I have to disagree, Matt. In my opinion, the future is in better and better 3D models. You can move the camera anywhere, you can target anywhere on the model, etc. There's no benefit to recording real footage as, as you correctly point out, volume is prohibitive even with relatively unlimited storage space and processing power. We already have photorealistic models, so we're not that far away from truly synthesized reality. Why film actors doing what has to by definition be a finite set of motions, when you can have a digital actor perform an infinite set of motions.
I thought about this, and it is a key limitation. However, I can see some possible solutions. One is not to simulate reality at all, but just mount a camera of some sort and have it stream video to the gamer. These mobile cameras could be on location on a battlefield. Individual players could control the cameras, zooming in and moving around the field. There could be live actors there as well to "shoot" at, who would be aware if they were shot and could lie down (maybe even use stage techniques such as fake blood and what not). Or, the computer could simulate the bodies of other players, but the scenery would be real.
You could also go back to the Dragon's Lair model but just use the expansive storage space to double, triple, or even quadruple the amount of footage. Eventually you might get to a point where you could have a range of actions in a game like Myst, but the whole thing would be as realistic looking as the cinema. I think you could take shortcuts here, obviously, looping some of the footage and not allowing viewers to zoom in on everything or move anywhere. Kinda like how a theme park limits the environment.
Just throwing some stuff out there. I realize it's not practicable at this stage, but seems possible.
I have to disagree, Matt. In my opinion, the future is in better and better 3D models. You can move the camera anywhere, you can target anywhere on the model, etc. There's no benefit to recording real footage as, as you correctly point out, volume is prohibitive even with relatively unlimited storage space and processing power. We already have photorealistic models, so we're not that far away from truly synthesized reality. Why film actors doing what has to by definition be a finite set of motions, when you can have a digital actor perform an infinite set of motions.
Books!
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director | Armchair Arcade, Inc.
I thought about this, and it is a key limitation. However, I can see some possible solutions. One is not to simulate reality at all, but just mount a camera of some sort and have it stream video to the gamer. These mobile cameras could be on location on a battlefield. Individual players could control the cameras, zooming in and moving around the field. There could be live actors there as well to "shoot" at, who would be aware if they were shot and could lie down (maybe even use stage techniques such as fake blood and what not). Or, the computer could simulate the bodies of other players, but the scenery would be real.
You could also go back to the Dragon's Lair model but just use the expansive storage space to double, triple, or even quadruple the amount of footage. Eventually you might get to a point where you could have a range of actions in a game like Myst, but the whole thing would be as realistic looking as the cinema. I think you could take shortcuts here, obviously, looping some of the footage and not allowing viewers to zoom in on everything or move anywhere. Kinda like how a theme park limits the environment.
Just throwing some stuff out there. I realize it's not practicable at this stage, but seems possible.
Matt Barton, Managing Editor
Location: St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA
Email: matt@armchairarcade.com