought it was odd they wouldn't have used the built-in audio hardware. Perhaps the hardware wasn't ready in the early dev kits or maybe they simply ported whatever code they had for audio from the KZ3 engine? Looking at the current Radeon line, I don't see much mention of specific audio decoding support (just support for outputting various formats through HDMI). But on an unrelated note, I did find some of the video info I was looking for (UVD, VCE).
Thanx for that link. So GG i s aiming for more open aproach to gameplay. Less corridors and more 'spaces' where you can decide how to tackle enemies. Good to hear that.
Really nice interview, really makes it feel like next-gen is just on the corner when the games are sounding like they are coming together nicely
There was some talk about having many characters on screen, and having them all animate and look excellent. Reminds me of what I want from GTA V... I'm really hoping it hits next-gen consoles too (like Watch Dogs is cross-generation).
I think killzone shadow fall will have a nice step up in graphics by the time its released. Was the first trailer alpha or beta? If they locked 30 fps so early on there will be quite a lot of wiggle room left by the time it releases.
Is that confirmed? Is he the Lead Designer here too? that could be the best news about this title uptill now, other than the fact that they are going for open levels and ditching corridors. And their physically correct Area lighting and shading model is very impressive too. C'mon E3, show us a new area and some direct feed gameplay demos
I just wanna see a night level with tons of explosions, dynamic lights, burning debris and chaos going on, much like the Blood Meridian level in KZ2. A nextgen level like that could be down right insane and I know GG can do it.
His LinkedIn profile says he left during KZ3 development. He may have contributed somewhat to KZ3 MP too.
I actually don't mind KZ3 MP. Played it a lot.
KZ2 stands out in vision, details and uniqueness. I suspect it's probably teamwork (art + tech + game design), budget and "from scratch" development tailored to that one vision. They were under the gun to deliver the 2005 trailer experience. IMHO, MP has its flaws though.
Killzone 3 MP was pretty good and I think and improvement over KZ2. there was just too much nonsense and fluff like boosters and the still very cheap infiltrator class that sucks a bit of fun out of the whole thing. It just got too much and a little annoying to be on the grinding treadmill the whole time. I hope all of Sony first party tones that down a bit. Mechanics of the game are solid though I think.
I can't think of a single thing I liked better about KZ3's multiplayer.
TSPs < Spawn Grenades
Classes were worse and more poorly balanced
Passive scramble = teh OP
24 players < 32 players
Maps were too big, too chokey, too mazelike
Turbine Concourse was horrible
Mortar Beacon sucked, had to be patched over and over to stop breaking the game
NO PUBLIC CUSTOM MATCHES
ISA death sound made me want to punch the TV
Brutal Melee = teh suk
Dumb mech suits were dumb
Every class can have proxy mines = teh mess
Can't use assault rifles on any but two classes
No squad spawning
I can't think of a single thing I liked better about KZ3's multiplayer.
TSPs < Spawn Grenades
Classes were worse and more poorly balanced
Passive scramble = teh OP
24 players < 32 players
Maps were too big, too chokey, too mazelike
Turbine Concourse was horrible
Mortar Beacon sucked, had to be patched over and over to stop breaking the game
NO PUBLIC CUSTOM MATCHES
ISA death sound made me want to punch the TV
Brutal Melee = teh suk
Dumb mech suits were dumb
Every class can have proxy mines = teh mess
Can't use assault rifles on any but two classes
No squad spawning
Same for me. Because of those changes, especially something simple as no assault rifle, I couldn't get into it.
I maxed out KZ2 MP, unlocked everything and loved it...but KZ3 MP not more than some rounds in the Beta, and than a look into the classes screen in the final release.
Devs often should just iterate their game if the base is solid instead of completely overhaul it (happended to Resistance and KZ series and turned out worse imo).
Same for me. Because of those changes, especially something simple as no assault rifle, I couldn't get into it.
I maxed out KZ2 MP, unlocked everything and loved it...but KZ3 MP not more than some rounds in the Beta, and than a look into the classes screen in the final release.
Devs often should just iterate their game if the base is solid instead of completely overhaul it (happended to Resistance and KZ series and turned out worse imo).
However, how far do you go with iterative changes, when with the base game the public audience at large were so divided?
Resistence didn't suffer this imho, as R1 was highly regarded as one of the best MP games on PS3. It was pretty unanimous. Insomniac simply decided they didn't like what they did previously and switched it all up to try to be more like COD.
KZ2 however was a downright rediculously divisive game, where throngs of the gaming press and public essentially slated the game for basically "not being COD" (which at the time I found infuriatingly unreasonable). Sure KZ2 had its issues, principally with input lag and MP balance in some places, however given the ineptitude of the gaming press and public in being able to properly analyse and articulate these issues (they all basically chimed the same tired narrative, "its not like COD"), the devs were left with a stinking miasma of confused and mixed messages about how to change and improve their game for the better.
With KZ3 Guerrilla basically screwed up by getting it mostly wrong. Sometimes I wonder whether they themselves truly understood what it was that really worked about KZ2, and what made it such a thrilling joy to play both in SP and MP mode. I'm convinced that they missed all the subtlties and nuance about KZ2's gameplay, and instead looked too far outwards at what other games were doing for ways to improve their franchise. Thus KZ3 ended up playing so much differently to KZ2, still a good game but just not in the same league as its predecesor, and so much more similar to other FPS games. That fact makes KZ2 stand out even more as a truly unique FPS game in its own right, that was doing things so far away from what everyone else was doing, and it was excellent - whilst still flawed - in its own right.
This is however exactly what gives me hope that given the release of KZ3 and its reception in comparison to KZ2, that it will provoke Guerrilla into really digging deep to truly understand what made KZ2 such a great and unique shooter over other games. I hope that they can do that. And I hope that the recent hirings of former KZ2 staff is a clue to that kind of diligence being made a reality.
Sure, maybe I'm living in hope, but until KZ:SF ships and reviews, all i have are my dreams
1. You need to look at what your desired customers actually do (which may be quite different from what they say they want).
2. You need to understand that trying to do a slightly better version of what the other guy did will ALWAYS keep you in a lower tier. Doesn't matter if the product is video games or shoes.
With KZ3 Guerrilla basically screwed up by getting it mostly wrong. Sometimes I wonder whether they themselves truly understood what it was that really worked about KZ2, and what made it such a thrilling joy to play both in SP and MP mode. I'm convinced that they missed all the subtlties and nuance about KZ2's gameplay, and instead looked too far outwards at what other games were doing for ways to improve their franchise.
I agree with the bolded 100%. Far too often in KZ3, I found myself thinking, "Oh, this is in here because Bungie put it in Halo." "Oh, they did this because that's how COD does it." "Oh, this got included because people made a big deal about it in the forums." "Well, this change is clearly in direct response to an IGN review."
Ironically, I believe the games they're trying to ape (mainly Halo and COD) are so successful because they look at what gamers actually do and cater to that.
