Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unbundling the game engine: The rise of next generation 3D creation engines

a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Unbundling the game engine: The rise of next generation 3D creation engines

#21

Post by sim7c00 »

catapart wrote: post #4

As a game dev, most of this sounds unappealing. A "next gen" game engine would let me open it up and describe the type of game I was making and then plop me into a scene with all of the basics set up via non-desctructive, procedurally-generated content that I could edit and refactor in a real-time environment and then one-click-export to common platforms. For example, I could type "a open world 3d game", or "a pong-l…

honestly, a non visual artist game dev might be intetested in generative ai for art.. this is not at all a weird thought. theres lots of creators of gameplay systems and cool.ideas who dont have the hands.to male beautiful creative stuff. it would help them unleash their creative game ideas without the burden of making visual art. i like it honestly.. 'make me a nice wooden crate', 'make a city in style x'. why not?

Re: Unbundling the game engine: The rise of next generation 3D creation engines

#22

Post by netbioserror »

This reads like a TED talk full of hand-wavy marketing-friendly vagueness and ambiguity. May as well just say next-gen engines will be faster, better-looking, and cheaper to work with, leave it at that, and let history prove you uncannily prophetic.

Re: Unbundling the game engine: The rise of next generation 3D creation engines

#24

Post by krapp »

catapart wrote: post #4

As a game dev, most of this sounds unappealing. A "next gen" game engine would let me open it up and describe the type of game I was making and then plop me into a scene with all of the basics set up via non-desctructive, procedurally-generated content that I could edit and refactor in a real-time environment and then one-click-export to common platforms. For example, I could type "a open world 3d game", or "a pong-l…

The thing is, "AI art" and the like aren't meant for creative people, they're meant for those who consider the act of creativity itself to be "tedious, complicated, error-prone bullshit." People who can't even comprehend it being fun and meaningful in and of itself, but who can only see the inefficiency of a human process which needs to be optimized and automated away so that a commercially viable product can be delivered to market as quickly and efficiently as possible. So that they can "be a writer" without knowing how to write, or "be an artist" without knowing how to draw. "Make a game" without being able to write a line of code. And most importantly at all, not have to pay writers, artists or coders a dime.

This is why AI, for all of its potential good (and I do believe that potential exists, no technology has an inherent moral or ethical axis) can only inevitably be a cancer on society, because those developing it, putting up the funding and pushing the research, want the ends without the means.

Re: Unbundling the game engine: The rise of next generation 3D creation engines

#25

Post by krapp »

sim7c00 wrote: post #21
catapart wrote: post #4

As a game dev, most of this sounds unappealing. A "next gen" game engine would let me open it up and describe the type of game I was making and then plop me into a scene with all of the basics set up via non-desctructive, procedurally-generated content that I could edit and refactor in a real-time environment and then one-click-export to common platforms. For example, I could type "a open world 3d game", or "a pong-l…

honestly, a non visual artist game dev might be intetested in generative ai for art.. this is not at all a weird thought. theres lots of creators of gameplay systems and cool.ideas who dont have the hands.to male beautiful creative stuff. it would help them unleash their creative game ideas without the burden of making visual art. i like it honestly.. 'make me a nice wooden crate', 'make a city in style x'. why not?

> 'make me a nice wooden crate', 'make a city in style x'. why not?

For the first part, you can literally just buy game assets like this, if not find them for free.

For the second part, game environments are designed. You can't just "make a city in style X" and drop a player model somewhere and expect it to be fun.

And overall, the more you trust the AI, the less of your own creative vision you have control over. Either the AI is creating everything, looking as generic and mediocre as all AI art does no actual sign of unique creative vision on your part, or else you have to put in effort, in which case you don't need the AI.

Re: Unbundling the game engine: The rise of next generation 3D creation engines

#26

Post by GabeIsko »

netbioserror wrote: post #22

This reads like a TED talk full of hand-wavy marketing-friendly vagueness and ambiguity. May as well just say next-gen engines will be faster, better-looking, and cheaper to work with, leave it at that, and let history prove you uncannily prophetic.

Yeah, it's from Andreessen Horowitz. This stuff exists for software managers to point to when they make purchasing decisions in B2B. Doesn't serve any practical purpose.

It is weird seeing my hobbyist game dev and professional enterprise software world collide like this. Articles like this made sense when Facebook was willing to put up billions for VR services. But that was a bust, and now you have tons of consultants spinning their wheels. There is no reason any game studio or publisher needs to be told what game engine is good, I don't even think they care as long as they can make a good game. It's not a huge organization that you are trying to rally around some kind of decision.

Re: Unbundling the game engine: The rise of next generation 3D creation engines

#27

Post by dogma1138 »

ary wrote: post #3

How does Source 2 not make it onto this "Market Map"? It's mostly used by Valve and a smaller number of studios than something like Unreal, but it's viable none the less. I suspect it has a much broader user reach than several of the entries on the Open Source end of this map. https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source Perhaps it doesn't qualify by some arbitrary "next generation" status, but Unreal does?

It seems that all the engines listed are publicly available with a defined licensing scheme for 3rd party development.

Source doesn’t fall under this there are dozens of other proprietary engines out there.

Post reply on HN