Avatar didn't win best picture. Is that a real surprise?
It's not for the jaded or cynical reasons people are lofting about. Such as Sci-Fi movies never have a chance or that people feel computer characters lack the depth of human presence or lack real emotion.
Avatar failed more because of James Cameron's mouth + ego than anything else. In most every interview leading to the release of the movie, Cameron felt obligated to unnerve and upstage film making standards. Not only to say the future was digital but that actors and even animators themselves should be looking over their shoulders. Cameron built a case study, his testimonial for the future of film making. His vision is the benchmark by which all productions should be judged. A technical benchmark of digital genius.
It's clear that Hollywood movies and more importantly Hollywood Directors are aware of the benefits of digital effects work. Having seen Shutter Island this past weekend, Martin Scorsese made ample use of the digital medium to great effect. I'll note that the effects were not the movie, but in support of the movie. Unfortunately that is precisely where Mr. Cameron's testimonials falls flat with so many people and obviously the Academy vote. Effects should not be the base virtue of any movie. Story above all else should matter and I think by that virtue the Academy members voted how they did.
I don't know what the politics of Hollywood really are, but the Hurt Locker won soundly. If ever there was a David vs. Goliath pairing it was the Hurt Locker vs. Avatar. Even an ex husband and wife competing for Best Director to boot. When the cards were called, it just seemed that the juggernaut that was Avatar was justly and rightly slain by a movie that hadn't broke any records of any kind. Throw in the 1st woman director to win and top it off with humble ex wife and it was most definitely a memorable Oscar evening. A true Hollywood story that almost couldn't have been scripted any better.
Maybe it will take James Cameron another twelve years to produce his next epic. However long it takes, maybe he'll take the time to write an inspired story first.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Mass Effect 2 Gameplay - Would I have played this on a PC?
Mass Effect 2 is one of if not the best follow up titles I've played on an XBox 360. The game play, locations, environments, and graphics are all up several notches.
Now there are allot of Point counter Points on Console vs. PC out there, but I'm going to wade into this from perhaps a different angle than most. I play both Console and PC equally and I've had extensive years (20+) playing both.
For all it's high marks I noted, it is still pinned to the constraints of a console platform design. The levels, many of which are amazing to look at, are notable for whats achieved on a console. Invisible walls dot the landscapes on enough levels to remind the player the vistas are a virtual set only, "Turn around and go down the path".
Now that sounds like a knock, and yes it is if I had purchased this for my PC, but I didn't. This game is rock solid and hits most all the marks on the 360. Easily one of the best games I've ever played on a console. Just nothing worth noting if I had purchased it and played for the PC.
Now there are allot of Point counter Points on Console vs. PC out there, but I'm going to wade into this from perhaps a different angle than most. I play both Console and PC equally and I've had extensive years (20+) playing both.
Cut to the Chase
Now that sounds like a knock, and yes it is if I had purchased this for my PC, but I didn't. This game is rock solid and hits most all the marks on the 360. Easily one of the best games I've ever played on a console. Just nothing worth noting if I had purchased it and played for the PC.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Mass Effect 2 - Launch Trailer
With just a few days left, Bioware releases the official Mass Effect 2 Trailer
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Nvidia GF100 Graphics Processor
Cost cost cost
The age of the consumer desktop is leveled out and in decline. More and more consumers and business are buying laptops and netbooks. It's a telling sign that intel ditched Larrabee a few months back.
I hope that nVidia plans around that. The enthusiast and gamers markets aren't what they used to be.
The age of the consumer desktop is leveled out and in decline. More and more consumers and business are buying laptops and netbooks. It's a telling sign that intel ditched Larrabee a few months back.
I hope that nVidia plans around that. The enthusiast and gamers markets aren't what they used to be.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
How many years does the Xbox 360 have left?
Given the huge sums of money Sony and Microsoft have poured into the current generation of consoles, is it any surprise neither camp is promoting a successor to the 360 or PS3.
Here Microsoft goes on the record as to why there is long future ahead for the XBox 360
See Link>Long live the Xbox 360
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Mass Effect 2 - Infiltrator
I'm in Infiltrator class in Mass Effect and look forward to transferring over this one to Mass Effect 2. The new combat style looks real nice. Both a distance and close in fighter - looks real promising.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Trailer
One of my most anticipated games for 2010 is Battlefield: Bad Company 2
The original game offered a novel story of an unwitting squad gone rogue and faced with opportunity or huge gold riches if they survived. The game used the Frostbite engine to great effect which includes destructible buildings.
The 2nd Trailer for Battlefield Bad Company 2
The original game offered a novel story of an unwitting squad gone rogue and faced with opportunity or huge gold riches if they survived. The game used the Frostbite engine to great effect which includes destructible buildings.
The 2nd Trailer for Battlefield Bad Company 2
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Lightwave Core Beta....err Alpha
1st let me get this out of the way - There is no enforced NDA on Core discussion. I don’t know the reason why there was no NDA enforced, but I imagine things were supposed to be going more swimmingly than they have for the past year.
With that said, I’m not going to delve so much into Core itself as there is not much of note to talk about. It’s in an Alpha state. You can see what features are planned and more about Core here http://is.gd/5NCcC
Core should never have been released for testing as early as it was for two reasons. One, because there was nothing to test. And Two because anytime anyone cared to offer feedback, they were hammered home with “Did we say it was done yet?”. (It still happens today). That really confounded some people. Why did they join the Hardcore program if it wasn’t to offer feedback. On it’s first release it was effectively a UI with little stability and little function. The forums from the first Alpha release up till October of 2009 were volatile. To be frank, any form of participation in the program was one of listening and waiting.
It wasn’t until November that a feature list PDF was released which appeared to placate a number of forum members. The features listed more than pacified many anxious and restless people in the forums. With that said, I’ll have to say history hasn’t favored NT in its projections so I skipped the love in but held my tongue.
I’ve learned to dislike the term “Forward Looking” being part of Hardcore. It’s a convenient “bases covered” & “Wait and See” excuse to keep participants from pointing out feature directions that appear complicated or headed into a non intuitive direction. It gives the Devs the opportunity to launch “Did we say it was done yet?” That’s Bullshit! Answer the goddamn questions or put this bloody mess back in the egg and let it gestate some more. Bring out it when it’s complete enough so we can PARTICIPATE in a proper Beta program.
Now it’s 2010 and it’s bit more calm since November. There is still division and unless things speed up, I expect those that were placated will start to twist out of their straight jackets. Jay and Chuck really need to qualify every build with something for users to really test. Up until that happens - this thing is Alpha and the same vitriol that burned in the forums in 2009 will renew themselves in 2010.
With that said, I’m not going to delve so much into Core itself as there is not much of note to talk about. It’s in an Alpha state. You can see what features are planned and more about Core here http://is.gd/5NCcC
Core should never have been released for testing as early as it was for two reasons. One, because there was nothing to test. And Two because anytime anyone cared to offer feedback, they were hammered home with “Did we say it was done yet?”. (It still happens today). That really confounded some people. Why did they join the Hardcore program if it wasn’t to offer feedback. On it’s first release it was effectively a UI with little stability and little function. The forums from the first Alpha release up till October of 2009 were volatile. To be frank, any form of participation in the program was one of listening and waiting.
It wasn’t until November that a feature list PDF was released which appeared to placate a number of forum members. The features listed more than pacified many anxious and restless people in the forums. With that said, I’ll have to say history hasn’t favored NT in its projections so I skipped the love in but held my tongue.
I’ve learned to dislike the term “Forward Looking” being part of Hardcore. It’s a convenient “bases covered” & “Wait and See” excuse to keep participants from pointing out feature directions that appear complicated or headed into a non intuitive direction. It gives the Devs the opportunity to launch “Did we say it was done yet?” That’s Bullshit! Answer the goddamn questions or put this bloody mess back in the egg and let it gestate some more. Bring out it when it’s complete enough so we can PARTICIPATE in a proper Beta program.
Now it’s 2010 and it’s bit more calm since November. There is still division and unless things speed up, I expect those that were placated will start to twist out of their straight jackets. Jay and Chuck really need to qualify every build with something for users to really test. Up until that happens - this thing is Alpha and the same vitriol that burned in the forums in 2009 will renew themselves in 2010.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Lightwave User Overboard
Lightwave: What Was and What Is
Lightwave has been a big part of my graphics, animation and video for years. And for all those years its relatively ease of use (both in Modeler and Layout) where championed with great renderings. There is still a checklist of positives that can be brought up, but with each passing year, these case points are being worn down.
Complexity Introduced
It's really ironic how in order to compete with key 3D packages that Lightwaves renderer has become much more robust. Its feature set and capabilities have really been expanded on. But at what price?
For all the depth, capacity and capabilities Lightwave's renderer has seen, so has its learning curve in complexity. Lightwave 9's development time has largely been used to hone this capacity at the cost of most everything else.
When Will it Be Done?
Doing the math - if 9 was the renderer, then what will it take to get Character Animation and Dynamics up to speed to name a few. Taking Lightwave 9 into account what are we looking at? Lightwave 11 or Lightwave 12 - 2011 or 2013.
Taking the Leap for XSI
Unlike my anticipated leap around the release of Lightwave 8, Lightwave 9's development cycle has made me see the light (no ironic pun intended). It just feels each iteration is a game of catch up while still falling behind.
XSI is here and now and offers more of what I need now. And much to my satisfaction it appears that many more lightwavers have or are considering the move. That's real important because the Lightwave community as a whole is known for being very supportive. It can only be good to be in a group that is taking on the change for learning, experimentation and production.
Not All is Lost
I don't plan on dropping Lightwave, even though I have no intention of upgrading to version 10. Lightwave is still the application I am familiar with and despite its new complexities for cameras and rendering, the workflow between XSI and LW are said to be very workable.
Reviewing the introductory video tutorials on XSI's site, it becomes easy to see that a powerful package need not be overly complex. I expect to buy one of the XSI packages, most likely a version 7 release when it is released.
Lightwave has been a big part of my graphics, animation and video for years. And for all those years its relatively ease of use (both in Modeler and Layout) where championed with great renderings. There is still a checklist of positives that can be brought up, but with each passing year, these case points are being worn down.
Complexity Introduced
It's really ironic how in order to compete with key 3D packages that Lightwaves renderer has become much more robust. Its feature set and capabilities have really been expanded on. But at what price?
For all the depth, capacity and capabilities Lightwave's renderer has seen, so has its learning curve in complexity. Lightwave 9's development time has largely been used to hone this capacity at the cost of most everything else.
When Will it Be Done?
Doing the math - if 9 was the renderer, then what will it take to get Character Animation and Dynamics up to speed to name a few. Taking Lightwave 9 into account what are we looking at? Lightwave 11 or Lightwave 12 - 2011 or 2013.
Taking the Leap for XSI
Unlike my anticipated leap around the release of Lightwave 8, Lightwave 9's development cycle has made me see the light (no ironic pun intended). It just feels each iteration is a game of catch up while still falling behind.
XSI is here and now and offers more of what I need now. And much to my satisfaction it appears that many more lightwavers have or are considering the move. That's real important because the Lightwave community as a whole is known for being very supportive. It can only be good to be in a group that is taking on the change for learning, experimentation and production.
Not All is Lost
I don't plan on dropping Lightwave, even though I have no intention of upgrading to version 10. Lightwave is still the application I am familiar with and despite its new complexities for cameras and rendering, the workflow between XSI and LW are said to be very workable.
Reviewing the introductory video tutorials on XSI's site, it becomes easy to see that a powerful package need not be overly complex. I expect to buy one of the XSI packages, most likely a version 7 release when it is released.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Just Where Is Lightwave Headed?
Lightwave 9's Intro
Before Lightwave 9's introduction in July of 2006, it was met with allot of positive praise and review from longtime users. The praise came largely from the "promise" of renewed vigor and focus imparted by Jay Roth.
Lightwave 9's Meandering Development
After the release of 9.3 there was a small but vocal group that wanted to know what the next point release would be. Would there be a .4 before .5? It just seemed that 9 was in need of some much needed retooling yet and a .5 might press development into close to 10's release.
With 9.5 coming up next with its disclosed feature set, one wonders how Newtek will squeeze anticipated changes in 9 into the home stretch. Modeler tools in Layout, a consolidation of tools in modeler and layout, faster open GL performance in Modeler, and perhaps some angle on how Character Animation will be integrated into Lightwave.
Newtek has peen an awful lot of work into Lightwave and much has come in the form of its rendering and camera. There is no doubt that in that capacity Lightwave has matured greatly, but possibly at the expense of ease. The UI still needs attention and all the added features have come at the cost of complexity. At times I begin to wonder if NT plans to port and sell Lightwave as a stand alone renderer. Because LW 9's been in development for some time now and if theres going to be one more point release, it's going to have to be a monster update.
Where's the Map
Lightwave 9.5 Beta can't be discussed, but whatever doesn't make it into the 9 cycle, gets pushed off into 10. Given that in three more months Lightwave 9 will have been in the works for two years, what are we to get in 10? More importantly, when will 10's features become production functional....10.5 or 10.7 in 2010?
There isn't one person that can deny that Lightwave in many ways has fallen behind the curve. Yes it can be argued the features and cost of ownership are still nice, but having to complete its gaps with the purchase of other apps is increasingly less appealing when integration with those apps isn't solid as it could be (ZBrush).
If Newtek wavers on a solid and decisive Character Animation solution in 10, I would have to say, that Lightwaves legacy and promise failed to make the turn of the century changes to stay competitive. Lightwave needs to beat other features point for point. Lightwave needs to wow users away from other apps. Lightwave 10 must be all that and more.
Before Lightwave 9's introduction in July of 2006, it was met with allot of positive praise and review from longtime users. The praise came largely from the "promise" of renewed vigor and focus imparted by Jay Roth.
Lightwave 9's Meandering Development
After the release of 9.3 there was a small but vocal group that wanted to know what the next point release would be. Would there be a .4 before .5? It just seemed that 9 was in need of some much needed retooling yet and a .5 might press development into close to 10's release.
With 9.5 coming up next with its disclosed feature set, one wonders how Newtek will squeeze anticipated changes in 9 into the home stretch. Modeler tools in Layout, a consolidation of tools in modeler and layout, faster open GL performance in Modeler, and perhaps some angle on how Character Animation will be integrated into Lightwave.
Newtek has peen an awful lot of work into Lightwave and much has come in the form of its rendering and camera. There is no doubt that in that capacity Lightwave has matured greatly, but possibly at the expense of ease. The UI still needs attention and all the added features have come at the cost of complexity. At times I begin to wonder if NT plans to port and sell Lightwave as a stand alone renderer. Because LW 9's been in development for some time now and if theres going to be one more point release, it's going to have to be a monster update.
Where's the Map
Lightwave 9.5 Beta can't be discussed, but whatever doesn't make it into the 9 cycle, gets pushed off into 10. Given that in three more months Lightwave 9 will have been in the works for two years, what are we to get in 10? More importantly, when will 10's features become production functional....10.5 or 10.7 in 2010?
There isn't one person that can deny that Lightwave in many ways has fallen behind the curve. Yes it can be argued the features and cost of ownership are still nice, but having to complete its gaps with the purchase of other apps is increasingly less appealing when integration with those apps isn't solid as it could be (ZBrush).
If Newtek wavers on a solid and decisive Character Animation solution in 10, I would have to say, that Lightwaves legacy and promise failed to make the turn of the century changes to stay competitive. Lightwave needs to beat other features point for point. Lightwave needs to wow users away from other apps. Lightwave 10 must be all that and more.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
FPS Games - PC Top 3
The Short and Sweet
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Best overall game for Single player and Multiplayer
Plus Side
Infinity Ward pulled out all the stops in creating this COD title. The developer returns to offering great game play and non player character AI. The single player offering is short but the action is some of the best played on the PC or console to date.
Bad Side
The only real detraction is the use of enemy spawning. Enemy spawns detract from some strategic maneuvering such as flanking. You must clear out enemies in succession or you'll never clear a point. This is a minor point given that the game overall offers great overall story and game play.
Unreal Tournament 3
Plus Side
The game at its core is reminiscent of the original UT title. Very frenetic game play with plenty of visual visceral carnage unleashed from explosive weapons. Weapons feel right and the player motion and speed just feel right.
Vehicles also feel right. This could have gone horribly wrong, but Epic has engineered a level of balance in game play that makes using vehicles effective without being overpowering. The use of hover boards for those choosing to be foot soldiers is ideal for larger maps and culminates into some very intense CTF and VCTF matches.
Bad Side
Epic/Midway released the game too early to meet the holiday sales. It's clear and evident that the enemy AI is not always doing what one would expect. Excellent AI is one of Epics hallmarks, but in UT3, they dropped a few points.
No single player game worth noting. Single play can best be described as a group of training levels with silly war/battle explanations for CTF. C'mon its capture the flag.
Epic also has reduced the User Interface to a sub standard level that limits customization. It is definitely "consolized". Epic has said they will rework it but it is unknown when.
Sadly UT3, is in need of some patches. Even though the core is solid, the game falls short in content and a polished delivery.
Crysis
Plus Side
Crytek the developer of Crysis has upped the ante once again. If you have a PC that can play Crysis, you will be treated to some exception visuals and physics not see in PC gaming before. Crysis is big step above what Far Cry showcased years ago. Single play in the jungle environment is top notch as most every element in the game has physics applied to it.
There are some huge levels of action, where combat is stellar and I found myself reloading these levels just to see how they would play differently.
Bad Side
In the end, Crysis plays more like a visual upgrade than anything else. It fails along the same lines that Far Cry did. Once you enter a closed environment, the appeal is somewhat lost and the story starts to unravel losing any potential to keep the player riveted.
Multiplayer not unlike Far Cry is more a less a visual appendage to the single player campaign. Much of the physics and destroyable elements are locked into DX10 servers and players. Needless to say, few people have bought into Vista as a gaming system so we are treated to basic multiplayer gaming with nothing to write home about. Considering the hardware needed to run Crysis, its no wonder the sales haven't broke the 100.000 mark.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Best overall game for Single player and Multiplayer
Plus Side
Infinity Ward pulled out all the stops in creating this COD title. The developer returns to offering great game play and non player character AI. The single player offering is short but the action is some of the best played on the PC or console to date.
Bad Side
The only real detraction is the use of enemy spawning. Enemy spawns detract from some strategic maneuvering such as flanking. You must clear out enemies in succession or you'll never clear a point. This is a minor point given that the game overall offers great overall story and game play.
Unreal Tournament 3
Plus Side
The game at its core is reminiscent of the original UT title. Very frenetic game play with plenty of visual visceral carnage unleashed from explosive weapons. Weapons feel right and the player motion and speed just feel right.
Vehicles also feel right. This could have gone horribly wrong, but Epic has engineered a level of balance in game play that makes using vehicles effective without being overpowering. The use of hover boards for those choosing to be foot soldiers is ideal for larger maps and culminates into some very intense CTF and VCTF matches.
Bad Side
Epic/Midway released the game too early to meet the holiday sales. It's clear and evident that the enemy AI is not always doing what one would expect. Excellent AI is one of Epics hallmarks, but in UT3, they dropped a few points.
No single player game worth noting. Single play can best be described as a group of training levels with silly war/battle explanations for CTF. C'mon its capture the flag.
Epic also has reduced the User Interface to a sub standard level that limits customization. It is definitely "consolized". Epic has said they will rework it but it is unknown when.
Sadly UT3, is in need of some patches. Even though the core is solid, the game falls short in content and a polished delivery.
Crysis
Plus Side
Crytek the developer of Crysis has upped the ante once again. If you have a PC that can play Crysis, you will be treated to some exception visuals and physics not see in PC gaming before. Crysis is big step above what Far Cry showcased years ago. Single play in the jungle environment is top notch as most every element in the game has physics applied to it.
There are some huge levels of action, where combat is stellar and I found myself reloading these levels just to see how they would play differently.
Bad Side
In the end, Crysis plays more like a visual upgrade than anything else. It fails along the same lines that Far Cry did. Once you enter a closed environment, the appeal is somewhat lost and the story starts to unravel losing any potential to keep the player riveted.
Multiplayer not unlike Far Cry is more a less a visual appendage to the single player campaign. Much of the physics and destroyable elements are locked into DX10 servers and players. Needless to say, few people have bought into Vista as a gaming system so we are treated to basic multiplayer gaming with nothing to write home about. Considering the hardware needed to run Crysis, its no wonder the sales haven't broke the 100.000 mark.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Jeff Gerstmann - Vindicated?
Eidos Rewrites Reviews for Kane and Lynch
Ok it's a given. The video game industry is too big and the stakes too high to be honest.
Still on the warm heels of Jeff Gerstmann's firing, word comes out that Eidos has been caught "rewording" or simply making up reviews to save their game.
"It's not like the relationship between Kane & Lynch and review scores wasn't messy enough. But now this? Visitors to the game's official site will notice, once the page's flash intro is done, that two review scores for the game are flashed for your perusal. One from GameSpy, one from Game Informer. Both look positively glowing!"
Read more here at kotaku.com
Ok it's a given. The video game industry is too big and the stakes too high to be honest.
Still on the warm heels of Jeff Gerstmann's firing, word comes out that Eidos has been caught "rewording" or simply making up reviews to save their game.
"It's not like the relationship between Kane & Lynch and review scores wasn't messy enough. But now this? Visitors to the game's official site will notice, once the page's flash intro is done, that two review scores for the game are flashed for your perusal. One from GameSpy, one from Game Informer. Both look positively glowing!"
Read more here at kotaku.com
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Unreal Tournament 3 (High Detail)
All Things Considered...
Having read through my share of forums regarding the apparent low resolution models being utilized in UT3, I though I would give it a go with some of the more bristly creatures in the game.
UT3 utilizes an impressive light and detailed shadow scheme at full detail. I'll note that the characters are self shadowing which surprised me after I made the screen grabs. Theres allot going on in different parts of every map and having a variety of characters running about has not impacted my frame rates.
With that said, I will note that the game is a pretty faced paced game which in the end does not lend itself to gawking at the details less one doesn't want to lose their head.
Click on the images below
Having read through my share of forums regarding the apparent low resolution models being utilized in UT3, I though I would give it a go with some of the more bristly creatures in the game.
UT3 utilizes an impressive light and detailed shadow scheme at full detail. I'll note that the characters are self shadowing which surprised me after I made the screen grabs. Theres allot going on in different parts of every map and having a variety of characters running about has not impacted my frame rates.
With that said, I will note that the game is a pretty faced paced game which in the end does not lend itself to gawking at the details less one doesn't want to lose their head.
Click on the images below
Monday, December 03, 2007
Unreal Tournament 3
High Resolution Hijinx
The long anticipated Unreal Tournament 3 (UT3) has finally made its debut and much of the reviews of the game (PC) have been positive. (It's also released on the PS3).
Before I get into the game, I'll write about the much hyped detailed levels and characters that Epic released during UT3 development over the past few years. The demo released a few weeks back was met with equal praise and dismay. Something was amiss as the level of detail vs. the steep hardware performance requirements.
As many have noted there is deep connection with console development this time around which is very evident in the dumbed down user interface. Epic has since noted the anemic design and plans to update it to more PC centric arrangement of old.
Beyond that, game world wise - it's arguable just where the load on performance is. Any way you look at it, the game is either poorly optimized for the PC, or there are ini tweaks for performance that need to be delved into.
I have three copies running on Intel Quad and two Dual Cores. 3.2 and 3.4 GHz respectively. All are running 8800 Series cards GT and two GTS. 2 Gig Ram in XP Pro. With minor GameEngine.ini optimizations I am getting 1280x768 with High settings with appreciable frame rates.
Be Forewarned
People with AMD dual cores are experiencing apparent issues with peak performance. This may be a vocal minority but it's better to view the hardware conflicts and solutions on Epics forums before laying down your money for this title. There are a number of issues with this release and its better to see how and what Epic is working on to resolve them. UT3 Troubleshooting Forum
Forcing ini tweaks can lead to instability and crashing. As with all previous Unreal games, overclocked systems are suspect unless they have been rigorously tested for memory stability. This game is no different. Just because you can run other games OC'd, does not ensure that UT3 will run problem free.
Classic Game Play Wins Out
Given the steep hardware requirements, if you have what it takes to run UT3, you are in for some great game play. Even though the visual dynamics are hit and miss, the balance in the maps and vehicles is about as good as it can be on this release.
Epics much lauded bots are back but not without some issues this time around. As good as the bots can be, there are times they uncharacteristically lose it. Shooting at walls, piloting vehicles into obstacles, or going in odd directions. Hopefully Epic tweaks these errors and brings this much appreciated consideration into working order.
I can't say enough about the vehicle arrangements. These are fairly well balanced given the difference between the two side. A high note goes to the Dark Walker which is straight out of War of the Worlds. Quite a site to see even when its the enemy. They cast a bright death ray that is instant death equaled only by its counterpart the tank (Axon Goliath).Vehicle Capture the Flag is definitely a new favorite. Getting to use the hover board to maneuver through troops on foot and firing vehicles will get your blood racing. No more trudging on foot across lengthy maps with little hope of making it. Using a link gun on a hover board to link with a fast vehicle adds to the tactics of team play.
Game Modes and Maps
Game modes are reduced and maybe for realistic reasons. As much as I liked Assault, I know I didn't play it as much as much as other types. Warfare is a combination of sorts with a new way way to win control points. Again, the wise use of Hover Boards with accompanying vehicles can really help organized teams better lone wolf tactics. That's not to say that lone wolf methodology isn't warranted or useful; it is. As individuals acting as scouts can snipe out defenses. UT3 is hardly a class tactic game, but played in roles its easy to see how individuals can be as beneficial as team players.
Immediate Tips for Stability
I initially had OpenAL audio enabled for my Creative X-Fi systems. After disabling that, I have had zero crashes or glitches.
Don't force settings in the ini files if you don't have to. Unfortunately the sliders appear locked to setting variables in the UTEngine.ini. If your system is high spec and you have the GPU with 512MB or more memory - set the detail sliders to their max. Test run a map from each game type to check stability. Some maps are more system heavy than others. If you want to push your luck and tweak the ini file further, make sure to back up your file. For right now at least, the game appears to want to adhere to a tight group of settings.
If you have an overclocked system, do a Prime95 (single core) or Orthos (Dual Core) to stress test your rig. As mentioned earlier, the UT series is very particular with hardware overclocks. Memory errors are the first sign of OC issues.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Career Suicide and Biting the Hand that Writes Checks
Telling it Like it is Will Get You Fired
As the paragraph title suggests; for every honest flame, you can expect to get soundly singed.
It's interesting that in the two cases below one man rails against game reviews and the next writes a game review - both men end up severely singed.
-
Career Suicide?
In the case of of Harvey Smith, Creative Director of Midway (Austin), he had allot of real bad things to say about his development experience with Blacksite: Area 51. May a hard way to make a case against bad reviews Harvey.
Just some of the more notable quotes - "This project was so fucked up" and "I wasn't excited about this Area 51 game". You can read more on his views here.
Of course Harvey goes on in more detail about how this published debacle ended up being what it is but why stop at a potential reprimand when you can go for a sure sacking . Unfortunately for Harvey, it looks like a sacking - with a lead weight, concrete shoes and deep river.
No surprise Harvey Smith is no longer working for Midway. Read more here
-
Biting the Hand that Writes Checks
Now on a more scandalous note - A Game Reviewer Canned after giving a low score for a game.
It looks like Jeff Gerstmann of GameSpot may have weighed in rather honest but critical review of Kane and Lynch. It turns out that this delivery had spurned Eidos who publishes the title to seek his ouster. Eidos has paid allot of money in ad space for Kane and Lynch on the site and the immediate if not obvious conclusion was made about the firing.
Of interest is the video review that Jeff made of Kane and Lynch which is no longer available on GameSpot. See it here on YouTube.
No doubt that Jeff doesn't pull any punches in that review, but the fallout from this sacking has just started.
As the paragraph title suggests; for every honest flame, you can expect to get soundly singed.
It's interesting that in the two cases below one man rails against game reviews and the next writes a game review - both men end up severely singed.
-
Career Suicide?
In the case of of Harvey Smith, Creative Director of Midway (Austin), he had allot of real bad things to say about his development experience with Blacksite: Area 51. May a hard way to make a case against bad reviews Harvey.
Just some of the more notable quotes - "This project was so fucked up" and "I wasn't excited about this Area 51 game". You can read more on his views here.
Of course Harvey goes on in more detail about how this published debacle ended up being what it is but why stop at a potential reprimand when you can go for a sure sacking . Unfortunately for Harvey, it looks like a sacking - with a lead weight, concrete shoes and deep river.
No surprise Harvey Smith is no longer working for Midway. Read more here
-
Biting the Hand that Writes Checks
Now on a more scandalous note - A Game Reviewer Canned after giving a low score for a game.
It looks like Jeff Gerstmann of GameSpot may have weighed in rather honest but critical review of Kane and Lynch. It turns out that this delivery had spurned Eidos who publishes the title to seek his ouster. Eidos has paid allot of money in ad space for Kane and Lynch on the site and the immediate if not obvious conclusion was made about the firing.
Of interest is the video review that Jeff made of Kane and Lynch which is no longer available on GameSpot. See it here on YouTube.
No doubt that Jeff doesn't pull any punches in that review, but the fallout from this sacking has just started.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
ID's John Carmack on PC Games
PC Gaming Legend Calls it
In an interview for Gamasutra Carmack weighs in on the reasons the PC remains a viable gaming platform, if for one game genre at least.
On the PC becoming a Console port option
If you make a cross-platform game, the PC is not going to look that much different there. There is a little bit better graphics fidelity, and it’s lot more powerful than a high-end console. You certainly only have about half efficiency, but still, you get some influence. But it’s not really drastic.
The exception being...
But on the other hand, if you look at what’s really successful on the PC -- like World Of Warcraft, that’s an insanely successful product. It’s like a train driving all the PC sales numbers altogether on gaming.
Read interview here Gamasutra
The Death of PC Gaming? (R.I.P. 1994)
The PC as a gaming platform has been on the ropes since well before the PS2 and XBox made their debuts. Cost of development and sales took many developers under. Like then as now, only the ones with hot properties or well financing publishers would last.
The reality is that the PC is largely an enthusiast market. People buying off the shelf PCs may buy a new game with the PCs, but they aren't generally buying a PC with gaming as a priority. Kick in the steep hardware/software curve and many game experiences are less than stellar.
PC game developers can't go on the installed base of PCs when designing their games because they are generally targeting for the top 5% - 10%. And because PCs are not primarily used for gaming, the games sales associated with that 5%-10% is lower.
For small developers, this is a nice target as long as they can keep costs down while hoping to drive graphics and game innovation to sell the final product. For more established game developers, this sale base is increasingly smaller and less likely to sustain a return on their investments. Once a game studio achieves a certain critical mass - the PC as a platform is less viable and is more risk than its worth.
The PC and the MMPORG
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. So long as games like World of Warcraft and Everquest allow multitudes of people to play interactive quests online, the PC will reign supreme in this game area. The numbers of people playing these PC games are in the millions. A far cry from most any console based game.
Console gaming has come a very long way in both game play and graphics. A dedicated gaming machine has never made more sense. Fortunately (for now) there is an equal balance between PC and Console. You can play a title on either one and get a similar experience (providing you're the PC enthusiast with uber hardware.)
PC gaming will be around when and if the next generation of consoles hit the market and again we will revisit the Death of PC Gaming.
In an interview for Gamasutra Carmack weighs in on the reasons the PC remains a viable gaming platform, if for one game genre at least.
On the PC becoming a Console port option
If you make a cross-platform game, the PC is not going to look that much different there. There is a little bit better graphics fidelity, and it’s lot more powerful than a high-end console. You certainly only have about half efficiency, but still, you get some influence. But it’s not really drastic.
The exception being...
But on the other hand, if you look at what’s really successful on the PC -- like World Of Warcraft, that’s an insanely successful product. It’s like a train driving all the PC sales numbers altogether on gaming.
Read interview here Gamasutra
The Death of PC Gaming? (R.I.P. 1994)
The PC as a gaming platform has been on the ropes since well before the PS2 and XBox made their debuts. Cost of development and sales took many developers under. Like then as now, only the ones with hot properties or well financing publishers would last.
The reality is that the PC is largely an enthusiast market. People buying off the shelf PCs may buy a new game with the PCs, but they aren't generally buying a PC with gaming as a priority. Kick in the steep hardware/software curve and many game experiences are less than stellar.
PC game developers can't go on the installed base of PCs when designing their games because they are generally targeting for the top 5% - 10%. And because PCs are not primarily used for gaming, the games sales associated with that 5%-10% is lower.
For small developers, this is a nice target as long as they can keep costs down while hoping to drive graphics and game innovation to sell the final product. For more established game developers, this sale base is increasingly smaller and less likely to sustain a return on their investments. Once a game studio achieves a certain critical mass - the PC as a platform is less viable and is more risk than its worth.
The PC and the MMPORG
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. So long as games like World of Warcraft and Everquest allow multitudes of people to play interactive quests online, the PC will reign supreme in this game area. The numbers of people playing these PC games are in the millions. A far cry from most any console based game.
Console gaming has come a very long way in both game play and graphics. A dedicated gaming machine has never made more sense. Fortunately (for now) there is an equal balance between PC and Console. You can play a title on either one and get a similar experience (providing you're the PC enthusiast with uber hardware.)
PC gaming will be around when and if the next generation of consoles hit the market and again we will revisit the Death of PC Gaming.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Crysis - How To Benchmark
Latest (maybe last) Uber Spec PC Game
Crysis releases this week and it is probably one of the last uber PC games to be released for a long time. That's right, the game will not be seen on any console as it's spec requirements are greater than the current generation can handle.
That is not a glowing endorsement for anyone with aging PC hardware. As anyone who has played a next gen console port on their PC knows; those ports can drag performance down on anything but the fastest PCs.
The game has been in development for a few years but Crytek has stated that the game will scale across a wide range of PC hardware. Scale is a rather ambiguous word here. It really is dependent on what you are willing to settle for. What visuals and resolution you are willing to play in.
Built in Benchmark
If running your games at anything under 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 4xAf is an abomination, stop right here. It doens't matter if you're using the latest DX9 or DX10 hardware in XP or Vista. The Crysis game engine is going to stress hardware that hasn't hit the market yet.
If you're still on the fence on buying Crysis because of concerns these uber hardware requirements. You owe it to yourself to download the single player demo just to benchmark it against your current hardware.
In your game directory there are two batch files to benchmark your CPU and GPU.
Both of these are in the BIN32 directory. One is the Benchmark_CPU.BAT and Benchmark_GPU.BAT.
What you may want to do before running these is go into the games option screen and adjust the settings to your liking. Otherwise the game defaults to a low settings and 1024x768. Once you get the settings that you would like - exit the game and then run the benchmarks tests.
Both benchmarks run 4x each. You will see your FPS statistics on screen throughout the benchmark. At the end it will give you a final score in avg FPS and Max FPS.
Sample Benchmarks
Game options settings
1280x1024, No AA, No AF. All Settings on High
Core 2 Duo (Dual) E6400 2.13GHz (OC 3.4Ghz) 2 Gig System Ram, 8800 GTS 640MB
CPU Bench - 26.28 Avg FPS
36.58 Max FPS
GPU Bench - 27.86 Avg FPS
32.90 Max FPS
Core 2 Duo(Quad) E6600 2.4GHz (OC 3.2GHz) 2 Gig System Ram, 8800 GT 512 MB
CPU Bench - 39.23 Avg FPS
55.64 Max FPS
GPU Bench - 41.59 Avg FPS
49.88 Max FPS
The first thing to note is that the Crysis engine does utilize the more CPUs you throw at it. It's arguable that the additional CPUs are making a significant difference as they are being under utilized. They aren't even close to doubling performance but in gaming, 10 FPS can make or break the immersion experience.
On another note the 8800 GT vs the 8800 GTS. Considering that the GT is priced to be lower than its GTS counterpart, the GPU Bench proves it is the card to buy. It's liited to 512 MB DDR3 memory compared to the GTS's 640, but thats largely a resolution advantage that this game won't allow anyway. 8800 GT are the cards to go with if you can get one without paying an outrageous price because of short supply.
Whether or not Crysis is a commercial success for Crytek remains to be seen. It's tough for PC game developers these days. Whatever the outcome, you can bet that the game engine will be a cornerstone benchmark for PC hardware sites for a few years.
Crysis releases this week and it is probably one of the last uber PC games to be released for a long time. That's right, the game will not be seen on any console as it's spec requirements are greater than the current generation can handle.
That is not a glowing endorsement for anyone with aging PC hardware. As anyone who has played a next gen console port on their PC knows; those ports can drag performance down on anything but the fastest PCs.
The game has been in development for a few years but Crytek has stated that the game will scale across a wide range of PC hardware. Scale is a rather ambiguous word here. It really is dependent on what you are willing to settle for. What visuals and resolution you are willing to play in.
Built in Benchmark
If running your games at anything under 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 4xAf is an abomination, stop right here. It doens't matter if you're using the latest DX9 or DX10 hardware in XP or Vista. The Crysis game engine is going to stress hardware that hasn't hit the market yet.
If you're still on the fence on buying Crysis because of concerns these uber hardware requirements. You owe it to yourself to download the single player demo just to benchmark it against your current hardware.
In your game directory there are two batch files to benchmark your CPU and GPU.
Both of these are in the BIN32 directory. One is the Benchmark_CPU.BAT and Benchmark_GPU.BAT.
What you may want to do before running these is go into the games option screen and adjust the settings to your liking. Otherwise the game defaults to a low settings and 1024x768. Once you get the settings that you would like - exit the game and then run the benchmarks tests.
Both benchmarks run 4x each. You will see your FPS statistics on screen throughout the benchmark. At the end it will give you a final score in avg FPS and Max FPS.
Sample Benchmarks
Game options settings
1280x1024, No AA, No AF. All Settings on High
Core 2 Duo (Dual) E6400 2.13GHz (OC 3.4Ghz) 2 Gig System Ram, 8800 GTS 640MB
CPU Bench - 26.28 Avg FPS
36.58 Max FPS
GPU Bench - 27.86 Avg FPS
32.90 Max FPS
Core 2 Duo(Quad) E6600 2.4GHz (OC 3.2GHz) 2 Gig System Ram, 8800 GT 512 MB
CPU Bench - 39.23 Avg FPS
55.64 Max FPS
GPU Bench - 41.59 Avg FPS
49.88 Max FPS
The first thing to note is that the Crysis engine does utilize the more CPUs you throw at it. It's arguable that the additional CPUs are making a significant difference as they are being under utilized. They aren't even close to doubling performance but in gaming, 10 FPS can make or break the immersion experience.
On another note the 8800 GT vs the 8800 GTS. Considering that the GT is priced to be lower than its GTS counterpart, the GPU Bench proves it is the card to buy. It's liited to 512 MB DDR3 memory compared to the GTS's 640, but thats largely a resolution advantage that this game won't allow anyway. 8800 GT are the cards to go with if you can get one without paying an outrageous price because of short supply.
Whether or not Crysis is a commercial success for Crytek remains to be seen. It's tough for PC game developers these days. Whatever the outcome, you can bet that the game engine will be a cornerstone benchmark for PC hardware sites for a few years.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Intels Quad Core Q6600 (Revisted)
Real Performance
Maybe it was a little greed coupled with ease of speed to 3.2GHz.
The Q6600 is a bedeviling processor. It's tempting when you see speed increases with little voltage adjustment. What would it take to throttle up higher?
3.3, 3.4, maybe More?
I was eagerly setting up scenes to render in Lightwave and Vue 6.5 and the awe I had anticipated shut smack down in my face. Occasional completed renders would be followed by immediate system shutdown/reboots.
NOOOOoooooooo!!! But Yes, the little proc that could was unable to perform stable in prolonged practical use in 3D applications. I tried everything I could imagine to get stability. BIOS updates, New ratios, voltage changes, ... the works. In the end the baseline was the only rock solid numbers I could get stability. 3.2Ghz
Something I hadn't Mentioned (SECRET)
I was actually playing the Crysis Demo @ 3.6Ghz and my jaw dropped at Max settings (using the 8800 640mb GTS). I was playing Team Fortress and Half-Life 2 2nd Episode at blazing speeds. (The HL2 Source engine known for its sensitivities to over clocking.) All games help up and gave great frames per second.
Sadly, it was the odd reboot when the PC was idle that forced the speed down.
Temps @ 60 C
After my last system analysis I found that temps that hovered/breached and held at 60C would cause an immediate shut down.
The interesting thing about the Q6600 is that higher FSB speeds did not necessarily mean more heat. In fact the span of 3.2 to 3.6 was nominal. At best there was a 2-5 C increase. In other words, the voltage increase required was nominal.
When all four cores were running in Lightwave and Vue6 benchmark tests, the rendering worked until the four cores pegged 60+C for for 6-10 seconds. As soon as that was breached - an immediate shut down reboot would occur. Interesting for a chip set to max temp capped at 70C.
The only feasible way to break the 3.2 barrier all around reliability is with more aggressive/expensive cooling.
It's 3.2 not 3.4 GHz - Still the Best Buy for the Money
It may not be 3.4GHz but @ 3.2GHz, the Q6600 is still a champ.
Since the Q6700 is $250.00 more and only offers a .220 MHz difference, it's hard to overlook this CPU.
There are plenty of Core 2 Duos that will run higher than 3.2, but its hard to beat 4 processors in one box.
Maybe it was a little greed coupled with ease of speed to 3.2GHz.
The Q6600 is a bedeviling processor. It's tempting when you see speed increases with little voltage adjustment. What would it take to throttle up higher?
3.3, 3.4, maybe More?
I was eagerly setting up scenes to render in Lightwave and Vue 6.5 and the awe I had anticipated shut smack down in my face. Occasional completed renders would be followed by immediate system shutdown/reboots.
NOOOOoooooooo!!! But Yes, the little proc that could was unable to perform stable in prolonged practical use in 3D applications. I tried everything I could imagine to get stability. BIOS updates, New ratios, voltage changes, ... the works. In the end the baseline was the only rock solid numbers I could get stability. 3.2Ghz
Something I hadn't Mentioned (SECRET)
I was actually playing the Crysis Demo @ 3.6Ghz and my jaw dropped at Max settings (using the 8800 640mb GTS). I was playing Team Fortress and Half-Life 2 2nd Episode at blazing speeds. (The HL2 Source engine known for its sensitivities to over clocking.) All games help up and gave great frames per second.
Sadly, it was the odd reboot when the PC was idle that forced the speed down.
Temps @ 60 C
After my last system analysis I found that temps that hovered/breached and held at 60C would cause an immediate shut down.
The interesting thing about the Q6600 is that higher FSB speeds did not necessarily mean more heat. In fact the span of 3.2 to 3.6 was nominal. At best there was a 2-5 C increase. In other words, the voltage increase required was nominal.
When all four cores were running in Lightwave and Vue6 benchmark tests, the rendering worked until the four cores pegged 60+C for for 6-10 seconds. As soon as that was breached - an immediate shut down reboot would occur. Interesting for a chip set to max temp capped at 70C.
The only feasible way to break the 3.2 barrier all around reliability is with more aggressive/expensive cooling.
It's 3.2 not 3.4 GHz - Still the Best Buy for the Money
It may not be 3.4GHz but @ 3.2GHz, the Q6600 is still a champ.
Since the Q6700 is $250.00 more and only offers a .220 MHz difference, it's hard to overlook this CPU.
There are plenty of Core 2 Duos that will run higher than 3.2, but its hard to beat 4 processors in one box.
Monday, November 05, 2007
I Want to be a CG Artist!
Make Models, Animate, Effects - Make Games and Movies .....
I've been into computers, graphics, and gaming for many years now and the pace at which computers and software have progressed has been nothing short of amazing. It's easy to see the association of gaming, movies, video and other productions as being a mutual learned process.
In many ways they are. Fortunately many software use close to the same commands for some features, which makes the learning curve of different programs less steep.
Ten years ago, as able as programs were; there was always the need to get an angle on a technique to achieve the right look or function in a model, composition or animation. Rarely did anything do as it was designed, right out of the box.
Not much has changed now. Many programs still offer features that work under the best of setups, but require a significant amount of tweaking and investigation to get the look you are after. Unlike what many clients may believe, the computer does not do all the work.
Curiosity vs. Drive and Investment of Time
I know plenty of young people that see CG everywhere they look and that is for sure, it is. CG has penetrated many forms of advertising and is less a luxury as it is a necessity for a variety of businesses beyond entertainment.
So of course, you hear about budgets of big movies and read about the cost of effects which must translate into a big pay day for the artists working on them. Not only do you like what you see but you would like to start a career creating and getting paid to do so.
The best advice I can give anyone is that if you don't have in inherent interest in art. Whether it be hand drawing, painting, or other creative outlet, the technical side of cg may run you down. I put up with the math elements and odd words and terms to get my artistic vision modeled, edited, and animated.
You don't need drawing skills to do any CG work, but you need that creative drive already in you. CG is best an extension of your existing creativity. Getting a grasp of the complexities and nuances that exist in programs and channeling those to produce whats in your minds eye can be a task. What gets you through it is your creative drive/ability.
As amazing as programs and processing powers exist now, I often wonder how I would fair if I just started today. I'm pretty sure I would be overwhelmed with my options. Considering the costs and the time I know that would be required, I would have to question this as a career.
Being young helps. I started when I was 30 which I think is a very tight borderline age today.
Expectations are very high now whereas when I started, the hobbiest market is what fed the early business markets with employees.
The job market has completely changed and the competition for the same jobs has quadrupled.
It's All in the Details - Investment of Time
Even though speed, accessibility, and program interoperability has increased, so has the overall complexity of programs. To be a Jack of All Trades or a Generalist of which I consider myself; is a product of multiple years of long nights and weekends training.
This career is not something honed in intermittent idle hours on an irregular schedule. Like any other job skill, it requires a commitment and effort to stick with it outside of a class.
The problem I see with commercials offering courses in CG studies is that they play to the obvious. People playing games and watching a finished animation. This gives no insight to the personal investment (which is long) to get there.
I've been into computers, graphics, and gaming for many years now and the pace at which computers and software have progressed has been nothing short of amazing. It's easy to see the association of gaming, movies, video and other productions as being a mutual learned process.
In many ways they are. Fortunately many software use close to the same commands for some features, which makes the learning curve of different programs less steep.
Ten years ago, as able as programs were; there was always the need to get an angle on a technique to achieve the right look or function in a model, composition or animation. Rarely did anything do as it was designed, right out of the box.
Not much has changed now. Many programs still offer features that work under the best of setups, but require a significant amount of tweaking and investigation to get the look you are after. Unlike what many clients may believe, the computer does not do all the work.
Curiosity vs. Drive and Investment of Time
I know plenty of young people that see CG everywhere they look and that is for sure, it is. CG has penetrated many forms of advertising and is less a luxury as it is a necessity for a variety of businesses beyond entertainment.
So of course, you hear about budgets of big movies and read about the cost of effects which must translate into a big pay day for the artists working on them. Not only do you like what you see but you would like to start a career creating and getting paid to do so.
The best advice I can give anyone is that if you don't have in inherent interest in art. Whether it be hand drawing, painting, or other creative outlet, the technical side of cg may run you down. I put up with the math elements and odd words and terms to get my artistic vision modeled, edited, and animated.
You don't need drawing skills to do any CG work, but you need that creative drive already in you. CG is best an extension of your existing creativity. Getting a grasp of the complexities and nuances that exist in programs and channeling those to produce whats in your minds eye can be a task. What gets you through it is your creative drive/ability.
As amazing as programs and processing powers exist now, I often wonder how I would fair if I just started today. I'm pretty sure I would be overwhelmed with my options. Considering the costs and the time I know that would be required, I would have to question this as a career.
Being young helps. I started when I was 30 which I think is a very tight borderline age today.
Expectations are very high now whereas when I started, the hobbiest market is what fed the early business markets with employees.
The job market has completely changed and the competition for the same jobs has quadrupled.
It's All in the Details - Investment of Time
Even though speed, accessibility, and program interoperability has increased, so has the overall complexity of programs. To be a Jack of All Trades or a Generalist of which I consider myself; is a product of multiple years of long nights and weekends training.
This career is not something honed in intermittent idle hours on an irregular schedule. Like any other job skill, it requires a commitment and effort to stick with it outside of a class.
The problem I see with commercials offering courses in CG studies is that they play to the obvious. People playing games and watching a finished animation. This gives no insight to the personal investment (which is long) to get there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
