PS3 Strategy/Confidence Retrospective

[Laa-Yosh]

Really? Although he never talks about graphics, I feel Mike Acton would actually know more, because he's part of a team that not only can afford the luxury of thinking about using BluRay, but actually uses BluRay for better looking games.

We've createad assets for two nextgen games already. One of them has been discussed a lot in this forum but I'm not sure if I can say which game it is.

Or, the modern day equivalent, SpeedTree. Hey wait, the latter fully integrates with Unreal Engine 3. And happens to also be used in Ratchett & Clank (and Resistance, and Call of Duty 3, etc.). Coincidence?

People are already talking about throwing out Speedtree, that it produces the same stuff over and over again and game's already suffer for it.

And you don't think we'll get more tools that can just put anyone's face into 3D and/or average out / randomise some features?

Those will never, ever, look and work as well as something hand-made. People try to make tools like this for more then a decade and the quality still hasn't really advanced.

 

[Arwin]

So, you use hand-made work to create the main characters, but then for all the thousands of enemies you use a tool. And of course not everyone is using SpeedTree and it isn't the end all solution, but it's been used a fair bit, and it works.

Look, obviously you would be the last person to say 'sure, we can develop tools for everything, do things in half the time, and hand-made really isn't all that necessary'. It's your bread and butter. And I am the last to say that you can't get better results with hand-made work in many cases - I know and fully appreciate what real artists can do.

However, that also doesn't mean you cannot create a lot more content if you bring in proper tools. Compare how much work it would have been to create the animations in Uncharted if they hadn't developed the animation layering technique. As was just posted in the Uncharted thread, this game took Naughty Dog 2 years to develop. But like Insomniac, now that they've gone through the teething pains, they expect about a 30-40% increase in staff is required over the previous generation:

EW: The first game out of the box here was a tough one. I think it was hard for everybody to make the transition from last-gen to this generation. The leap was much larger I think than from PS1 to PS2 in terms of technology and to wrap your head around multiple processors and pixel shaders--it really was just a whole new way of developing games. But now that we've got our IP established and we have our game engine completed, we're moving pretty rapidly now. We can create I would say nearly as fast as we could on the PS2 with maybe 30 to 40 percent increase in staff.

As for your very last comment, this year we've seen several systems that did a pretty impressive job of making a 3D face from a camera shot. To say that the quality of this hasn't really advanced, well, Toshiba's work doesn't look to bad if you ask me.

I think maybe you're blinded to some extent by the work that your team is hired for. Though surely even there the whole tools suite has made some progress over the last ten years ...

 

[PARANOiA]

I don't have the exact details, only that on their own weekly podcast (last week of september), Insomniac have stated that the game takes up 22GB on the disc, and even without all the audio packs for the different languages language it still wouldn't fit on a single double layer DVD. If that's not good enough, then right now, I won't be able to convince you ... (Singstar, with 30 HD videoclips on the disc would be another game that has better graphics and needs BluRay but I'm sure that one doesn't count for many people. )

Thanks for the heads up re: R+C. I did a bit of googling but couldn't find a breakdown of the audio vs video. If anyone has more info, it would be good to share. Sharing is, after all, caring!

We never got a asset breakdown on Heavenly Sword, but if the "cutscenes" could have been done ingame cheaper and faster instead of captured and encoded and put on the disc as video, i am sure they would have done it, right?

Lets play a little (this is about games), let a developer run "wild" with his game, no size limit on the media, there is a transfer speed and a seek time to take into account. If the developer is doing Pixel Racers he wont see a gain. If he is doing Drakes Fortune he might see a gain. When he is done with the game it takes up 8 GB. Putting it on a 7GB disc would mean he would have to compromise, maybe drop a track, a night race or something like that. Or in the case of Blu-Ray he just burns the disc and his game will look like it should.

In the case of heavenly sword 10GB sound is alot and afaik it was a mix of uncompressed and compressed sounds. How much it would need to be compressed to fit on a 7GB disc along with the rest of the assets is an interesting question but it would still be a compromise.

And if a multi platform game like Assassins Creed is fighting disc space because of multi languages why shouldn´t lair benefit from the extra disc space on it´s multi languages?

Because of the console war i doubt we will see lots of remarks about how something was sacrificed because of lack of disc space. But common sense should tell us that more space is always better. And in Drakes Fortune it may turn out to be an absolute demand, if the 3 x DVD size is true.

First of all I'll make one point - I never said, and never implied that more space was worse. More space is of course, better. What I did question, though, was that Arwin's comment that more space is necessary. I asked for a list of games that show it's necessary. He's nicely given me two titles, but obviously this needs a little more discussion (possibly a splinter topic in Console Tech?)

Short-cutting is an interesting one. Hell, lots of what you are calling "sacrifices" are simply common sense. Do devs need uncompressed audio for 7.1 channels for most games, when less than 0.01% of users have the equipment to use it? Is it even a sacrifice in that case? I would say no - some might say yes, but then that's an extreme minority.

Add to that the fact that I then went on to ask if there were any games at all out there that did, in fact, need more space, were these games worth the price premium? Since there's no clear answer as to whether there are any games at all out there today that could not be done on a DVD (perhaps R+C) then of course I'm going to say, no it's not necessary.

Of course, I'm sure when the giant budget PS3-exclusive titles than can afford more art-assets, there will be a few titles that simply wouldn't fit on a DVD. However, I'm extremely skeptical that there's any advantage right now. When there does prove to be one in a few years, for games that can't be multi-disc'ed - which of course isn't a problem for action-type games like Uncharted, if the size you're talking about isn't simply wasted space for uncompressed audio - then a PS3 will prove its value. Today, quite simply, from the user's perspective BR is good for movies and nothing else.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

...

(counted to ten)

I've been working in the games industry for almost 8 years as a professional. I've contributed to several AA games, I'm a lead artist and I'm responsible for a team of modelers.

I find it attrocious that you challenge my competence and try to educate me from your armchair.

 

[Arwin]

Well let's not exaggerate. The constant transfer rate across the disc isn't bad for games either and particularly the fact that the disc spins 6 times slower has some significant advantages too in terms of hardware design, cooling, and keeping the noise down.

Part of the reason for HS's large sound file was obviously that all 13 audio tracks were on the same disc, where otherwise often you'd see a different disc being pressed for different language regions in Europe. But HS being the size it is, I assume that a HS2 could more easily be twice the length of HS (should there ever be a HS2 of course), in which case even the graphics by themselves wouldn't fit on 7.4GB.

Also, creating games on multiple discs does create a development overhead. With the BluRay disc, you'll be able to push out test discs much more easily, and you can worry about part of the optimising and compressing side of things when you need to. This may seem trivial and not something you'll see results of as an end user, but it is just the kind of thing that could one day reverse the trend of on which platform a game will be released first.

This is only the first year of the PS3, and yet to me the trend is already very clear. In the first year of the PS2, some of the first games were also released on CD, remember, but very soon even just the average game size superceded that and all games were released on DVD. Plenty of games on the 360 max out the disc size today already. There's no room for growth. And if I'm right, and the trend continues just as it did last generation, then 50GB can be put to good use for a fair few games, and you'll need 7 DVDs for that.

People (also in this thread) have made the interesting argument that since the 360 and PS3 have the same amount of RAM, and that being the limiting factor in terms of how much data you require in a game. If that is true, though, then if you take it from the PS2, with its 32(+4)MB of RAM, having 9GB of disc size available, then why is 7.4GB sufficient for the 360 which has 16x as much RAM?

Obviously, all these things won't make games on 360 impossible, or even bad. Look at the Nintendo Wii - you can still create great games even with just 80MB of RAM. But just because you have to look really hard right now to see the train coming in the distance, that's not going to stop it.

 

[Arwin]

(counted to ten)

I've been working in the games industry for almost 8 years as a professional. I've contributed to several AA games, I'm a lead artist and I'm responsible for a team of modelers.

I find it attrocious that you challenge my competence and try to educate me from your armchair.

So you are saying then that Toshiba's work doesn't exist? Or are you saying that it isn't an improvement over what we had 10 years ago? Or, maybe, are you saying that being a (specific type of) professional doesn't skew your view?

Let me tell you a little story. There are two important legal branches, Notaries and 'other' Lawyers. They often do very similar work, depending on their field of specialisation, but historically there has been one simple yet far-reaching difference between the two. One gets paid by the hour, and the other gets paid per created document.

Now guess which one has been using automated document creation and data integration tools for more than 20 years, all the way back to the brain-dead Terminal days?

You'll have to excuse me, but you're just being silly now. I've folowed the games industry since the beginning, and well remember when animations of 2D art moved from having every frame drawn by hand to having a 3D object rotate and take the 2D art from there. We've moved from Snow-White, via Alladin being one of the first 'traditional' movies to feature a partly 3D modelled section (the carpet flight out of the cave), to the descendants of Toy Story that rule cinemas today.

Maybe next time you should look at the furry creature in Monsters Inc, count the individually animated hairs on his character model, and have pity on the 1000 artists that have worked several years each hand modelling and animating the 3 individual hairs and all their frames, the mathematicians that overviewed their work and helped them calculate their exact animation in the wind, and ... oh wait.

Don't pretend now that technologies like 3d scanners don't exist, which has seen loads of development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_scanner). Don't pretend that they don't speed up the art creation process. And don't pretend that even if sometimes doing the job by hand can be better for a game, then if someone wanted to create a game that required a lot of art that he could only afford by using tools like these, then even if that game would have looked better when everything had been hand-modelled (which I think is an extremely ironic comment in itself, in the context of 3d art).

You can huff and puff all you like, but there are enough smart and educated people on this forum to have discussions like these based on content rather than authority.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

This is not authority, it's you trying to know better what I do as a daily job. I've never seen anything like this before. Are you going to educate DeanoC and nAo as well?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So, you use hand-made work to create the main characters, but then for all the thousands of enemies you use a tool. And of course not everyone is using SpeedTree and it isn't the end all solution, but it's been used a fair bit, and it works.

Look, obviously you would be the last person to say 'sure, we can develop tools for everything, do things in half the time, and hand-made really isn't all that necessary'. It's your bread and butter. And I am the last to say that you can't get better results with hand-made work in many cases - I know and fully appreciate what real artists can do.

However, that also doesn't mean you cannot create a lot more content if you bring in proper tools.

Though I agree with you on the theoretical level, implementation isn't there. Isn't anything like close at the moment. Poser has been out for years, but we still don't have button-press solutions for creating and rigging characters. The best we've sort of got is trees and the the like, and even they're a bit ropey. We don't have automatic architects to build you a Fable 2 environment or a RnC environment. We don't have automatic baddie creation for creating pirates and robots. We don't have generic people creation to populate GTA or the crowds in scenes. We'll hopefully get automatic animation creation this gen in a big way. Bob Ross is an interesting example, because he actually mirrors SpeedTree nicely - commercial hackwork that all looks the same. It's nice decoration, but you can hardly say Bob Ross took the efforts of Monet, Constable, Millais, Sargent (add other artists here) and sped them up. He created different art in different ways. He didn't find a way to produce 'great art' quickly, rather than find an art style that was quick to produce. So if you want your studio to sell Bob Ross style art, you'll get a fast turnaround, but if your art requirements differ you stuck waiting on the artist.

Compare how much work it would have been to create the animations in Uncharted if they hadn't developed the animation layering technique.

The technique isn't new though. Only the scale of implementation. It's an evolution, not a revolution. Likewise going forward 5 years to the next gen, there's not much around now that can evolve into super deluxe Inst-o-Matic content creation. I'm sure we'll see some good procedural stuff that's a step in the right direction, but not enough to significantly impact costs.

As was just posted in the Uncharted thread, this game took Naughty Dog 2 years to develop. But like Insomniac, now that they've gone through the teething pains, they expect about a 30-40% increase in staff is required over the previous generation:

30% up from then. That'll be another 30% for the next gen, no? Notice that with all the improvements in technology, cost of creation have never gone down. From each gen to the next, the old tools haven't been replaced by new tools that make it cheaper to create games at the new level. Likewise next gen will cost more, even more than they do now.

I think maybe you're blinded to some extent by the work that your team is hired for. Though surely even there the whole tools suite has made some progress over the last ten years ...

I think that's pretty damned rude as a comment, and sadly a common attitude for those not in the biz. "It's easy! I don't know what the complaining is all about! It doesn't take much to create a human face these days. It doesn't take much to create a rich launch lineup of software and services. Any dev who can't get the most out Cell is just lazy." Do you not think that Laa-Yosh's job as lead artist would be better and safer if he could cut costs using automated tools? We're not talking wholesale replacement of his job here, so you can't play the Luddite card. Do you think he operates in the industry without paying any attention to the developments going on within it, and where Company X has released 'Super Human Modeller Tech' that would automate much of Laa-Yosh's efforts, he's just turning a blind eye to it?

I don't understand this mentality that professionals, whether professional artists or professional engineers, can be believed to operate without any level of professional conduct or where-with-all. Though this thread has gone way off track from it's topic origins, it appears to have come full circle in terms of mentality and expectations. We in our arm chairs looking at technology from 50,000 feet (I guess those armchairs are in balloons!) see a clear and easy roadmap, with automated tools and long term plans and everything else. Truth is when you come down out of the balloon you see those paths are littered with rocks, mantraps, tigers, and myriads of problems. What looks a nice, easy path isn't when you're the one walking it. Life is never that easy! How's about we listen to the people on the ground about what it's really like down there?

Still, I guess now Laa-Yosh can understand what my complaint was, where Sony staff were the recipients of the same attitude as he's just witnessed. I'm sure if we had some of Sony's designers and decision makers here, they'd have a few choice words to say about long hours, or at least some nice counting to ten! Shame they're all too lazy to show themselves.

 

[.Melchiah.]

On the N64, cart manufacturing costs made it unappealing to produce software for the system, and cart space limitations made the production of certain killer apps impractical or impossible for it. DVD in the Xbox 360 does not have an associated cost penalty (probably the opposite initially) and its size limitations are such that it does not preclude the kinds of killer apps that MS need (as has been readily demonstrated). For these reasons we can say that DVD is good enough for this generation.

But there's something to consider; all the different languages can be included on one Bluray disc, thus a publisher can release the same version in every region. That isn't possible on DVD.

 

[Colourless]

The language advantage that PS3 only works if the publisher wants to put all language versions on the disk. It. It requires that the entire product be delayed till all the translations are finished. There can be reasons why they wouldn't want to wait for them to be finished before releasing the English or Japaneese versions of the game.

 

[-tkf-]

Sharing is, after all, caring!

tell that to RIAA

Do devs need uncompressed audio for 7.1 channels for most games, when less than 0.01% of users have the equipment to use it? Is it even a sacrifice in that case? I would say no - some might say yes, but then that's an extreme minority.

Add to that the fact that I then went on to ask if there were any games at all out there that did, in fact, need more space, were these games worth the price premium? Since there's no clear answer as to whether there are any games at all out there today that could not be done on a DVD (perhaps R+C) then of course I'm going to say, no it's not necessary.

-- SNIP --

Today, quite simply, from the user's perspective BR is good for movies and nothing else.

Yes uncompressed audio can be overkill, and in HS example aparently not everything is uncompressed either. As i said we need a breakdown from the HS guys to know for sure how it uses space. But lets say that compressed audio takes 1GB and the rest takes up 7GB. Do we just compress the textures a bit more and the sound as well, where do we draw the line? In HS case and thanks to the 25GB they aparently didn´t have to draw the line in an unpleasent way.

Aparently Drakes Fortune is another heavy hitter when it comes to space, is BR warranted when it´s released or do we have to make a space breakdown with compression ratios on the different assets before we can agree?

 

[Arwin]

Though I agree with you on the theoretical level, implementation isn't there. Isn't anything like close at the moment. Poser has been out for years, but we still don't have button-press solutions for creating and rigging characters.

So you think that EA's game face technology, or Level 5's wonderful character creation technology, or the stuff integrated in Home, even Nintendo's Mii creation tool, Virtua Fighter's character accessorizer (readily picked up by their competitors) or probably one of the best examples, are not indicative of the rapid progression that is being made even just in this area? And even then not every face in a game needs to be a Nariko or a Kai.

So when you say:

We don't have generic people creation to populate GTA or the crowds in scenes.

I say, are you sure? I seriously, seriously doubt that. Irrespective of what Level 5 does, I'm willing to bet that Rockstar has some in-house developed character design tools.

Bob Ross is an interesting example, because he actually mirrors SpeedTree nicely - commercial hackwork that all looks the same. It's nice decoration, but you can hardly say Bob Ross took the efforts of Monet, Constable, Millais, Sargent (add other artists here) and sped them up.

But the best portrait painter, when aiming for sheer pictorial realism, is beaten by the photograph, both in accuracy and in efficiency.

So if you want your studio to sell Bob Ross style art, you'll get a fast turnaround, but if your art requirements differ you stuck waiting on the artist.

If games have shown anything, it is that great art isn't always the most important factor. Neither is great writing. Quantity is sometimes more important. Think of a game like Elite, which is endlessly large (well almost, for a game that ran on a C64yet created by one man. It's another form of content creation. Could you do it today? Yes. Even on this forum there are people enjoying themselves creating automated Planet and planet surface tools.

The big problem I am having discussing this with you and LaaYosh, is that you both do not seem willing to recognise two fundamental principles:

1. if we need to, history has shown that we can in fact make many, many things in life more efficient
2. if there isn't a one button solution that's the end all making all artists in the universe superfluous, that doesn't also mean that the exact opposite is true. Think real numbers, not binary!

It's an evolution, not a revolution.

Exactly!

30% up from then. That'll be another 30% for the next gen, no? Notice that with all the improvements in technology, cost of creation have never gone down. From each gen to the next, the old tools haven't been replaced by new tools that make it cheaper to create games at the new level. Likewise next gen will cost more, even more than they do now.

Simple economics though! Revenue is going up. If it weren't, then either the industry collapses when computer graphics evolve further, or content generation cost reduction strategies (including tools like 3d scanners) become vital.

I think that's pretty damned rude as a comment, and sadly a common attitude for those not in the biz. "It's easy! I don't know what the complaining is all about! It doesn't take much to create a human face these days.

It's a valid point, but that doesn't also mean that I think in the light of discussion, that is a thoroughly unfair comment. I am well aware of the creation process. But I am also aware of the difference between art creation and manufacturing, and everything that lies in between. I know the difference between writing a great novel, or using one as a generic template for mass production. I've studied Art, I've studied English, I've studied Logic, I've studied Computer Tech, Psychology, all at university level, and I've never stopped studying either. Does and should that matter in the light of this discussion, or is LaaYosh's authority as an insider beyond question?

It doesn't take much to create a rich launch lineup of software and services. Any dev who can't get the most out Cell is just lazy."

Am I saying these things?

Do you not think that Laa-Yosh's job as lead artist would be better and safer if he could cut costs using automated tools? We're not talking wholesale replacement of his job here, so you can't play the Luddite card.

To me it seems that I'm precisely the only person in this discussion who fully understands that we are NOT 'talking wholesale replacement of his job'.

Having said that, I'm in pretty much the exact same business model as he is, and I fully understand it.

Do you think he operates in the industry without paying any attention to the developments going on within it, and where Company X has released 'Super Human Modeller Tech' that would automate much of Laa-Yosh's efforts, he's just turning a blind eye to it?

Yes, and no.

I don't understand this mentality that professionals, whether professional artists or professional engineers, can be believed to operate without any level of professional conduct or where-with-all. Though this thread has gone way off track from it's topic origins, it appears to have come full circle in terms of mentality and expectations. We in our arm chairs looking at technology from 50,000 feet (I guess those armchairs are in balloons!) see a clear and easy roadmap, with automated tools and long term plans and everything else. Truth is when you come down out of the balloon you see those paths are littered with rocks, mantraps, tigers, and myriads of problems. What looks a nice, easy path isn't when you're the one walking it. Life is never that easy! How's about we listen to the people on the ground about what it's really like down there?

I don't agree with that mentality either. But once you're having an adult discussion among intelligent people who are not total idiots and have a decent background knowledge, and faced with what I consider to be reasonable arguments with sufficient factual back-up, you have two options:

- bring up counter arguments with sufficient factual back-up
- withdraw from the discussion

The quality of the discussion and how well a participant has presented his argument will determine the best course of action. If you withdraw, then because it is a public discussion, you basically trust onlookers to see how obviously stupid the participant's arguments are. If you don't trust onlookers to see this, then it's still completely up to you to share your counter arguments with the audience. If you care about continuing the discussion, educating your opponent, sharpening your own presentation or wit, or educating your audience, you continue the discussion countering the arguments presented.

Pulling the authority card is a (in my opinion bad) form of withdrawing from the discussion. But if my arguments are really that obviously dumb for all onlookers, then in principle it was the right course of action. (Obviously though that's not the way I am seeing things)

Still, I guess now Laa-Yosh can understand what my complaint was, where Sony staff were the recipients of the same attitude as he's just witnessed. I'm sure if we had some of Sony's designers and decision makers here, they'd have a few choice words to say about long hours, or at least some nice counting to ten! Shame they're all too lazy to show themselves.

Here you are pointing to something I think we agree on, though possibly with subtle differences.

 

[PARANOiA]

tell that to RIAA



Yes uncompressed audio can be overkill, and in HS example aparently not everything is uncompressed either. As i said we need a breakdown from the HS guys to know for sure how it uses space. But lets say that compressed audio takes 1GB and the rest takes up 7GB. Do we just compress the textures a bit more and the sound as well, where do we draw the line? In HS case and thanks to the 25GB they aparently didn´t have to draw the line in an unpleasent way.

Aparently Drakes Fortune is another heavy hitter when it comes to space, is BR warranted when it´s released or do we have to make a space breakdown with compression ratios on the different assets before we can agree?

Actually, tkf, I do want to know the facts before I agree to something. Crazy idea, I know

Seriously, I would love - I would absolutely fucking adore for games to be longer, look better, and be worth the extra cash and extra storage available in the PS3. The moment the giant games with textures so big they don't fit on a DVD ship, I'll be first in line. Like I've said about ten times on this site, I can afford a PS3 right now. But there's no reason for folks like yourself and Arwin to state as fact that BR = better games right now. The best case is that it may result in better games later. Which I can believe - but stop spreading this nonsense that there's - as you've put in the very post - an unpleasant sacrifice that 360 gamers - and Wii, and PC gamers - are making today by not having HD media. They're not. It's fiction.

Arwin, I'm bailiing from our chat - looks like this thread got a little personal (though I think you and I were reasonably civil!). I'd love it if there could be a thread in the technical forum detailing the technical benefits of BR, though. Maybe when I have a quiet day at work I'll start looking - and when they pop up of course

 

[Arwin]

I agree, Paranoia. There should be a simple inventory of theoretical arguments for and against, and then lists of specific instances of actual physical proof, real life occurences that validate those arguments. The BluRay vs DVD discussion is one that is constantly recurring, and partly rightly so, as even if the theoretical arguments should be limited, in this particular case they can only be validated with real data, and it is your every right to ask for this. The difference between you and me is that I'm trying to create a mental trendline to project the short as well as the long term value of BluRay, whereas you are more interested in 'where do we stand right now?' and 'I'll buy it if we get there'.

In both cases, we are better off with the aforementioned inventory than discussing that particular aspect of BluRay further here. It is, however, extremely relevant to the PS3's strategy, so the topic in general is definitely not out of place in this thread. But certainly, a topic like art and content creation could (and should?) also easily fill up its own thread.

 

[-tkf-]

Actually, tkf, I do want to know the facts before I agree to something. Crazy idea, I know

Of course you want facts as do i, i also can use common sense or at least hope i can. If someone from the PGR team says "we had to cut this because of space issues" and then a few hours later a PR is released that totally debunks it as "nonsense" i think were not getting the complete picture.

If Lairs/HS/R&C size is put down to having "several languages on one disc and the developers of Assassins Creed complain about this exact issue on a DVD i think the Blu-Ray has already proved it´s worth in just these cases.

The same argument is being used in the HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray war. Warner creates a VC-1 encode that can fit on a HD-DVD and uses the same encode on the Blu-Ray disc. Sometimes they bring a uncompressed PCM sound along. But the strengths of the Blu-Ray format isn´t used to it´s fullest. When DVD-FILE posted an article detailing that Blu-Rat titles look the best and said it was because of the superior space, all hell broke loose. And i think the same is the case with plenty multi platform titles lowest common dominator does not prove that DVD is enough.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So you think that EA's game face technology, or Level 5's wonderful character creation technology, or the stuff integrated in Home, even Nintendo's Mii creation tool, Virtua Fighter's character accessorizer...

Years ago EA's Tiger Woods golf had a very rich character customization system that let you morph a character. So did PES. Does that mean the technology and tools exist to create any characters in as quick and easy a way? Could Drake not be modelled through such a process?

But the best portrait painter, when aiming for sheer pictorial realism, is beaten by the photograph, both in accuracy and in efficiency.

And a video camera can capture people far better than a computer game can render them...

The big problem I am having discussing this with you and LaaYosh, is that you both do not seem willing to recognise two fundamental principles:

1. if we need to, history has shown that we can in fact make many, many things in life more efficient

I've been a big advocate of that, going back to early discussions on procedural synthesis on this board. I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is the idea that the degree of progress will negate development costs.

2. if there isn't a one button solution that's the end all making all artists in the universe superfluous, that doesn't also mean that the exact opposite is true. Think real numbers, not binary!

Indeed, but what we're seeing at the moment is no speed-up of the fundamental artists methods. As tools have improved, the time spent using them has remained the same as quality increases are desired. You could sculpt a simple head in ZBrush far quicker than you could model it in Max 10 years ago, but the targets have moved so that you have to spend just as much time on ZBrush to get a good head by modern standards and you had to spend on Max creating a 'good head' for the period.

It's a valid point, but that doesn't also mean that I think in the light of discussion, that is a thoroughly unfair comment. I am well aware of the creation process. But I am also aware of the difference between art creation and manufacturing, and everything that lies in between. I know the difference between writing a great novel, or using one as a generic template for mass production. I've studied Art, I've studied English, I've studied Logic, I've studied Computer Tech, Psychology, all at university level, and I've never stopped studying either. Does and should that matter in the light of this discussion, or is LaaYosh's authority as an insider beyond question?

No, but his experience should be valued above much education. On paper, tools to reduce the workload of artists and content creation seem very plausible. We can even point to certain implementations in the past and say they point to the future. That's our 50,000 foot view. Now our man on the ground says 'that's all well and good but they don't develop that way. These tools or coming' or whatever our man-on-the-ground says. We have to consider those opions in conjunction with our own understanding. If there isn't an experiential knowledge that gives all the answers, that doesn't also mean that the exact opposite is true. Think real reasoning, not binary! Laa-Yosh was arguing against your point and your response was 'you're blinded by your own experiences'. Surely the rationale POV is 'well from my theoretical understanding this and this is possible, and we see some developments here and here. However, someone in the field is suggesting otherwise. Perhaps the reality is some sort of middle ground?' Middle ground?! Perish the thought!

Am I saying these things?

No, but TheChefO was and that's why this thread exists. There were people suggesting the experts were making rash decisions without thinking things through. Sure, they may miss things, but you'd hope they're competent enough at their job to general be on the ball. Maybe Laa-Yosh isn't up to speed on the latest breakthroughs in facial modelling, but on the whole you expect he knows a little bit about what it takes to create game content, and how the industry has changed, rather than just fobbing him off with a 'what do you know?' attitude.

To me it seems that I'm precisely the only person in this discussion who fully understands that we are NOT 'talking wholesale replacement of his job'.

I wasn't either. I only refer to that as you seemed to suggest his position using tools would make him reluctant to consider automated alternatives. That's what I got from this...

Look, obviously you would be the last person to say 'sure, we can develop tools for everything, do things in half the time, and hand-made really isn't all that necessary'. It's your bread and butter.

- bring up counter arguments with sufficient factual back-up

Not really possible to any technical depth. You can present existing tools and say 'these paint the future and so content development next-gen will be cheap enough to fill up big disks of content' and I can say 'although tools improve, costs still go up in there's nothing to suggest otherwise.' No-one can actually know what future technologies are going to be viable. Even experimental efforts shown now might not point a clear path. There's a long way from laboratory success to mainstream implementations.

Pulling the authority card is a (in my opinion bad) form of withdrawing from the discussion.

I never saw an Authority card. Laa-Yosh replied in two point-wise posts his disagreements, and then you said...

I think maybe you're blinded to some extent by the work that your team is hired for. Though surely even there the whole tools suite has made some progress over the last ten years ...

If you can off-hand ignore his comments on the principle of him being blind, then that's not Laa-Yosh saying 'look I know what I'm talking about here so you should listen to me.' That's you saying 'I know what's happening with tools in the art-world and if you don't know that you're not paying attention' which is a slap to the face when that's exactly Laa-Yosh's job. You basically said he's not doing a proper job of it, ignoring the improvement going on the industry.

But if my arguments are really that obviously dumb for all onlookers, then in principle it was the right course of action. (Obviously though that's not the way I am seeing things)

The case for automated tools is a valid one. The scope of them is the discussion point, how much they can contribute to filling up a huge disc of data. The way the discussion has been handled has been well below a civilised, intelligent debate though. Back when you said Laa-Yosh was blind, you should have said...
"Don't these technologies imply big things are going to happen in the next few years? How have things progressed with your content tools, and what's on the horizon?"
...and actually asked the guy for his opinion to lead into debate onto whether its right or not, rather than ignoring out of hand as you did.

To remind people where things are supposed to be, the topic got onto disc capacity and what it makes to fill up a 50 GB or whatever disc, looking to Sony's next-gen plans. The argument against is that to fill 50 GB is a very expensive undertaking. The counter-argument to that is that automated tools will make it much cheaper then than it is now, effectively offsetting the costs. The level of debate should be what can we expect from improvements in tools? Historically where have they got us? What's on the horizon? What are the latest improvements? There should be no calling anyone blind or stupid or anything else for either not agreeing that these tools will be fantastic in the future or that artists will need to work harder. The purpose of the discussion ought to be to identify the likely situation of future tools, and not to determine who entered into the discussion with the same ideas as the outcome.

 

[archangelmorph]

In my oppinion artist have had it pretty hard over the past few years (with up til only recently us coders having to actually put it into overtime to get our heads around all this multi-threading-in-games-mallarchy..)

In the days of the PSone it was as simple as "here's a modeller app.. Build me a model, texture, rig and animate & we'll do the rest.."

Nowadays its..

"Here's some apps.. Build me a set of models; high poly & low, sort me out some texture, normal, specular, reflection, height, shadow & ambient occlusion maps, rig, animate & oh! don't forget to sort out some physical properties for the model too!!"

It seems to me that as technology progresses faster and faster, the drive to create bigger and better experiences make any software tools created to increase productivity, the basis of an overall increase in production creating even more work for the content teams rather than less..

This is an over generalisation since workloads have grown pretty much across the board but the biggest difference is that code can be reused, sound can be reused and design principles can be refactored into new IPs.. However more often than not that spaceship you created last year for Halo will have to get scrapped when you start production on the new fantasy RPG..

EDIT: I just realised I've contributed to the extreme derailment of this thread.. sorry..

 

[Scott_Arm]

In my oppinion artist have had it pretty hard over the past few years (with up til only recently us coders having to actually put it into overtime to get our heads around all this multi-threading-in-games-mallarchy..)

In the days of the PSone it was as simple as "here's a modeller app.. Build me a model, texture, rig and animate & we'll do the rest.."

Nowadays its..

"Here's some apps.. Build me a set of models; high poly & low, sort me out some texture, normal, specular, reflection, height, shadow & ambient occlusion maps, rig, animate & oh! don't forget to sort out some physical properties for the model too!!"

It seems to me that as technology progresses faster and faster, the drive to create bigger and better experiences make any software tools created to increase productivity, the basis of an overall increase in production creating even more work for the content teams rather than less..

This is an over generalisation since workloads have grown pretty much across the board but the biggest difference is that code can be reused, sound can be reused and design principles can be refactored into new IPs.. However more often than not that spaceship you created last year for Halo will have to get scrapped when you start production on the new fantasy RPG..

EDIT: I just realised I've contributed to the extreme derailment of this thread.. sorry..

I don't think this talk is too far off topic. It started with "Was Sony overconfident," which naturally led to BluRay and whether it makes sense at this point for a home console. All of this talk, the civil parts anyway, contribute to that discussion.

Seeing as there's a number of people here in the industry, I'm just wondering if they'd have any metrics they'd be allowed to share, in terms of content creation. I'm sure these metrics must be recorded. I'm curious to see something like man hours for content creation on PS2 vs PS3. We've heard all kinds of speculation about this, and Laa-Yosh is leading me to believe those speculations about the escalating cost of content creation is true.

 

[Carl B]

I don't think this talk is too far off topic. It started with "Was Sony overconfident," which naturally led to BluRay and whether it makes sense at this point for a home console. All of this talk, the civil parts anyway, contribute to that discussion.

Well except that's the thing, this thread isn't supposed to be about whether BD makes sense in a console or not. The BD decision should be analyzed from the angle of Sony's business interests here, not its merits in gaming.

We've heard all kinds of speculation about this, and Laa-Yosh is leading me to believe those speculations about the escalating cost of content creation is true.

It's not speculation, it's just plain true. Read any modern art asset interview as it relates to high-def gaming. The art asset costs are soaring.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Or plot a graph of costs and development team sizes from the 8 bit era (one man at home) through to now (100+ people development teams), during which time the tools have been getting better and better and better (8 bit era was assembler and poking pixel-matrices for graphics, using gridded paper for asset design!), but at a far slower rate than the technical requirements have been pushed forward.

I see no reason at all to think that costs will even stabilize next-gen. There'll be some great tools that speed up some aspects of content creation, but as we end users expect far richer environments with far more detail and variety, workload will just go up and up. Same as it was in Hollywood. We have better and better ways to pull off amazing movies, but the costs keep going up and up because people haven't stuck to creating the same movies and just doing a cheaper job of it. By comparison, an 8 bit platformer like Manic Minor would be far easier and thus cheaper to create now then when it first happened, but the market's insatiable appetite moves on.