Sign in to follow this  
TwinbeeUK

OpenGL 30 year deadline for 3D game

Recommended Posts

TwinbeeUK    100
I'd like to spend at least 30 years on a killer game. By that time, everything can be raytraced and made from millions or even billions of polygons. At least for me, hacks like texture mapping or even bump mapping will be less of a priority for me. Basically, I'd like to know a basic universal 3D format that will still be around in 30 years time so I can begin designing the polygon structure of the game. Preferably, it will allow scope for materials too (but I want super low-level definitions, not just presets like 'glass' or 'wood' etc.) Finally, the ideal 3D format would be programmable through C. In other words I would want to program any point of any polygon to move in any way. I'm guessing something like OpenGL would support this kind of thing. What 3D format would be best? And what (preferably cheap) 3D software can get me started on this 30 year-long quest? Many thanks all for any answers to these questions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sybixsus    210
I assume this is a joke, but I have a few minutes to spare, so what the hey.

Forget it. You have no possible way of knowing what will be around in 30 years time and neither does anyone else. You could ask John Carmack, Cliffy B, Will Wright or anyone else what was going to happen to game development, in terms of design, 3d formats, platforms, genres, 3d engines or whatever, and they'd be lucky if they got it 5% right. Chances are that we won't be using polygons in 30 years time. It might be subdivision surfaces or splines or some other high level approximation of polys that hasn't even be adopted yet.


Besides, even if you ignore the fact that whatever you come up with won't work in 30 years, whatever you came up with would be crap in 30 years. It used to be said that todays FMV would be realtime in five years, and it's probably less now. In other words, even if you created the highest quality you can currently manage with the high end rendering tools, it would be old tech in six years, and you'd still have 24 more years to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TwinbeeUK    100
Not a joke - I just have big ambitions :)

Quote:
terms of design, 3d formats, platforms, genres, 3d engines or whatever, and they'd be lucky if they got it 5% right.

That's why I want to work on as low a level as possible. You surely can't go wrong with designing a super-detailed polygon mesh for a game, even if it's 30 years away.

To take 2D graphics as an example, one can (almost) be sure that pixels will still be around in 30 years time. Pictures will still probably be defined by a 2D array of pixels. Even if they aren't defined that way, the quality will still be exceptional given 30 years of work.

Let's say I do work on billions of polygons, and it turns out the future is a bunch of purely mathematical surfaces, one could still convert it I'm guessing.

Also bear in mind that there are graphics today which look amazing, but only run at 0.01 frames per second (i.e. unplayable). I hope to design to that level of detail, and when the future comes (say 30 years from now), it will run at a super smooth 60fps or more.

Quote:
Besides, even if you ignore the fact that whatever you come up with won't work in 30 years, whatever you came up with would be crap in 30 years.

I'll be aiming more for highly detailed and tasty, but at least partially abstract graphics. I'm not going for super-uber realism, at least not at first. Even something like the Tron film had graphics which in many ways would look 'polished' in 30 years, even if they're not as sophisticated.

So again, which current low-level universal 3D format would most fit what I'm looking for?

[Edited by - TwinbeeUK on May 2, 2009 10:41:12 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
emiel1    166
No, really. You can't say anything about it. For example look at the games 30 years ago: here. These are all 2D, with the pixels visable and some just lines. Nobody could imagine a game like Crysis (with milions of triangles) to emerge within a few years. Nobody could even imagine that we would have triangles in 3D space in our games in just 30 years.

The same is true for the future. We can't "see" what lies in the future of game development. Thirty years is just too much. The splines that sybixsus proposed could be just as wrong as another representation.

Edit: reply on your edit.
2D graphics were then defined as lines/shapes and for the exeptional games as pixel arrays. It's still the same but the procedural textures are gaining field.

Emiel1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TwinbeeUK    100
My point is that even if that is true, one can convert it whatever format exists at that point. There are many awesome artistic/highly detailed 3D pictures around today, and the future will animate those so that they run in realtime. We can certainly expect something along those lines.

With enough polygons, and maybe some texture mapping, results will eventually reach a point where the eye can't tell any difference anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightbringer    1070
Forget C, forget DirectX, forget OpenGL, forget raytracing, forget polygons. None of those are gonna matter (probably won't even be around). Here's my best uneducated guess about the lowest level file format for computer games in 30 years. If we don't just go down the road of cyberbrains, instead. Then I have no clue. Maybe neurons?

Quote:
Original post by TwinbeeUK
With enough polygons, and maybe some texture mapping, results will eventually reach a point where the eye can't tell any difference anyway.

It will probably be like that but go into the direction of augmented reality, but that's not 30 years out, more like five years.

Quote:
Original post by sybixsus
It used to be said that todays FMV would be realtime in five years, and it's probably less now.

I already can't tell the difference between some of the in-game cutscenes and FMVs in PS3 games like DMC4 and Uncharted. The only way I can tell in Uncharted is if I put on a custom costume and it disappears during the cutscene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TwinbeeUK    100
Good point. Though I thought even if polygons are 'empty inside' as the representation inside the computer, they are still *treated* as if they were solid when doing the final raytrace.

lightbringer, the qubit looks complicated, but hey maybe. I like the idea of using a bunch of voxels, or 'atoms' for a game. Make every part truly interactive.

Naturally, one can convert between polygons, atoms, voxels, qubits etc., given a high enough res to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OrangyTang    1298
I can gurantee you that if you spend 30 years making a different game every three years then your last few games will be of significantly higher quality than your single 30 year game. Plus you'll have ten games instead of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TwinbeeUK    100
Quote:
I can gurantee you that if you spend 30 years making a different game every three years then your last few games will be of significantly higher quality than your single 30 year game.

I'm not entirely convinced of that, especially as I will be researching as I go. Each bit of the game would be extensively planned, and experimented with etc. At the most, I can imagine creating many external 'sandboxes' for playability/gfx ideas. This way, I can try out lots of different things without having to make each one into a game.

Each bit may undergo several revisions and drastic changes until I was completely happy.

Quote:
Plus you'll have ten games instead of one.

Ten lesser games, instead of one killer :D

Quote:
Sounds like this is more of a 30-year graphics demo than a game. Do you actually have any gameplay in mind, or is it just graphics?

I'm glad someone said that. Ironically, my tastes in gameplay are very much 'old-skool', so I'd spend just as much time on the gameplay. It will be very much like 'twitch' gameplay, where there's always something to do/move/react to, not like a lot of recent games where one might sprawl a terrain for ages before anything happens. (example SNES Zelda 3 compared to 3D Zeldas such as Zelda 64).

I often prefer 2D games in general, because of the more 'restrictive' gameplay. However, the 3D game I plan on making will use more 2D gaming concepts, despite the gfx being entirely 3D and (hopefully) breathtaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marmin    523
Quote:
Original post by chronocalamity
Forget game design all together the world will end in 30 years
Some even say.. 2012, so better limit your game design..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
juturnas    136
While slightly off-topic, I have to point out that the games we are comparing your future game to that look amazing right now have maybe dozens of artists working for years to create them. I don't have any numbers on hand but in man-years, for an amazing looking game 30 doesn't sound like much to me. If your going to do the one-man-crew thing, I would recommend doing what OrangyTang said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightbringer    1070
Quote:
Original post by TwinbeeUK
Ten lesser games, instead of one killer :D


You mean ten finished games instead of one Battlecruiser clone, right? :D

Quote:
Original post by juturnas
I don't have any numbers on hand but in man-years, for an amazing looking game 30 doesn't sound like much to me.

I don't have any numbers either but I would imagine that today's AAA titles need much more, somewhere around 100 or 200 man-years. Just look at the lengthy credit roll of a game like Metal Gear Solid 4. But the man-month is a myth anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n3Xus    951
class SubatomicParticle
{
};

class XXX:public SubatomicParticle
{
};

you can't go wrong with this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Esys    156
Sure, research 30 years for one killer game...then in Q2, a better game is released. I bet you'd wish you spent those 30 years doing something more meaningful than a mere entertainment product. If you're going to study something for 30 years, at least make it something worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TwinbeeUK    100
Quote:
I bet you'd wish you spent those 30 years doing something more meaningful than a mere entertainment product

Well I suppose that depends on how highly you value games as an art. Remember though that it subsumes other art forms to a degree, such as graphics, animation, music, and maybe story.

One could say the same thing about music, and of course there's tons of throwaway songs out there, but that doesn't mean there aren't timeless classics as well.

Also, it would be ridiculously fun and exciting to play (in theory). Breathtaking and tons of set pieces too (which would not sacrifice playability). I would try to give it as much atmosphere as when one goes to their first theme park as a kid, which is obviously incredibly tricky to capture for jaded adults (including myself).

Apart from that, there's potential worldwide fame/money. I'm sure many would do it just for that if possible.

So, back on topic, do people think that something like X3D, U3D, Collada or Obj would be a good 'foundation' to build 3D data upon?

[Edited by - TwinbeeUK on May 2, 2009 5:45:15 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PolyVox    712
Well, as people have said, this topic is unlikely to produce many accurate predictions... but it's interesting none the less.

Personally I'm interested in what kind of display technology we'll be using. I'm pretty sure all screens will be 3D, so you should probably be targeting you game at these kind of devices:

3D Monitors
Volumetric Displays

Concepts such as pixels and polygons may well be extinct - after all, 30 years ago we were probably on vector-based graphics.

And what about input? The mouse and keyboard have served us well but I think we can assume they won't last for ever. And, as shown by platforms like the Wii, input devices are becoming increasingly important.

For the much more immediate future (over the next 5 years) we're likely to see a lot more of these kinds of technologies:

Future Gaming Technologies

At least, I'm hoping so :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightbringer    1070
Quote:
Original post by PolyVox
Future Gaming Technologies

At least, I'm hoping so :-)


Pretty rad, and a number of these already exist separately in commercial games (there was Assassin's Creed in it, apparently Shadow of the Colossus, Far Cry 2, Crysis and Zelda, something that looked like Half Life 2, something that looked like Infinity, and certainly many others that I missed) the only thing I could ask for is that all of this is fed directly into my brain through some helmet, complete with navigation output directly from the brain. I want my Otherland/Multiverse today :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TwinbeeUK    100
Nice find PolyVox - I love all that particle stuff.

3D monitors sound great, though in principle I bet it would be very easy to adapt any 3D game to a future 3D monitor.

I'm still holding out for wall-sized OLED displays :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By povilaslt2
      Hello. I'm Programmer who is in search of 2D game project who preferably uses OpenGL and C++. You can see my projects in GitHub. Project genre doesn't matter (except MMO's :D).
    • By ZeldaFan555
      Hello, My name is Matt. I am a programmer. I mostly use Java, but can use C++ and various other languages. I'm looking for someone to partner up with for random projects, preferably using OpenGL, though I'd be open to just about anything. If you're interested you can contact me on Skype or on here, thank you!
      Skype: Mangodoor408
    • By tyhender
      Hello, my name is Mark. I'm hobby programmer. 
      So recently,I thought that it's good idea to find people to create a full 3D engine. I'm looking for people experienced in scripting 3D shaders and implementing physics into engine(game)(we are going to use the React physics engine). 
      And,ye,no money =D I'm just looking for hobbyists that will be proud of their work. If engine(or game) will have financial succes,well,then maybe =D
      Sorry for late replies.
      I mostly give more information when people PM me,but this post is REALLY short,even for me =D
      So here's few more points:
      Engine will use openGL and SDL for graphics. It will use React3D physics library for physics simulation. Engine(most probably,atleast for the first part) won't have graphical fron-end,it will be a framework . I think final engine should be enough to set up an FPS in a couple of minutes. A bit about my self:
      I've been programming for 7 years total. I learned very slowly it as "secondary interesting thing" for like 3 years, but then began to script more seriously.  My primary language is C++,which we are going to use for the engine. Yes,I did 3D graphics with physics simulation before. No, my portfolio isn't very impressive. I'm working on that No,I wasn't employed officially. If anybody need to know more PM me. 
       
    • By Zaphyk
      I am developing my engine using the OpenGL 3.3 compatibility profile. It runs as expected on my NVIDIA card and on my Intel Card however when I tried it on an AMD setup it ran 3 times worse than on the other setups. Could this be a AMD driver thing or is this probably a problem with my OGL code? Could a different code standard create such bad performance?
    • By Kjell Andersson
      I'm trying to get some legacy OpenGL code to run with a shader pipeline,
      The legacy code uses glVertexPointer(), glColorPointer(), glNormalPointer() and glTexCoordPointer() to supply the vertex information.
      I know that it should be using setVertexAttribPointer() etc to clearly define the layout but that is not an option right now since the legacy code can't be modified to that extent.
      I've got a version 330 vertex shader to somewhat work:
      #version 330 uniform mat4 osg_ModelViewProjectionMatrix; uniform mat4 osg_ModelViewMatrix; layout(location = 0) in vec4 Vertex; layout(location = 2) in vec4 Normal; // Velocity layout(location = 3) in vec3 TexCoord; // TODO: is this the right layout location? out VertexData { vec4 color; vec3 velocity; float size; } VertexOut; void main(void) { vec4 p0 = Vertex; vec4 p1 = Vertex + vec4(Normal.x, Normal.y, Normal.z, 0.0f); vec3 velocity = (osg_ModelViewProjectionMatrix * p1 - osg_ModelViewProjectionMatrix * p0).xyz; VertexOut.velocity = velocity; VertexOut.size = TexCoord.y; gl_Position = osg_ModelViewMatrix * Vertex; } What works is the Vertex and Normal information that the legacy C++ OpenGL code seem to provide in layout location 0 and 2. This is fine.
      What I'm not getting to work is the TexCoord information that is supplied by a glTexCoordPointer() call in C++.
      Question:
      What layout location is the old standard pipeline using for glTexCoordPointer()? Or is this undefined?
       
      Side note: I'm trying to get an OpenSceneGraph 3.4.0 particle system to use custom vertex, geometry and fragment shaders for rendering the particles.
  • Popular Now