Valve's take on cinematic gaming

[TdC]

long but good read here. well worth the effort.

Tbh I'm extremely chuffed with what they're researching. Gone are the days of the squeaky clean gaming environment imo. No longer will you be looking at a screen, manipulating a pawn in the gaming world of your choice, but watching a film with bells on. Even better, you're participating in a film! In this example a WWII flick, so ducking behind a wrecked tank to avoid the canny Hun tossing some Steilgranate at you may bring you face to face with Henry Fonda, Maximilian Schell, James Caan or Edward Fox, for in this particular case Valve are attempting to emulate a war movie of that period.

There's going to be grit both on screen and under your boots playing these games. We're getting motion blur, bloom, even film grain that simulates the wear and quality of period celluloid! And 5.1 sound! And realistic smoke, dust and rain! Frigging brilliant imo! One of the reasons I happen to like COD2 alot is because it reminds me of an old WWII movie: it's chaotic, there are people running about and getting in the way. There's dust, smoke and percipitation obscuring your view. It's noisy and there's lots of things going on at once and I like that.

Ofc the WWII era isn't for everyone, but to come back to Valve, and to their HDR demo Lost Coast there's much more there than making your game look like an old movie: the lighting effects are amazing: you can see dust in the air, bloom and such replicate you squinting and the sheer prettiness of the light falling through the windows distracted me from the nasty combines coming to kill me heehee.

Now a thought occured to me, and that is that players may not actually be pleased with all the crud that is getting in their way in a game. For example, I imagine that a gamer like Throdgrain (and correct me if I'm wrong Throddy) likes things like smoke grenades and flashbangs in CS:S because he can use them against his foes, but he won't like a dust cloud blowing down a street he's moving up because then he won't be able to see where he's going and he certainly won't like Valve's idea of depth of field because then he won't be able to see the terrorist he's hunting crouched 50 yards away as well as he used to. Now me, I like the idea that I'm watching a movie I can participate in, but I can imagine that playing a game like BF2 is going to become very different with things like depth of field put in place. For example, I've learned that everything is in focus on my screen and that only things like viewing distance, fog of war, name it what you will can effect my god-like abilities to see everything at once. I can be shooting at a nasty 5 yards in front of me, but I can spot the sniper moving into place 200yards beyond that instantly.

So, all the next gen games are going to be different. Playing style is going to be different. It may well be more realistic, but is it going to be better?

[highlight]Discuss![/highlight]


(ooh err matron!! tdc uses his loaf for a change )

 

[Sar]

TBH I think motion blur would be the biggest step forward.

I've seen Q3A vids with proper motion blur applied in After Effects, and it make the gameplay look very naturalistic and less game like.

TBH the Depth of Field effects on those pages doesn't look very natural, and not very subtle.

I do however like the colour correction bits. Because film has been using this for ages now to convey mood, so anything that can lend a bit more mood or emotion to a game is a good thing imo.

 

[TdC]

ah, yes, do forgive me for not touching on all the technology they talk about. just to add, I agree on the DOF thing. I think it's going to be a bit wierd until they get it right: like mipmapping was in the begining, when you could see the thresholds running away from you while walking about. funny that, bit like running in a bubble if I remember correctly.

 

[ECA]

Seems like we're in for some real development on the old graphics front.
I was really impressed by lost coast, and I hope they keep up the development.

 

[nath]

I recall there being a game that had some DOF stuff nailed. I can't remember what it was though :s

 

[Tom]

Thing about DOF is that on an open sunny map, everything will be sharply in focus still.

Its only on dark maps/rooms, and for snipers, that DOF is an issue.

 

[Milkshake]

Been doing alot of research, going to seminars etc on Game Development, as this is the area I wanna go into after I finish my degree (4th year of a 5year masters atm).

Seems the *big* thing games designers would like to do, the thing they can't manage, is to make people cry during games. Not talking "Shit, I've just lost my 18 hour Civ 3 save game", but to get people so emotionally attached to a character that the player will be physically upset if he/she leaves.

This is a good report, and for graphics is *the* way forward...but there seems to be an increasing trend for emotion to be used to make the game feel more 'real'.

Think Max Payne

Anyone ever cried during a game?

 

[FuzzyLogic]

The death of Aerith in FFVII is still probably the most emotional moment for me, I was 14 when I played that like, and it sounds a bit girly, but her death really did come out of the blue and the "wtf, she's dead?" had to sink in at first, I was a bit upset but also quite relieved in the way that she wasn't in my main party too often and I hadn't levelled fantastically

I suppose the most difficult thign about making games more cinematic isn't necessarily the technology involved, but the dynamic nature of them. Movies are edited very specifically to audio and visual cues, doing that on the fly can't be easy and getting it right is key to involving the players more, imo.

Plus the article said themselves, players will disable these effects to gain a competitive edge so can it really be done for multiplayer games, or will it be a single player mojo forever?

 

[Louster]

Aeris. I think I found that whole scene to be hilariously awkward actually, but then my take on these things might be a bit warped. (And yeah, she was one of my god-damned primary party members, so that was slightly annoying.)

I think the few times that a game's emotionally affected me have been in RPGs, though I have a vague recollection of something in Grim Fandango being pretty damned moving, but for the life of me I can't remember what.

The final bit in BG2:ToB, I think, where you get summaries of the lives of all your main characters after beating the last boss, was incredibly bittersweet. I'm pretty sure Planescape Torment was similar - probably one of the best endings of any game I've come across anyhow. For me, at least, it's subtlety that's most emotive, and frankly games in general are about as subtle as a brick when it comes to trying to evoke any kind of feeling.

Screwing with player's expectations is another good way to create these kinds of effects. If anyone played Psychonauts and found that one room in Milla's brain's level... wow. That came as a shock, after the whole pervasive bouncy party atmosphere. It's too bad her back-story once again suffered from bricklike subtlety. Oh well.

 

[`mongoose]

I think it's laudable that they're trying to do these things but I find DOD:S frustrating and slow. It generally turns into a kind of strategic camp fest which sounds fun but usually ends up being dull and boring on pubbies where two teams of 20 end up taking the usual cover spots and whoever gets and holds the odd flag wins.

I might get shot for saying this but whilst q3 looks like a game, the gameplay has kept it popular beyond the likes of rtcw and other q3 based 'newer' games.

I don't want to sound like a retro gamer who can't appreciate progress but I do think that gameplay is more important that pretty pictures.

Hopefully someone will come along with another holy grail fps game that gets and keeps me playing it for years. Most games these days seems to excell in one area at the expense of others.

M

 

[TdC]

Crying due to gaming plots? No, not me. I can cry from a good movie or book though, and perhaps a particualrly moving bit of music, but never (yet) from a game.
Had the full scale of other emotions though heheh

 

[`mongoose]

Think Max Payne

Anyone ever cried during a game?

never come close.... unless tears of laughter count

I tend to get gamer rage tho which, combined with a stupidly competitive streak can make me a bit of a pain in the arse to game alongside. I tend to avoid games that put me in competition with other players when I get all ragey

M

 

[TdC]

It generally turns into a kind of strategic camp fest which sounds fun but usually ends up being dull and boring on pubbies where two teams of 20 end up taking the usual cover spots and whoever gets and holds the odd flag wins.

ah, but that's how the game gets played. not how it looks the more strategic games lend themselves to that style of play more easilly than your example of a much faster and chaotic Q3.

tbh a game like BF2 would be uber-camp extraorinaire if the commanders weren't given the option to shell the heck out of people standing still. imo a decent clan wouldn't run about like a group of headless chickens a la the playingstyle on the public servers. they'd grab a flag position and hold that fecker against the enemy, unless it was in their strategic benefit to move on to another spot. still, again nothing to do with looks.

the point that was made that power-gamers would be turning off the effects to gain an edge when in a multi-player environment seems valid. I remember Unreal having "Darkmatch", which sucked (imo) because you could turn your brightness waaaaay up and defeat the point. That, imo, is more of an engine issue: ie you shouldn't render what you can't see, thus making it impossible for the ungodly to work around the fact that it's dark ffs. Point being that things in the realm of maximum eye-candy cinema-esque experiences may be SP only until the kinks get worked out. Sadly enough, but I'm sure there's a bright side. Where *we* have to learn to play differently, the guys who program the engines also have to think differently: blur, DOF and the other stuff comes from somewhere; what's the MP server going to do about it? Who will be traking what, and where? Etc. Servers on the 'net are either going to get supremely efficient engines or they're going to need extra CPUs

 

[DaGaffer]

tbh a game like BF2 would be uber-camp extraorinaire if the commanders weren't given the option to shell the heck out of people standing still. imo a decent clan wouldn't run about like a group of headless chickens a la the playingstyle on the public servers. they'd grab a flag position and hold that fecker against the enemy, unless it was in their strategic benefit to move on to another spot. still, again nothing to do with looks.

the point that was made that power-gamers would be turning off the effects to gain an edge when in a multi-player environment seems valid. I remember Unreal having "Darkmatch", which sucked (imo) because you could turn your brightness waaaaay up and defeat the point. <snip>

Funnily enough, in the only BF2 map without artillery, (Iron Gator), the scenario you describe is exactly what happens; good squads (even on publics) pick a flag/defence spot on stay on it.

And once again, BF2 is showing exactly what you're describing with power users playing with their graphics cards to nullify the point of the night maps; although I think in this case it a more defensive than aggressive thing because the code is so shoddy that many people suffer huge FPS drops on the night maps.

I'm sure your point about not allowing power users to get around this is valid, but I'm not quite sure how you would do it as the objects (other players, vehicles etc.) need to be represented even if you can't see them. As long as you're in an open (PC) environment some smartarse will probably always be able to strip away effects for gaming advantage. Personally I think it misses the point entirely, but then so does cheating and hacking but it doesn't stop twats doing it.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Doesn't Doom 3 have some mojo that prevents the shadows from becoming visible even if you turn the brightness so far up it burns the Sun? At least I remember it having something like that...

 

[Sar]

you mean like r_shadows "0"?

 

[TdC]

HAX! ADMIN!!

 

[Kryten]

It does indeed look very interesting, it would help further a divide that has been evident in gaming for a long time.
I'd split the divide into "gamers" and "sportsmen" - the gamers would be those who would probably enjoy the new effects, sunlight and dust obscuring your view, depth of field etc - making the game a highly realistic looking affair and certainly would make you feel further immersed.
The sportsmen (the pro lamers, or just the more competetive of us) would no doubt prefer every edge they get (just take a look at all the goons who play their favoured games in graphics modes that make Duplo look advanced) - and would therefore not favour the new effects.
I've always falling into the "gamer" section myself and vastly look forward to this sort of thing being commonplace. I would imagine in the future that games will either be split to suit each divide, or there will be options therein to suit - "Simulation" and "Arcade" are common ones - multiplayer servers set for each type, so the gamers can play on one and the lamers (sorry, sportsmen) can play on the other.
Just a matter of time before we find out for sure.
(My views on pro lamers are my opinion and are not meant to offend anyone, but I just don't get on with folks who don't play a game to enjoy it)

 

[Yaka]

nifty id say, as for crying during gaming came close when playing ico and shdows of the colossus

 

[Louster]

nifty id say, as for crying during gaming came close when playing ico and shdows of the colossus

Talking of which, I was incredibly pleased to find out that Ico's being re-released, as I've never played it and desperately want to.