D
DArtagnan
Guest
You seem to have missed my semantics post, instead going on a very impressive rave hammering the same point down again.
Then you talk about GalCiv 2 and post pretty pictures, completely ignoring the point I was making about marketing budgets for relatively small titles.
Well, if you're unwilling to grasp the basics of what I'm saying, and I'll repeat:
Yeah - it takes VASTLY longer to create VASTLY more content - but the point is, that technology isn't the problem, it's the obsessive focus on superfluous content.
Then there's little point in going on.
You add details to a model, the poly count increases and this is supposed to be an argument for poly count making the process take longer? What do you think happened ten years ago in whatever incarnation of 3D studio when you added details? Yeah, the poly count increased. It was much smaller - but then, the hardware was much less powerful and the tools available to automate many of the processes were non-existant.
The "create your art button" was amusing, but the number you enter is done when you first select a mesh. You can decide how many subdivisions you want in every single mesh - and that's basically how many polygons it's made of. You can add more objects or edit the number - and the polygons will increase. This is a process that's been there since the first rendering software started to appear.
No matter what you pretend in your head goes on when modeling an object, the process is very much the same as it's always been - the key difference is the amount of polygons and the process of applying textures and effects to those textures (materials). The effects are MUCH MUCH more elaborate today - but then again, the software is much much more powerful. This is the reason I can sit down and create a much better looking textured model in more or less the same amount of time - today - as I could in the past.
Why don't you tell us what fantastic textures you make in your company that makes ONLINE GAMBLING GAMES. Come on please, as if that had anything to do with an AAA title.
If that wasn't ridiculous enough, you have to try as many patronising insults as you can cram into a few sentences. So I've claimed animations are done with a magic button - and by saying this, you automatically ignore the core point - that animations have become much easier to handle compared to the old days, when they needed rows of video toasters working for days and weeks to animate a few seconds of a dinosaur walking around. That we have software so advanced dealing specifically with character and creature anatomy and natural movement, that didn't exist at all a handful of years ago.
You talk about animations for Altair - supporting exactly what I say. Who in the world needs 2000 animations for a character, if not the Hollywood-crazed crowd. That, again, has nothing to do with technology, it's about what they CHOOSE to focus their efforts on.
Assassin's Creed was indeed a mighty pretty game, but in terms of gameplay and variety - it was embarrasingly restrictive and primitive. They can hire as many people they want, creating as many thousands of animations they want - but that has nothing to do with technology in itself. It's a way of using their resources that's counterproductive to the actual game.
Anyway - I think we're done here. You've managed to utterly ignore the very core point I was making, and I can't really take what you say seriously, when your entire support consists of working for a company that makes gambling games.
*edit*
Actually - my time is too limited for people who ignore core points and go on as if I never made them. You're on ignore, so I can save time - as I will no doubt feel compelled to respond to whatever you come up with next.
Then you talk about GalCiv 2 and post pretty pictures, completely ignoring the point I was making about marketing budgets for relatively small titles.
Well, if you're unwilling to grasp the basics of what I'm saying, and I'll repeat:
Yeah - it takes VASTLY longer to create VASTLY more content - but the point is, that technology isn't the problem, it's the obsessive focus on superfluous content.
Then there's little point in going on.
You add details to a model, the poly count increases and this is supposed to be an argument for poly count making the process take longer? What do you think happened ten years ago in whatever incarnation of 3D studio when you added details? Yeah, the poly count increased. It was much smaller - but then, the hardware was much less powerful and the tools available to automate many of the processes were non-existant.
The "create your art button" was amusing, but the number you enter is done when you first select a mesh. You can decide how many subdivisions you want in every single mesh - and that's basically how many polygons it's made of. You can add more objects or edit the number - and the polygons will increase. This is a process that's been there since the first rendering software started to appear.
No matter what you pretend in your head goes on when modeling an object, the process is very much the same as it's always been - the key difference is the amount of polygons and the process of applying textures and effects to those textures (materials). The effects are MUCH MUCH more elaborate today - but then again, the software is much much more powerful. This is the reason I can sit down and create a much better looking textured model in more or less the same amount of time - today - as I could in the past.
Why don't you tell us what fantastic textures you make in your company that makes ONLINE GAMBLING GAMES. Come on please, as if that had anything to do with an AAA title.
If that wasn't ridiculous enough, you have to try as many patronising insults as you can cram into a few sentences. So I've claimed animations are done with a magic button - and by saying this, you automatically ignore the core point - that animations have become much easier to handle compared to the old days, when they needed rows of video toasters working for days and weeks to animate a few seconds of a dinosaur walking around. That we have software so advanced dealing specifically with character and creature anatomy and natural movement, that didn't exist at all a handful of years ago.
You talk about animations for Altair - supporting exactly what I say. Who in the world needs 2000 animations for a character, if not the Hollywood-crazed crowd. That, again, has nothing to do with technology, it's about what they CHOOSE to focus their efforts on.
Assassin's Creed was indeed a mighty pretty game, but in terms of gameplay and variety - it was embarrasingly restrictive and primitive. They can hire as many people they want, creating as many thousands of animations they want - but that has nothing to do with technology in itself. It's a way of using their resources that's counterproductive to the actual game.
Anyway - I think we're done here. You've managed to utterly ignore the very core point I was making, and I can't really take what you say seriously, when your entire support consists of working for a company that makes gambling games.
*edit*
Actually - my time is too limited for people who ignore core points and go on as if I never made them. You're on ignore, so I can save time - as I will no doubt feel compelled to respond to whatever you come up with next.
Last edited: