I've given it a lot of thought, and I don't think Minecraft would be so easy to pick up and play if in weren't so 'blocky'. At least not without some really good design. The size of the blocks in Minecraft really lend themselves to being able to put together things that approximate real life structures, while maintaining a sufficient level of simplicity.
This simplicity makes reasoning and manipulating the game world less challenging, resulting in the game being more accessible to a wide variety of players.
Or even compared to, for example, the constraints on plays in the Elizabethan era when Shakespeare wrote, or the syllabic constraints on haiku. One would think that there would be a bigger "dancing bear" (it's amazing that the bear dances at all, not that the bear dances well) factor, but not many playwrights match Shakespeare, given fewer (or no) constraints.
I've had to switch languages a lot when coding, but even in a constrained or flawed language, you see code that is beautiful and amazing. Constraints free up thought, as when you stop rebelling against a framework, you can excel in it. It's hard to push your brain into what feels like a hole; I can't get anything done in Perl because I spend too much time being repulsed, but some people embrace the language and produce great software.
Having just praised restrictions like that, though, I still have to mention that this game looks really cool.
This is probably why the old 8- and 16-bit games seem to have so much more compelling gameplay than ultra-realistic modern games. Well, that or we are just cranky oldtimers.
A thought that crossed my mind some time ago is some consequences of fine-detail in Minecraft. You would be able to create objects of higher complexity packed into a manageable size. Would you pay money to someone who created a really useful (or cool) object in high-fidelity Minecraft?
Very excited to see what becomes of the Atomontage Engine. For years I've been annoyed with static 3D environments where walls don't actually crumble when shot at, and windows never shatter. This engine will change the way we react to realism in virtual environments.
Almost so much that it becomes easy to ponder if we're already in someone's 3D simulation ;)
Years and years ago (In the quake3 era) John Carmack talked about voxels being the future of 3d because of exactly thaty.
Ray-traced voxel based worlds. Personally, I think voxels will be hard to manage for objects/characters. Someone smarter than me will have to solve that problem.
There are ways around such problems, especially in terms of bridging the gap between convex smooth surfaced solid objects and collections of cubes. As the technology gets more mature more sophisticated approaches will be fielded.
> Someone smarter than me will have to solve that problem.
Someone smarter, or someone with specific knowledge of the relevant domain and a lot more time to invest on the problem? I see a lot of people assuming that someone who can do something they can't is inherently smarter, even if they do something just as complicated for their daily job and think nothing of it.
Someone with more time on their hands. I've actually worked close to this subject area already. It can be solved, but I'd have to care more than I do to bone up on the material to tackle it.
RF:G only has destructible buildings/objects, however. The level geometry is still static.
The original Red Faction had largely destructible level geometry as well. However, that was just based on explosions deforming the terrain, rather than a physics simulation of destruction like RF:G. Polygons would fall if they were attached to nothing. The multiplayer level set in the natural canyon/bridge area is a good example of this: the large bridge in the second level (3 paths) is able to be taken out with some rockets and persistence to actually fall into the pit in the center. However, there was a limit to how much the level geometry could be deformed, and after a certain amount, explosions would stop removing sections from the terrain. It takes a good amount of time to get to this point, but it is possible. Also, the developers did a great job of hiding some interesting secrets in the deformable terrain. The multiplayer level with the two buildings on opposite sides and multiple levels with the desert in between has a hidden fusion rocket launcher (BFG, essentially) on the roof that's only accessible by destroying the terrain to get up there if my memory serves correctly. Also, the lobby level has four sections hidden behind walls, and a hidden roof area. Clearly, they put some work into using this feature well.
In Red Faction: Guerilla, only the buildings/objects are destructible, but there's more physics modeling. Taking out key supports will bring down buildings...in theory. I'm not a structural engineer, so I can't speak for its accuracy, but it often seems as if buildings are much hardier than they should be. Still, it's rather cathartic to take down an entire enemy barracks with a few explosives and a sledgehammer.
As for the actual math and methods behind this, I cannot say. I just know how it worked in gameplay from many hours playing the old RF multiplayer, and some recent time put into R:FG. Feel free to ask if you'd like to know more though.
(Huh, I never thought my videogame knowledge would be all that relevant here.)
It's funny how different a voxel-based game looks to my eyes than a 3d-pixel game. I suppose the voxels offer a lot less resolution right now, but they just seem to work in a different way. I wonder if they will feel more or less engaging in 3d than a triangle-mesh type game.
It looks to me like the low resolution is an aesthetic choice. I've seen many far higher resolution voxel engines 15 years ago running at speed, including one written by a guy at my old school aged 17.
My method is to follow the developer on twitter / tumblr / whatever if I'm really excited, or simply wait for the various indie gaming blogs to pick up the news upon release (which they will).
Perhaps it's not too late for you. He's re imagined Robotron as a voxel game. Think of other classic arcade games that could be taken to their roots and reinvented with voxels. Any classic could be interesting: zaxxon, donkey kong, Asteroids...
Oh, I'm sure it's not too late... And I'm working on my own projects in my free time. But it's games like this that finally pushed me into doing that. If I hadn't thought 'Man, I wish I'd written that' I'd probably still be doing nothing about it.
It's all about inspiration :) It doesn't matter what actually pushes you to do it, it's that you actually do it. All great ideas start somewhere, and most (if not all) are inspired by other ideas and people.
It's more than that I think. 8-bit music began as a poor, low-fi imitation of existing music forms for electronic games, because it was all that was possible given the hardware of the time. 8-bit music has been rediscovered by enthusiasts and independent artists, initially due to nostalgia, and that has led to a lot of innovation, exploration, and discovery. Discovery that 8-bit music doesn't have to be merely an imitation of something else any more than a synthesizer has to imitate a piano or an electric guitar has to imitate an acoustic guitar.
Worked what out exactly? 8-bit sounds were very much tied to the idea of translating music and sound effects, and not of developing novel music or techniques. Though some degree of innovation did occur, as technology advanced the gaming industry left behind 8-bit sounds, moving to more advanced wave-table MIDI synthesis, CD-ROM audio, etc, abandoning the 8-bit sounds as outdated and limited.
How many games on the SNES or on CD-ROM used 8-bit soundtracks? It was only later when 8-bit sound was sought after as a musical form on its own, for its own aesthetics and nature, that it flourished as an art independent of the need to imitate.
"Innovation, exploration and discovery" were all rampant in the 80-es, especially on European C64 games. Some examples of music that uses the unique noises of the SID chip instead of only imitating existing instruments:
As I mentioned in another post, the problem with innovation within the industry is that as hardware evolved 8-bit sound was abandoned. Game studios moved on, thinking that 8-bit sound was primitive, outdated, and obsolete. Whatever innovation had existed had to be rediscovered by musicians later.
i think perhaps game studios moved on to 16-bit sound as the platforms evolved from using on board sound synthesis chips to sampled, real world sounds, because it became available. a similar dichotomy can be found in the analog synthesis; when digital technology was coming into vogue with manufacturers, analog had ceased to be the most cutting edge technology, but was by no means dead or obsolete.
another problem with game console sound is the long development time needed to get an actual computer chip ready for market; the curtis CEM series of sound-makers were excellent and widely used but had a hard time competing with something that could be altered or upgraded in software. they're still used in some new gear being made today, but no new console would dream of using one.
i don't see how hardware evolution was 'a problem with innovation', i view the trend as more of the nostalgism that is coming around these days.
Perhaps I'm a bit jaded, but I'm not terribly sure that it's that compelling, it's just experiencing a lot of popularity now (after a steady push for years prior).
There's many reasons for the current success though, the nostalgia, the gimmick (they're making that with a gameboy! omg!), it's generally really agreeable music to most anyone (ie: safe, passive). Etc.
I don't imagine it sticking around in any significant capacity over time, of course there will always be the devotees, and we'll continue to see elements of it in mainstream pop music.
"Yes, actually there aren't so many voxels to take care of. It depends on the world size of course, but at 256x256x48, that's similar to managing a 3k x 1k 2d map in the same way."
Excellent. I'd buy it. I paid for the Humble Indie Bundle #2 pretty much just because Braid was finally out for Linux, even though I'd purchased it for my Windows desktop already.
If I were Lego, I'd be chomping at the bit to license this and set up a casual chat/social network oriented virtual reality. (Sort of a voxel-based Disneyfied Second Life.) The marketing possibilities for Lego would be huge.
If you're interested in what can be done with voxels with a more realistic aesthetic, have a look at the Atomontage engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCZIBDt1uM
There is nothing in the gaming future that excites me more than good old voxels. That game/engine looks amazing.
That's what minecraft should look like.
I've given it a lot of thought, and I don't think Minecraft would be so easy to pick up and play if in weren't so 'blocky'. At least not without some really good design. The size of the blocks in Minecraft really lend themselves to being able to put together things that approximate real life structures, while maintaining a sufficient level of simplicity.
This simplicity makes reasoning and manipulating the game world less challenging, resulting in the game being more accessible to a wide variety of players.
Similarly we don't give children atoms to play with, we give atoms constrained into lego blocks.
Constraints give rise to creativity. Just compare that to the "1K" or "7 day" competitions.
Or even compared to, for example, the constraints on plays in the Elizabethan era when Shakespeare wrote, or the syllabic constraints on haiku. One would think that there would be a bigger "dancing bear" (it's amazing that the bear dances at all, not that the bear dances well) factor, but not many playwrights match Shakespeare, given fewer (or no) constraints.
I've had to switch languages a lot when coding, but even in a constrained or flawed language, you see code that is beautiful and amazing. Constraints free up thought, as when you stop rebelling against a framework, you can excel in it. It's hard to push your brain into what feels like a hole; I can't get anything done in Perl because I spend too much time being repulsed, but some people embrace the language and produce great software.
Having just praised restrictions like that, though, I still have to mention that this game looks really cool.
This is probably why the old 8- and 16-bit games seem to have so much more compelling gameplay than ultra-realistic modern games. Well, that or we are just cranky oldtimers.
You don't wanna be in the Uncanny Valley - Minecraft is cute, because it's not real - hard from real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
A thought that crossed my mind some time ago is some consequences of fine-detail in Minecraft. You would be able to create objects of higher complexity packed into a manageable size. Would you pay money to someone who created a really useful (or cool) object in high-fidelity Minecraft?
Very excited to see what becomes of the Atomontage Engine. For years I've been annoyed with static 3D environments where walls don't actually crumble when shot at, and windows never shatter. This engine will change the way we react to realism in virtual environments.
Almost so much that it becomes easy to ponder if we're already in someone's 3D simulation ;)
Years and years ago (In the quake3 era) John Carmack talked about voxels being the future of 3d because of exactly thaty.
Ray-traced voxel based worlds. Personally, I think voxels will be hard to manage for objects/characters. Someone smarter than me will have to solve that problem.
Atomonontage still uses polygon-based rendering for some objects (the vehicle in that video is poly-based).
I believe the appropriate expression is 'Horses for courses'.
There are ways around such problems, especially in terms of bridging the gap between convex smooth surfaced solid objects and collections of cubes. As the technology gets more mature more sophisticated approaches will be fielded.
A classic way of solving the voxel vs. smooth object problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching_cubes
> Someone smarter than me will have to solve that problem.
Someone smarter, or someone with specific knowledge of the relevant domain and a lot more time to invest on the problem? I see a lot of people assuming that someone who can do something they can't is inherently smarter, even if they do something just as complicated for their daily job and think nothing of it.
Someone with more time on their hands. I've actually worked close to this subject area already. It can be solved, but I'd have to care more than I do to bone up on the material to tackle it.
Red Faction: Guerrilla and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 both have pretty decent destructible scenery.
RF:G only has destructible buildings/objects, however. The level geometry is still static.
The original Red Faction had largely destructible level geometry as well. However, that was just based on explosions deforming the terrain, rather than a physics simulation of destruction like RF:G. Polygons would fall if they were attached to nothing. The multiplayer level set in the natural canyon/bridge area is a good example of this: the large bridge in the second level (3 paths) is able to be taken out with some rockets and persistence to actually fall into the pit in the center. However, there was a limit to how much the level geometry could be deformed, and after a certain amount, explosions would stop removing sections from the terrain. It takes a good amount of time to get to this point, but it is possible. Also, the developers did a great job of hiding some interesting secrets in the deformable terrain. The multiplayer level with the two buildings on opposite sides and multiple levels with the desert in between has a hidden fusion rocket launcher (BFG, essentially) on the roof that's only accessible by destroying the terrain to get up there if my memory serves correctly. Also, the lobby level has four sections hidden behind walls, and a hidden roof area. Clearly, they put some work into using this feature well.
In Red Faction: Guerilla, only the buildings/objects are destructible, but there's more physics modeling. Taking out key supports will bring down buildings...in theory. I'm not a structural engineer, so I can't speak for its accuracy, but it often seems as if buildings are much hardier than they should be. Still, it's rather cathartic to take down an entire enemy barracks with a few explosives and a sledgehammer.
As for the actual math and methods behind this, I cannot say. I just know how it worked in gameplay from many hours playing the old RF multiplayer, and some recent time put into R:FG. Feel free to ask if you'd like to know more though.
(Huh, I never thought my videogame knowledge would be all that relevant here.)
The perspective is absolutely brilliant. I love it. I feel stupid for not thinking of it.
Do you mean the cropped edges? Populous 2 looked similar.
This looks surprisingly fun!
It's funny how different a voxel-based game looks to my eyes than a 3d-pixel game. I suppose the voxels offer a lot less resolution right now, but they just seem to work in a different way. I wonder if they will feel more or less engaging in 3d than a triangle-mesh type game.
It looks to me like the low resolution is an aesthetic choice. I've seen many far higher resolution voxel engines 15 years ago running at speed, including one written by a guy at my old school aged 17.
If the author is reading this:
Add a signup form. It's not often the case that I want to be notified when a product becomes available, but this time I would love too.
My method is to follow the developer on twitter / tumblr / whatever if I'm really excited, or simply wait for the various indie gaming blogs to pick up the news upon release (which they will).
Wow. Great example of turning a limitation as a strong aesthetic. Can't wait to try it out!
This is yet another thing that I said, 'Man. I wish I'd written that.'
It's not outside my ability, it's just that I never think of these things first. And creating a clone doesn't have the same feeling as a new thing.
I'm betting a lot of other developers feel the same way.
Of course, that won't stop me from enjoying -playing- the game. :D
Perhaps it's not too late for you. He's re imagined Robotron as a voxel game. Think of other classic arcade games that could be taken to their roots and reinvented with voxels. Any classic could be interesting: zaxxon, donkey kong, Asteroids...
Zaxxon would be an excellent candidate for a voxel re-make, as it had 3d gameplay.
Hmmmm. I was just looking at one of my old game prototypes, of a tunnel-run.
Oh, I'm sure it's not too late... And I'm working on my own projects in my free time. But it's games like this that finally pushed me into doing that. If I hadn't thought 'Man, I wish I'd written that' I'd probably still be doing nothing about it.
It's all about inspiration :) It doesn't matter what actually pushes you to do it, it's that you actually do it. All great ideas start somewhere, and most (if not all) are inspired by other ideas and people.
Creativity involves combining known elements, occasionally adding novel elements.
Rather than looking an idea and saying, "Cool, but since I wasn't first, I'm too late" try approaching it as "Neat! What else can I do with that?"
kb
Minecraft wasn't first to the party. See Infiniminer. Don't give up -- just write it anyway.
I love it, it's like Minecraft HD.
I wonder what it is that makes 8-bit music so compelling. Just nostalgia?
It's more than that I think. 8-bit music began as a poor, low-fi imitation of existing music forms for electronic games, because it was all that was possible given the hardware of the time. 8-bit music has been rediscovered by enthusiasts and independent artists, initially due to nostalgia, and that has led to a lot of innovation, exploration, and discovery. Discovery that 8-bit music doesn't have to be merely an imitation of something else any more than a synthesizer has to imitate a piano or an electric guitar has to imitate an acoustic guitar.
Well hang on a sec, I'm sure the original composers also worked this out, they were working with 8 bit sounds for years and years.
Worked what out exactly? 8-bit sounds were very much tied to the idea of translating music and sound effects, and not of developing novel music or techniques. Though some degree of innovation did occur, as technology advanced the gaming industry left behind 8-bit sounds, moving to more advanced wave-table MIDI synthesis, CD-ROM audio, etc, abandoning the 8-bit sounds as outdated and limited.
How many games on the SNES or on CD-ROM used 8-bit soundtracks? It was only later when 8-bit sound was sought after as a musical form on its own, for its own aesthetics and nature, that it flourished as an art independent of the need to imitate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK4Hdy9wWl4
"Innovation, exploration and discovery" were all rampant in the 80-es, especially on European C64 games. Some examples of music that uses the unique noises of the SID chip instead of only imitating existing instruments:
- Arkanoid (Martin Galway): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtcnDPDdtLg
- Gianna Sisters (Chris Hülsbeck): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGxX3lTnHh8
- Commando (Rob Hubbard): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrQuR1LHAVI
- Crazy Comets (Rob Hubbard): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQoQFLM_1s
As I mentioned in another post, the problem with innovation within the industry is that as hardware evolved 8-bit sound was abandoned. Game studios moved on, thinking that 8-bit sound was primitive, outdated, and obsolete. Whatever innovation had existed had to be rediscovered by musicians later.
i think perhaps game studios moved on to 16-bit sound as the platforms evolved from using on board sound synthesis chips to sampled, real world sounds, because it became available. a similar dichotomy can be found in the analog synthesis; when digital technology was coming into vogue with manufacturers, analog had ceased to be the most cutting edge technology, but was by no means dead or obsolete.
another problem with game console sound is the long development time needed to get an actual computer chip ready for market; the curtis CEM series of sound-makers were excellent and widely used but had a hard time competing with something that could be altered or upgraded in software. they're still used in some new gear being made today, but no new console would dream of using one.
i don't see how hardware evolution was 'a problem with innovation', i view the trend as more of the nostalgism that is coming around these days.
Perhaps I'm a bit jaded, but I'm not terribly sure that it's that compelling, it's just experiencing a lot of popularity now (after a steady push for years prior).
There's many reasons for the current success though, the nostalgia, the gimmick (they're making that with a gameboy! omg!), it's generally really agreeable music to most anyone (ie: safe, passive). Etc.
I don't imagine it sticking around in any significant capacity over time, of course there will always be the devotees, and we'll continue to see elements of it in mainstream pop music.
Blahblahblah.
Personally I like the LD of old games b/c somehow it left more to the imagination.
Very cool graphics. The explosions are awesome!
The last time I heard of voxels was in the late nineties. Good to hear they are back!
This seems like it scales well (important for our 1000 core future). Does it?
Why is this being downvoted? I think it's a very reasonable question. If you don't think it's reasonable, please tell me why.
I don't see why it wouldn't ... one bottleneck would be to the graphics card, but this might work differently in our 1000 core future.
Interesting how constrained the view frustum is, with the top down view. I wonder how many voxels the rendering engine can handle.
3,145,728
"Yes, actually there aren't so many voxels to take care of. It depends on the world size of course, but at 256x256x48, that's similar to managing a 3k x 1k 2d map in the same way."
http://www.lexaloffle.com/bbs/?tid=201
or… 1,048,576
as on the same page he also says:
"Everything in the game is displayed in a virtual 128x128x64 voxel display, including the menus and player inventory"
A constrained view frustrum might be a deliberate game choice.
I was a big fan of 3D Dot Game Heroes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTP0hVlYRts
Hopefully a Linux version will follow soon, the author commented on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/ewnhi/this_game_needs...
Excellent. I'd buy it. I paid for the Humble Indie Bundle #2 pretty much just because Braid was finally out for Linux, even though I'd purchased it for my Windows desktop already.
The perspective and general look remember me of Battalion, the old IRIX game, see http://www.evl.uic.edu/aej/AndyBattalion.html .
Couldn't find a video, alas. I could power up my Octane ... :)
If I were Lego, I'd be chomping at the bit to license this and set up a casual chat/social network oriented virtual reality. (Sort of a voxel-based Disneyfied Second Life.) The marketing possibilities for Lego would be huge.
Lego is already developing an MMO. http://legouniverse.com/
Does anyone know/guess what tools/engines he used?
This game is perfect for the 3DS
It's 3D Llamatron!
awesome, I look forward to trying it out.
That looks fun
That looks fun.
Want one. Now.