Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Entertainment Games

Gaming Beauty Is Only Pixel Deep 50

Posted by simoniker from the my-beautiful-face dept.
Thanks to NTSC-uk for its feature discussing what the new pixel and vertex shaders mean to this generation of videogames. The piece laments: "Looking back at the past few years, games have looked incredibly similar. And this is the main reason why: they all used the same tools", before going on to explain: "The hardware previously contained logic circuits to simply perform the operations needed by Gouraud and Flat shading, but now the fully Programmable Pipeline has introduced a whole new world of graphical effects for us all, limited only by the programmers' time and creativity", referencing "the water effects used in Super Mario Sunshine, cel shading effects used in Zelda, or the rippling water effects on Dead or Alive 3."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gaming Beauty Is Only Pixel Deep More

Gaming Beauty Is Only Pixel Deep

Comments Filter:
  • interesting and set at a reasonable level of understanding.

    • Re:good article (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cebu ( 161017 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @01:57PM (#9225547)
      Good article? It's terrible:

      "Most 3D objects are made from triangles. A triangle is given by three points in space. If they are modeled as polygons, by the time they are drawn on the screen (rasterised)..."

      Rasterization is the process by which an aribtrary mathematical representation is converted into a raster image (an image composed of a grid of orthogonal display elements). Rasterization is not when something is drawn on the screen. ...then they are split into triangles for simpler rendering (Due to the mathematics that states that any polygon can be formed by multiple triangles)."

      Complex representations of three dimentional objects are not split into triangles for simpler rendering, they are split into triangles because it allowed for faster rendering.

      There is no statement in mathematics that claims any polygon can be formed by multiple triangles. Furthmore, this claim is false.

      "The whole process of rendering takes each triangle in 3D world space, and projects them onto the screen as 2D triangles."

      This claim is false. If you are projecting three space triangles onto a cartesian plane, they do not necessarily become triangles. Lines, points, and nothing at all are not triangles.

      "The most basic method of lighting is simply giving each triangle a flat colour, and by no coincidence at all, this is called Flat Shading."

      This is not lighting -- it is called shading. The process of selecting the actual colour of the polygon would be considered a rudamentary lighting model, not simply the assignment of a colour. Again, shading and lighting are independant.

      "Cel shading techniques can make use of the fast rendering speed to save some processing power for the pencil outlines, so it's still a relevant shading method. I, Robot was one of the first games to take advantage of this technology."

      As before, the ambiguity of the last statement is enjoyable -- "I, Robot" was one of the first games to use 3D polygonal representations. It was not one of the first games to use flat shading, nor cell shading (given that it does not use cell shading).

      "The next shading technique, which was common in the later days of the PlayStation, is named Gouraud Shading:..."

      Gouraud shading was first presented by Henri Gouraud in 1971 and has been common in games well before PlayStation.

      "...by working out the colour at each vertex, and interpolating this colour between the vertices across the triangle whilst rendering, it will give an approximate idea of how the triangle should be shaded."

      Gouraud shading takes the averaged surface normals at each vertex and performs a lighting computation (originally a Lambertian diffuse calculation) upon them. The resulting vertex colours are then interpolated along the edges of triangle, then the triangle is filled by interpolating between each set of edge pixels per a scanline.

      "Unfortunately, because the colours are worked out at the corners and mixed across, shadows in the middle of the triangle will be completely missed."

      The production of shadows has nothing to do with Gouraud shading, or shading at all.

      "Also, when using large triangles, the effect can seem quite unnatural, and it's especially noticeable in Metroid Prime when moving around in Morph Ball mode."

      The problem with Gouraud shading is that it restrict light sampling to vertices taken from the world geometry. The accuracy of the shading is then directly proportional to the vertex density of the world geometry. It also performs poorly at oblique junctions. Another issue is the Gouraud shading is not perspective correct.

      "Games such as Silent Hill 2, however nice the shadow generation is, still only use this basic shading model, and it's very noticeable with the 'squares' since the light hits the vertices (corners) in turn, the light tends not to spread slowly across the triangles."

      • You're nitpicking. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I understand 3D graphics as well as you do, and half of the things you pick holes in there strike me as perfectly acceptable explanations, if slightly over-simplified. Just because you can show off doesn't mean you should.
      • Complex representations of three dimentional objects are not split into triangles for simpler rendering, they are split into triangles because it allowed for faster rendering.

        Those statements are equivalent- the reason a triangle renderer is faster than a general 2D polygon renderer is that handling triangles is simpler.

        Again, shading and lighting are independant

        Technically, lighting would be a subset of shading. Shading is simply the selection of fragment color; one possible method is by evaluati

      • Re:good article (Score:2, Informative)

        by erich666 ( 109137 )
        A minor point of interest (for true graphics geeks only): you write, "Another issue is the [sic] Gouraud shading is not perspective correct." In algorithmic terms, you're right, original Gouraud shading interpolates in screen space. However, when I was helping to revise the book "Real-Time Rendering" for its second edition, I asked NVIDIA about this (in 2001), whether they interpolated Gouraud in screen space or perspective space. Surprisingly enough, they now interpolate Gouraud shading using perspective c

  • As far as I know... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @07:34AM (#9224143)
    The Gamecube doesn't have a programmable function pipleline for graphics effects - it has a very robust fixed function pipeline. The effects the author emphasizes in those three Gamecube Games were more than likely done on the CPU and not with a programmable GPU. While that doesn't diminish the look or technical achievement of those games it does throw water on the author's assertion that games all looked alike before GPUs because all fixed function pipelines give the same look to their output.

    • Re:As far as I know... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Illissius ( 694708 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @08:19AM (#9224236)
      While I don't have any knowledge of the GC's GPU per se, what I do know is that the company that designed it, ArtX, was subsequently bought out by ATi and the same design was used as the base of their R3xx (Radeon 9x00) series of graphics cards, which do indeed use pixel and vertex shaders (versions 2.0). So it's certainly possible.
      • I'd actually bet that it has functionality similar to the register combiners found on the original GF2-GTS. These were basically precursors to todays programmable units - they allowed nifty effects, but were still limited and locked into the fixed function pipeline.

        • Hi all, I wrote this article, so I thought Id comment :) The GameCube does in fact contain Pixel/Vertex shaders in the true sense of the word, rather than complicated GL extensions available. If you browse Gamasutra.com or elsewhere, there are considerable articles explaining how to use these. If only someone would send me a full dev kit (I have the NR 'Cube) then I could test further :)
          • Gamecube has fixed-function configurable shaders, which are the precursor to modern programmable shaders.

            You are correct in that the shaders do operate both per a vertex, and per a pixel, but the original parent is entirely correct -- these are non-programmable.
          • A GL extension has no bearing on whether or not a particular piece of hardware has a true programmable GPU or not. OpenGL and GL extensions are software. You can write GL extensions that will run on a CPU.

            The Gamecube doesn't have a programmable pipeline. It's got a configurable one. It still allows for some amazing graphics, which goes counter to your claim that fixed-function doesn't allow for variety.

      • Not true - the R3xx was in the works well before ATI bought ArtX. There's probably almost no similarity between the chips.

        It's rather common for Gamecube games to use per-pixel shading, but the relevant extra work is done on the CPU rathern than the GPU. This isn't a new thing - even in the previous generation, such things were sometimes done.

  • It wont mean the games will play better, feel better and act better. it wont make games any more interesting no matter how manytimes they rewrite that same story line.... We need games that explore new ideas, not better graphics. Hell im still playing wc3!

    • Re:It might mean better looking games but... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Soul-Burn666 ( 574119 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @07:53AM (#9224181) Journal
      It could mean less stress is on the CPU, meaning the physics can be more realistic and funner and the AI can be smarter, giving a better gaming experience.
      • It could mean less stress is on the CPU, meaning the physics can be more realistic and funner and the AI can be smarter, giving a better gaming experience.

        While I agree with the better AI improving the overall experience, I fail to see where the connection of physics and fun is. It would bring good details, but for all purposes physics is against fun (except simulations).
        Games are based in rules, not physics, and that is what makes them fun.
        • Correct me if I'm missing the point (or misunderstand/abuse the term 'physics'), but surely the physics don't have to be life-like any more than the graphics do, they're still physics and improving them will improve the games.

          Pong, for instance, had physics of 'if the ball hits a wall or paddle, it will bounce off'. Legend of Zelda had 'if x hits an enemy, the enemy will get hurt. If Y hits the player, the player will get hurt. If the player hits a wall, stop'. More recent games have loads - 'if there's no
          • Ok. You can always say that physics are a set of rules. But, the question really is that if realistic physics and lighting make a game better. I would say not, except in the case of simulations (cars, planes, sports).
            Of course the game would look better, but all of us know examples of good looking games that are crap. I'm not against pixel shaders, or tech that enhances visually the games, but the tech should be adding beauty to the game, not the game adding beauty to the tech.
            In the mouth of Rob Pardo
        • The more realistic or detailed the physics, the more fun a game is. Just look at Halo2/Half Life2/Perfect Dark in comparison to their originals. They added so much and people are clamoring for them. (Or in PD's case, loving it) The newer games impose less and less rules on users and let them solve problems anyway they see fit. Look at Hitman as an example
          • ?????
            Taking in account that Halo2, Half-Life 2, PD, aren't out yet, they can't add anything right now.
            If these games are more FUN that their predecessors, it has nothing to do about the graphics. If these games are the same with better graphics and physics, they are simply the same game with better coating.
            They would be better, yes. Only graphically. That's the main reason for the slowing of the market.

            Look at Hitman as an example
            Open ended games have nothing to do with shaders or realistic physics
            • I dont know where you've been for the past 4 years, but perfect dark is out.

              If these games are more FUN that their predecessors, it has nothing to do about the graphics

              You'll note I said that, I said it was cause of their awesome new physics enhancements

              Open ended games have nothing to do with shaders or realistic physics.

              You'll note I didn't say it had to do with the graphics, and that game does have a very detailed physics and scripting engine

              (Doh!)

              Mocking people cause you disagree only make

          • Re:It might mean better looking games but... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Soul-Burn666 ( 574119 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @11:15AM (#9224793) Journal
            Even though I haven't thought of that when I wrote my comment, this is a very interesting thing.

            In old games, to get to a high place, you need to find the correct set of crates/ledges that just "happen to be there" if such existed, or click a specific button that will let you eradicate your enemies fast.
            In new games, they just put reasonable world features in a way that you can CLIMB on them and get where you want to go, even if the game designers didn't think going there could help. Or just place some barrels somewhere and u could shoot/push them and expect them to roll down on your enemies.
            It becomes so that there is more than one way to achieve your goal.

            It's funner to see your char doesn't need to find a teleporter to go over a 0.5meter ledge (doom2, lvl2) but do what YOU as the player would like to do at that situation.

            Ofcourse the devs need to make sure you don't go to places you shouldn't go to if the storyline dictates, but not thru stupid things like tiny wall that a human could easily pass.

            • Re:It might mean better looking games but... (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward
              This is what a typical Metroid game already gives you. You can spend a lot of time just trying to get somewhere you aren't really supposed to and sometimes it works... you can even bypass large sections of the game if you work at it.
    • and WarCraft 3 has some amazing graphics. Or did you mean WarCraft 2? Nonetheless, great game.

      I'm an old school gamer... but I also want the video game industry to keep rising. Even though I still play King of Fighters 96 on my Neo Geo, I would still play a new nice looking game. Although it's not ALL about graphics, I don't think that it would benefit the gaming industry to use choppy graphics in new games. After all, it's the medias and new-age gamers that promote the games the most... and what feature
      • I still play KoF98 and '99 on my Neo Geo often too. '99 has some of the most fantastic 2D graphics I've yet seen on a console, and I suppose that's what my article was getting at - 2D graphics were up to the artist to make, and now the Programmers are the new artists.
        • Actually... No.
          Look at Final Fantasy, these games use pretty standard, old technology for lighting, rendering, etc, yet they look a LOT better than most other games on the market. The technical numbers are on the level of Quake 3 or something but their artists (modelers, skinners, animators) are really good and the result shows. The programmer (usually) isn't the artist, he puts the framework in place for the artists to work off. The best engine isn't worth anything if your art squad can't make good use of

  • Wow, incredibly off-base (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @09:34AM (#9224461) Homepage
    That's like saying "because power tools are now popular, all buildings look the same". The reason why games are looking similar is that developers are sharing some of the more common code (as they should do). It's similar to when games first became color and all of them looked like blotchy squares. Over time the graphics start to vary. Give them time.

    • Re:Wow, incredibly off-base (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's like saying "because power tools are now popular, all buildings look the same".

      I think it's more like saying that all artwork done in charcoal bears the same look; shaders open up the equivalent of pastels, watercolors, and oil.
    • Looking back at the past few years, games have looked incredibly similar.

      Well, somebody needs to talk to their art director...

  • Better graphics and better physics don't make a game great. Better design does.
    While developers continue to fail understand this simple fact, the games market will be shrinking [pointlesswasteoftime.com].
    More imagination, less fireworks.

  • I don't care how a game looks... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Flyboy Connor ( 741764 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @12:03PM (#9225013)
    ...as long as it plays well.

    Different gameplay experiences are not caused by games looking different. They come from different game designs.

    • So you're telling me that the gameplay is not directly affected by the graphics in a game like Rez [gamespot.com] for the PS2, where the entire gaming is a matter of presentation, a mixture of unique sounds and vector-type graphics? What, that game was too obscure an example for you? Then try this one on for size: the Doom 3 [gamespot.com] engine's per-pixel lighting and shadowing allows for an immersive gameplay environment since the player is constantly forced to decide whether to carry a flashlight to illuminate dark areas or to have

  • Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @12:03PM (#9225017) Homepage
    Games aren't going to use the standard fixed-function pipeline any more- they're all going to use the same shader programs. There's only one "best" way to implement character model normal mapping, and that's polybump, which virtually everyone is using for upcoming games. There are only 2 ways to do shadows, shadow buffers or stenciling, and both of those are very common. The only exceptions are going to be games making really unusual style choices like Jet Set Radio Future. What's really going to differentiate games in the future is going to have to be something other than graphics and physics, as those fields tend to converge onto a single "one true implementation" as they evolve (for graphics it's photorealism, for physics it's something like Havok which is available for anyone to just drop into their games).

    • Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)

      by Quarters ( 18322 )
      While Havok is a nice package (for anything short of soft-body, cloth, or fluid dynamics) and has a clean API it isn't just something you "drop" into a game. Implementation of it takes a very concerted effort by both the programming and art staff. Resources also have to be devoted to the project to tune the physics simulation and to activate/deactivate objects into the simulation when they are needed.

      While the results are really good, Havok introduces dependencies into the development process that make it

      • True, but those resources are still far less than would be needed to research and develop from scratch a similarly capable rigid-body physics system.

  • Cool!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tom7 ( 102298 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @12:55PM (#9225247) Homepage Journal
    the water effects used in Super Mario Sunshine, cel shading effects used in Zelda, or the rippling water effects on Dead or Alive 3.

    Wow, water effects, cell shading, and water effects? What an incredible breadth of effects available at the programmer's fingertips!
    • Hardy-har. The whole point of the article is that there's more to come - them examples only highlighted what is currently being done.

      • Re:Cool!! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Quarters ( 18322 )
        Except that currently we have normal mapping, parallax mapping, hardware skinnng & boning, edge effects, glow effects oil effects, screen space effects, high dynamic range lighting, and on and on and on....

        Picking three examples that use 2 simplistic effects doesn't do justice to the breadth of graphical wizardry that has come about and been *enhanced* because of a programmable pipeline. Note the word "enhanced"-all of those effects were achievable on a CPU. It just wouldn't be good for game performan

      • Obviously the site is a console site, with no real knowledge of which PC games raised the bar graphically. Their examples are games that were not spectacular, or games nobody heard of. When talking about effective use of lighting and dark areas in games one should at least mention Doom. When talking about water effects, Morrowind was one of the first games to offer real looking water (at the time, now it looks too oily and a bit oldfashioned). A game like Aquanox was the first to really use shaders (and wa

  • may be going off topic... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nobodyman ( 90587 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @03:28PM (#9225955) Homepage
    But I always bristle at the notion that "games lately look so much the same" and "there's no originality anymore, not like back in the day".

    Here's the deal: the reason why so many games look the same is because for every innovative game you have 20 or so derivative titles that want to cash in on the popularity of the original. Though we like to fondly look back to the early days of video games and think that they were so original, the truth is that the same problem existed back then as well. I recently got one of those 200-in-1 NES emulators for the GBA, and let me tell you that the 20-to-1 ratio of crap to innovation still applies.

    The author of this article makes another mistake: thinking that games will stop looking like each other with the advent of pixel shaders. Of course this is rediculous. I do believe that technology can enable new aspects of gameplay, but to think that pixel shaders are going to make people more creative is just plain wrong.

  • Programmable pipeline (Score:3, Informative)

    by chris_oat ( 5511 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @04:50PM (#9226324) Homepage
    "the water effects used in Super Mario Sunshine, cel shading effects used in Zelda, or the rippling water effects on Dead or Alive 3."

    The gamecube doesn't have shader hardware, it uses a fixed function approach with many texture stages. Granted, the flexibility afforded by a dozen or so texture stages is similar to simple pixel shader hardware but there are still fundamental differences (particularly in the ability to do texture indirection) that make real shaders far more flexible. The first two games mentioned above don't use shaders at all... this guy should do a bit more research.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close