238 replies to this topic

[Koh]

I feel like you're greatly oversimplifying things. If someone were to showcase a game using such basic Kohde today, they'd become a laughing stock. Nowadays it's all about the needlessly complex AI for trivial things like fish.

 

Got that gamer a pathfinding fish. Gamers love fish.

No they wouldn't, because the gamers don't even see the code.  They see the end result of the code, which would be the exact same.  Simple code isn't bad at all, and is what more complex code is comprised of.  All code ever is and will ever be is a bunch of algebra or trigonometry, boolean logic, and memory references.  You guys need to take a Programming class.  Once you've seen one, you've pretty much seen them all minus the syntax differences.  Some languages can do what others cannot, like Inheritance, which is a REALLY big thing.

 

And Microsoft has already become a laughing stock by showing the silliest of things with their "advanced AI system."  Hardly advanced.  More like dug up from the depths of time.

Edited by Koh, 30 May 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[Bourkification]

I don't see how it makes Microsoft a laughing stock? The game and technology that the clip is from, is being developed by Activision and Infinity Ward.

[Moosh]

No they wouldn't, because the gamers don't even see the code.  They see the end result of the code, which would be the exact same.  Simple code isn't bad at all, and is what more complex code is comprised of.  All code ever is and will ever be is a bunch of algebra or trigonometry, boolean logic, and memory references.  You guys need to take a Programming class.  Once you've seen one, you've pretty much seen them all minus the syntax differences.  Some languages can do what others cannot, like Inheritance, which is a REALLY big thing.

 

And Microsoft has already become a laughing stock by showing the silliest of things with their "advanced AI system."  Hardly advanced.  More like dug up from the depths of time.

I feel like you didn't get what I meant at all. Back in the days of the Atari 2600, moving a fish might have been as simple as addition and subtraction of constants because Atari games were very simple. Nowadays, what you posted would be only a very small part of a bigger picture. What's "impressive" is not that the fish swims out of the way. It's how the fish swims away smoothely and with its environment taken into consideration. It's all about the subtle stuff. Sure, games have done this since the dawn of time, but the point they're trying to make is not that they're doing something new; they want to show that they're doing something that's been done before, but better.

[Koh]

Meh, it doesn't look better; it looks like something I've seen since Playstation One days.  If they want to impress, they'll have to try harder than that.  Only people who've never played many or any games would be captivated by something so trivial.

 

Again with collision detection, you can easily do that, even on the older consoles.

 

So basically...only the pre-pubescent CoD fans would be impressed by something of this calibur...*runs*

 

You'd have to be under a pretty big rock to be ignorant of the fact that games have had the ability to do such for quite some time now XD.

Edited by Koh, 30 May 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

No they wouldn't, because the gamers don't even see the code.  They see the end result of the code, which would be the exact same.  Simple code isn't bad at all, and is what more complex code is comprised of.  All code ever is and will ever be is a bunch of algebra or trigonometry, boolean logic, and memory references.  You guys need to take a Programming class.  Once you've seen one, you've pretty much seen them all minus the syntax differences.  Some languages can do what others cannot, like Inheritance, which is a REALLY big thing.

 

And Microsoft has already become a laughing stock by showing the silliest of things with their "advanced AI system."  Hardly advanced.  More like dug up from the depths of time.

Koh, Microsoft didn't make the AI system you're talking about. Activision did. So what you're doing here, is making fun of Microsoft for something that someone else made. I don't disagree with you that the AI tech was hardly advanced, though. Activision isn't a company that's pushing graphics over... well, money.

 

That aside, you're not a pro, Koh, yet you're acting as if you was an expert in every field. You're talking about the video game industry as if you know everything about it, yet everything you're saying gives me a very strong impression that you don't actually know anything at all. I'm not saying this to hurt you, but I do think it's something you need to hear. Seriously, 90% of your arguments in this thread are either slightly irrational, very irrational or just flat out wrong. A lot of the time you're actually not making any sense at all, and other times you change your opinion completely without giving us any indication that you've actually changed your opinion - as if you're not aware that one of your arguments completely contradicts one of your previous ones.

 

Just... it's okay not to be an expert, but don't pretend that you're one when literally all signs are saying otherwise. It's just a bit frustrating to take part in topics like these when all you do is throw out arguments that don't make any sense - and I really do want to take part in them.

 

Again, don't take this the wrong way, I'm only saying this because I know that if I was in your position, I would have liked to know.

[Koh]

But I DO know what I'm talking about.  I've programmed many original and fan games over the years, and I can say without hesitation that even a beginning programmer who has mastered the use of conditional and branch statements can easily do something as simple as reaction to player distance.  It's not even rocket science.

[Moosh]

But I DO know what I'm talking about.  I've programmed many original and fan games over the years, and I can say without hesitation that even a beginning programmer who has mastered the use of conditional and branch statements can easily do something as simple as reaction to player distance.  It's not even rocket science.

Koh, making fangames doesn't make you an expert game designer just like taking a couple basic programming courses doesn't make you an expert programmer. This is the kind of shit people spend their precious time and money to perfect. I'd appreciate it if you don't make a mockery of that effort, as fruitless as it may seem to you, by claiming to be on the same level as them. I'm sure several people toiled to make those goddamn fish and even though they're nothing impressive in the long run, I find it insulting that you'd make such a gross oversimplification of the coding that went into it.

Edited by Moosh, 30 May 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

But I DO know what I'm talking about.  I've programmed many original and fan games over the years, and I can say without hesitation that even a beginning programmer who has mastered the use of conditional and branch statements can easily do something as simple as reaction to player distance.  It's not even rocket science.

See, this is the problem. You're not responding to what I actually said. If you read - and understood - what I was saying, you'd know that I agree about the AI tech - it's not advanced - but you're talking about it as if it was made by Microsoft, for the Xbox. It was not. It was made by a third party company (Infinity Ward/Activision), for their engine. It's tech we're gonna see on PC, PS4 and the Xbox One. We're also gonna see it on 360 and PS3. The problem here is not your thoughts on the tech, it's that you think you can make fun of Microsoft for it. Except you can't, because they did not make it. Please don't respond to this post and pretend as if that hasn't been explained already - so far it's been explained three times, by two different people on this last page, and you've yet to understand our point. To deny that you've got a problem at this point is... pointless.

 

That said, the tech is not simply reaction to player distance. Besides, neither of us have seen the tech behind the scenes, who are you to say that anyone could make it when you don't even actually know what it's about? I'll tell you who you are: you're a dude who knows a bit of programming. That's nothing special. I'm not saying the tech is impressive, it didn't look impressive, but I am saying that we don't really know how it works. We've just seen a short video of it, for all we know it could be doing seriously impressive stuff under the hood. I refuse to believe it does, but my point here is that you really don't know as much as you make it sound like you do.

[Koh]

So enlighten me then.  How complex could a team of people turn something as simple as fish movement into?  I'm really intrigued and would like to know what could possibly make it something any different that what the other 3 million people who saw the video has already taken from it.  Are you hiding something that you know from us?  HOW COULD YOU D=!?

Edited by Koh, 30 May 2013 - 09:55 AM.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

So enlighten me then.  How complex could a team of people turn something as simple as fish movement into?  I'm really intrigued and would like to know what could possibly make it something any different that what the other 3 million people who saw the video has already taken from it.  Are you hiding something that you know from us?  HOW COULD YOU D=!?

Koh! I refuse to believe you're listening to me! You're not reading my posts through. You're still missing the damn point: we're not debating how impressed we should or shouldn't be, we're saying that MICROSOFT DID NOT MAKE THE TECH! Four posts later and you've yet to address the problem at hand: that you're under the impression that Microsoft has somehow become a laughingstock as a result of what another company did.

 

Microsoft did a lot of things bad with that press-conference, but don't blame them for Activision's content. You can be damn sure Microsoft did not have a whole lot to say about what Activision could show - because Activision is big enough to dicate that themselves. This AI tech thing is entirely on Activision.

[Koh]

Oh if THAT'S what you were talking about this whole time, then yeah, I agree it's all Activision's fault.  It WAS still shown at the XBone conference though....The only reason I can think of that they chose to show THAT game series instead of any other is solely because of how popular the series is.  Other than that...well, Activision may have single-handedly hurt the console's image XD.  Especially if the competition actually shows something more interesting, and what the systems are capable of.

Edited by Koh, 30 May 2013 - 10:28 AM.

[Ventus]

Man this is getting pretty heated, I'll will throw this in here for the heck of it, Activision's advance AI looked pretty stupid.

I mean wow the fish now move when I get near them! Its just real life!. <_>

 

Don't other games do the same thing? I swear I've seen stuff like this before... 

[Koh]

Koh, making fangames doesn't make you an expert game designer just like taking a couple basic programming courses doesn't make you an expert programmer. This is the kind of shit people spend their precious time and money to perfect. I'd appreciate it if you don't make a mockery of that effort, as fruitless as it may seem to you, by claiming to be on the same level as them. I'm sure several people toiled to make those goddamn fish and even though they're nothing impressive in the long run, I find it insulting that you'd make such a gross oversimplification of the coding that went into it.

For the record, I may not be in a professional gaming company, but the overall development ideals are the same across code.  You don't have to be an expert to have experienced code revolving around things experts are doing.  Fish AI is on the same level of work as enemy AI.  There's no complication here; even if they put a lot of work into it, it's still something that's not worth bragging about in the slightest, especially if an older game has easily done so in the past.  If anything, what should be given lots of spotlight is what will make the next game worth playing, I.E. its hook.  Not some flippin' fish that anyone who has basic level of programming can program.  If you're insulted, well, you're taking it way too seriously.  It's not oversimplified; it IS that simple.  If statements and collision checking.  That's all you need.

Edited by Koh, 30 May 2013 - 04:29 PM.

[UZF]

Then prove your programming skills Koh. If your going to claim that you can do this and make fun of an entire company for doing it. Then show everyone your amazing coding skills. Migokalle is right, "you're just a dude that knows a bit of programming." 

[Dawnlight]

For the record, I may not be in a professional gaming company, but the overall development ideals are the same across code.  You don't have to be an expert to have experienced code revolving around things experts are doing.  Fish AI is on the same level of work as enemy AI.  There's no complication here; even if they put a lot of work into it, it's still something that's not worth bragging about in the slightest, especially if an older game has easily done so in the past.  If anything, what should be given lots of spotlight is what will make the next game worth playing, I.E. its hook.  Not some flippin' fish that anyone who has basic level of programming can program.  If you're insulted, well, you're taking it way too seriously.  It's not oversimplified; it IS that simple.  If statements and collision checking.  That's all you need.

That's one of the most arrogant statements I have ever seen from you Koh. Try programming your own game on Unreal Engine 4 or Frostbite 3 and prove how much of an elitist programmer you are. 

 

Back on topic with Xbox ONE, if there's one thing MS should do with Xbox LIVE is to completely restructure it from top to bottom. Besides allowing Silver members to play online, MS should give us a service very similar to PlayStation Plus and Amazon Prime where you can get discounts, early access to betas, and most importantly do the "instant game collection" approach. PlayStation Network at least tries to be like Steam but Steam will always be the king while Xbox LIVE is like the retarded stepchild. In other words, MS needs to give players a better experience with the $60 they charge for Xbox LIVE or not charge anything at all. From my experience, when comparing LIVE with PS+, I found PS+ to be a much better value considering all of the discounts and free content you receive. For Xbox LIVE, you're only paying to access features that's already free on other platforms.