A look at EA's new realism tools
by Ross Miller 
{ May 13th 2006 at 7:45AM }
At the EA booth, we checked out a demonstration on the technology their Sports sect is working on, and we were honestly blown away by some of the strides they have made because, although the primary focus was on realism in their sports titles, the technology can (and likely will) affect all game development. Here are some of the next-generation features the developers showed us:
- Momentum Shift: The developers demonstrated how a character's body is altered by the speed. They compared current-generation jogging, with players back upright, to the new technology where the athlete lean forward.
- Procedural Awareness: For this demo, the developer created a ball for the character to observe. as he moved the ball in space, the character constantly kept his eyes on the object, even at moments requiring that his head tilt to reach the field of vision -- when multiple important objects are on screen, the character wil "cycle" through observation, constantly checking up on the objects. Later, we saw changes in facial contortions to demonstrate the character's change in mood ("his reaction to the object") and how different emotions can be attached to multiple objects, the character's mood reflecting whichever object currently catches his attention.
- Foot Planting: This is an issue we have still seen in many high-profile titles (e.g. Oblivion): a character will run, but his legs move slower and faster than the actual pace of the character, given the impression that these characters are somehow gliding across the map; this technology aims to fix that.
- Responsiveness: The idea behind this feature is that every animation can be stopped at any moment and shift fluidly to another motion (current generation technology, according to EA, requires that a character must finish each animation before shifting to another). For example, say a football is running to the left and then wants to juke right, changes his mind, and does a full on sprint straight down the field. In what the developer found (and demonstrated), characters using this model actually responded and accomplished their task up to 25% faster.
- Accurate Positioning: Current-generation points characters in only 8 directions; the demonstration shows that your character can turn in any degree of rotation.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ad @ May 13th 2006 7:53AM
No doubt all these feature will add another $10 ($40 for UK) although they'll prob be so generous as to let us buy the half finished games for full price then let us buy the rest of the content through live. Oh and soon we can pay with our mobile phones! Yay!
Conrad @ May 13th 2006 7:59AM
I'll care when they actually implement them into games. Seriously, who does EA/the whole "buzzword" industry think they're kidding? You don't go to see a Pixar movie because it has full screen anti-aliasing - the technology is supposed to be seamless! Gameplay and story is all that matters.
Ph[i]l @ May 13th 2006 8:01AM
now im not a graphics whore, but these seem like brilliant changes that will differentiate how the game will perform. and even though im fully behind Nintendo's direction regarding the graphics department; i would sure like to see changes such as these included witnin Wii software, as they are not just 'more particles, polygons, etc' but actual improvements to how the game is experienced. these are the sort of changes that are more important in regards to graphics. Hopefully the 'select features' that will be used with Wii, will be enough (compared to PS3, and Xbox 360)
Anthony @ May 13th 2006 8:05AM
That looks awesome! And just to add in you spelled "Will" wrong in the Procedural Awareness area.
the_game_master @ May 13th 2006 8:26AM
EA's excuse for implementing this on Wii is utter lazyness. Wii's hardware is not that inferior. I just developers are going to be lazy when it comes to programming for cause they know Nintendo is not pushing high realistic to life graphics like the competitors are. It will be a matter time when the right 3rd party come along and actually take the time to fully utilize Wii's hardware and surprise naysers by showing them that the Wii is fully capable of doing the tasks and operations that its expensive hardware competitors do. Mark my words.
bandit @ May 13th 2006 8:35AM
These all fall under the category of "PROCEDURAL SYNTHESIS" this is the very say concept I have been screaming about for over 2 years now!!!! This is how the next generation WILL redifine gaming such that in a fighting game, a low punch is accurate targeted at an unproctected area of a character model instead of doing insane damage to their wrist. In contrast the opposing model WILL BLOCK at the impact of impact accurately and with the proper animation so that each animation is generated realtime creating a MUCH more believeable gaming experience. Finally this will be the generation which does it right and rockets the game industry into the mainstream. Developer better stop putting out garbage ports and put out some decent games that actual do what the systems were made for. The 360 is literally BUILT around the concept of procedural synthesis the fact that its not being used makes the games play like garbage.
asd @ May 13th 2006 8:37AM
I'm sorry, but....WTF?
Am I just misreading this? Aren't most of these just things any hobbyist game programmer would take into account?
More than 8 directions, huh? Since when have 3D games done that, the PS1? The foot planting thing, hobbyist stuff, right? Mario had different body positions for different walking speeds in M64. Etcetera.
Really, tell me. Am I missing something big here? Or is this just overhyping 3D game "features" that have been mundane since 1996?
Sander Scamper @ May 13th 2006 8:49AM
Your naivete is outstanding the_game_master. The reason that the Revolution (I refuse to call it Wii) is focused not upon the graphics but the gameplay is because they want to bring it to a casual gaming audience, and in order to achieve this they cannot make buying an entire game console seem like a massive step. (IE, a $400 or $600 step), so they dropped the focus on high end hardware to undercut the competition. Probably a good idea, for casual gamers, at least. Now, to take your statements, I should be able to buy a 2000mhz CPU and experience 4000mhz CPU performance even though the latter costs twice as much. No, it's not because the CPU is inferior it's because "the developer is lazy". Surely anyone can see this as faulty logic.
Essentially, with hardware, you usually get what you pay for. The latest greatest of power will cost you the greatest cash. And the latest greatest + unecesary next-gen format drive will cost you ludicrously more so.
What you are buying with the Revolution is essentially what Nintendo are aiming for. They want to provide gameplay and fun to a casual audience through an entirely new controller scheme.
If you're a hardcore gamer, this might be a bit of a blow, but you're small potatoes.
bandit @ May 13th 2006 8:54AM
game master shutup and stop being a ninty "wiiboy" the Wii does not have the processing power to do these things REALTIME PERIOD there is literally no question about it. A few developers attempted to do procedural synthesis since last generation however the results wer very poor and never implemented. Sony in particularly hyped the ps2 to have the processing capability but it was never realized as the system was just way to underpowered to make adequate use of it. Procedural synthesis is important because as I said before the 360 is built around the concept. For full use of AI to response in this manner and respond to physics appropriately you need high levels of interger performance, branch prediction, and general purpose processing power to tie the various elements together. This is something that ONLY the 360 has again because it was designed around future SOFTWARE and not stuffed with as high a FLOP rating as possible. Other features which are unique is the gpus ability to lock and pull directly from the processors cache. Therefore the procedurally generated content such as character models, textures, and animations can be rendered directly to the gpu and bypass ram altogether. The edram also helps but limiting the framebuffer to the edram so that at no time will the system be forced to use its 22GB bandwidth for a framebuffer. By contrast the PS3 will likely take about half of it system bandwidth for the framebuffer alone. These are concepts I have been working on and ones that will completely revolutionize the game industry. Game will be come more interactive as the players and characters can begin to nteract naturally and responsively to their environment. Thus games will soon begin playing more like interactive films than their current state. This is the real revolution when games go mainstream, many gamers lack the vision to actually see where and how the game industry is going but now im ranting...
Any the games WILL set the systems apart and gamers WILL see what all the hubbub is really about.
wanderer @ May 13th 2006 9:10AM
bandit, the one thing you haven't thought out is why another jump in graphic fidelity is suddenly going to bring games into the mainstream. Some people just don't enjoy thumbing their sticks all day. Nintendo's bringing the revolution this time, imo.
Pete @ May 13th 2006 9:15AM
That foot planting issue in Oblivion pissed me off. How do you spend 4 years developing a game and not think of that??? It can't be as hard to program as the radiant AI that they put in the game. I love Oblivion, but that was a serious turn-off.
The ZeroCorpse @ May 13th 2006 9:32AM
"For example, say a football is running to the left and then wants to juke right, changes his mind, and does a full on sprint straight down the field."
I'd say that's a pretty nifty football. Eliminates the need for players completely.
bandit @ May 13th 2006 9:36AM
wanderer you fail to miss the point which was part of my rant the greatest things this generation will do has zero to do with graphic fidelity, in fact I couldnt care less about graphics, I would even be happy if the graphic fidelity went backwards if they began inplementing these new software systems in games. Unfortunately graphics sell games and thats what they are focusing on right now. Anyway the things the new systems (again particularly the 360) allow for is procedurally generated content. Why this is insanely important?
Ex. you look at a brick wall and its the same 3 texture maps repeated correct? But you look a real brick wall and you have a ton of various looks and colorations which are much more random. Procedurally generated content takes a base and then adds variation so the the experience becomes more unique and realistic. An example of this is the game SPORE which is the first game to Heavily use the concept. The game spore is HUGE and LITERALLY ENDLESS. WHY? because unlike current gen games and future REVO titles, the game worlds and content DO NOT RESIDE ON DISC. Each creature is created at runtime when you start the game, each world is generated on the fly as you play creating a truely unique and PERSONALIZED experience.
I will may an example of this using two main genres.
FPS:
Games like PREY truely show the potential of general purpose processing in gaming. The interaction between the physics, AI, and gameplay elements can only be achieved through high levels of branch prediction and interger performance. While some elements may be more parrellel in nature you must allow all these elements to interact smoothly and seemlessly. If you shoot an enemy they should become wounded in the appropriate area, their bodies should react appropriately to the impact and evem effect nearby objects. GEARS OF WAR is a good example of POTENTIAL. By year 3 new games will put gears of war in the $5 bargain bin.
Sports games. How about creating characters that actually move and look like they should. In a basket ball game instead of the very unnatural animations, the bounce of the ball and the movement of the players fluidly moves. Steals are more natural and actually require a connection with the ball, cross-overs, fade-aways all seemlessly move into one another because the animations are no longer pre-rendered, but rather generated on the fly as you perform them, making them infinitely more accurate.
3.) honestly i dont feel like writing a third so use your imagination.
azesino @ May 13th 2006 9:46AM
The Nex-Gen will be decided by:
High Definition
Graphics
Phisics
procedural synthesis
High Definition sales will start picking up by next year and even tough I consider my self a Nintendo Fanboy at it fullest. It allow me to see with clarity that The Wii will lack all this features....yea the remote is inovative... it is a revolution... but its not the future in gaming. The remote is just a novelty that could be inplemented in any of the 2 competing consoles. My point again, Nintendo can not add none of the features I mentioned atop in to its console.... the games basically look like crispier gamecube games, and if put in to a 42" Plasma set you will understand
what iam saying.
procedural synthesis is the future in gaming... now casual games wont see it, but if you see how the technology is evolving you for sure are away of it, Realism will push the envelove... gameplay is enhanced by Realism. A remote only can do so much, and again is only an input device that could added to any of the new consoles... even the last generation consoles to be more pricise, I will be buying a Wii on day one.
Ill have fun for 1 or 2 years, but as developers get used to working on the 360 and PS3 the game difference will look like a game for PS1 against a XBOX game,
the wii will flop.
I still have 1000 more reasons but i will leave it as that.
wanderer @ May 13th 2006 9:49AM
No, I understand, and have always thought procedural generation is a good idea, but listen to yourself. Procedural software is a means to an end. That end is better, easier graphic fidelity. You said yourself, with "creating characters that actually move and look like they should" and "instead of the very unnatural animations, the bounce of the ball and the movement of the players fluidly moves." These are graphical elements. The brick example all the more so.
Is it a great solution to the exploding costs of game art creation? I think so. But is it still just advancing the march of graphics in a world of gameplay? Yes.
bandit @ May 13th 2006 10:30AM
Ok I understand your point of at the base level it only "looks" better, however for the Wii to fully create that immesion it would also need to use procedurally generated animations. Right not the games are only defining gestures, and nintendo is giving very little evidence that the wii will do otherwise. What i mean is, the when you swing a sword on the wii a Pre-defined animation is activated which do not neccesarily follow you reaction physically. This SERIOUSLY detracts from the immersion feel. If the wii used a combination of both proceduraly generated actions and the wiimote I think we might have had something to really wet our pants about. however, as it stands no th wiimote gived the same amount of immesive feel as the genesis activator and nintendo power glove.
zencarver @ May 13th 2006 10:33AM
Realism? By using a screen cap with Aaron Brooks ina Saints uniform? *shaking head*
Tom Hayden @ May 13th 2006 10:36AM
With all of those great new techniques, you'd think they would be able to add the simple animation of a character turning sideways and slipping past someone instead of running in place at full speed straight into their back.
Rare Hare @ May 13th 2006 10:36AM
asd (#7) said: "I'm sorry, but....WTF?
Am I just misreading this? Aren't most of these just things any hobbyist game programmer would take into account?
More than 8 directions, huh? Since when have 3D games done that, the PS1? The foot planting thing, hobbyist stuff, right? Mario had different body positions for different walking speeds in M64. Etcetera.
Really, tell me. Am I missing something big here? Or is this just overhyping 3D game "features" that have been mundane since 1996?"
if these are your opinions on the matter, then you obviously are not a fan of sports games. however, for me, sports games (ESPECIALLY football games) are how i spend the majority of my time using my consoles. i will seriously blow off a chance to sit down and have some play time with a great game like God of War so i can kick back and indulge in a session of developing my quarterback on Race for the Heisman mode in NCAA Football 06.
i, for one, could barely contain my excitement upon reading about the new technology advances listed in Mr. Miller's post. the more time you spend with a game like Madden, and the more intimate you get with the fine-tuning of the controls, graphics, and system of the game, the more you tend to notice things like how sluggish your character's reaction time is or how irritatingly robotic certain aspects of the game (facial expressions, animations, running to beat a defender) are.. and this amounts in you asa player realizeing how little control you actually have over the game at some points.
football is a very fast paced game and, as such, games like Madden and NCAA are very fast paced. they require the player to make reads and think about relatively complex strategic situations on the go, and often under the pressure of not being able to take more than a literal split-second to come to a decision. it's frustrating when your timing and decision making is all in place, but because of the limited instances the game tends to provide, the play is ruined.
i think anyone who devotes a lot of time into football games or the like will understand where i'm coming from. it sucks that you apparently don't, but rest assured that this DOES matter, and that it will make a difference in the level of enjoyment we get out of our sports games.
Solid Snake @ May 13th 2006 10:58AM
I wonder what past-features they'll intentionally "break" this time in order to piss us off so that we have to buy Madden 08. I'm tired of EA constantly hyping up all these features only to see other key features go "missing". It happened with the 360 version, but that's somewhat understandable. An example is the punt/kick return blocking of the current-gen titles. Both Madden 05 and Madden 06 make it almost damn near impossible to get any return because you're blockers simply let people right on through. You might as well have stuffed animals blocking for you. From what I've watched in the NFL, you never ever let somebody just run by you on special teams unless you feel like running windsprints after the game.
dubz @ May 13th 2006 11:01AM
Excuse my ignorance, but does this mean that when I throw a screen pass in Madden on the short sidleine, my player wont run the pattern out of bounds, or catch it and not make any attempt to stay in bounds. I hoe so because I have been yelling at my TV for 10 years now saying "THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN A REAL FOOTBALL GAME!"
elmer @ May 13th 2006 11:02AM
Has no one learnt from the basic foundations of control in games that Nintendo helped set?
There is a very good reason that foot planting is bad in games; People can't move in reality the way you want a character to move in a game. Try turning around while standing. Try suddenly turning right. It doesn't happen instantly the way you often want it to in a game. Sure, the restrictions of reality are good for sports games, which is why it has significant uses for EA, but for many genres, moddling something realistically is incompatible with instant and intuitive response. I'm not saying that the slip-slidy feet is fine, it isn't. Bear witness then to the solution Mario came up with: his slip slidey feet are integrated with slip slidey motion, further signalled by his Warner bros. like animation that suggests you don't start moving until you been running in place for a second or two. It seems counter intuitive, but it works.
As for procedural motion, I'm pretty sure this is a fancy way of saying Inverse Kinematics, which frankly was present in simple but effective forms in Waverace and 1080, both on N64. Move the 'vehical', which moves the foot which moves the shin which moves the thighs which moves the hips which moves the bodies, all involving the inverse reaction problem. Same thing as moving an object which moves the eyes which moves the head which moves the torso etc.
Momentum stuff is certainly nice, but nothing that can't be done convincingly at a much reduced accuracy and therefore on little power. Witness the apparent power of Shodow of the Collosus at this link: http://www.dyingduck.com/sotc/making_of_sotc.html
Responsivness: So this is why I hate the motion in so many EA games! Not really, but they're talking crap. Sure they can fluidise the transition from one animation to another (I don't actually see why this would take a lot of power - just take the angular information from the first animation at a given time point and perform weighted averages with a selected time point of the second animation). I'm pretty sure though that many developers simply cut the animation that's occuring the instant the player does something else and change the positions instantly. Sure it requires some suspension of disbelief just like the foot planting, but it works mechanically. We'll see if the transition of motion doesn't end up looking very jarring and unnatural.
All in all I'd say clever programming could fit the features that are actually usefull in convincing forms on the PS2, let alone the Wii.
Wesley Hester @ May 13th 2006 11:13AM
Is there a reason to purchase more EA sports titles for the X360 until they have the features mentioned in this article? Are 2007 X360 titles featuring them or will the first wave of PS3 titles be the first?
bandit @ May 13th 2006 11:25AM
Ok people are missing the point of what developers are shooting for in the next generation. To gain some background knowledge of what "in theory" proper implementation should look like, see the ign report on indiana jones and the technology behind the character movements. Basically the idea is this
NO MORE PRE-WRITTEN ANIMATIONS!!!
The cpu is given a character model with a bone structure, this bone structure also well as other factors such as weight distribution help define how the characters move. Thus if an AI sees an opening in a line that he believes his total volume may be able to slip through before the velocity of the two closes objects closes the volumetric hole, the CPU will generate the animation REAL-TIME to allow the models body to move and contort within the constrains of its body structure to move through that opening. animation generations have been done in the past, but NEVER realtime, at least to the degree next generation games will. An example of a game which uses the most complex procedural content seen yet (Although HIGHLY primitive compared to what will be accomplished is spore) Procedural Synthesized animations naturally translate into better AI as the computer can now perform actions which the developer never intended in an effort to assist or thwart you progress.
IE Lets say you placed a desired item of an NPC on a high book shelf. Unless a animator programed the proper animations for the NPC to retrieve the item, the NPC cannot no matter how much it wants to. Using procedural synthesis the AI sees the items, recognizes there is a height issue and generation the animation on the fly to pickup and move a chair and climb on the chair to retrieve the item. Their is NO AI script involved, not animation involved. This is IMPERATIVE as it drastically reduces production costs as long as you have the proper software engines in the first place. Literally you can make a model and set it free in a virtual world and it will determine on its own what it can and cannot do.
Zorak @ May 13th 2006 11:46AM
elmer is 100% correct, and bandit, you are living in fantasy land.
player1 @ May 13th 2006 11:47AM
wanderer,
I've heard a lot of people talk about wanting games to be mainstream and that's what Nintnedo is aimning for, but when you consider that the gamming industry is bigger than the movie industry. Now doe'sn that tell us that gamming industry is already mainstream?
I think when people here are talking about gaming going mainstream they are talkig about mothers and grannies playing video games too. lol This simply will never happen.
bandit @ May 13th 2006 12:00PM
Zorak, how bout some evidence. Better yet read the white papers and get educated about the technology. Im not saying it will be instantly implemented, but this what developers should be striving for as the current method stinks.
http://www.naturalmotion.com/pages/technology.htm
Rootbeer @ May 13th 2006 12:52PM
if these are your opinions on the matter, then you obviously are not a fan of sports games.
I think it's a valid point that these new technological advances that EA is touting are things that other developers had decent implementations of in their own non-sports games, two hardware generations ago.
I will grant that it takes more CPU power to create realistic-looking motion on two whole teams' worth of lifelike athletes than it does on one cartoonish plumber, but for the life of me I can't understand why EA would limit character motions to 8 fixed directions when we've had analog controllers capable of providing 360 degrees of direction input for ten years now. Are they lazy or uninspired?
Zorak @ May 13th 2006 1:35PM
bandit -
Like I said, fantasy land. You are right about a lot of things, but you forget that developers want to make money, and they do that not by reinventing the wheel but by releasing the same schlock for the gaming public to gobble up. What developers can do is not what they will do, unfortunately.
Stranger @ May 13th 2006 1:55PM
current gen hasn't that? I'm actually playing "oddword: strangers wrath", and I think it has procedural awareness, foot planting, responsiveness, and accurate positioning.
Momentum shift would have been great in games like "mortal kombat: armaggedon" tough.
bandit @ May 13th 2006 2:18PM
zorak while i completely understand that business principles involved, the use of procedurally generated content actually considerable lessens development costs such that writing good engines translates into better, funner, and more dynamic games. Again I cite Spore as its the only game that currently uses it heavily and is a taste and testament to its power. The creator literal said creating spore was easy in terms of content, because the majority of it is procedurally generated. The landscapes and environments, the ecosystem, the creatures models are all drawn based on a pool as assets that developers literally placed as data files on a disk, defined it in the rendering engine and let the cpu basically create the real game assests. I know many try to downplay the importance of this content, however I believe spore will prove to every layman out there the power of procedural content. Developers WANT to move to this arena as they no longer have to reinvent the wheel each time. You can recycle textures and models in algorthmic form and allow the engine to tweak it to suit the game. The reality is procedurally generated content COSTS less to create, and ADDS to the game play experience.
Tukka @ May 13th 2006 2:24PM
I think EA is on the right track here, and agree with much of what bandit is saying.
The potential of procedural synthesis is not a fantasy. In some respects it's already a reality. Oblivion has made modest use of some of these technologies, and Spore will be taking it a big step forward ... but we're still in the primitive phases of this technology. To compare the expertise and maturity of procedural generation to 3D graphics, right now procedural synthesis probably at about the level of the original "Star Fox" for the SNES. There's a long way to go and getting there isn't going to be an overnight affair.
Eventually, it is exactly this sort of technology that will elevate games to the next level, not only visually, but in terms of gameplay because of the possibilities that go along with the power and flexibility of tools such as these.
Raph Koster did an interesting presentation about this titled Moore's Wall (http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/moore.shtml) about how, of late, improving computing power is actually a kind of osbstacle in game development, instead of being an enabler of true progress. Procedural generation is really the only way out of this trap.
Now, I love what Nintendo is doing with the Wii, I think it's a great move. They are recognizing the limitations of present day technology (but in terms of hardware, and the state of software technologies like procedural synthesis) and are building what will probably be the system that is the most raw fun to play throughout this generation of consoles.
However, ii is not going to drive the procedural revolution because it just doesn't have the processing horsepower of its competitors or modern PCs. That's not a bad thing, as developers will learn other important lessons that come along with building games on a more limited platform about how to be efficient and squeeze the most out of a system, and of course about ways fun ways to take advantage of motion sensitive controls.
EA probably understands the need for procedural sythesis about as well as anyone. I don't think they want to have to run sweatshops of ever-increasing size just so they can make a semi-noticable incremental visual improvement in their games and they realize that going into their future, they are in an untenable position unless a technology like procedural synthesis radically changes the way things can be done.
Right now it may look like garage workshop pet projects, but I think most will agree that what Will Wright and his team are doing with Spore is a bit beyond that in scope. It can't hurt if even his colleagues working on what is a comparatively soulless franchise of neverending sequels see procedural synethesis can be an important component of what they're working on, too.
Maybe I'm just too optimistic, though.
Lou @ May 13th 2006 2:37PM
Bandit, you need to do more reading. The 360's cpu doesn't have good branch predicting. Optimization is left to the programmers. It's the Wii's cpu which is a good general-purpose cpu. You wouldn't use the 360 cpu in a desptop PC... Wii's cpu isn't much different from a G5. For the Gekko in the Gamecube, Nintendo took a G3 and upped the fsb to 162.5 MHz and removed the 64bit integer unit and replaced it with 2 32bit integer units.
Manoel Balbino @ May 13th 2006 2:38PM
I have NEVER read such balatant BULLSHIT!
Next-gen features? For God's sake, I can name a whole bunch of Dreamcast, N64 and even some PSOne games which use many of the features there! They just created a lot of buzzwords for very TRIVIAL techniques. Maybe those are next-gen features to EA's internal monkeys, but not the rest of the world...
Momentum Shift: In any engine capable of blending animations/poses together, this is very trivial to implement by blending a "lean forward" pose op top of the running animation, adjusting the blend intensity based on the speed. They never played Shadow of the Colossus?
Procedural Awareness: Is that a joke? Rotating a character's head and eyes so it looks at some object? And having it's "AI" change the face animation depending on the object? How is that next-gen only? NPCs would look at me in Shenmue, Zelda OOT, Final Fantasy IX and a whole bunch of other games. I remember the characters looking at things automatically in Resident Evil 2 on the PSOne, but that might have been Code Veronica.
Foot Planting: ok, many developers are unaware of how to avoid the sliding issue. There are many ways to avoid that. If you don't want to mess with IK, there is a very, very simple way: just adjust the animation speed based on the ratio between the character velocity and a reference velocity for that animation. I've seen this in action and it looks good.
Responsiveness: *sigh*, did it took EA all these years to learn how to code smooth transitions between animations, and use transition poses?
Accurate Positioning: Is this a joke? Seriously, even Saturn games had characters who could turn into any direction. If they're talking about having a nice animation for rotating around, animation blending and transitioning can be used to get the same effect.
I though all these were commonplace already in EA (I haven't really played much EA games lately).
asd @ May 13th 2006 3:00PM
@Rare Hare
What in gods name are you babbling about? Have you even bothered to actually read what I wrote?
I made the point that most of these so called "new technologies" they describe have been commonplace in gaming for a decade now, and as such it's ridicilous that they're hyping some of this stuff as if it was new, the way they are doing.
Yet from your reply it almost seems as if you're reading a different post from mine altogether.
Try again.
LongshotX @ May 13th 2006 3:06PM
The Wii is not the future. I do not think Nintendo has the resources to take it to the "next-gen level". Sure it has a unique controller but that's about it. Anybody who doesn't think HD gaming is catching on quickly is not only naive but totally blind to what is happening in the real world. If the wii-mote is successful as Nintendo wants it to be then Microsoft and Sony will just implement something similar with their console. Actually Sony already did it, and a lot of people might say they stole the idea (even I said it when I first heard about it) but the fact is that technology has been around for a long time. As a matter of fact their is a controller similar to the Wii-mote that senses movement and acts like a mouse for Windows Media Center 2005. I really feel like Nintendo cannot win. They can not keep up. And any new "innovation" they come up with will be implemented similarly in other consoles.
bandit @ May 13th 2006 3:30PM
Lou the 360 has 4KB branch prediction history, while not the absolute best, that is PRETTY DARN GOOD and a VERY hefty step in the right direction when compared with its competition
Sean DL @ May 13th 2006 7:54PM
"The developers are hoping it will be utilized in all next-generation (clarified as PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and "probably PC") titles."
So wait..hope isn't the same as WILL be utilized in the games...So it comes down to who can use it without harming the game...
elmer @ May 14th 2006 9:11PM
"Anybody who doesn't think HD gaming is catching on quickly is not only naive but totally blind to what is happening in the real world."
- Wait, reverse that.
HD gaming is neither catching on quickly (ask anyone in, oh, say the European continent), nor is it actually a major factor in games. Games can't take advantage of the resolution to enhance gameplay because it screws everyone too poor to own an HDTV.
Lots and lots of people are too poor to own an HDTV.
The cheaper sets are small, somewhat defeating the point.
Many ordinary people can hardly tell the difference between SD and HD anything, and of those who can tell, many don't notice or care after 10 minutes. This lead somewhat to a lot of the disillusionment we've seen with 360 games and gamers. Many people are questioning why we're spending all this money to play the same games in higher resolutions. Many ordinary people can't really see a huge visual improvement in this new generation despite the technical gulf (law of diminishing returns). Many people will bearly be able to tell that advanced physics in games are going on, and even when they do, many will not care.
It's all fine and dandy to add features, but not if it adds significantly to costs. To support say 1080i vs 480p requires 3X the per pixel GPU rendering capacity (translating to 3X as many GPU transistors) and up to 6X the texture and model data (translating to a huge amount more RAM, depending on how much is used for logic etc.). Adding HD resolutions alone has easily added $100 to the manufacturing cost of the 360, yet less than 20% of Americans can actually appreciate or use it. Adoption rates look set to improve, but really, it won't be a majority thing for at least 3-4 years even in the US. And then it doesn't really stop people from buying the Wii anyway.
Now if you told people that 2 of the 3 cores in the 360 CPU are mostly being used for physics they can barely tell is going on, and that the chip cost $120 to make, people could actually get angry. I'd say the fact the Wii costs something like $200 instead of $400 has more effect on most people (particularly non techno-savvy gamers) than saying it looks 3-6 times sharper if you spend a further $1500 dollars.
As for controllers, well, there's a difference between talking the talk, and walking the walk. Sure there have been examples of this technology before, but no one else has put the money, effort, promotion or standardisation in to turn it into an easy, cheap mainstream thing. Despite what Sony has done, I can't think of any genres apart from driving games and flying games that might actually benefit from their particular 'ergonomic' implementation of the tech. Nintendo's system is less about implementing technology, and more about transcending barriers.
Siberian @ May 14th 2006 10:07PM
Recently, I have been in a conversation with a developper in the Montreal area and he has disclosed some interesting information regarding the WII console.
The console will sport a modified single core 2GHz G5 processor (the core modification are similar in principle to core modification done on the G3 for the Gekko). The ATI graphic card will be very similar to the XBOX 360 except for some special feature required by nintendo (did not specified but comments on the depth of graphics?!) He also mention that the system should indeed be able to output resolution of 720P... However, he mention that nintendo will not imposed any graphic requirements for software developpers other then some regular QA stuff. This mean that some game ports will be able to be played in 720P as well as exclusive games if developed to display this resolution. The WII will also be able to be connected to a computer monitor using a special connector. He mention that developper Kits does not have this graphic card yet included, they only have a modified version of the gamecube graphic card. This is why the games showed at E3 did not looked much better then a gamecube version but mention to me that he have seen games on alpha version of the new graphic card and it will be surprising even if display in 480P. He mention to me that the texture were very good and add some new realism effect in the graphics ??!
Apparently the target price will be 249$ US including WII Sport and some dowload credit for classic software download.
All this sounds very exciting and I certainly will want to look closely at one. I have been a nintendo fan but the gamecube was in my opinion a failure since I was unable to play some of my favorite games (i.e. lucasarts star wars games, good Racing simulators, flight simulators). I hope this time, WII will be really inclusive and the core gamers will be serve as well as casual gamers and kids. We will see...
elmer @ May 14th 2006 11:54PM
@ Siberian
Riiiiight. See the size of the system. See the minimal use of vents. See that Nintendo has already stated the chips are manufactured on 90nm processes. See that Nintendo was prepared to launch against Sony and in certain scenarios Sony was going to launch this month. See the claims of lower costs.
It's fairly certain what you've realyed to us is not true. While there is a possibility the CPU is G5 derived, the heat issue says it pretty much has to be slow.
And while there is a possibility the GPU in the boxes is not final, ATI stated very clearly that the 360 chip was the most powerful one they had going for consoles by a long way, and given how complete the units on the show floor were, how amenable they really are to new chippery.
N64 can do 720p if it had the right port, but it would be spread thinner than very thin bible paper. It's all a question of the density of effects where the GPU is concerned.
I do think however, that judicious use of a couple of effects that started to appear at the end of this generation make a heck of an appreciable difference in the graphics, without taking very much more power. These effects are:
Basic Soft Self Shadowing
Normal Mapping combined with specular highlights
Basic Depth of Field
Basic Motion Blur
Bloom Lighting
Reflection Cube environment mapping
All of these should be do-able on Wii
Check out the Red Steel trailer. I expect games will look like that before too long.
Siberian @ May 15th 2006 1:32AM
Dear Elmer
How can you explain that a G5 was pack in thiny computer like the Apple iMAC up to very recently... You have the choice to believe it or not. I just relay some information.
For you information, yes even a old graphic card with 4 mb of memory can display image in 720P. However, the card horse power is far from being strong enough to render real time scene from 3D games... The N64 and probably the gamecube in not capable doing that.
By the way, HD is not everything... look at nemo on a DVD, the cartoon looks amazing and it is render at maximum 480P... so there is more then display HD image to produce the right effect.
elmer @ May 15th 2006 9:59AM
Dear Siberian
If you read my post above then you'd see I clearly agree that HD support is actually very very unimportant. In fact it's an expensive waste in my opinion. As is a whole truckload of super accurate physics.
As for the G5 thing, let me ask you this:
Did you ever see a G5 Powerbook?
Didn't think so. That's because IBM couldn't get the G5s running cool enough or on low enough power for Apple, and it's a major reason Apple switched to Intel chips.
Those iMacs were both larger in volume than the Wii, and had significantly larger ventilation.
I guess a 2.0 Ghz G5 might just juuuusst about be possible in that configuration with 90nm chips, but it's definitely not in keeping with Nintendo's usual decision making, and definitely not in keeping with the minimal vents we've seen on the Wii, nor its claims of low power and quiet opperation.
As for 720p, no, you're wrong. I'm fairly certain that if it were equipped with the proper display adapter, the N64 could quite happily throw around 1 or 2 polygons with 1 or 2 textures at those resolutions. Gamecube could do significantly more. Heck, I seem to recall that some PS2 games actually did in fact display at HD resolutions, and Microsoft positively sold the original Xbox as being HD capable, so there (sticks toungue out ... not really).
What I'm saying is, you also have the choice to believe your source or not, and I say, I wouldn't.
Oh yeah, finally I'd like to address something I forgot in your earlier post!! You never played Rogue Squadron on Gamecube!!???? Infidel!! That game was a great Star Wars installment!!! If you want one specifically from Lucasarts and not Factor 5 then you'll be kept wanting, Lucasarts have been all loopy the last few years.
I do actually think the release package you described was very reasonable. $250, pack in game, VC credit. Fits in with Nintendo's philosophy and customers' aspirations. Perfect.
Siberian @ May 15th 2006 1:26PM
Dear Elmer
You seem to forget that the iMAC G5 has a display integrated and a hard drive, so the heat problem is not only related to the CPU itself. However, you are right that the G5 is not exactly a power saver chip! Remember that about a few weeks after the annoncement of APPLE to migrate to Intel, IBM has release a new G5 CPU (970FX) wich is a low power processor. This chip never really made it into an APPLE product but was design to be used into a protable computer. The chip was initially clocked at 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 GHz but apparently now they have it running at 1.8 GHz and the objective is to get it at 2GHz. The main focuss of this product now is the WII console.
You mention that PS2 could display in HD... wow have you ever compared the image quality of RE 4... you will notice a significant difference between the gamecube version and the PS2 version. Even if you upscale the image in HD it will not be much better... it will look smoother but not necessarly crisp. I don't believe a N64 nor a PS2 could run real time HD image with decent performance. Think about it, even a good PC 5 years ago suffer when display PRE_RENDER HD image. Fast pace games were played at 800x600 in most case (e.g. Quake 3 arena) because at high res, the computer performance were insufficient to enjoy the game. imagine now a PS2, Xbox or a gamecube that was significantly less powerfull than a mid-high end PC at the time. Lets be realistic here.
I agree with you with the HD things... Do you really believe that people will buy 2000 $ and up TV just to play video games... this is follish. I have frieds that purchase a XBOX 360 and they use a regular TV... the imagee does look a bit better than the original XBOX not very much. However, the solution to get good image quality is to go and buy a old 20 inch CRT computer monitor that can go up to 1600 x 1200 resolution. You can buy used monitors for less then 50$ and get real HD performance for a very reasonable price. I have seen the results with the XBOX 360 and in my opinion, it is even better then a HD TV. If we could do that with a WII, I will be happy.
I have played the complete series of Rogue Squadron and I had a lot of fun but I would like to play others like Battlefront, ect. I was a big fan of the X-wing series so I am still dreaming of getting to fly a X-wing or a jedy star fighter again... lets dream!
Frank @ May 20th 2006 4:51AM
All the features are about look.
Is there anything being developed regarding game play, AI simulating desire of players to win? If I play an average guy in NBA 06 I can dominate a game, and none of the AI guys can challenge me.
I'd take stick figures with more functional realism over these graphic improvements. Besides driving people to buy more expensive hardware, do they improve game play?