On 11-6-2012 17:13, nemesis wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 9-6-2012 5:47, Darren New wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>>>
>>> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
>>> in real time.
>>>
>>
>> It looks great. The downside of having so much detail and so much
>> flexibility is that for a reasonable world someone has to provide that
>> detail.
>> On the one hand: think of what Thomas de Groot could do with this for
>> his Gancaloon. On the other hand, he'll need to put in a lot of detail
>> in every place that might be visited, not just the ones he makes a
>> closeup for. That will mean many years of work. There will be no way to
>> justify that expense. Unless someone is going to shoot a holywood
>> blockbuster in his town.
>
> I see you have not been playing games lately.  The amount of detail these days
> that goes into what amounts to be essentially background scenery is staggering
> in games like Assassin's Creed.  Though I agree procedural grebling with stock
> models should be a must.

I don't play, but I have seen enough to know they do. So that was not 
the point. The point was that you need a large team and a large amount 
of money just to build a game using such an engine. (And that is without 
a story or gameplay yet.)
If such an engine is stable enough for a significant time you might get 
communities to develop something together. Giving the current evolution 
speed I am not sure if this engine will be useable by any other than a 
few major player in the games industry. But I'll ask my games students 
what they think about it when I see them after the summer holidays.

Post a reply to this message