   30 year deadline for 3D game
  I'd like to spend at least 30 years on a killer game. By that time, everything can be raytraced and made from millions or even billions of polygons. At least for me, hacks like texture mapping or even bump mapping will be less of a priority for me.Basically, I'd like to know a basic universal 3D format that will still be around in 30 years time so I can begin designing the polygon structure of the game. Preferably, it will allow scope for materials too (but I want super low-level definitions, not just presets like 'glass' or 'wood' etc.)Finally, the ideal 3D format would be programmable through C. In other words I would want to program any point of any polygon to move in any way. I'm guessing something like OpenGL would support this kind of thing.What 3D format would be best? And what (preferably cheap) 3D software can get me started on this 30 year-long quest?Many thanks all for any answers to these questions!   
  I assume this is a joke, but I have a few minutes to spare, so what the hey.Forget it. You have no possible way of knowing what will be around in 30 years time and neither does anyone else. You could ask John Carmack, Cliffy B, Will Wright or anyone else what was going to happen to game development, in terms of design, 3d formats, platforms, genres, 3d engines or whatever, and they'd be lucky if they got it 5% right. Chances are that we won't be using polygons in 30 years time. It might be subdivision surfaces or splines or some other high level approximation of polys that hasn't even be adopted yet.Besides, even if you ignore the fact that whatever you come up with won't work in 30 years, whatever you came up with would be crap in 30 years. It used to be said that todays FMV would be realtime in five years, and it's probably less now. In other words, even if you created the highest quality you can currently manage with the high end rendering tools, it would be old tech in six years, and you'd still have 24 more years to go.   ;  Not a joke - I just have big ambitions :)Quote:terms of design, 3d formats, platforms, genres, 3d engines or whatever, and they'd be lucky if they got it 5% right.That's why I want to work on as low a level as possible. You surely can't go wrong with designing a super-detailed polygon mesh for a game, even if it's 30 years away.To take 2D graphics as an example, one can (almost) be sure that pixels will still be around in 30 years time. Pictures will still probably be defined by a 2D array of pixels. Even if they aren't defined that way, the quality will still be exceptional given 30 years of work.Let's say I do work on billions of polygons, and it turns out the future is a bunch of purely mathematical surfaces, one could still convert it I'm guessing.Also bear in mind that there are graphics today which look amazing, but only run at 0.01 frames per second (i.e. unplayable). I hope to design to that level of detail, and when the future comes (say 30 years from now), it will run at a super smooth 60fps or more.Quote:Besides, even if you ignore the fact that whatever you come up with won't work in 30 years, whatever you came up with would be crap in 30 years.I'll be aiming more for highly detailed and tasty, but at least partially abstract graphics. I'm not going for super-uber realism, at least not at first. Even something like the Tron film had graphics which in many ways would look 'polished' in 30 years, even if they're not as sophisticated.So again, which current low-level universal 3D format would most fit what I'm looking for?[Edited by - TwinbeeUK on May 2, 2009 10:41:12 AM];  No, really. You can't say anything about it. For example look at the games 30 years ago: here. These are all 2D, with the pixels visable and some just lines. Nobody could imagine a game like Crysis (with milions of triangles) to emerge within a few years. Nobody could even imagine that we would have triangles in 3D space in our games in just 30 years.The same is true for the future. We can't "see" what lies in the future of game development. Thirty years is just too much. The splines that sybixsus proposed could be just as wrong as another representation.Edit: reply on your edit.2D graphics were then defined as lines/shapes and for the exeptional games as pixel arrays. It's still the same but the procedural textures are gaining field. Emiel1   ;  My point is that even if that is true, one can convert it whatever format exists at that point. There are many awesome artistic/highly detailed 3D pictures around today, and the future will animate those so that they run in realtime. We can certainly expect something along those lines.With enough polygons, and maybe some texture mapping, results will eventually reach a point where the eye can't tell any difference anyway.   ;  Forget C, forget DirectX, forget OpenGL, forget raytracing, forget polygons. None of those are gonna matter (probably won't even be around). Here's my best uneducated guess about the lowest level file format for computer games in 30 years. If we don't just go down the road of cyberbrains, instead. Then I have no clue. Maybe neurons?Quote:Original post by TwinbeeUKWith enough polygons, and maybe some texture mapping, results will eventually reach a point where the eye can't tell any difference anyway.It will probably be like that but go into the direction of augmented reality, but that's not 30 years out, more like five years.Quote:Original post by sybixsusIt used to be said that todays FMV would be realtime in five years, and it's probably less now. I already can't tell the difference between some of the in-game cutscenes and FMVs in PS3 games like DMC4 and Uncharted. The only way I can tell in Uncharted is if I put on a custom costume and it disappears during the cutscene.   ;  In 30 years we are going to raytrace volumes instead of polygons or polynomial surfaces for sure.;  Good point. Though I thought even if polygons are 'empty inside' as the representation inside the computer, they are still *treated* as if they were solid when doing the final raytrace.lightbringer, the qubit looks complicated, but hey maybe. I like the idea of using a bunch of voxels, or 'atoms' for a game. Make every part truly interactive.Naturally, one can convert between polygons, atoms, voxels, qubits etc., given a high enough res to start with.   ;  I can gurantee you that if you spend 30 years making a different game every three years then your last few games will be of significantly higher quality than your single 30 year game. Plus you'll have ten games instead of one.   ;  Sounds like this is more of a 30-year graphics demo than a game. Do you actually have any gameplay in mind, or is it just graphics?   