To start things off here are links to the two videos that they recently posted on their Youtube channel. So if you want to refresh your memory check out the videos….ok your back good, now lets get started.
On first glance, the technology looks promising, the claims made while sounding absurd it does come across as something that might be possible, but like many things on closer inspection cracks appear that quickly become canyons. There are multiple reasons for this and once they are taken into account the tech, which may seem to some like fact is more like a mirage.
Freeing the artist
This is one thing that if you listen they mention it a few times to hammer home the point, which makes it sound like artists are confined and limited to what they are capable of which in some cases is true. Though it is something that the industry takes into account when creating a product. There is a limit to what can be created and this comes down to varying factors depending on the company and the studio, which can be in the form of budgets, time available and man power for a project.
No matter what way the tag line is spun there are limiting factors at play and for the artist some of the great teams in the industry have made amazing games that embrace the hardware available at their disposal.
Budget and time
This is one if not the largest factors at play, which is totally brushed over in the video presentation. Currently games costs more to make that they ever did with million dollar budgets, large teams working tirelessly to meet deadlines, for each high poly model created it means more time spent creating that model which either means a larger team or outsourcing more work to cope or hiring in more talent. With this comes the increased cost. It is fine saying ‘your graphics will get 100,000 better’ but in reality this would be impractical in the current climate. If a studio poured millions into this leap forward in graphical presentation then games, run the risk of requiring to be a commercial success, which just isn’t possible, not every game, can succeed and with every success story there will be a similar failure and these failures would be ever so costly for the publisher and studio.
Interactivity
One thing you will notice from the video which is presented is that it is missing something that all games feature and that it is some kind of interactivity, for an a company boasting about unlimited detail they showcase an engine without implemented physics, AI, dynamic lighting and shadows and much more. Usually this wouldn’t matter but with such claims it is like Ferrari talking up their new car as being the fastest in the world yet they just show it in a parking lot.
If they want to convince developers, they are going to need to show practical demonstrations running in real time that are actually constructed to suit a games production.
Textures
This is a huge flaw that is totally brushed over, with models over a 100,000 times better, then textures are going to need to be improved upon, it is fine having high quality models but if the textures aren’t there to take advantage of the increased quality then it becomes redundant.
One thing that is quite noticeable from the footage shown, a lot of repetition is going on from models to textures and I don’t think it comes as any surprise either. Textures at that high resolution will take up a lot of memory and it means all those textures need to be loaded in which would be hugely intensive on a system. That is just a part of a game, which doesn’t take into account hardware limits. If you add onto that physics lighting any sort of particle effects loading in models AI the list goes on then trying to get a decent frame rate it is no surprise that the engine is running at 20 frames per second with absolutely nothing happening in the world.
Memory
Memory is a huge factor when it comes to games, for consoles there is only so much you can fit on a DVD or Blu Ray disc though these limits do not apply as much to the PC market but that is just the physical state of the game. The problem with this engine is that nothing is stated on what exactly the hardware is running on or what details and systems it uses to make this possible, which seems odd. If an engine is using these high poly models that are converted and are unlimited in quantity what happens for a game level when all this information needs to be loaded in what kind of strain does this have on a system? No matter which way they spin it hypothetically it may be unlimited but no matter how good the system is there will be a limit.
Another issues that plays into the memory problem is what happens when physics are applied and is it possible to feature destruction, if the world is built up of atoms as they say then a physics engine keeping track of those atoms would be heavily intensive unless there is some kind of work around.
The competition
In the video, they refer to other games, comparing and almost mocking the visuals of companies like Crytek and Epic Games, which is totally unjustified. The games they show are Bulletstorm, Just Cause 2 both of which are games created for consoles that use hardware that is five years old so the comparison is pointless. The only pc game shown is Crysis which released four years ago which still to this day is one of the best looking games out, yet they still compare it, the problem is their engine has never been implemented into a game or shows signs of being a comparable product. They boast about visual yet they only speak about one aspect the polygon count, there are far more things that make up the presentation of the game that goes beyond polygons.
With Crytek and Epic Gamesnot only do they create their own software but they can show first hand how it works in their own games which is a huge selling point. For one it shows it works and the potent ional it possibly brings. I leave you with the Epic Games Unreal Engine Samaritan tech demo which is far more impressive as it is using core fundamentals, and takes them to the next level.
There are more things that I can cover but I feel these things hit the major points, it may sound like I am heavily against the company but I’m really not. It’s just when you come out with such bold statements be prepared to back them up and actually take into consideration the industry that you are creating this software for.
I am by no means a programmer, I am a designer but even to me this technology raises a lot of questions. I have learnt over the years to get a good grasp of technology, where it is going etc because when it comes to designing you have to keep in mind what it is currently or could be possible in the future. Honestly Euclideon and their engine, it all seems to be a bit to far fetched with a lot of empty untenable promises, if they can prove me wrong then so be it more power to them.
So where do you stand, do you believe this new tech is the future? leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Great article, really good read.
ReplyDeleteThe problem about the size of textures, etc. is the main limitation, especially for the 360 with it not having the increased space available on Blu-Ray. I can see them getting round it by having the game as only available if you install it to the HDD or by disk switching, but either way it's gonna be off putting to developers unless they really can backup what they say.