Limits of tools?
Brandon Van Every
Expressionism.
I suspect it's a limitation of the tools and the 3d rendering hardware. At
present, I don't have much experience with 3d modelling tools. However I
know what rendering hardware can and can't do. To my mind,
Impressionist/Expressionist rendering would require a brokenness of
polygonal surfaces and a departure from the rigid geometry of triangles.
This could be partly simulated by clouds of z-buffered triangles, much like
a particle system. However, it increases the polygon budget of a given
character, and that's often a no-no as far as the real-time game producers
are concerned.
In your opinion, do we not see Impressionism/Expressionism because:
- it's technically impossible?
- it consumes too many resources?
- our modelling tools tend to force us down another path?
- our game projects tend to force us down another path?
Also I've noticed that most things that get animated in a game are either
some form of biped, or a car, or a spaceship. How many exceptions to this
have you seen?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Erik Hermansen
<vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
>I've not ever seen a real-time game based on, say, Impressionism or Abstract
>Expressionism.
>
>I suspect it's a limitation of the tools and the 3d rendering hardware. At
>present, I don't have much experience with 3d modelling tools. However I
>know what rendering hardware can and can't do. To my mind,
>Impressionist/Expressionist rendering would require a brokenness of
>polygonal surfaces and a departure from the rigid geometry of triangles.
>This could be partly simulated by clouds of z-buffered triangles, much like
>a particle system. However, it increases the polygon budget of a given
>character, and that's often a no-no as far as the real-time game producers
>are concerned.
...
You might have some enlightening fun playing with existing tools to
create these kinds of effects using 2d images. There is a Corel
PhotoPaint plugin called "Alchemy" that will repaint a picture you
give it in a variety of different styles. It doesn't quite have that
human touch, but it is still a clever and interesting algorithm.
There must be something like this in the Photoshop world too.
From this you might think of possibilities for rendering 3d images
using normal methods and then processing the resulting 2d image into
something "artistic".
>In your opinion, do we not see Impressionism/Expressionism because:
...
Somebody will have to make a really good example before this kind of
thing will catch on. Maybe it will happen when people start taking 3d
graphics for granted (unlimited polygons, speed, lighting effects) and
are looking hard for the Next Thing.
/* Deadly Rooms of Death - puzzling game of dungeon */
/* exploration for Windows. Easy to play, damned */
/* hard to win. Download from: */
/* http://webfootgames.com/catalog/drod.htm */
Brandon Van Every
Erik Hermansen wrote in message
>
>You might have some enlightening fun playing with existing tools to
>create these kinds of effects using 2d images. There is a Corel
>PhotoPaint plugin called "Alchemy" that will repaint a picture you
>give it in a variety of different styles. It doesn't quite have that
>human touch, but it is still a clever and interesting algorithm.
>There must be something like this in the Photoshop world too.
>
>From this you might think of possibilities for rendering 3d images
>using normal methods and then processing the resulting 2d image into
>something "artistic".
Yes but the point is to do it in 3D in real-time. Even at SIGGRAPH, all
I've seen is an Impressionist filter for a full-motion video. Which to my
eye, really didn't look all that Impressionistic on closer inspection.
Unfortunately the quality of movement from frame to frame restores the
realist qualities, and there's really nothing of good brushstroke in the
algorithm. Let alone interplay of overlapping / underlapping surfaces ala
Monet's Water Lilies.
We don't have real-time 3D Impressionist filters, nor will we. The question
is, how close can we get to the aesthetic effects using the commodity 3D HW
we've got? The hardware can probably do more than we're asking it, but
there's a performance cost to pay for it, and our tools aren't really
designed to do it. I keep thinking in terms of a hybrid surface modelling /
particle system. Something you could actually implement on top of OpenGL or
Direct3D.
>Somebody will have to make a really good example before this kind of
>thing will catch on. Maybe it will happen when people start taking 3d
>graphics for granted (unlimited polygons, speed, lighting effects) and
>are looking hard for the Next Thing.
Well, we're not ever going to have "unlimited" polygons, speed, lighting
effects, etc. Look at how pathetic the true high-end of real-time 3d
graphics is, the $100,000 machines of today, and you'll see we have a
loooooooooong way to go. So, we might as well start being aesthetically
inventive now. It's a given that corporations are going to move us towards
the "tried and true" methods of rendering. Nevertheless, what can we think
of to push what we've got?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Thatcher Ulrich
<vane...@blarg.net> says...
> I've not ever seen a real-time game based on, say, Impressionism or Abstract
> Expressionism.
Robotron? Tempest?
I think your observation is on target as far as the past few
years of games is concerned. Ironically, some early arcade games
were a lot more visually adventurous than what we see now.
Perhaps *because* of the hardware limitations.
Another good example might be SEGA's Virtua Racing, which was all
flat-shaded and had a pretty interesting look.
Will we ever see a resurgence of the "flat-shaded school"?
--
Thatcher Ulrich
http://world.std.com/~ulrich
Nathan Mates
Brandon Van Every <vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
>I've not ever seen a real-time game based on, say, Impressionism or Abstract
>Expressionism.
I'm not yet a game designer, but I really dislike those art forms,
and really would not want to work on such things. Let's at least get
around to realtime games approaching the quality of the Renaissance
masters, then some can jump forward to the 20th century. :)
[At least the average gaming public has more taste than the suckers
(err, museums & collectors) who pay $$$$$$ for the recent stuff like a
single square on a white background or the like. "Modern" art is a
crock, imho.]
Nathan Mates
[Not speaking officially for anyone]
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/ <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? -R.A. Heinlein
e robson
<vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
>
>In your opinion, do we not see Impressionism/Expressionism because:
>- it's technically impossible?
>- it consumes too many resources?
>- our modelling tools tend to force us down another path?
>- our game projects tend to force us down another path?
It seems far more likely to me that such a stylistic choice hasn't
been made for a game because nobody wanted to do it. If
you look back at Impressionism itself, you'll see that such painterly
experimentation really didn't take flight until after the invention
of photography. It was as if, once the photograph could capture
a more "optically realistic" representation of reality, painters were
released from that duty and were free to explore other territory.
I have a feeling that such a level of abstraction won't be
sought in realtime games for a while, for a couple of reasons:
*We still can't produce photorealistic environments and characters
in realtime. Until this is done, it's the Holy Grail. As long as
we fall short of some optically realistic goal, most art and
technological focus will be on reaching that goal.
*The market. Games are ruthlessly market-driven, and that
market is primarily young males. If we suddenly saw cubist
depictions become hot with The Kids, you'd better believe
someone would start pumping out games that cashed in
on that.
>
>Also I've noticed that most things that get animated in a game are either
>some form of biped, or a car, or a spaceship. How many exceptions to this
>have you seen?
That's probably because most game storylines are standard genre
work. Again, it sells. Or, should I say, the marketing people
know it sells, and discourage developers from taking chances
with subject matter...
erik robson
Cyclone Studios
Geoff Howland
> and really would not want to work on such things. Let's at least get
> around to realtime games approaching the quality of the Renaissance
> masters, then some can jump forward to the 20th century. :)
>
> [At least the average gaming public has more taste than the suckers
> (err, museums & collectors) who pay $$$$$$ for the recent stuff like a
> single square on a white background or the like. "Modern" art is a
> crock, imho.]
These are really just your opinions about art, not anythign based
on how to creat the effects Mr Van Every wants. I personally think Andy
Warhol wasnt much of an artist, because I see fraud all over his work,
but that doesnt mean that he is, and someone else may be in tune with
him and his work and really get something out of it.
Art is what you get out of it and obviously Brandon gets things
from Impressionistic or Abstract Expressionistic work. This is
more a matter of taste than doing something correctly.
Theres a lot to be said about doing something differently than
the way it "really" looks. Thats why people still paint and not
everyone just takes pictures of things.
-G. Howland
Brandon Van Every
Thatcher Ulrich wrote in message ...><vane...@blarg.net> says...
>> I've not ever seen a real-time game based on, say, Impressionism or
Abstract
>> Expressionism.
>
Huh? We on the same page of Art History? :-)
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Brandon Van Every
Nathan Mates wrote in message ...
>In article <6qfn8r$sl8$1...@guysmiley.blarg.net>,
>Brandon Van Every <vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
>>I've not ever seen a real-time game based on, say, Impressionism or
Abstract
>>Expressionism.
>
>and really would not want to work on such things. Let's at least get
>around to realtime games approaching the quality of the Renaissance
>masters, then some can jump forward to the 20th century. :)
[Pardon while I hurl. :-] Does it always gotta look like a duck??!?
> [At least the average gaming public has more taste than the suckers
>(err, museums & collectors) who pay $$$$$$ for the recent stuff like a
>single square on a white background or the like. "Modern" art is a
>crock, imho.]
I wasn't suggesting a Minimalist game, although there was a good thread
about that on rec.arts.int-fiction recently. :-)
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Betty Cunningham
You have hit it squarely on the head.
e robson wrote:
> *The market. Games are ruthlessly market-driven, and that
> market is primarily young males. If we suddenly saw cubist
> depictions become hot with The Kids, you'd better believe
> someone would start pumping out games that cashed in
> on that.
> >Also I've noticed that most things that get animated in a game are either
> >some form of biped, or a car, or a spaceship. How many exceptions to this
> >have you seen?
Lots. I've seen 3-legged creatures, 4 legged monsters, 6 legged
monsters, many times multiple legged monsters, and games like Echo the
Dolphin where the hero has no arms or legs at all......
-Betty Cunningham
Brandon Van Every
Betty Cunningham wrote in message <35CF3FF5...@flyinggoat.com>...
>This is an entirely market-driven industry of course.
>You have hit it squarely on the head.
So let's say you weren't being driven by the market for a moment. Is there
something you'd like to do, at least in your mind, that you don't feel you
can accomplish with your tools?
>Lots. I've seen 3-legged creatures, 4 legged monsters, 6 legged
>monsters, many times multiple legged monsters, and games like Echo the
>Dolphin where the hero has no arms or legs at all......
Hmm, I'm tired of things with legs. How about a combination energy being /
tablecloth?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Thatcher Ulrich
<vane...@blarg.net> says...
>
> Thatcher Ulrich wrote in message ...> ><vane...@blarg.net> says...
> >> I've not ever seen a real-time game based on, say, Impressionism or
> Abstract
> >> Expressionism.
> >
>
> Huh? We on the same page of Art History? :-)
Sort of :) I was thinking Abstract Expressionism, not
Impressionism. Robotron could be classified as "action
painting", to my eye.
Link
>
>Thatcher Ulrich wrote in message ...
>>In article <6qfn8r$sl8$1...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, Brandon Van Every
>><vane...@blarg.net> says...
>>> I've not ever seen a real-time game based on, say, Impressionism or
>Abstract
>>> Expressionism.
>>
>>Robotron? Tempest?
>
>
>Huh? We on the same page of Art History? :-)
Not really, as video games != painting, so you shouldn't go looking for
exact analogies. However, I think Thatcher's analogy completely valid. I
can't see the point in reproducing an effect from late 19th century painting
in videogames, other than as pure novelty. Colourful brushstrokes that
suggest imagery in a slightly abstract way has little to do with abstract
video game images. However, bizarre, vibrant, pulsating colours mixed with
some sloppy overdraw that achieves an overall effect of pure chaos, is. I
think you could do a lot to abstract video game visuals without bringing the
processor down to its knees -- or even requiring a masters in math & cs.
Something like Robotron or Tempest is "truer to the medium" IMO.
- Mike
(sorry, the thread's a bit old now, but I just got hooked up to the new
hierarchy today :)
Brandon Van Every
Thatcher Ulrich wrote in message ...
>
>Sort of :) I was thinking Abstract Expressionism, not
>Impressionism. Robotron could be classified as "action
>painting", to my eye.
Yeah all those little squiggles. :-)
--
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every 3d graphics guy
Experts eliminate the simpler mistakes in favor of the more
complex ones, thereby achieving a higher degree of stupidity. :-)
David Clemons
is to try to look at the problem of using an effect of this nature as a
means of presenting content in a game. It only seems to work if it supports
the game's mood, and appears somewhat 'natural' or akin to what the game is
all about. The flat style of the 2D sprites in "The Last Express" or the
saturated colors in N64 games work well in relationship to the gameplay and
design. Building the art assets for a game and applying a painterly effect
to them afterwards seems way too awkward, not to mention complicated, with
tools that aren't designed to create imagery in this fashion, but still may
not necessarily be verbooten. Cartoon Cell renderers and 2D drawing are
getting popular in art tools lately (like Flash and Cartoon Reyes, etc.),
yet I have some difficulty aesthetically building a modeled shape and
intending it to be displayed as a flat 2D image (or a even painted
Impressionist image); it's too much of a different approach creatively, but
I'd be interested in seeing how an 3D game engine might emulate the 2D
display of a cartoon character. Seeing a Dilbert game, for instance, in
modeled 3D would seem unappropriate. Not every game from now on needs to be
3D to be a winner; take Oddworld, for instance. I'm also trying to imagine
what Impressionist scultpture would *look* like. Robert Areneson perhaps or
Claus Oldenberg?
-david clemons
Link wrote in message <6qq6od$t0v$1...@news.interlog.com>...
Brandon Van Every
David Clemons wrote in message <6qsh0a$8ev$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>
>I'm also trying to imagine
>what Impressionist scultpture would *look* like. Robert Areneson perhaps or
>Claus Oldenberg?
Part of the problem is we typically build our 3D models with continuous
surfaces, and we typically expect them to be coherent from all vantage
points. Yet an object doesn't have to actually exist or be capable of
existing in 3D space to give the illusion of being 3D. Trying to render
from the viewer's perspective, and not encoding models for a 3D global
perspective, is a fun little mindbender I haven't fully embarked upon yet.
@tmbg.org Matthew Gallant
>Sort of :) I was thinking Abstract Expressionism, not
>Impressionism. Robotron could be classified as "action
>painting", to my eye.
>
bet Mondrian could have come up with a good sequel to Qix!
Link
>
>David Clemons wrote in message <6qsh0a$8ev$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>>
>>I'm also trying to imagine
>>what Impressionist scultpture would *look* like. Robert Areneson perhaps
or
>>Claus Oldenberg?
>
>
>Part of the problem is we typically build our 3D models with continuous
>surfaces, and we typically expect them to be coherent from all vantage
>points. Yet an object doesn't have to actually exist or be capable of
>existing in 3D space to give the illusion of being 3D. Trying to render
>from the viewer's perspective, and not encoding models for a 3D global
>perspective, is a fun little mindbender I haven't fully embarked upon yet.
Actually, thinking about the "impressionist" style a bit more... you know,
programs like Photoshop & Fractal Painter have some filters that transform
the image into a reasonable facsimile of all kinds of painted effects.
They're pretty quick already in 24-bit RGB on a fast PC/Mac, but if you're
an optimization wizard, you might be able to write one of those filters for
real time -- apply it to each frame after it's rendered "realistically".
It's a cheap trick, but it could work :)
- Mike
Brandon Van Every
Link wrote in message <6qvetb$al8$1...@news.interlog.com>...
>
>Actually, thinking about the "impressionist" style a bit more... you know,
>programs like Photoshop & Fractal Painter have some filters that transform
>the image into a reasonable facsimile of all kinds of painted effects.
>They're pretty quick already in 24-bit RGB on a fast PC/Mac, but if you're
>an optimization wizard, you might be able to write one of those filters for
>real time -- apply it to each frame after it's rendered "realistically".
>It's a cheap trick, but it could work :)
The problem is that as you say, it's a cheap trick. I've never seen an
"Impressionistically filtered" 2D image that I thought remotely looked like
a good Impressionist painting. There's no intelligence of brushstroke, no
interplay between figure and medium. It's just being done by an extremely
stupid mathematical algorithm, what would you expect?
Rather, I'd like to see the Impressionist brushstroke used as the
fundamental 3D art primitive, not as a post-process. That way, a skilled
artist could produce interesting results much like they do with other 3D
primitives nowadays.
Unfortunately, our commodity 3d hardware is not up to these tasks and
probably won't be for a decade, if then. So we have to figure out how to
fake it with the primitives we've got.
Cheers, 3d graphics guy
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Gavin Bell
>I've not ever seen a real-time game based on, say, Impressionism or Abstract
>Expressionism.
>
>I suspect it's a limitation of the tools and the 3d rendering hardware. At
>present, I don't have much experience with 3d modelling tools. However I
>know what rendering hardware can and can't do. To my mind,
>Impressionist/Expressionist rendering would require a brokenness of
>polygonal surfaces and a departure from the rigid geometry of triangles.
>This could be partly simulated by clouds of z-buffered triangles, much like
>a particle system. However, it increases the polygon budget of a given
>character, and that's often a no-no as far as the real-time game producers
>are concerned.
Artfully painted, animated, transparent 2&1/2 D sprites could be used.
After all, we're talking abstract art here, not realistic lighting,
shading, etc-- flat, low-polygon (but lots of texture) abstract shapes
would be extremely appropriate.
>In your opinion, do we not see Impressionism/Expressionism because:
>- it's technically impossible?
I say yes.
>- it consumes too many resources?
No.
>- our modelling tools tend to force us down another path?
Yes
>- our game projects tend to force us down another path?
Yes.
I've been meaning to create an artistic, abstract background
("skybox") for Quake or UnReal, but I'm afraid I just don't have
enough artistic talent ("Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer, not an
Artist!"). Shameless plug: creating a beautiful, artistic background
should be pretty easy using SkyPaint (see www.wasabisoft.com).
Brandon Van Every
Gavin Bell wrote in message <35d9aac8...@news2.newscene.com>...
>I like this thread!
Cool! Keep it going, keep it going.
>Artfully painted, animated, transparent 2&1/2 D sprites could be used.
>After all, we're talking abstract art here, not realistic lighting,
>shading, etc-- flat, low-polygon (but lots of texture) abstract shapes
>would be extremely appropriate.
That's such a startlingly simple idea that it just might work. And here I
am worrying about compositing the 3d stuff. Forget the 3d. Use it to find
locations, then splatter some 2D on the screen. It would even give me the
excuse to implement an exceedingly simple geometry engine and not have to
deal with OpenGL or Direct3D for a change.
>>- our game projects tend to force us down another path?
>
>Yes.
Well how about this for a project. The beautiful 2 1/2 3D world of Dungeon
Keeper as an Edvard Munch painting? I'm gonna keep bringing up "DK as
Whatever" until someone pukes. :-)
Russell Murchie
I've missed the thread of this, but you're talking 2 1/2 D graphics, a
friend of mine works for a company that seems to do a lot of these really
nice 2D 'Cardboard cutout' 3D models which look really great, they have done
a couple of TV ads using it, every thing looks 2D, yet is unmistakibly (?)
3D...... Poly models would be pretty cheap doing this, 'cause everything is
texture based....just a thought.
You can see a whole buch of their work at
http://www.unreal.com.au/unreal.html
RussellM
Beam Software