quote: Original post by Sandman
[offtopic techie rant]

AI accelerators are a pretty stupid idea if you think about it. Graphics accelerators work because output to the screen is a one way operation - the game tells the card what to draw and the card goes away and does it. The game itself doesnt care what the outcome is. Advances like TnL and programmable shaders enable more stuff to be done on the card without the app needing to know about it. Note that if you ever read stuff back off the card, you get massive slowdown because the upload bandwidth across the agp/pci bus is so crap. Also note that if you run a demo with just graphics (no AI/physics or anything) youll find that hardware TnL is actually slower than software TnL - you only get a speedup in games because offloading it to the card gives the CPU more cycles to do other stuff like AI and physics etc, and ultimately less data needs to be sent across the bus each frame.

AI on the other hand, is a two way thing. The game needs to give the AI engine inputs and then needs to read the outputs. There is absolutely no point in a AI card because the bandwidth problems, memory latencies, download and upload speeds, etc. are going to prove far slower than just doing it in software. More hassle than it is worth, at least with conventional computer architectures. The best we can really hope for is some specific opcodes coded into CPU''s to make standard AI functions easier, a sort of AI Now! feature in cpu''s.
[/offtopic techie rant]

OK, now it is my turn for the offtopic techie rant... I don''t see this "AI Card" as something along the lines of an Accellerator. I see it as a parallel processor. It basically runs the same way that a normal CPU should function running a threaded function on its devoted AI place. This card wouldn''t necessarily be required for ONLY AI, and could be used to parallely speed up using a threading routine for Any function.

Unfortunately, as I am well aware, there would be no support for allowing threading, but IIRC a few years ago there was no Autodetect for Cards and PnP didn''t exist, so I expect that threading for functions onto parallel CPU''s could be possible from a theoretical standpoint.

The drawback I can see immediately is that it would require some devoted RAM that would have to be removed from access by the standard CPU, or it would have to be onboard the card...

But I would still definitely like to see somebody look into such an idea. It may not have the one way functionality that 3D accs do... but it should never be designed in the same way.

But it is all speculation and maybe I am just a dreamer

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - The future of RPGs Thanks to all the goblins in the GDCorner niche

Well , after reading all of the posts a few points can be concluded :

1.Developers have almost stereotyped their own death trap . In what I mean by this is that developers have been making 3D games for the last 4 years or so that that is what the public will expect . Also this doesn''t just apply to 3D though . There are some people that would think less of a game if it didn''t have any computer animated movies .

2.Taking a 2D game or concept and turing it into 3D generally is a bad idea . This rarely works and proves to create confusing and or bad game design . For example Tetris . Tetris is a great 2D puzzel game , but when you extend it into the third dimension things go horribly wrong . You have to concentrate on several different camera veiws just to see how everything fits together and it is just doesn''t work , and not to mention its high difficulty factor .

3.Most 3D games that are being put out on the market seem to concentrate on special effects rather than the game . This usually deprives its creativity and gameplay/"fun" factor . This is most likely why MANY 2D games will be cherished forever , because the 2D limits the effects you can produce so you are left to let the developer concentrate on game design and gameplay and let the player enjoy the game . But this doesn''t always apply . Quake at the time had incredible effects but yet had that incredible "fun" factor .

4.There is still a world of 2D games but that boils down to two things . One is old classics that people like to go back to and the other is 2D games that are being developed via the net and things but I have yet to see one professionaly done and thats one thing I''d like to see one of the big developers do .

5.2D gameplay can still apply but instead of using sprites you use 3D which for marketing and developing reasons help developers .

6.What we''re all looking for is a real game . Not some hyped up pumped to the max with detail and realism peice of software . What we all want is something that has that "fun" factor and is creative and addictive .

--reality_G

Speaking of two-d and three graphics, this is a little off-topic but I have looked around some and cannot find any information on this type of isometric view I''m thinking of. I''m not talking about blitting 2d images that are make to look isometric; I''m talking about rendering polygons on the edges of a screen without a z factor. If you''ve seen 3D studio max''s top, left, and... et. cetra views, that''s what I mean. This would allow you to scroll backgrounds in 2d but render them in true isometric glory. It would be a lot more flexable than a bunch of bmp tiles that you have to wrestle with. I would imagine it wouldn''t be the biggest problem to render higer-rez textures since the polygons would only be on the edges and not have a z value. This also couldn''t be associated with amatures since it would be hard. I suppose that it would probally be worth is just to move to 3d but it seems like some speed could be gained. Has this been done?

I thought Diablo 2 had really sucky graphics, I preferred Diablo 1s graphics.

quote: Original post by reality_G
Ever since people have gotton real excited about 3D in 1996 after Quake developers have been producing 3D games . But what about 2D games ? Maybe because developers think its bad marketing or they think 2D games just aren''t a game any more , I don''t know but one thing is for sure 2D games have disappeared . Some of the best games have been 2D and it seems developers go out of their way to make games 3D . I suppose people don''t want to ever go back the "archaic" 2D but there is nothing wrong with that . Some games are just ment to be 2D such as Mario . Although Mario 64 is a good game it just wasn''t some how Mario anymore . I think it would have been great if it was 2D ( although it never could have been , I mean what stupid way to pilot the N64 with a 2D game ). Now let''s take a moment and jump to the late 1980''s and early 1990''s . Super Mario Bros. makes its break to the NES . Everybody loved , it was incredible .
Then later Super Mario Bros. 2 came out but in my opinion was a messed up game with Mario characters slapped into it . Now we jump to Super Mario Bros. 3 . The game was outstanding , this was like the original only better . It had everything and was incredibly well done . See , now you take that jump from Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario Bros. 3 and you can see that the following games in the Mario series naturally fit a 2D evironment . So like I said some games are just better 2D . If you think I''m just taking some nostalgic trip to the game classics I''m not . I am simply stating that 2D games can have a place in the market today and some games just are better if they are 2D . But not to mention that some outstanding games are 3D .
Like quake , that game will never leave my hardrive . Another one to mention , among hundreds , is Catycalism . A some what duely noted game that just blows you away . It is 3D realtime war strategy game that takes place in space and really takes advantage of the third dimension .So in closing , where are those 2D games ?
--reality_G

quote: Until developers concentrate on GAMEPLAY and not the 3D effects, the 2D games will still be better.

Edited by - Supernova on July 4, 2001 11:27:52 AM

Pal, my words in your mouth. I''d say until developers concentrate on GAMEPLAY and not EFFECTS (0d, 1d, 2d, 3d), games will simply be boring. It''s like Hollywood: the best films are not those with the best special effects (remember Balir Witch Project? Budget about $40000, income in the first month somwhere at $100''000''000 :-)

Gabriel

2D isn''t dead, anybody who says so is completely out of whack!

Just check my sig

---
No game will ever rule more than CBT!

I would like to put this diablo 2 thing at a rest and get back to the topic . Yes the graphics were below what most people expected but there is a reason for this . If you ever tried installing diablo 2 you will find it takes up a nice chunk of space . So think about it , if you increased the resolution and the color range you would create a spatial nightmare . Some would like to argue that this isn''t a big deal since they have 80 gig hard drives , well I have news for you . This game was released a year ago and not everybody has 80 gig HDs . Also its cheaper to release the game on fewer CDs .

--reality_G

I definitely agree with Wavinator about gamers'' PCs.
I run Win98, 4GB HD, 32 MEG RAM, no acceleration(at all).
I even have games I want to write that wouldn''t run on my
machine.
I make up for it with a drawer full of PSX games.

It''s sad. I have almost given up on PC games. I just bought a Game Boy Advance. 90% of the PC games coming out these days are ugly looking 3d games that can easily be classified as Tomb Raider/Quake/Command & Conquer/Racing/Sports. The only game I''m looking forward to a little right now is Arcanum.