Technology Pipedream -- Ivan Beram

IIVAN VAN BBERAM ERAM –– GGAME & AME & LLEVEL EVEL DDESIGNERESIGNER

v1.2

ssELFELFiiNDUCEDNDUCEDccOMAOMA.com

TTHEHE T TECHNOLOGYECHNOLOGY P PIPEDREAMIPEDREAM –– A D A DEVELOPMENTEVELOPMENT F FALLACYALLACY

The Role of Technology in Game Design & Development

http://selfinducedcoma.com/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Commentary: the original talk was given at Free Play (Melbourne, 2003) then at the Australian Game Developer's Conference (Melbourne, 2004).

Knowing how useless most talk slides are without the prepared speech – a series of simplified points, or a series of images, bordering on meaningless. I've rewritten mine in more detail allowing someone to read the slides and have a better idea of what I actually meant by them. Especially if they didn't attend the talk, hopefully providing clarity.

These slides have also been updated and expanded for this web version. Enjoy!

TALK TALK OVERVIEWOVERVIEW• First off: a little background• What is technology?• What is gameplay?• What consumers want• Where we can go wrong• E3 demo as an example• The first playable• The middleware path• The middleware reality• The middleware cost• My stark conclusion• Q & A


The purpose: to convince you that technology is a means to an end, not the end itself.


The purpose: to convince you that technology is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Far Cry's E3 2002 gameplay demo, which was runner's up for

Best-of-E3 in a number of categories.

Is utilised as a basis for this talk; as are my experiences

working for two middleware developers

– Crytek & Micro Forté.

X-ISLE: A TECHNOLOGY DEMO TRYING TO BE A GAME

FAR CRY: FIRST GAMEPLAY DEMO – E3 2002

FAR CRY: THE FINAL PRODUCT TODAY

FAR CRY: THE FINAL PRODUCT TODAY

On my arrival Far Cry was actually X-Isle, an impressive technology showcase lacking in interactivity.

All graphics and no game.

On becoming Lead Designer, the concept evolved into Far Cry. By E3 2002 – six weeks later – we had a demo that showcased actual gameplay, not just the technology powering its graphics.

Gameplay, still evident in the final product.

X-ISLE: A TECHNOLOGY DEMO TRYING TO BE A GAME

FAR CRY: FIRST GAMEPLAY DEMO – E3 2002

WHAT IS WHAT IS TECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY??

• e.g. physics engine – or better yet, a smaller component of it like: “rag-doll” physics.

Technology is...

WHAT IS WHAT IS TECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY??

• e.g. physics engine – or better yet, a smaller component of it like: “rag-doll” physics.

Technology is...

Evidently this is a screenshot from a rag-doll physics tech demo. Each time it starts the

outcome can vary a little or a lot. But, that is most likely the whole extent to

its “interactivity.”

WHAT IS WHAT IS TECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY??a TECH-demo is...

● Various technology loosely integrated together into a showcase – at best.

● Lacks any real functionality – (active) interactive use in creating gameplay.

● A shallow (passive) experience for the user, like watching a film, with the odd bit of interaction that has no gameplay purpose – just initiates the demo / feature.

WHAT IS WHAT IS TECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY??a TECH-demo is...

Singular purpose: prove the technology works!

● Various technology loosely integrated together into a showcase – at best.

● Lacks any real functionality – (active) interactive use in creating gameplay.

● A shallow (passive) experience for the user, like watching a film, with the odd bit of interaction that has no gameplay purpose – just initiates the demo / feature.

WHAT IS WHAT IS GAMEPLAYGAMEPLAY??

• One definition: an entertaining (active) experience where the player interacts with the game world via game mechanics powered by underlying technologies.

Gameplay is...

ragdollkungfu.com


• One definition: an entertaining (active) experience where the player interacts with the game world via game mechanics powered by underlying technologies.

Gameplay is...

ragdollkungfu.com

These screenshots show a game utilising a form of rag-

doll physics married to various game mechanics, in order to

create gameplay.


• Game mechanics (systems) highly interwoven into a cohesive whole, integrated with underlying technology.

• Tech through mechanics has clear functionality (purpose) in facilitating the title's interactivity / immersion – gameplay!

• Has art in place, though, not necessarily “finished” (polished) art.

a GAMEPLAY-demo is...






Main goal: not to be a shallow (passive) experience, but, one with (active) player engagement.






Main goal: not to be a shallow (passive) experience, but, one with (active) player engagement.

In way of terminology, I've actually heard tech-demos referred to as gameplay-demos. However it is my understanding that these are far more interactive in nature – I

would refer / liken it to: “prototyping.” They may be testing a combination of rough

game mechanics in a sandbox-like environment (level) with stand-in art – in some cases levels are merely “blocked” out,

as are entities, with rough limited animations in place. A tool for getting

feedback in order to refine the game vision and mechanics. Their aim is to focus solely on gameplay, function, ignoring the polish. However, it is often this same “polish” as represented in a vertical-slice of the

game, that makes gameplay so effective by providing vital feedback to the player.

WHAT WHAT CONSUMERSCONSUMERS WANT? WANT?

WHAT WHAT CONSUMERSCONSUMERS WANT? WANT?Yes, gamers are

consumers and they want interactivity! So

do publishers.

WHAT WHAT CONSUMERSCONSUMERS WANT? WANT?Yes, gamers are

consumers and they want interactivity! So

do publishers.

The GTA series of titles is highly regarded for its

“sandbox” gameplay – and quite often

emulated for its popularity.



Functional means: ease-of-use (usability).


Functional means: ease-of-use (usability).

Freedom Fighters, let you control a resistance squad to wage skirmish

warfare with tactical ease – well, almost.



Active entertainment, not passive

entertainment like film.




Will Killzone's gameplay and even graphics, live up to the pre-rendered trailer hype?




Will Killzone's gameplay and even graphics, live up to the pre-rendered trailer hype?

Update: evidently with the title's release it has, though with a little hype – as I imagined the case being. However, my purpose with this example was to illustrate the danger there is in forgetting that games are an interactive form of entertainment. In this case the developers delivered gameplay and largely comparable graphics, to the pre-rendered vids. Many less experienced developers, would not have delivered on this promise.


Not just graphical “wow” effects, pretty pictures on a screen.


Not just graphical “wow” effects, pretty pictures on a screen.

Beyond the exterior polish of Serious

Sam 2's graphics. I can't help but

think the gameplay is repetitively

generic and stale.



But something: functional, interactive

and immersive!


But something: functional, interactive

and immersive!

The Warriors was a game without the

best graphics, but, it more than made up with it via

highly interactive environments and

immersive gameplay.



Marrying your strong gameplay to a strong scenario to drive it.

Can do wonders to your immersion too!


Marrying your strong gameplay to a strong scenario to drive it.

Can do wonders to your immersion too!


However story like graphics alone, is not enough as games are interactive

foremost. An active not passive medium.

• It is comprised of:

WHERE WE CAN GO WHERE WE CAN GO WRONGWRONG

What is a game system?



BACK-END

Core supporting architecture and management base

ENGINE CORE




BACK-END


ENGINE CORE

FRONT-END

Components that communicate game system to player and allow for interaction

INTERFACE SHELL




BACK-END


ENGINE CORE

FRONT-END


INTERFACE SHELL

What is a game system?This represents the greyness of where one layer ends and another starts. It can also represent the game mechanics that glue the two together.



BACK-END


ENGINE CORE

FRONT-END


INTERFACE SHELL

What is a game system?This represents the greyness of where one layer ends and another starts. It can also represent the game mechanics that glue the two together.

It's remedial systems theory, even a little simplistic in that game systems are

highly specialised for interactivity; but, it will do for this talk.

• At times hard to categorize tech in that tech can fit into both categories, having both a front and back end role to play – eg 3D Renderer, Physics

• Also, some tech compliments another by either providing front or back end functionality for it.

• “Deficiencies” arise when tech is missing elements to its front or back-end – without one you lose the functionality of the other.

• Or, when a tech / system that provided the front or back-end functionality does not exist, creating the same result.

Some sticking points:


• At times hard to categorize tech in that tech can fit into both categories, having both a front and back end role to play – eg 3D Renderer, Physics

• Also, some tech compliments another by either providing front or back end functionality for it.

• “Deficiencies” arise when tech is missing elements to its front or back-end – without one you lose the functionality of the other.

• Or, when a tech / system that provided the front or back-end functionality does not exist, creating the same result.

Some sticking points:

WHERE WE CAN GO WHERE WE CAN GO WRONGWRONGTo perhaps confuse things further, I'm going to generalise game-mechanics and game-systems by also referring to them as “tech” from now on – as that is really what it boils down to being; as something like “written language” can be considered a form of technology. However, game-mechanics are predisposed to having interactivity as their goal – their purpose.

They are enablers, allowing the player to interact with the game system. It's an important distinction to make clearly understood.

E3E3 DEMO AS AN EXAMPLE DEMO AS AN EXAMPLE

Some history: around 2 months out from E3, what was X-Isle became Far Cry. Most of the demo shown that year was hammered out in about 6 weeks. It was an important showing, as it was the team's chance to show that they could deliver an actual cohesive title, not just a mix-bag of technology demos. So the E3 demo, is an ideal illustrator.


The screenshot is a little misleading

however. It comes from X-Isle's precursor, a technology demo called

X-Isle: Dinosaur Island. X-Isle the game, was an attempt at an interactive use

of the underlying technology. But to put it bluntly, it was a frustrating failure to play – if you could even call it “play.”

Some history: around 2 months out from E3, what was X-Isle became Far Cry. Most of the demo shown that year was hammered out in about 6 weeks. It was an important showing, as it was the team's chance to show that they could deliver an actual cohesive title, not just a mix-bag of technology demos. So the E3 demo, is an ideal illustrator.



Prior to the E3 demo, it was quite easy whilst playing the game to

become lost in the dense environments of trees and bush; unaware of where the enemy was. Yet, it knew exactly

where you were and could easily attack – frustratingly so.


Developers tend to forget what they are trying to create. They assume by having the (front-end) technology to render densely populated outdoor terrain, that they have the gameplay as well.

E3E3 DEMO AS AN EXAMPLE DEMO AS AN EXAMPLEPrior to the E3 demo, it was quite easy whilst playing the game to

become lost in the dense environments of trees and bush; unaware of where the enemy was. Yet, it knew exactly

where you were and could easily attack – frustratingly so.


AI could not only see through the brush, but

also environmental effects like fog. In

fact all they had to do to see you, was draw a

straight line from their eye-point to the player's – no matter

how well hidden you may have been.


Hard and soft cover were modelled – part and parcel in achieving the core gameplay of Far Cry. Hard cover (rocks and trunks) provided shelter from attacks yet impeded movement. Soft cover (bushes and foliage) obscured you from view, from the AI, but did not impede your movement. This missing back-end vastly improved the player gaming experience.

AI could not only see through the brush, but

also environmental effects like fog. In

fact all they had to do to see you, was draw a

straight line from their eye-point to the player's – no matter

how well hidden you may have been.



Your real-time dynamic, volumetric, soft-shadows may look great, but, do they have any purpose other than to make the

screen look good?


Your real-time dynamic, volumetric, soft-shadows may look great, but, do they have any purpose other than to make the

screen look good?

Do the shadows actually make it easier for the player to hide from enemies and to sneak stealthily upon them? How about the real-time lighting, does standing in the spotlight actually make you a more clearer target?



Does crouching, leaning, walking and running have any advantage and

disadvantage towards shooting?


Does crouching, leaning, walking and running have any advantage and

disadvantage towards shooting?It largely depends on

the game as to whether you wish to affect the players aim if they're doing something like running. But, how about the AI, are they all precise marksman even whilst running?



How about running through foliage, making it move, making lots of

sound. Does this affect stealthiness?


How about running through foliage, making it move, making lots of

sound. Does this affect stealthiness?

Is that why the player was spotted so easily?



Does the player (or AI) suffer any

disadvantages and advantages to stealth

whilst crouched?


Does the player (or AI) suffer any

disadvantages and advantages to stealth

whilst crouched?

Can the enemy see the player crouched and hiding in the long grass, lying in ambush for the enemy approaching?




By adding the back-end so that the AI checks a number of body-points rather than just the eye-point, so as to determine how visible the player is. Along with checking other aspects, like whether they are running, creeping, standing or crouched – not to mention whether they are in the darkness or a bright spot of light. You can begin to actually model adequate stealth gameplay.

This is already done to a large extent for the player. Can you spot the sniper behind the fallen log easily without the binoculars?


By adding the back-end so that the AI checks a number of body-points rather than just the eye-point, so as to determine how visible the player is. Along with checking other aspects, like whether they are running, creeping, standing or crouched – not to mention whether they are in the darkness or a bright spot of light. You can begin to actually model adequate stealth gameplay.


E3E3 DEMO AS AN EXAMPLE DEMO AS AN EXAMPLEDevelopers tend to forget that various aspects are already “modelled” for the player, and need to be instead modelled for the AI – so as to be seen as “realistic” and/or “fair” as per the expectations of the genre.

E3E3 DEMO AS AN EXAMPLE DEMO AS AN EXAMPLEAI that jumps around like it's playing a game of Quake on methamphetamines, missing most of its

animations...

Developers tend to forget that various aspects are already “modelled” for the player, and need to be instead modelled for the AI – so as to be seen as “realistic” and/or “fair” as per the expectations of the genre.

...runs non-stop, has perfect aim, can turn 180 in a millisecond, never

appears to reload or stop firing their gun... is frustrating for the

player, not a challenge for the player.

Developers tend to forget that various aspects are already “modelled” for the player, and need to be instead modelled for the AI – so as to be seen as “realistic” and/or “fair” as per the expectations of the genre.

E3E3 DEMO AS AN EXAMPLE DEMO AS AN EXAMPLEAI that jumps around like it's playing a game of Quake on methamphetamines, missing most of its

animations...


Without these missing front-end elements, the AI “readability” was zilch; failing to communicate its complexity and sophistication to the player.


The AI eventually came to have a diverse range of animations, movement –

walking, crouched, reloading – correct

sounds, and a range of mannerisms and tactics...



The AI eventually came to have a diverse range of animations, movement –

walking, crouched, reloading – correct

sounds, and a range of mannerisms and tactics...

...it would seek and use cover (rocks, trees,

stumps, crates) for defence and offence. It would even appear to communicate and co-ordinate attacks with other AIs. All at a much slower (tactical) pace




The AI model's textures, animations and sounds; are actually communicating to you various system states. So they're actually part of the user-interface, enabling the player to interact with the game – via a keyboard, mouse or controller.



These can tell you what they are doing – giving a flanking order. Whether they're angry,

whether they're hurt.


Everything outputted from the screen and speakers

makes up the user-interface! It is not just the graphical on-screen heads-up display (HUD)

that solely comprises the output of the interface.


These can tell you what they are doing – giving a flanking order. Whether they're angry,

whether they're hurt.



However, even with HD and next-gen graphics. We are still limited in

what we can visually achieve via a screen and input devices – not to mention audio

via speakers.


However, even with HD and next-gen graphics. We are still limited in

what we can visually achieve via a screen and input devices – not to mention audio

via speakers.

Without these binoculars, this obscured and crouched enemy may have been just another blurry few pixels in the distance.



The addition of gunfire trails /

tracers, and muzzle flashes – as well as damage direction

indicators. Aided the player in determining where and who was actually attacking him – no matter how

far away. A relatively simple fix

and use of the existing particle and

shading systems.


The addition of gunfire trails /

tracers, and muzzle flashes – as well as damage direction

indicators. Aided the player in determining where and who was actually attacking him – no matter how

far away. A relatively simple fix

and use of the existing particle and

shading systems.

Developers forget that game-worlds are not the real-world, no matter how great our graphic fidelity seems in portraying them. We need to give players concessions so they can interact with the game. What shape and form depends on the game, and depends on the technology and hardware that is powering it.


THE THE FIRSTFIRST PLAYABLE PLAYABLE

THE THE FIRSTFIRST PLAYABLE PLAYABLEYour first gameplay demo may not necessarily have complete systems...


The indoors did not natively support the AI. There were also

issues with production pipelines and the

reliability of indoor technologies – like the dynamic lighting

and shadows.





and shadows.

For the demo we scripted much of the indoor AI and made sure to stick to a linear path;

we also relied on a more stable use of the technology –

even if more bland.





and shadows.

For the demo we scripted much of the indoor AI and made sure to stick to a linear path;

we also relied on a more stable use of the technology –

even if more bland.

FYI: the present industry nomenclature for a polished first playable is vertical-slice.



You may not have all the game & mission mechanics in place, but, implement as much as necessary so as to give the impression to the player that you do...



The generic combat behaviours of the AI were good, but, lacked

some of the more interesting behaviours

– such as squad dynamics. In this case a squad on being shot at, has popped smoke, pulled back behind

cover, and has called in air-support.

Others showcased other intended game & mission mechanics of our gameplay; such as the utilisation of night-vision and lighting, and various squad strategies.



The generic combat behaviours of the AI were good, but, lacked

some of the more interesting behaviours

– such as squad dynamics. In this case a squad on being shot at, has popped smoke, pulled back behind

cover, and has called in air-support.


THE THE FIRSTFIRST PLAYABLE PLAYABLEThe demo showed enough wow features and interesting aspects to make it feel like a complete experience...

The helicopter is shot down by the player using a rocket

launcher, targeted via its scope. The missile locks on and whizzes towards its target no matter if the aim is off or if it moves –

leaving a snaking trail in its wake. It hits, and the copter trails

black smoke as it crashes into the base.


The helicopter is shot down by the player using a rocket

launcher, targeted via its scope. The missile locks on and whizzes towards its target no matter if the aim is off or if it moves –

leaving a snaking trail in its wake. It hits, and the copter trails

black smoke as it crashes into the base.


Hard-coded, hacked, scripted. Call it what you want, but this sequence hinted there was more to the game than just shooting at guys hiding in the woods and tossing a few grenades.



We as developers have a range of tools for

debugging, that tell us exactly what is and isn't

occurring within our game system(s).

We sometimes forget that filling the

screen with: lines, shapes, arcane

syntax and sets of numbers. Does not a

user-interface make! We may

comprehend it, but not everyone (if not most) will.


We as developers have a range of tools for

debugging, that tell us exactly what is and isn't

occurring within our game system(s).



Gameplay is driven by your AI, and the AI is communicated via the various game mechanics (tech) that comprises (or feeds) your user-interface.



The demo should be relatively polished, as it is designed to

“sell” to the audience. So, even if elements such as the HUD aren't quite worked out, perhaps even unnecessary. You should still

strive to represent something that

“might” be mistaken as the end result.



A good rule: if it doesn't break “suspension-of-

disbelief” (immersion), then it can be safely left as is. If it does,

then it needs to be addressed some way!

The demo should be relatively polished, as it is designed to

“sell” to the audience. So, even if elements such as the HUD aren't quite worked out, perhaps even unnecessary. You should still

strive to represent something that

“might” be mistaken as the end result.


THE THE FIRSTFIRST PLAYABLE PLAYABLEWhen creating your game's AI, don't just focus on recreating what everyone else has done. Don't just create the “core” gameplay. Ask yourself: what are the things that bug you the most in the similar titles you've played? Ask a similar question about all your game systems.

For instance, making the AI take cover when a bullet whizzes past their head, or, a comrade

“mysteriously” dies; is so simple to implement yet added so much to the believability

of the AI's intelligence.


For instance, making the AI take cover when a bullet whizzes past their head, or, a comrade

“mysteriously” dies; is so simple to implement yet added so much to the believability

of the AI's intelligence.

Modelling such aspects for the AI's hearing as well as sight. Can add a great deal of “intelligence” to the AI's believability and perceived challenge.


THE THE MIDDLEWAREMIDDLEWARE PATH PATH


Epic's Unreal 3 engine; one of the most licensed if not the most licensed. Who wouldn't want that?!

• Aspiring to be a technology middleware provider, is one reasoning for not creating tech the right way – by making use of it in a functional manner within a quality title.

• It is seen as less hard-work, perhaps more innovative, important, potentially lucrative and prestigious.


Tech 5 engine

• Aspiring to be a technology middleware provider, is one reasoning for not creating tech the right way – by making use of it in a functional manner within a quality title.

• It is seen as less hard-work, perhaps more innovative, important, potentially lucrative and prestigious.

We are a technology graphics obsessed and driven industry. Many studios with the advent of middleware solutions becoming popular, have middleware aspirations.


Tech 5 engine

THE MIDDLEWARE THE MIDDLEWARE REALITYREALITY• Without the development

context a title gives, there is no pressure placed on tech to be robust – bug free and complete.

• We would even find that the fundamentals, the architecture of our tech is flawed, undermining further functionality that can be achieved with it.

Jupiter engine

THE MIDDLEWARE THE MIDDLEWARE REALITYREALITY

No one (or not enough to be profitable) will licence your technology if it has not been proven in a commercially successful title. Otherwise it is seen as risky, and rightly so if you are not an experienced middleware developer; as experienced developers are not stupid! They want proven technology and solid support.

Jupiter engine

• Without the development context a title gives, there is no pressure placed on tech to be robust – bug free and complete.

• We would even find that the fundamentals, the architecture of our tech is flawed, undermining further functionality that can be achieved with it.

• You will have to sell 30-60 licenses – or more depending on pricing – just to breakeven; and this may not cover ongoing costs to support the tech and your customer’s projects.

• There are many established and reputable providers, that have competitive tech, pricing and support – utilised in numerous successful titles – that you will have to compete with.

Gamebryo engine


• You will have to sell 30-60 licenses – or more depending on pricing – just to breakeven; and this may not cover ongoing costs to support the tech and your customer’s projects.

• There are many established and reputable providers, that have competitive tech, pricing and support – utilised in numerous successful titles – that you will have to compete with.

Ask yourself: is your tech really good enough? Is it competitive in way of features? Is it competitive in graphical quality and finesse? Code-base complete and robust? Support the right platforms? Is it competitive in pricing? How about customer support and tools? In the middleware market, can you find a profitable “niche”?.

Gamebryo engine


You never know who is waiting around the corner with more competitive technology, or more appealing technology; that has been

showcased in a successful commercial title/s!.

Unity 3D engine


You never know who is waiting around the corner with more competitive technology, or more appealing technology; that has been

showcased in a successful commercial title/s!.

For instance, maybe not 100% proven in a commercial title (perhaps in other apps) but competitive in development environment (Mac / PC), versatile technology and tools, support, platforms (Wii, iPhone, Web), and in cost.

Unity 3D engine


THE MIDDLEWARE THE MIDDLEWARE REALITYREALITYUPDATED

Marketing / Business (and economic) nimrods, usually espouse finding a niche for your products / services. Of course, a niche in a small (niche) market, isn't a very big market share. A niche in a large market, is a much larger (profitable) market share.


As an example, what for Valve in way of technology was the bigger long-term pay off? It's Source middleware solution, or, Steam

digital content distribution system?

Marketing / Business (and economic) nimrods, usually espouse finding a niche for your products / services. Of course, a niche in a small (niche) market, isn't a very big market share. A niche in a large market, is a much larger (profitable) market share.



Roboblitz (Naked Sky)

UPDATED



Here's another example: Roboblitz. I bring it up, but, not because it utilises the Unreal 3 engine...

UPDATED



Here's another example: Roboblitz. I bring it up, but, not because it utilises the Unreal 3 engine...

UPDATED

It's because Roboblitz utilises a technology to procedurally

generate textures – which implies dynamic uses in the future.


Allegorithmic

UPDATED


Allegorithmic

The (licensed) technology is called substance Air, developed by Allegorithmic. With it, instead of Roboblitz being hundreds of megabytes in size, it came in under 50mb – the limit for XBLA.

UPDATED


Allegorithmic

The (licensed) technology is called substance Air, developed by Allegorithmic. With it, instead of Roboblitz being hundreds of megabytes in size, it came in under 50mb – the limit for XBLA.

UPDATED

This is an example of middleware finding a niche within a large market; where it has few competitors, and, seeks to “compliment” what the established middleware providers have to offer – not do one better than (“me too”).


Scaleform's technologies, is another example of middleware finding a big niche. They focused on an area of game development that most developers were weak at. What they decided to tack on as an after thought, the game interface – menu UIs, HUDs, etc. Used in many titles, it is also supported by a core group of 3D engine middleware providers.


Scaleform's technologies, is another example of middleware finding a big niche. They focused on an area of game development that most developers were weak at. What they decided to tack on as an after thought, the game interface – menu UIs, HUDs, etc. Used in many titles, it is also supported by a core group of 3D engine middleware providers.

This middlware provides developers a powerful solution for easily creating

high-quality customisable Flash-like interfaces for their titles, among other uses. That's

a big niche!


Torque 3D (Garage Games)






After completing the first version of this web presentation. I realised that I was missing one middleware engine that has been around for yonks, and some would say is iconic. Since I mentioned other engines, I thought I'd mention this one as well – fair is fair...



Really, there are so many middleware “solutions” out there; just too many of them to warrant a

mention here – that's not its purpose.




Really, there are so many middleware “solutions” out there; just too many of them to warrant a

mention here – that's not its purpose.



But I can mention the Torque 3D engine, that has a range of solutions for 2D or 3D, for PC or iPhone. I can also mention Brett Seyler's interesting take on the middleware landscape:

garagegames.com/community/blogs/view/15952

Far Cry's indoor engine, was a bottleneck when it came to creating content and testing it. Sure it looked great (eventually), but it did not natively support the sophisticated outdoor AI behaviours. Rather, it was all tediously scripted.

THE MIDDLEWARE THE MIDDLEWARE COSTCOST


The outdoor engine, even with the known competitors, was the draw-card in way of graphical appeal. Able to support large nonlinear sandbox environments, rich with lush organic vegetation along with man-made structures.



And an AI, capable of squad dynamics, that used its features well to provide the player with a unique tactical playing experience.


Indoor could have been supplemented

with simpler structures rendered

via the outdoor technology. Making

it natively supported by the

AI. This could have been an ideal

solution in meeting the game's vision.

THE MIDDLEWARE THE MIDDLEWARE COSTCOSTAnd an AI, capable of squad dynamics, that used its features well to provide the player with a unique tactical playing experience.


And such “indoor” structures, needn't be small, but could be in the form of sprawling complex facilities.

And an AI, capable of squad dynamics, that used its features well to provide the player with a unique tactical playing experience.

Indoor could have been supplemented

with simpler structures rendered

via the outdoor technology. Making

it natively supported by the

AI. This could have been an ideal

solution in meeting the game's vision.


The resources and time spent making the indoors work for the title, for middleware ambitions. May have been better utilised on other aspects of the game. It may of even lead to a more tighter, and higher quality, gaming experience. Instead it lead to delays, relationship strains, and a lack of polish in way of effective use of technology in creating gameplay (in my humble opinion).



Far Cry prior to E3, ran the serious

risk of getting canned! There were

many competing titles out there already, with

similar technology and with clear gameplay – if

rudimentary at the time (e.g. Stalker:

Oblivion Lost).


And they had no middleware aspirations, they just wanted to make a great game foremost! Many had achieved quite a lot without a publishing deal, yet Far Cry had yet to prove it could achieve the basics with one.

THE MIDDLEWARE THE MIDDLEWARE COSTCOSTFar Cry prior to

E3, ran the serious risk of getting

canned! There were many competing titles out there already, with

similar technology and with clear gameplay – if

rudimentary at the time (e.g. Stalker:

Oblivion Lost).


Reality engine

The middleware landscape is

littered with the dead. Yes, some do make it. But you

must really evaluate why that is so; what they offer that their

competitors do not.


Reality engine

The middleware landscape is

littered with the dead. Yes, some do make it. But you

must really evaluate why that is so; what they offer that their

competitors do not.

Prior to the release of Crysis, Crytek admittedly stated that they had only sold less than a handful of licenses at a low-cost for their CryEngine (Far Cry). However, this may have finally changed with the release and success of Crysis and the availability of their CryEngine 2.


Reality engine

• Even middleware providers must showcase their tech in a commercially successful title – either doing this themselves or via a licensee's efforts.

MY MY STARKSTARK CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONTECH alone does not make a game!

• Technology does not create gameplay, it is how you use it. Consumers are more savvy today, and want quality of experience, not just better graphics.

TECH alone is not profitable!

• Even middleware providers must showcase their tech in a commercially successful title – either doing this themselves or via a licensee's efforts.

MY MY STARKSTARK CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONTECH alone does not make a game!

• Technology does not create gameplay, it is how you use it. Consumers are more savvy today, and want quality of experience, not just better graphics.

TECH alone is not profitable!

Ask yourself: do you want to make interactive-entertainment titles, or, interactive-entertainment technology?.

MY MY STARKSTARK CONCLUSION CONCLUSION


Tech can always be licensed for your

title, and does not need to be “cutting-

edge” but merely competitive for the

genre, and competitively utilised.


Tech can always be licensed for your

title, and does not need to be “cutting-

edge” but merely competitive for the

genre, and competitively utilised.

I'm not against developing tech, quite frankly as an industry, we need too! But if you wish to be a middleware developer, you'll have to ask yourself some tough questions, and demand tough answers of yourself – perhaps confronting ones. And remember what you'll still have to deliver on, in order to do so!

Source engine


Source engine

MY MY STARKSTARK CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONA title with a cohesive and singular

vision; with a spark of originality and innovative use of technology. What this entails, will largely depend upon the

target genre's context, and, the market's current (as well as projected) expectations

– what you can and can't get away with.

Source engine


Remember: focus on interactivity foremost, and give your technology a functional purpose – "function before form”.

A title with a cohesive and singular vision; with a spark of originality and innovative use of technology. What this entails, will largely depend upon the

target genre's context, and, the market's current (as well as projected) expectations

– what you can and can't get away with.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

http://selfinducedcoma.com/

Technology Pipedream -- Ivan Beram

Entertainment & Humor

technology demo

gameplay demo e3

wrong e3 demo

various technology

middleware reality

talk slides

impressive technology

original talk