David, Yoni, and Robert’s projects are representative of their diverse skills, points of view, and intuition about the future of interactive media. The Disney Coaster was a project I was familiar with. Their third generation seemed to solve some of the problems of previous versions in a logical way. The interface and graphics were well chosen for the property. However, I was disappointed that their client didn’t give them more to work with. The Disney brand is extremely powerful. And as Dan Winters pointed out in February, the theme parks are an “untapped asset” with huge potential. Given the budget and input, the Disney Coaster project could be a tent pole project for everyone involved.

Rob said, “Really good games hide the limitations of the technology.” I completely agree with this comment and think it reflects the process of problem solving and interest in artful technology. There are always limitations to a product, even when the budget is extravagant, and applying this real world approach is essential to success. This philosophy was also represented in their 3D Tool Set for animation. Creative people need tools to visualize their ideas for stories and characters. Of course that is also what 3D Studio promised many years ago, before they sold out to the studios.

“XLT” - stay small, keep real, and empower the artist!

Though I expressed some criticism during the talk, I think XLT's animation software is great. I've often felt that to be an animator it takes a certain degree of anal retention and certainly superhuman patience. Seeing the development of a fast and easy way to do computer animation is wonderful, for two main reasons:

Firstly, it appears to have great potential as a pre-vis tool. The production cycles on animation are just insane, and as this software develops it will be interesting to see how much it can do, how fast, and how much time it saves (granted it depends on the project).

Secondly, and I think most importantly, it opens up a complicated profession to the creative masses. Like Director, Flash, etc, it has the potential to be something great. As I see it, it depends on a balance between robustness and ease of use. Things like Bryce 3d are easy, by churn out the same old junk (at least the last time I saw its product). Poser has gone through an interesting evolution, and has become more robust. More and more refined content is coming out of it now. That's not to say the software has to be robust. People who are highly creative can create some great stuff with a limited toolset. However, they aren't the majority.

I'd love to use the software, and will be very interested to see where it all goes.

I gotta say, I was really impressed with the Disney Coaster project presented by XLT last Wednesday--it sort of inspired me to see a smaller-budget game that is still complete and fun to play, maybe even more so because it looked like something I could code myself, given enough time.

Their animation system for creating Machinima-based animation was impressive too, though I agree with many of my colleagues who suggested that this program would be better suited to individuals and small groups of artists, rather than targeting large-scale companies. I would like to see them release this product at a consumer-level price tag, say no more than $200. What they lose per unit, they would definitely make up in units sold. One thing though, I found it sort of counter-intuitive that one had to create the animations in Maya first. Perhaps bundling their software with a library of pre-recorded animations that could be applied to ANY character model would further bridge this gap between professional 3D animator and common artist.

The most interesting thing that came out of the XLT talk to me was the game design strategies that go into building a game about building. I was impressed w/ the team's approach to this issue, choosing to try and allow users to play a game that they essentially build. I suppose this is somewhat true w/ all level editors, but I think what they've done with these games is very nice, as they are essentially designing two different experiences that both have to be engaging: the building and the playing of the built environment.

The 3D middleware was also interesting, although I think the jury is still out on whether this will be a viable and useful tool for directors. For pre-vis, I have no doubt in my mind that it will be a nice tool. And I have no issues w/ level of quality -- it was a good decision to allow the animations to exist outside the sphere of this program. I'm really anxious to see if software such as this and it's inevitable imitators, will impact the creative sphere to the degree it's advocates say it will. What I would like to see is a type of aqua-teen-hunger-force or sealab approach to 3D animations. For example, put this within the context of the modding community. With a large supply of animated assets, will be interesting to see what comes out.

I really like David, Yoni, and Robert’s works, especially the Disney Coaster game.They get the direction to encourage game players' creativity, which is a good method to improve the game experience and make it more addictive. The Sony's race car game is more like a game making software to me. Two years ago, there is a popular game named as RPG game factory in China. The game itself is a tool or editor, which give all the function a RPG will need to let you be the game creater. Recently, another love game factory was released. But both of these game shared the same problem, that is no one would like to play the game made in these game. However, this SONY race game can really make some high quality track that the other player would like to play.

The middleware for machinima is kinda too far from a game. It is more like a animation tool, which contains all these realtime animation functions. In my opinion, machinima is game culture based. People make fun in machinima because the background story and all these characters that all the players are familiar with. If people want to make good quality animations, they will choose maya and 3dsmax. But because the machinima does not have to be visually beautiful, a complex tool may not feed the player's needs.

Like the others, I really liked the gameplay shown. The idea of playing what you built, investing players creatively within the gaming is for me one of the largest untapped areas within digital gaming.

I also see the animation tool that you guys working on as having enormous potential (really, a variation of the meta-gaming and intuitive tool creation you guys were working on alread).

Unlike what some people have voiced, I don't think it'd have any intrinsic problem within the commercial space, with the caveat that the game and animation worlds are already colliding, and there's a lot of market friction that could burn up a small startup.

There's also the issue that if your system is successful, that there needs to be something that will differentiate from your competitors --practically EVERY single game studio has a similar tool-chain and if they can enter into a lucrative market w/ minimal effort... (ie. what do you do if you're successful and then Valve decides to enter your market w/ the Source platform?)

Some thoughts:
* I didn't see a lot of simulation going on currently. The more that can be simulated, the easier the workflow
* Can behaviors be easily generated and combined in a GUI? That'd be something impressive.
* Going further with strengths in iteration and real-time control (run through multiple times controlling finer and finer grained settings -- like pupeteering but with do-overs)
* Ins and outs - this isn't turn-key, so it NEEDs to have not just input, but output (going back through the toolchain, not just the final render)
* Open platform -- probably the key to being successful and encouraging adoption, allowing customers to be able to painlessly extend functionality (recommendation: make complete internal api and data model accessible through high level scripting [ECMA or Python], add gui scripting)

The idea that got to me was the idea of changing how someone animates a final product. Having initial, realtime feedback to decisions does change the way someone works, and as importantly how one visualizes the work (i.e. changes at this point in a production timeline will ripple backwards as well as forwards). Things like encouraging experimentation, normally forbidden in animation (you stick to the storyboard or you're dead meat) could change the way a final product looks. That would be true if the tool was used for pre-vis or for a final rendering.

Actually, I was just as excited about the preamble, especially the racetrack editor. Being able to "drive your own track" was neat, but also the way the system was enclosed. If there was a hill, the track went at an incline. If the hill was too steep, the road cut a channel through it (just as a real road would). Plus, the system did what it needed to as according to the rules of a racing game. The idea behind such toolsets is that they have to anticipate what the user will want, not want, an what is possible within the rules of the game...what is automated is the "stitching". It's a fine line, though, about when stitching limits the user, and of course the most interesting things happen when the stitching is stretched.

Overall, I enjoyed this presentation. The demo of Ultimate Ride was great and sparked my interest in the idea of simulation games. Last year, I saw a demo of the Sims and it was quite amusing. The idea that you are this creator/higher power of sorts is interesting. It is such a change from the images I feel bombarded with every time I see an ad for a video game on television. The demonstration exposed me to a world I had only heard about and now would like to explore further.

I also saw the idea behind simulation games as a great educational tool. Being more of a visual learner, I feel that being able to experience and experiment with a given concept would help clarify it and hopefully help me retain it for a longer period of time. One thing that was mentioned in today’s lecture that seems relevant is the idea that if a user/guest has the ability to design an experience and then experience it, they are more excited about it and more invested. This seems to translate well to the whole idea behind simulation games. Why wouldn’t you want to have ultimate control over all the specifications?

In regard to the second portion of the talk, I was impressed by what I saw (SWARM, Speedway Race Builder and the animation program). The idea of middleware is a little confusing to me, but from what I saw of the animation program, it seemed a little more user friendly that the daunting programs I used as an undergrad. I was amazed at how quickly the animation was altered and compiled and the result was very visually appealing. All of the demos that were presented were highly engaging and sparked my interest in their own way.

I was a mix of emotions throughout the entire talk. Lets see if I can re-create that...My first impression of the coaster creator was one of awe in the detail. Every nuance for track building, direction, spin, turn, twist, height etc. was there. Being such an A type of personality I was thinking, "man, that's great! A real Sim type interface built into a fantastic roller coaster tycoon type game!" I could easily have seen myself lost in it for hours trying to create the perfect track to pull x amount of g's. But then someone brought up the fact that the coaster couldn't crash. I didn't get it, why on earth would you not want the coaster to crash? Yeah, okay, Disney canned that one, understandable...but what about the gameplay? All gameplay goes out the window without a goal of somesort, or any type of ultimate satisfactory ending. Then I heard the fatal blow to my excitement, "It's not a game, it's a toy." My heart sank as I watched the final sequence of a rather lackluster rollercoaster ride with no people, no screams, no audience, no fun! So it's not a game, you can't crash and theres no goal but to build themed coasters, run a multicam replay of a personless coaster journey, and share them with your friends on the net. Why was everyone else so satisified and myself so heartbroken? What was the essential ingredient in that wonderful Disney toy that I just didn't get? I guess it was payoff. I really wanted more to do with this thing after (hypothetically) meticulously constructing and building with many hours of blood sweat and tears, the same amount of time I would spend memorizing the turns in a racing game. I guess my inner child didn't shine as much as it should have there. All criticism aside, it was a solid piece of software with some interesting sandbox elements. I'd definitely give it to the younger crowd, as it was probably intended. I myself wasn't to keen on it, and needed more of a goal in the end, more game I guess.

On the subject of machinema, I would have to agree with Jenova, as we talked briefly after the discussion. It's entirely niche, and therefore very amusing to a very small set of people. Dan Winter's talk touched on those elements of "popular gamers game" and "popular regular persons game". Machinema to me is about exploiting those very same rule sets of the game that its taking place in. Something that only a player of the game would really know or understand. Essentially, one big inside joke. And even better when a majority of the gaming audience "gets it". There was a piece done a while ago with the Qauke II engine or Half-Life, I can't remember which, that was about two very cartoon like lumberjacks. It seemed cute and catchy at the time, and I thought I would take a look. I felt that it fell on it's face to say the least and I felt it didn't contain anything of interest. I turned it off halfway through because as a gamer, it didn't even hold my attention as a cartoon watcher. (I love cartoons, I miss Sat mornings and the true WB classics.)

So more on topic, the toolset that they proposed for animation was right up my alley for what i keep seeing on the horizon. GDC confirmed this when I saw what the people at Valve were doing with HL2's mod capabilities. It's coming, and oh so quick! Those quick and dirty animation editors and previs rendering techniques are definitely going to be implemented into games, and not just HL2. The editors for the majority of the upcoming titles, and I think even Far Cry that was just released, all has those same type of toolsets. I am not sure how the film world will react, but I can only see it as a way of speeding up the process a little. Being able to see the result of quick and dirty ideas on the fly as soon as they are thought of should add an interesting twist to the end result of any animation. I am curious to see where film is headed with it.

The XLT team has made a somewhat unique transition from designing interactive experiences to designing tools to create non-interactive experiences. So does this seem backwards to anyone else?

While looking at the coaster game and the driving game, it was clear that they had extensive practice at creating authoring environments, but I am disturbed that their most recent project is taking shape as a production tool for non-interactive media. Machinima is not about interactivity (forget the argument about interactivity through authorship; given that, all forms of media are interactive and the word loses meaning). Just as photography was used as a tool/resource for painting and video as a tool/resource for rotoscoping, game graphics engines are being used as a tool/resource for CG animation and filmmaking. It's a clever appropriation of technology to be sure, but one that is most interesting in the context of the older media form.

Only the market will determine the success of the tool that XLT is creating. Animators and machinimists may adopt it and sing its praises. But I doubt that it will change the way we think about interactivity unless they have a radical new interface that has not yet been revealed. If they really want to create something revolutionary, then they should focus on giving the user control of real-time rendered environments and characters so as to enable live machinima performances. Allow the author to become a puppeteer and give control of multiple cameras to a live director/editor. I would be impressed by that. Otherwise, I expect most machinima authors will stick with games.

First of all, I found the coaster game/tools to be fascinating just in their ease of use. As for their animation software (we can sort of call it that for now), I find it similar to how digital video has revamped how non-professionals can now make films, although not in a good way. Now that "anyone" can make a film, all we've ended up with is more and more crap out there, from people who think they know what they're doing or think they have a good idea. I hope that these animation tools don't create the same effects in the animation world. It's been my experience that the people who REALLY have good ideas are going to find the tools necessary and spend the time learning the harder ones. They don't need "easy-to-use" tools. I never thought I'd quote Orson Welles here, but here I go: "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations."

Also, while I do see what Kurt means about the XLT team going from interactive experiences to now making tools for non-interactive experiences, I do object to the world "backwards". One is not necessarily more progressive than the other (IMO).

As someone who kinda tripped across this thread, it sounds like the XLT presentation was extremely engaging. Look forward to seeing and hearing more about it!

IMO, Machinima isn't necessarily about the 3D game environment that it’s developed in. Of course, Machinima filmmakers are tempted to develop it entirely about the game, because it provides the “low hanging fruit” to the medium – visual content and context to which its extremely easy to develop a linear storytelling experience. Add to this a built-in audience that will embrace the film as a large inside joke, and its easy to see why Machinima is identified as niche entertainment.

Of course, the exception to this is Red vs. Blue. While quality and intent of the writing is extremely subjective (I love the stuff), they do tend to break the gamer’s world and into a narrative that most people find entertaining.

Back on track, Machinima is more than this. Our organization defines Machinima as “animated filmmaking within a real-time virtual 3D environment.” Surely a mouthful, but it speaks to what we believe in – a medium that embraces the convergence between filmmaking, animation and 3D game technologies. Its easy to see how game technologies enhance our storytelling capabilities, by reigning in some of the tedium that it takes to normally produce a visually driven linear narrative. One only needs to look at Ken Perlin’s emotive character work to see how much control the technologies provide. The latest crop of 3D games (DOOM 3, Half-Life 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Far Cry, etc.) with their dynamic lighting, in-game physics engines, advanced A.I. scripting, mod tools, are even more fuel to the proverbial fire.

As someone who’s been involved 3D animation for quite some time as well as with Machinima since its onset (I was the one behind the aforementioned lumberjack vehicle that fell on its face), bringing together the flexibilities of these mediums offers a tremendous amount of creative control to the storyteller. Does it make for better films? Not at all - the improvised dialogue in the lumberjack film was funny in the moment, but it didn't hold beyond that and even worse, it didn't help a weak story. South Park wins over Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within--every time. Story is king - otherwise its all screensaver. However, putting more powerful tools in their grasp will drive the creativity.

So today, its people making great films using Halo – tomorrow, they’ll have a wider range of tools at their disposal. When costs come down and the processors go up, more creative Machinima will be developed and it will be less about the games that gave birth to the medium. And maybe procuce some great narratives in return.

David, Yoni and Robert's simulation games reminded me how powerful the possibility of putting creation in the hand of the gamers can be. It brought me back to thinking of other games such as the Blizzard games: The Warcraft Series and Starcraft. One of the unique and wonderful things about these games as well as many others for the PC and consoles (i.e. Tony Hawk and its skate park builder) is that the gamer can tailor their own measure of control and when they run out of different ways to play the game, they can challenge themselves with several iterations of their own. I find this option in many games to be very useful as I love to create my own levels, units etc... and I would love the opportunity to build my own coasters and race tracks.

As far as creating animations a la SHREK, I was a little bit disappointed that their 3D animation program doesn't offer as complete a modeling package, but what was interesting and quite fun was that animating within the scene dynamically seemed to be very easy to use and required little rendering to take effect. This is a very interesting proposition, and I look forward to seeing if it will be released on the Mac platform.