Why (most) High Level Languages are Slow (article)
-
I made the distinction between selling and high complexity graphics in the very first post I made in this thread.
I know you like to insult people randomly, but you might as well read the replies to your own posts, too.
-
Indie developers nowadays do it either because they can't do 3D graphics
Wrong.
sometimes as a marketing ploy to sell nostalgia (bad nostalgia at it -- most of the indie nostalgia platformers get the 16 bit look entierly wrong)
They really do, but it's also clearly not always a marketing ploy.
Honestly, no points are more bogus than yours. I know this because unlike you, I am making a 2D game, for none of the reasons above. I'm doing it because it fits the style I want to go for. 3D, extreme HD photorealism isn't the only way to make something look good. It's good if you're making Skyrim. It's the absolute worst thing you can do if you're making other kinds of games. Have you ever seen Darkstalkers? Have you ever seen BlazBlue? What is wrong with you?
Part of the reason people do 3D now is that it's far cheaper. Think about it: designing a fighting game character involves possibly hundreds of frames that have to follow from eachother perfectly smoothly. Or you can make one 3D model, spend a lot of time on the mesh and textures, and animate it with a skeleton. It's why flash took off, despite flash tweening making animations look awful.
-
Dude, why are you so angry at me? I am in no way disrespecting your craft. I am just saying that 2D graphics are, by definition, not cutting edge state-of-the-art graphics. Do you consider that an insult?
I know how fighting games work, thank you very much. I also know that animations for a 2D fighting game are far cheaper in 3D than in 2D. But can you make a 2D game that would work with an Oculus Rift or any other VR headset?
(Before you get all pedantic on me, you theoretically can, but the effect becomes no different than using polygons and orders of magnitude more complex).
Your commitment to 2D is commendable, but the advancement of the artform comes in the way of 3D interaction. This does not mean what you're doing is wrong, it's just not state of the art. That's why AAA studios employ hundreds of people and you're making a game by yourself (or in a small team, I don't really know the details) -- because they're doing it in a scale far bigger and more ambitious.
-
but the advancement of the artform comes in the way of 3D interaction
You sound like someone convincing themselves that the hollywood studio system of movie-making is the only way of doing things, and that independent and arthouse cinema is therefore inevitably doomed.
-
Huh, well, it is kind of like that. I wouldn't say it's doomed, I just wouldn't call a camcorder single take movie exactly state of the art.
I'm pretty sure that if the people filming that would have the resources at their disposal they would do exactly the same thing the hollywood studio system is doing.
That doesn't make it doomed per se -- they are just working with the limitations they're given.
Incidentally, that's also why indie games go for $15 and no one bats an eye at games that took hundreds of people to make going for $60 -- they took a lot more effort to make. Collectivelly, the effort of hundreds of people versus the dozen or so guys most small scale studios have.
-
Some people are, in fact, a bit unhappy that Disney will never make another 2D movie. You probably don't understand why, but you might be able to puzzle it out eventually.
The point is, sometimes 2D is simply right for a game. Just like 3D is sometimes right for a game. Not every game needs to run on Oculus, and not every game needs to be CoD. There are different styles of things, and people like that, because not everyone likes the same things as you.
I wonder what you think about the difficult of HD 2D art. Have you thought about the fact that having more detail makes it far easier to see even the tiniest animation mistakes?
I mean, next you'll be saying that, because BlazBlue is 2D, Arc System Works is incapable of 3D. Of course, that means you haven't seen Xrd Sign, in which they have taken every effort to make their 3D look 2D. Because they know that 2D is the aesthetic people want.
So again, you are not everyone. Not everyone thinks every game should look like Crysis.
-
Forget about double-precision, though. That's slow as fuck.
Well crap. How long are we going to be limited to millimeter resolution for a 10km by 10km area?
-
$450 million:
1.5 billion per year:
Prettier does not necessarily mean more successful anymore.
Clearly, I've been wasting my time and energy! The path to wealth in games is not to spend years solving technical and worldbuilding challenges, but to spend a couple months making a puzzle game.
-
Clearly.
-
Well crap. How long are we going to be limited to millimeter resolution for a 10km by 10km area?
Then there's the mobile GPUs where FP16/half-floats (and some other formats) are a thing.
(Fun debugging: figuring out that mediump texture coordinates on some devices cannot accurately address each pixel in large textures.
)
-
Just because you love that FFVII is 3D does not mean Sephiroth is better than Kefka!
He is though, right?
-
Sepiroth is a superpowered whiny bitch with mommy issues and, most likely, self-confidence issues related to the size of his penis (have you seen the size of that sword?)
Kefka is just a massive bastards who manages to topple kingdoms by the sheer power of his dickweedery.
You decide.
-
Agreed, Sephiroth's awesome sword does make him the best villain.
-
Some people are, in fact, a bit unhappy that Disney will never make another 2D movie. You probably don't understand why, but you might be able to puzzle it out eventually.
The point is, sometimes 2D is simply right for a game. Just like 3D is sometimes right for a game. Not every game needs to run on Oculus, and not every game needs to be CoD. There are different styles of things, and people like that, because not everyone likes the same things as you.
I wonder what you think about the difficult of HD 2D art. Have you thought about the fact that having more detail makes it far easier to see even the tiniest animation mistakes?
I mean, next you'll be saying that, because BlazBlue is 2D, Arc System Works is incapable of 3D. Of course, that means you haven't seen Xrd Sign, in which they have taken every effort to make their 3D look 2D. Because they know that 2D is the aesthetic people want.
So again, you are not everyone. Not everyone thinks every game should look like Crysis.
You are really misunderstanding his point, and getting offended for no reason. He didn't say all games HAVE to be 3D COD or Crysis, just that 3D blockbuster games are the most state of the art and technically challenging, which is true.You can prefer Disney's 2D movies or their 3D movies, but their 3D ones are more technically demanding.
-
The path to wealth in games is not to spend years solving technical and worldbuilding challenges, but to spend a couple months
makingmarketing a puzzle game.FTFY.
I think the point is that we've pretty much reached the "good enough" level of video game graphics and further graphical improvements don't matter that much anymore. If in 1993 you made a game that looks like a 1983 AAA title, you'd be laughed out of the door. If in 2015 you made a game that looks like a 2005 AAA title, nobody would really bat an eye.
-
You can prefer Disney's 2D movies or their 3D movies, but their 3D ones are more technically demanding.
From the technology standpoint, sure. I think a good 2D movie is more demanding of the people involved than a 3D movie because of exactly that, though. Which is why we probably won't see another old school animated film from Disney.
25 years ago it was the other way around. But that's just pissing contests over what constitutes "state of the art," which just makes you guys look dumb.
-
I don't think discussing the newest and most powerful technologies (in gaming example,as the conversation originally was about) is dumb. I think it's interesting.
It's a shame Princess and the Frog didn't do so well. That was an excellent film.
-
I don't think discussing the newest and most powerful technologies (in gaming example,as the conversation originally was about) is dumb
No, that's not dumb. Using it to compare dick sizes is dumb.
But it's still less interesting than how the CLI can screw the pooch performance wise with cache misses.
-
-
If in 2015 you made a game that looks like a 2005 AAA title, nobody would really bat an eye.
Case in point: Bioshock Infinite. Which I'm pretty sure was running on the same engine as the original Bioshock from years previous.
But, again, the graphics weren't the selling point.
-
It's a shame Princess and the Frog didn't do so well. That was an excellent film.
No it wasn't. The last actually good Disney 2D animated movie was Lilo and Stitch.
It is a shame that Disney basically gave the fuck up and completely ripped-off the Dreamworks "look and feel" for Frozen. If we're going to have a world where all films are animated with the same technology, they could at least be done in different animation styles. Instead, you look at a Frozen movie poster and you think, "oh a new movie from the guys who made Shrek?"
(Also I bet the guys who did do Shrek are fucking pissed. Justifiably, IMO. How has Disney "succeeded" at 3D? Well, first of all, they just flat-out buy our competitor by shitting piles of cash at them, then secondly when they set up their own studio, everything they made is a complete failure until they decide to rip-off Dreamworks' style. WTF, Disney! Walt would be fucking pissed.)
-
-
No, that's not dumb. Using it to compare dick sizes is dumb.
But it's still less interesting than how the CLI can screw the pooch performance wise with cache misses.
Agree.
The last actually good Disney 2D animated movie was Lilo and Stitch.
Didn't care for that one.
-
Didn't care for that one.
You are objectively wrong. Everything about it is great. Everything.
Blah. I'd link you to clips demonstrating such, but Disney's iron-fisted copyright squad has been very active on YouTube.
I especially like the fact that it constantly lampshades it's own tropes.
"He's stolen a police cruiser."
"Yeah... he took the red one."(In a ship with one red cruiser apparently specifically-painted for the hero and 57,000 identical blue ones for the goons chasing him.)
-
You are objectively wrong. Everything about it is great. Everything.
Yes. Lilo and Stitch is great. I like when she's on the phone with someone (Mr Bubbles?) about getting attacked or something and then..."Oh good! My dog found the chainsaw!"
-
High Level Languages are "fast" where it counts: development time.
C# is just Java without the portability.
<Filed under: blakeybait
-
C# is just Java without the portability.
Unless you use Mono. But then, who uses Mono anyway? Y'know, apart from Mono.
-
The problem is that 'state of the art' is almost entirely meaningless. There are big budget 2D games made, which take incredible effort and have very large teams. Meanwhile most 3D games hardly progress. You get the occasional jump, like Evolve, but for the most part, games are not substantially more demanding than they were five years ago, because that would make the Xbox 360 versions harder to release.
State of the art 2D is as much state of the art as state of the art 3D. We've been playing 3D FPS games since before UT99!
-
I'm no expert but it's pretty self evident that graphics, AI, physics, lighting, terrain destruction, collision detection, etc, are exponentially harder when you have to care about 3 dimensions rather 2.
Am I missing something obvious here?
-
And yet none of those things necessarily have any connection to how good a game is.
But since you brought those up, have you ever really thought about how an AI needs to react in a fighting game? How collision needs to be handled? You can't just say 'everything is a bullet, everything is hitscan' and leave it at that. Physics can't match reality, and have to be perfectly designed, along with all the ways to exploit the game's physics for combos.
And then you have balancing. Sure, maybe you can reduce the fire rate of an assault rifle by 10% or take away dual-wield for a shotgun. Have you thought about what goes into asymmetric balance? Have you thought about such basic things as getting the controls right?
People let you by if you make an 8-bit game, and don't expect a story even if it's an RPG, because they're only playing for the nostalgia. Apart from that, every game is hard to make. And most 2D games don't use the same game engine for 10 years, like our good ol' rotten fish.
-
And yet none of those things necessarily have any connection to how good a game is.
No one said they did.You are just so determined to all defensive about 2D games aren't you? No one is insulting them, in any way.
It's just a fact: 3D games are more technically complex and challenging to develop. No one is mentioning game quality.
-
-
I'm amused at how we're now arguing about what we mean WRT "art" in "state of the art." And by arguing, I mean talking past each other.
-
Meh, better than working :P
-
3D games are more technically complex and challenging to develop.
This is what I take issue with. It's simply untrue. How technically complex do you think it is to develop a new rotten fish? The last major new tech addition was a dog!
-
This is what I take issue with. It's simply untrue.
Adding a third dimension makes everything more complex by definition, simply because you have a whole extra dimension to worry about.
-
This is what I take issue with. It's simply untrue.
3 dimensions are factually more complex then 2. Bloody hell, how is this even something that needs to be said?
How technically complex do you think it is to develop a new rotten fish? The last major new tech addition was a dog!
And I can't even begin to understand what you're babbling about here.
-
Yes, vector mathematics get more complicated. But unless the game is, say, God of War, not as much effort is put into weapons and such. All else being equal, 3D would require more work. In practice? Absolutely not! The majority of 3D games don't even have to worry much about collision. A bullet moves fast enough that you may as well do it the old hitscan way.
3 dimensions are factually more complex then 2. Bloody hell, how is this even something that needs to be said?
Irrelevant if the game is 1D, like, say, FFXIIVAnd I can't even begin to understand what you're babbling about here.
You clearly don't know much about gaming. Think about the names of a few popular games. You'll find it eventually.
-
Speaking of 2D graphics, one of the best looking 2D games ever was made 18 years ago for the PlayStation 1:
In fact, have any 2D games surpassed it even now?
-
And then you have balancing. Sure, maybe you can reduce the fire rate of an assault rifle by 10% or take away dual-wield for a shotgun. Have you thought about what goes into asymmetric balance?
The guys who made Evolve certainly didn't. Ugh.
-
In fact, have any 2D games surpassed it even now?
Freedom Planet looks great; whether it looks better than Castlevania… I'd have to go and compare them to say for sure ;)
@Magus said:The majority of 3D games don't even have to worry much about collision. A bullet moves fast enough that you may as well do it the old hitscan way.
Praytell, where are the bullets in Forza Motorsport or Gran Turismo? Or Portal, for that matter? Toybox Turbos? Sonic Generations?
-
And I can't even begin to understand what you're babbling about here.
The "dog" thing might be a reference to the last couple Call of Duty games, which had killstreaks where combat dogs would come and help you? But a pretty dated reference at this point. It's from Ghosts, which 1) isn't even the most recent CoD game, and 2) is the worst of all the CoD games.
The rotten fish thing is gibberish.
-
not as much effort is put into weapons and such.
CITATION NEEDEDAll else being equal, 3D would require more work. In practice? Absolutely not!
CITATION NEEDEDThe majority of 3D games don't even have to worry much about collision.
CITATION NEEDEDA bullet moves fast enough that you may as well do it the old hitscan way.
Whether 2D or 3DIrrelevant if the game is 1D, like, say, FFXIIV
Not a number so I'm clearly being trolled here... oh well
You clearly don't know much about gaming. Think about the names of a few popular games. You'll find it eventually.
I'm aware of Call Of Duty, it had dogs many years ago though so I don't follow your nonsense
!
-
In fact, have any 2D games surpassed it even now?
How do you define "best looking?"
The newest Rayman games, Origins and Legends, look amazing-- but they're in a deliberately weird cartoon style.
-
They had dogs in COD: World At War, which was 2008, so even earlier. He's either trolling (pretty well I admit) or getting very emotional and defensive since he's apparently working on a 2D game himself and wants to be just as big and clever as 3D blockbuster games :P
-
Freedom Planet looks great; whether it looks better than Castlevania… I'd have to go and compare them to say for sure
Oh, I did forget to mention one thing about Symphony of the Night... one of the graphical effects they used was actually more than the PS1 could handle and slowed down the entire system.
If you ever play a port of SotN to a newer system (Xbox 360, PS3, PSP), when you beat a boss, the health max increase item appearance animation and sound play a lot faster because of this.
-
I quite like a game made partially in homage to the series: Komajou Densetsu II
But a pretty dated reference at this point. It's from Ghosts,
Yes, well done! The fact that it's dated is the point, as the dog thing was what they tried to use as the game's selling point, and was the last innovation in the series!
-
Whether 2D or 3D
Because the majority of FPS games are 2D, and the majority of 3D games aren't FPS.
-
Right; but does anybody know what "rotten fish" refers to? Have any 3D games ever featured rotten fish?
Yes, well done! The fact that it's dated is the point, as the dog thing was what they tried to use as the game's selling point,
... in Ghosts. Which sucked.
and was the last innovation in the series!
No. The selling point of Advanced Warfare is the exosuit, the movement abilities it adds and the attached bonus abilities (shield, cloaking, etc.)
Now, admittedly, that selling point is mostly a rip-off of Titanfall's innovation in movement skills, but the weird thing is despite Titanfall being extremely innovative in that arena, its selling point was the fact you could call in attack robots. They barely mentioned the exosuit stuff. Go figure.
(In any case, CoD: Advanced Warfare and Titanfall were released close-enough together that it's probably safe to say neither ripped-off the other, they were both being worked-on simultaneously.)
-
Right; but does anybody know what "rotten fish" refers to? Have any 3D games ever featured rotten fish?
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod]CoD[/url]. I presume rotten is just @Magus' opinion of the series.
[Edit: correct attribution, I think]
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night - Wikipedia
