Men, Women, Gamers, Graphics Designers...

Bongo · **on:** August 01, 2011, 10:37:42 PM

[align=center]Now before I go into the grand epicness of epic, I would just like to tell you that this is NOT just a new topic for Video Gamers, but for EVERYBODY. This will defiantly revolutionize the FUTURE of ANY digital imagery, whether it be Video Games, Movie CGI, school projects, the works! So all I ask from you is that you sit back, relax, and enjoy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Video Game graphics...

In today's modern society, video game graphics are nothing more than a polygon; flat shapes that when put together create a 3-Dimensional object. When the first 3D game with these polygons came out, we were still in an age of 16-Bit games, so when we made the switch from 16-Bit to 3D Polygons, the video game industry was changed forever. That was way back then, probably back in the 90's or late 80's when these polygons were finally mastered. NOW, my dear children, is time for a change.

The time is August 1st, 2011. I ask that you go pick up and play one of the latest games boasting their 'amazing graphics'. Play it on a big screen or sit very close to the TV or computer monitor. Let's take a game like Just Cause 2. Get lost in the forest, more preferably a clearing with many trees nearby. Look around you. The world looks amazing, doesn't it? Take a pause for a closer look. Kneel down and take a look at the ground. It's nothing more than a high resolution texture with pictures of grass sticking up through the ground. Take a look at the trees. High in detail, yes, but looking closer, still has a flat and bland look and feel to it. Now go up into the sky and fly towards the nearest city. Notice how things either disappear into a fog or appear once they get into view.

All of these little things are there due to the restriction of the polygon count. It's like having a single LEGO set. You can build what ever you want; as long as you got enough pieces for the job. That's a problem with many video game graphics today. They have to cheapen out or take shortcuts to compensate with the polygon count. Models have to be a lower resolution, sprites are used and keep its frontal view facing the player, backdrops may be nothing more than a flat 2D image, and don't forget the fog or objects appearing once the player gets into view.

However, a single company dares to be different. A company that will take a great leap and stride into computer graphics. A company that abandoned the entire polygon idea and instead chose to go a different route...

THE ATOM[/align]

I will let the video do the rest of the talking, as it goes more in depth than I could. It shows off the true power of what the atom can do, and I am fairly certain that this will be the next revolution in Video Game and Digital Imagery itself. So let's talk and discuss about what this brand new product can do for us, because I am highly anticipating the release of this. It is still pretty early in development, so I will be very happy about the finished product. Imagine what people could use this for! Video games will look much more beautiful, Movie graphics will look FAR more convincing, students can use it as a learning aid or for a project, the list goes on! I am curious as to how you are reacting to this as well, because undoubtedly, this is pretty amazing.

Petrie85 · **Reply #1 on:** August 02, 2011, 07:26:52 AM

I for one still the the classic gaming graphics very good. I love the classic games that came out for the Nintendo Sega Nintendo 64 and so on. Those graphics are still good to this day. I will always be a classic gaming fan. Always. I still play Nintendo Games Super Nintendo Games and so on. Great fun and great graphics. The newer 3D type Graphics are cool to see but can be to bright at times. Witch makes your game playing time cut short. So you're saying that the old graphics are better or horrible than today's newer graphics? I've compared them to the old ones. And I like the old ones a lot more actually. They''re not bright and blinding to the eyes like the new graphics are. The old graphics where I think possible made by hand instead of computers. And I can agree with you there Bongo. Company's do take the cheap way out with the new graphics. The old ones they took there time. So I will stick to my old games still. I love the Wii and all but there is nothing like those classic 80's and 90's games still. They will always be enjoyable to play till this time.

2007excalibur2007 · **Reply #2 on:** August 02, 2011, 09:20:45 AM

Has anyone seen my jaw? I think I dropped it somewhere.

vonboy · **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2011, 12:00:30 PM

I don't want to sound like a skeptic, but I just don't understand how this is supposed to work. they said that that island in the demo has something like 21 trillion atoms. So many problems with this comes up in my head. I don't know a computer that can deal with 21 trillion of ANYTHING quickly. That's just a ridiculous number. Also, how much space on a hard drive space or even ram will this take up? Even if every atom only took up 1 bite of memory, that'd be 21 terabytes of hard drive space, or 21 TB of ram (lol).

Could someone please explain how the **** this is supposed to work?

I'm not going to believe this till I see it running on my own computer.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2011, 11:48:38 PM

I won't pretend to be an expert at graphics. I got out of video games a long time ago. I can tell you exactly how 256 colors renders on a CRT monitor, but my knowledge of this sort of technology comes from my experience with much older stuff and the things that I know now based on non graphics technology. You don't have to know how new graphics technology works anymore to do your job as a computer tech. That being said, I believe this is possible with the right hardware and a good graphics engine. The fact that it's going through a converter makes the developer's jobs easier.

Quote

Could someone please explain how the **** this is supposed to work?

Not everything is visible in 100% detail all the time. For example, you can't see the individual specks of dirt just walking around, but if you want to see them you can "zoom up" in effect rendering more graphics. Programming doesn't quite work like that. Each individual speck of dirt or atom doesn't take up a byte of space. It's rendered using a special engine. Just like a 2000x2000 picture doesn't take up 4,000,000 bytes of storage even though that's how many pixels are in the image itself. There are many other factors such as color depth, quality, and other things that determine how much space the image takes on your computer.

Petrie85 · **Reply #5 on:** August 03, 2011, 12:07:24 AM

I for one think the Atom graphics are more beautiful and very nice looking. I'm looking forward to these new type graphics to be coming into our video games. They're a lot better than the Polygon graphics we have today. And that is saying a lot right there. And I do find it hard to believe that a machine can hold twenty one trillion plus atoms and still run very fast. I bet they where using some kind of very strong computer or something. Still it's amazing and looking forward to these sometime in the future.

Bongo · **Reply #6 on:** August 03, 2011, 02:05:03 AM

Right now, we look back at 8-Bit and 16-Bit graphics with such fancy and nostalgia. Maybe about 10-20 years in the future, if this product DOES become successful and becomes intergrated into everyday lives, our Polygons of today would soon become the modern day equivelent of 8 and 16-Bit Graphics.

"Whoa Doc, this is heavy."
"There's that word again, heavy. Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?"

Justin1993 · **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2011, 05:18:35 AM

I thought at first this was amazing. And, with PC graphics becoming more and more advanced, this could work with a PC. However, consoles are behind in graphics. It'll be a while before any kind of console is made to run the technology. Especially with movements. None of the objects in the videos had any kind of animation, which puts me on the doubt side. When I see an object animated with this technology, I'll be less doubtful. I don't think any game companies will adopt this technology any time soon, but in the future, maybe. I liked the octopus cactus

Oh and the fact that they scanned the rock in and added it amazed me

Bongo · **Reply #8 on:** August 03, 2011, 01:18:59 PM

Give it time. It took a while to perfect CD-Based games before, and even more for just simple polygon games, remember? Don't worry, we just have to wait for it to come out, although frankly by the time that comes out it will become part of our Grand kid's generation, and out fingers will be too old or frail to hold a controller or a mouse n' keyboard

Campion1 · **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2011, 07:44:44 AM

For some reason I didn't find that tech demo to be terribly impressive. I mean they went as far as comparing trees. If I can see that it's a tree in Crysis 2 then my mind tells me it's a tree, regardless if the roots on it can't be seen going into the ground. It's something called immersion.

However my number one gripe with games today is that texture quality is usually either average or poor at best. When I look at the ground or cliff of a nuclear ravaged world, I expect to see rocks and rubble and whatnot, not just blurry bump mapping. When I look at a paper, poster or wall with text on it, I expect to be able to read it. I have come to a lot of instances in recent games where many walls were nothing but blurry messes. Things like that can remind me that I'm playing a video game, and not fully bringing myself into the world it's trying to illustrate. Sometimes I prefer it when games allow detail textures, so even if a certain part of scenery looks terrible, they'd be able to compensate with the illusion that you're looking at a stone wall or whatever.

Petrie85 · **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2011, 08:08:31 AM

I for one think this will make video games a lot better. Those where very impressive graphics right there. So I think these will maybe boost game sales in the near future for us gamer's. And yes some of today's game graphics are very hard to see today. I think because the designers maybe rushed a bit to the game finished if there is blurryness in there. Witch isn't good. I've notice that in some games as well. Not all but some witch kinda made me mad. so I have high hopes with these new atom graphics.

kjeldo · **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2011, 10:59:48 AM

Quote from: Petrie85,Aug 5 2011 on 07:08 AM

I for one think this will make video games a lot better.

Maybe they should focus more on the gameplay again instead of the graphics, as those got more attention the last years.

Littlefoot Fan · **Reply #12 on:** August 12, 2011, 05:38:55 PM

I don't really know what to think of this. It was very hard to even take this video seriously. WHY was that guy talking like such a moron? Is that how he just always talks? Jeez it was annoying.

Anyway, what they showed in the video was certainly nice looking, but I would love to know how on earth they are going to get entire heavily detailed environments to run at acceptable framerates. Well whether this is real or not, this certainly is the future of game development, since you can only do so much with polygons. Everything in real-life is actually made up of atoms, they are just so tiny that we cannot see them, so we perceive groups of these atoms as whole objects. That's pretty much exactly what this engine is doing.

Also who are these people, what company is this? Euclideon? I've never even heard of them before...