Datasets:

illuin-conteb
/

mldr-conteb-eval

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Subset (3)

documents · 50.6k rows

Split (2)

train · 49.1k rows

chunk_id stringlengths 5 8	chunk stringlengths 1 1k
1497_15	The development team for Unreal Tournament consisted of around 16 people. Most team members had worked on Unreal, though Epic hired a number of new developers to reinforce the team. Programmer Brandon Reinhart was one such hire, joining Epic in August 1998 to help with the support of Unreal and the development of Unreal Tournament. In December 1998, Reinhart discovered an Unreal mod called UBrowser, which provided a new user interface for finding multiplayer matches. After showing it to James Schmalz, the lead designer at Digital Extremes, Schmalz decided to hire the mod's author, Jack Porter. After only a few weeks Porter was already working with the team, replacing the game's existing menu system with his new interface. Epic founder Tim Sweeney worked on improving the networking code along with Steve Polge, who also wrote code for AI, player physics and general gameplay. Erik de Neve was responsible for the LOD character rendering, and various extra optimizations.
1497_16	During the game's development, the team lacked artists. The art director at Epic Games, Shane Caudle, and the artists at Digital Extremes could not make enough new textures because of the amount of diversity in characters and maps. To help with the skin and texture production, Epic contracted Steve Garofalo. The game's level and content management program, UnrealEd, was written in Visual Basic and considered buggy, but no one had time to fix it. The game engine had an object-oriented design, and the scripting language, UnrealScript, was considered to be more like Java. The modularity of the object-oriented design meant that programmers could make large changes without affecting other parts of the game. Other tools used during development included Microsoft Visual Studio and 3D Studio Max. All of the weapon sound effects were created by Sonic Mayhem. The soundtrack for the game, which employed the system of module files, was written by Alexander Brandon, Michiel van den Bos, Andrew
1497_17	Sega, Dan Gardopee, Peter Hajba and Tero Kostermaa. Unreal Tournament had support for the EAX Version 2.0 3D positional audio technology by Creative Labs and A3D 2.0 HRTF technology by Aureal Semiconductor out of the box.
1497_18	In 1999, Epic Games released a playable demo on September 16. This version of the demo was only compatible with Glide-based accelerators. An updated demo version, with support for OpenGL and Direct3D cards, was released on September 28. Unreal Tournament went gold (became ready for release) on November 16, shipping a few days later on November 22. The Mac version went gold on December 15. The Dreamcast version was developed by Secret Level, who had to drop Assault mode, along with many larger maps, due to the Dreamcast having insufficient memory. In December 28, Brandon Reinhart announced plans to release Linux libraries of Unreal Tournament through SourceForge: "I've chosen the Artistic License. I feel that it allows mod developers a lot of freedom with the open code, while not putting Epic into any weird positions with the undisclosed part of the engine". The goal of the project was to improve the quality of the Linux port of the game as well as strengthen the mod authoring
1497_19	community and teach Epic about open source projects. On August 1, 2000, Loki Software announced an exclusive agreement with Epic Games to maintain and support the Linux version of Unreal Tournament, offering new features, addressing any technical issues and achieving revision parity with the Windows version. Bonus Pack 1 was released on February 25, 2000. Unreal Tournament was re-released in fall (autumn) 2000 as Unreal Tournament: Game of the Year Edition, which includes the first three bonus packs and mods such as Rocket Arena, a one-on-one combat mode.
1497_20	Reception In the United States alone, Unreal Tournament sold 100,998 copies by the end of 1999, according to PC Data. The game's sales in the country reached 128,766 copies, for revenues of $5.42 million, by early 2000. This placed it behind competitor Quake III: Arena over the same period. From January through October 2000, Unreal Tournament sold 234,451 units and earned $8.94 million in the region. The game ultimately received a "Silver" sales award from the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA), indicating sales of at least 100,000 copies in the United Kingdom. By November 2001, Unreal Tournaments total sales were close to 2 million units.
1497_21	Upon its release, Unreal Tournament received universal acclaim from critics, earning an overall score of 92 out of 100 on aggregate review website Metacritic. Similarly, Unreal Tournament earned an overall score of 94% on the video gaming review aggregator GameRankings. Mainstream press reviews lauded the title for its graphics, gameplay, and level design, with Computer and Video Games concluding "Unreal Tournament is nothing short of a technical and game-playing marvel destined to hold you – as it did us – wailing with happiness and wasting far too many precious hours hammering keyboards. An absolute joy to behold". In March 2000, Unreal Tournament was second on a list of best-selling games in Computer Dealer News trade magazine. However, the development team believed sales would have been higher if the game was released in October 1999.
1497_22	Jeff Gerstmann of GameSpot praised the graphics, noting: "As good as the original Unreal looked, Unreal Tournament looks even better. The character models and skins look excellent, and there are quite a few choices to make when designing your character". He also praised the multiplayer gameplay, weapons and level design: "The first-person shooter genre is fiercely competitive. But Unreal Tournament rises above the rest with its solid multiplayer performance, from its good weapon balance to its great level design". The game was similarly reviewed by GameSpy, who concluded: "Unreal Tournament raises the bar for first person teamplay games. The mutators, bots, teams, and sheer number of maps give the game an awesome depth and replayability. This game is stuffed with content and polished until it gleams". British magazine PC Zone was pleased with the "very intelligent" bots, but criticized the "truly terrible" music. Allgame complimented the addictiveness of Assault mode, and the game's
1497_23	replay value, calling it "a glowing, shining beacon in a sea of multi-player games". Computer and Video Games found the game to have an "excellent" single-player mode, adding that with an average AI skill the player will "progress with little serious effort, taking a thrilling ride through spectacularly atmospheric levels and increasing numbers of opponents". Eurogamer echoed that sentiment, and commented that the game is playable on low-end systems.
1497_24	Writing for GamePro, Nash Werner said the multiplayer flexibility was "inmense", adding that mutators like low gravity, Sniper Arena, and Chainsaw Melee "change everything about the way deathmatch is played". Game Revolution agreed and praised the bots and maps, although it complained that player models were not particularly varied and that the game was not "as visually appealing as the original Unreal". IGN stated that Unreal Tournament received the highest ever score at the time of their review, describing the game as nearly flawless. British magazine PC Gamer complimented the artificial intelligence, and its American counterpart did the same to the game's "gorgeous" graphics and "incredible" editing tools. Computer Games Strategy Plus described the artificial intelligence as "outstanding", and commented that the Domination and Assault modes add interest. The Electric Playground, who rated the game 10 out of 10, praised the "innovative" level design, while Computer Gaming World
1497_25	gave it five stars out of five, saying "UT has completely redeemed both Epic and the Unreal franchise to action gamers. With the combination of great AI, depth and variety of gameplay, and accessibility to both newbies and the hardcore, UT has shot the pulse-pounding mayhem of multiplayer shooters to new heights".
1497_26	The Macintosh version of Unreal Tournament was equally praised. IGN enjoyed the "perfect" gameplay and multiplayer options, but criticized the high system requirements and the user interface. Nevertheless, the game was described as "the must have title for your Mac". Happy Puppy described the game as "king of deathmatch" due to its "incredible value" gaming and "amazing" variety. Inside Mac Games praised the replay value, but criticized the high system requirements. In December 1999, Unreal Tournament was inducted into the Macworld Hall of Fame.
1497_27	Reviewing the Dreamcast version, Gamezilla complimented the sound, but criticized the graphics and lack of a plot. Happy Puppy described the game as "intensely fun", but criticized the "mediocre" sound. Edge criticized the lack of Assault mode. The British Dreamcast Magazine (not to be confused with the Official Dreamcast Magazine or DC-UK) was ambivalent to the port's gameplay, visuals and sounds, noting its "blasting" action and lack of online multiplayer. GameSpy cited both slow framerate speeds and low sound quality as problems with the Dreamcast version. Scott Steinberg of Maxim rated the game 4 out of 5 stars, labeling it as a "stone-cold killer" that "runs like Carl Lewis on a Jolt Cola binge" while noting its "surprisingly workable" standard game pad controls.
1497_28	The PlayStation 2 release did not fare as well as the PC and Dreamcast versions. GameSpy criticized the graphics of the PS2 version, saying "Graphically, the PS2 version of Unreal Tournament seems uninspired". Its conclusion said about sluggish gameplay, somewhat washed out colors and textures. IGN praised the replayability, and stated that the sound is faithful to the PC version. Gamezilla criticized the PlayStation 2 version's lack of multiplayer support compared to the PC version along with Game Informer, who said despite its flaws, the game "holds its own as one of the best FPSs out there". On the other hand, the port scored 3 out of 10 in the television show The Electric Playground (now EP Daily), with the reviewer lauding the audio and graphics but feeling that the controls could have been better implemented: "Control, or lack thereof, is the biggest thorn in the side of Unreal Tournament. The game simply does not play well with the Dual Shock controller. Epic has implemented a
1497_29	dual analog layout (one stick controls movement while the other stick controls aim) which sounds good in theory, but is horrid in practice. We tried to use the Dual Shock layout for a solid hour and ended up doing nothing more than walking into walls and spinning around wildly. The other Unreal Tournament contestants probably thought that our character was possessed".
1497_30	In addition to receiving Eurogamer's first ever perfect score, Unreal Tournament was named by the site one of the best games of 1999. Launch editor John Bye chose the shooter as the game of the past decade (1999–2009) and said: "Unreal Tournament is one of the few games in the early days of Eurogamer that I kept going back to months after I'd finished reviewing it, a game that I played to unwind after a long day playing other games. Whether it was trying to break the one-minute barrier in the speed running mayhem of Assault mode, battling back and forth amongst the alleyways of Domination, or dropping shrapnel shells at people's feet with the wonderfully chunky flak cannon in a fast and furious free-for-all deathmatch, Unreal Tournament was an endless source of entertainment". In 2004, Unreal Tournament was inducted into the Computer Gaming World Hall of Fame. Unreal Tournament was a nominee for PC Gamer USs 1999 "Best Action Game" and "Best Multiplayer Game" awards, which went to Tom
1497_31	Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear and Team Fortress Classic, respectively. They called it "a brilliant multiplayer game that blew its main rival Quake III away with awesome bots, graphics, game types, and online functionality". Unreal Tournament was a finalist for the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences' 1999 "Action Game of the Year" award, which ultimately went to Half-Life: Opposing Force.
1497_32	In 2011, G4tv included two maps from this game, Facing Worlds and DM-Deck 16, in its list of the "Most Influential FPS Multiplayer Maps Ever". In 2013, PC Gamer labeled the Flak Cannon the greatest gun in PC gaming. In 2014, Complex magazine placed Unreal Tournament as number three on its list of "The 50 Best First Person Shooters Of All Time", while Moviepilot placed it as number two on its list of "The 7 Most Influential Video Games Ever". In November 2014, Kotaku named Facing Worlds the best multiplayer map. In January 2016, Red Bull labeled Facing Worlds one of the 10 greatest FPS multiplayer levels of all time. In July 2016, the game was ranked number 20 on Bit-Tech's The 50 Best PC Games of All Time. Awards Player community
1497_33	Lead designer Cliff Bleszinski credited much of the game's success to its community. As he said in the November 2001 issue of Maximum PC, "Unreal Tournament would not have sold nearly two million copies if it did not have support from the community... We ship the very same tools that we used to build the game, and folks use these tools to realize their own visions of first-person action". Like Unreal, Unreal Tournament is designed to be easily programmable and highly modularized. Through its scripting environment UnrealScript and level editor UnrealEd, developers are able to modify easily most parts of the game to both manipulate default game behavior and to supplement the game with their own mods. These range from slight changes on some aspects of gameplay (such as map voting) to total conversions. One modification, ChaosUT, became popular enough that it was included with the 'Game of the Year' edition of the game, while Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror was released as a stand-alone
1497_34	retail product.
1497_35	Unreal Tournament was played at the World Cyber Games in 2001 and 2002. Legacy The success of the original Unreal Tournament spawned four sequels, including Unreal Tournament 2003 and Unreal Tournament 2004, Unreal Tournament 3, and the cancelled Unreal Tournament reboot. The yearly naming structure, based around marketing the franchise as a competitive sports title, was abandoned before the launch of the third sequel. Digital Extremes announced Dark Sector in 2000, which was planned as a spiritual successor to Unreal Tournament. Notes References Citations Sources Further reading External links
1497_36	1999 video games Cyberpunk video games Dreamcast games Fiction set in the 24th century Esports games Epic Games games Infogrames games First-person shooters GT Interactive Software games Interactive Achievement Award winners Linux games Multiplayer online games Split-screen multiplayer games Video games with AI-versus-AI modes Classic Mac OS games PlayStation 2 games Unreal (video game series) Unreal Engine games Video games scored by Alexander Brandon Video games scored by Michiel van den Bos Video games scored by Peter Hajba Video games developed in Canada Video games developed in the United States Video games with user-generated gameplay content Windows games Video games about death games Video games set in the 24th century
1498_0	Game balance is a part of game design that can be described as a mathematical-algorithmic model of a game’s numbers, game mechanics and relations between those. Therefore, game balancing consists in adjusting those to create the intended experiences, usually positive ones. Players’ perception and experience are usually the objective of game balancing. Overview and development Despite game balance being relevant for every type of game, many publications since the turn of the millennium focus on video games. The authors of literature are mostly concerned with the game design of video games in general and dedicate a few chapters to game balance. More recently, there are also online blogs and videos that exclusively cover game balance (see below).
1498_1	Earlier authors mainly write about single player and PvE (player versus environment) games and related concepts like difficulty. Some of these earlier authors are the game designers Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings, Richard Rouse, Jeannie Novak, Tynan Sylvester and Jesse Schell. The online content, which was mainly created within the 2010s, focuses more on player versus player and online games, but often refers to ideas that were described in earlier works, like fairness. Those authors are the game designers Ian Schreiber, Keith Burgun, David Sirlin, James Portnow from the YouTube channel Extra Credits and Dan Felder.
1498_2	Most recently, game balancing takes players more into account, especially regarding the player created “meta”. “Metagame” describes interactions between players, e.g. forum discussions and media content on YouTube. Currently successful and popular strategies and archetypes, that usually arise from those, are called the “meta”. Part of this are the game designers and moderators Rym DeCoster and Scott Rubin, the YouTuber Adam Millard in his channel “The Architect of Games” and the journalist Marc Brown. Unique terms and slang PvP, PvE and coop games PvP stands for player versus player and describes games that feature a direct competition between human players. PvE stands for player versus environment. In games featuring PvE, players oppose Non-player characters. Coop is short for cooperative and basically refers to PvE games in which multiple players face computer-controlled opponents. This, however, does not necessarily exclude some possibilities for PvP.
1498_3	Game element An abstract term for all kinds of entities within a game. May refer to soldiers in a real time strategy game, a roleplay game’s player character, but also the items and spells of the latter. Game mechanic Game mechanics are the procedures and rules of a game. They define the goal, how players can achieve and how they cannot, and what happens when they try. Buff and nerf Improving game elements (and sometimes game mechanics) is called buff, a devaluation is called nerf. Both can be achieved indirectly by changing other elements or mechanics or introducing new ones. Both terms can also be used as verbs for the act of making such change. The first established use of the term nerf was in Ultima Online, as a reference to the Nerf brand of toys whose bullets are soft and less likely to cause serious injury.
1498_4	A buff therefore is basically the opposite of a nerf. The term likely came from the bodybuilding term of "getting buff" in which the person is taking action to develop their muscles towards the idea of improvement – thus "buffing" themselves. Among game developers, MMORPG designers are especially likely to nerf aspects of a game in order to maintain game balance. Occasionally a new feature (such as an item, class, or skill) may be made too powerful, too cheap, or too easily obtained to the extent that it unbalances the game system. This is sometimes due to a method of using or acquiring the object that was not considered by the developers. The frequency and scale of nerfing vary widely from game to game, but almost all massively multiplayer games have engaged in nerfing at some point.
1498_5	Nerfs in various online games, including Anarchy Online, have spurred in-world protests. Since many items in virtual worlds are sold or traded among players, a nerf may have an outsized impact on the virtual economy. As players respond, the nerf may cause prices to fluctuate before settling down in a different equilibrium. This impact on the economy, along with the original impact of the nerf, can cause large player resentment for even a small change. In particular, in the case of items or abilities which have been nerfed, players can become upset over the perceived wasted efforts in obtaining the now nerfed features. For games where avatars and items represent significant economic value, this may bring up legal issues over the lost value. Skill Skill is generally divided into the ability to make decisions and the dexterity to execute them via an input device.
1498_6	Overpowered and underpowered The terms “overpowered” (op) and “underpowered” (up) are used on game elements and game mechanics that are too good or bad to describe a lack of game balance. Ian Schreiber, however, offers a more precise definition: If a game element is too strong even with the highest possible cost, it is overpowered. If it is too weak even with the lowest possible cost, it is underpowered. On the other hand, a game element might simply be overcost or undercost for the benefit it provides. Colloquially, overpowered is often used when describing a specific class in an RPG, a specific faction in strategic games, or a specific tactic, ability, weapon or unit in various games. For something to be deemed overpowered, it is either the best choice in a disproportionate number of situations (marginalising other choices) and/or excessively hard to counter by the opponent compared to the effort required to use it.
1498_7	Underpowered often refers to when describing a specific class in an RPG, a specific faction in strategic games, or a specific tactic, ability, weapon or unit in various games as far weaker than average, resulting in it being always one of the worst options to pick in most situations. In such way, it is often marginalized by other choices because it's inherently weaker than similar options or it's much more easily countered by opponents.
1498_8	Gimp A gimp is a character, character class or character ability that is underpowered in the context of the game (e.g., a close range warrior class equipping a full healing boosting armour set, despite having no healing abilities). Gimped characters lack effectiveness compared to other characters at a similar level of experience. A player may gimp a character by assigning skills and abilities that are inappropriate for the character class, or by developing the character inefficiently. However, this is not always the case, as some characters are purposely "gimped" by the game's developers in order to provide an incentive for raising their level, or, conversely, to give the player an early head-start. An example of this is Final Fantasy'''s Mystic Knight class, which starts out weak, but is able to become the most powerful class if brought to a very high level. Gimps may also be accidental on the part of the developer, and may require a software patch to rebalance.
1498_9	Sometimes, especially in MMORPGs, gimp is used as a synonym for nerf to describe a rule modification that weakens the affected target. Unlike the connotatively neutral term nerf, gimp in this usage often implies that the rule change unfairly disadvantages the target. Revamp A revamp (or rework) is a term for improving or modifying items, skills, abilities, or stats, as opposed to direct nerfing or gimping. Essential concepts of balancing Chance While the optimal ratio between skill and chance are dependent on the target group, the outcome should still be more influenced by skill. Chance and skill are viewed as partial opposites. Chance sometimes allows a weaker player to beat a stronger one. Generally, it is advised to favor many small random elements with little influence over a few with big effects to make results, that differ highly from average, less likely. Also, the player should also receive a certain degree of information and control over random elements.
1498_10	Difficulty Difficulty is especially important for PvE-games, but has at least some significance for PvP-games regarding the usability of game elements. The perception of the difficulty depends on mechanics and numbers, but also on the players abilities and expectations. The ideal difficulty therefore depends on individual player and should put the player in a state of flow. Consequently, for the development, it can be useful or even necessary to focus on a certain target group. Difficulty should increase throughout the game since players get better and usually unlock more power. Achieving all those goals is problematic since, among other things, skill cannot be measured objectively and testers also get continuously better. In any case, difficulty should be adjustable for or by the player in some way.
1498_11	Dynamic and static balance Game balance can be divided into a dynamic and a static component. Static balance is mostly concerned with a game’s rules and elements, everything, that is set before a game or match starts. Dynamic balance conversely describes the balance between players, environment and computer opponents and how it changes throughout the game.
1498_12	Economies Within a game, everything that has an owner or is provided to a player can be called a resource. This includes commodities, units, tokens, but also information or time, for example. Those resource systems are similar to real economies, especially in regards to trading resources. There are some distinctions for video games though: There are open economies, that receive additional resources, but also closed ones that do not. Additionally, economies might provide indefinite resources or all players have to share a set amount instead. Especially for online games, it therefore is important to design economies to make them “fun” and sustainable. Fairness A game is fair if all players have roughly the same chance of winning at the start independent of which offered options they choose. This makes fairness especially important for PvP-games. Fairness also means, even for PvE-games, that the player should never feel like the opponents were unbeatable.
1498_13	Early appearances of the term “fairness” Chris Crawford wrote in 1982 of the importance of a game's "illusion of winnability"; Pac-Man is popular because it "appears winnable to most players, yet is never quite winnable". The illusion, he said, "is very difficult to maintain. Some games maintain it for the expert but never achieve it for the beginner; these games intimidate all but the most determined players", citing Tempest as an example.
1498_14	A fair game is winnable but, InfoWorld stated in 1981, can be "complicated or random or appear unfair". Fairness does not necessarily mean that a game is balanced. This is particularly true of action games: Jaime Griesemer, design lead at Bungie, said that "every fight in Halo is unfair". This potential for unfairness creates uncertainty, leading to the tension and excitement that action games seek to deliver. In these cases balancing is instead the management of unfair scenarios, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that all of the strategies which the game intends to support are viable. The extent to which those strategies are equal to one another defines the character of the game in question.
1498_15	Simulation games can be balanced unfairly in order to be true to life. A wargame may cast the player into the role of a general who was defeated by an overwhelming force, and it is common for the abilities of teams in sports games to mirror those of the real-world teams they represent regardless of the implications for players who pick them. Player perception can also affect the appearance of fairness. Sid Meier stated that he omitted multiplayer alliances in Civilization because he found that the computer was almost as good as humans in exploiting them, which caused players to think that the computer was cheating.
1498_16	Meaningful decisions Meaningful decisions are decisions whose alternatives are neither without any effect nor is one alternative clearly the best. This would make, for example, choosing between the numbers of a dice meaningless if 6 always gives the greatest benefit. This example is a dominant strategy, the most damaging type of meaningless decision, since it does leave a reason to choose any alternative. Meaningful decisions consequently are a central part of the interactive medium games. Meaningless decisions, also called trivial decisions, do not add anything desirable to a game. They might actually harm the game by unnecessarily making it more complex. Additionally, a higher number of meaningful decisions can also make a game just more complex. Offered decisions should always be meaningful though. However, for the balancing irrelevant decisions might still influence the players experience, e.g. a decision between cosmetic alternatives like skins.
1498_17	Strategies Strategies are specific combinations of actions to achieve a certain goal. Classic examples for this are a rush or focusing on economy in a real-time strategy game. Not only elementary decisions within a strategy, e.g. between game elements, also the decision between strategies should remain meaningful. Dominant strategies A dominant strategy is a strategy that is always the most likely to lead to success, making it objectively the best strategy. This therefore renders all related decisions meaningless. Even if a strategy does not always win, but clearly is the best, it can be called (almost) dominant. Dominant strategies damage games and should strongly be avoided. However, there is no objective border when a slightly better strategy becomes dominant.
1498_18	Metagame Metagame describes a game around the actual game, including discussions, like in forums, interactions between players, e.g. on local tournaments, but also the influence of extrinsic factors like finances. The “Meta”, how it is also called, can act as a self-balancing force, since counters to popular strategies become widely known and lead to players changing their play behavior appropriately. This self-balancing force should not prevent developers from intervening in extreme cases of imbalance though.
1498_19	Positive and negative feedback Positive and negative feedback, also called positive and negative feedback loop, essentially describes game mechanics that reward or punish playing (usually well or bad) with power or the loss of it. Therefore, success leads to more power within a positive loop and therefore accelerates progress further, while a negative loop decreases power or adds additional costs to it. Feedback loops should be implemented carefully to only target the correct player, or otherwise they might determine the outcome too early or achieve nothing but simply delay the end of the game.
1498_20	Many games become more challenging if the player is successful. For instance, real-time strategy games often feature "upkeep", a resource tax that scales with the number of units under a player's control. Team games which challenge players to invade their opponents' territory (football, capture the flag) have a negative feedback loop by default: the further a player pushes, the more opponents they are likely to face.
1498_21	Many games also feature positive feedback loops - where success (for example capturing an enemy territory) leads to greater resources or capabilities, and hence greater scope for further successes (for example further conquests or economic investments). The overall dynamic balance of the game will depend on the comparative strength of positive and negative feedback processes, and therefore decreasing the power of positive feedback processes has the same effect as introducing negative feedback processes. Positive feedback processes may be limited by making capabilities some concave function of a measure of raw success. For example:
1498_22	In role-playing games using a level structure, the level attained is usually a concave transformation of experience points - as the character becomes more proficient they can defeat more powerful adversaries, and hence can earn more experience points in a given period of playtime - but conversely more experience points are required to 'level up'. In this case, the players level and perhaps also power does not improve exponentially, but approximately linearly in playing time.
1498_23	In many military strategy games the conquest of new territory only gives a marginal increase in power - for example the 'home province' may be exceptionally productive, whereas new territories open to acquisition might only have by comparison slight resources, or may be prone to revolts or public order penalties which reduce their ability to provide significant net resources, after resources are allocated to adequately suppressing revolts. In this case, a player with initially impressive successes may become 'overextended' attempting to hold may regions which provide only marginal increases in resources.
1498_24	In many games there is little or no advantage in acquiring a large horde of some particular item. For example, having a large and varied cache of equipment or weapons is an advantage, but only weakly over a somewhat smaller horde with a similar degree of diversity - for example only one weapon can be used at a time, and having another in an inventory with very similar capabilities offers only marginal gain. In more general terms, capabilities may depend on some bottleneck where there is no or only weak positive feedback.
1498_25	Strongly net negative feedback loops can lead to frequent ties. Conversely, if there is on net a strong positive feedback loop, early successes can multiply very rapidly, leading to the player eventually attaining a commanding position from which losing is almost impossible. See also dynamic game difficulty balancing.
1498_26	Power and costs Power is basically everything that provides an advantage, while costs are essentially everything that is a disadvantage. Therefore, power and costs can be viewed as positive and negative values of the same scale. This allows to calculate with both of them at the same time. Sometimes, it is only a matter of perspective if something is an advantage or a disadvantage: Is it a benefit to have bonus damage against dragons, or is it a drawback not to receive it against other targets? A crucial part of game balancing consists in relating power and costs to each other and find a suitable relation in the first place, e.g. a power curve. In addition to that, costs might not be explicitly quantified: Spending gold on something from any finite amount limits future purchases. Also, certain investments might have prerequisites before they even become available. Sometimes, a game does not even show disadvantages. All of this can be referred to as shadow costs.
1498_27	Rewards Every player desires rewards, e.g. new game content or a simple compliment. Rewards should get bigger as the playtime increases. They give a player the feeling of doing something right and can enhance progress. A little bit of uncertainty about rewards makes them more desirable for many players. Solvability Colloquially speaking, solving a game refers to winning it or reaching its end. Ian Schreiber calls a game solvable if, for every situation, there is a recognizable best action. Generally, it is undesirable if a game can easily be solved, since this makes decisions meaningless and games become boring faster.
1498_28	There multiple tiers of solvability: A game might be trivial to solve, but it might also be solvable only in theory with a lot of computing effort. Even games with random elements are solvable since a best action can be found using expected values. Besides high complexity, hidden information and the influence of other human players are what makes it impossible for a human to completely solve a game. Symmetry and asymmetry Symmetric games offer all players identical starting condition and are therefore automatically fair in the above stated sense. While they are easier to balance, they still must be balanced, e.g. regarding their game elements. Most modern games are asymmetric though, while the grade of asymmetry can vary greatly. Fairness becomes even more important for those.
1498_29	Giving each player identical resources is the simplest game balancing technique. Most competitive games feature some level of symmetry; some (such as Pong) are completely symmetric, but those in which players alternate turns (such as chess) can never achieve total symmetry as one player will always have a first-move advantage or disadvantage. Symmetry is unappealing in games because both sides can and will use any effective strategy simultaneously, or success depends on a very small advantage such as one pawn in chess. An alternative is to offer symmetry with restrictions. Players in Wizard's Quest and Catan have the same number of territories, but choose them in alternating order; the differing combination of territories causes asymmetry. Symmetry can be undone by human psychology; the advantage of players wearing red over players wearing blue is a well-documented example of this.
1498_30	Systems and subsystems In general, games can be viewed as systems of numbers and relations that typically consist of multiple subsystems. All numbers within a game only have a meaning in their given context. Subsystems can be dealt with separately and they might even have different balancing goals, but they also influence each other more or less. It therefore is crucial to consider how changes affect the balance as a whole. Transitivity and intransitivity (In-)transitivity is a term used for logical relations. In games, this usually refers to relations between game elements, e.g. between the element A, B and C: In case of transitivity given A beats B and B beats C, A beats C. This means that A is the best element of those three. A transitive relation is especially useful as rewards for the player to receive more and more useful game elements.
1498_31	In case of intransitivity given A beats B and B beats C, A does not automatically beat C. On the contrary, it might even be the case that C beats A, like in rock-paper-scissors. Intransitive relations can be assessed within the properties of game elements instead of just defining the outcome. This helps to create variety and prevent dominant strategies. Balancing process Balancing always includes changing quantifiable values and relations between them, directly or indirectly; this is done as an iterative process and partially dependent on the genre, during development and also afterwards (e.g. by rule changes, addons or software-updates). However, it cannot be completely solved by algorithms since aesthetics are also important and a perfect balance might actually achieve the opposite of fun. Ideally, simple rules deliver complex results. This is also referred to as “emergence”.
1498_32	Firstly, a balanced basis should be created, so most later work consists in merely changing numbers and introducing new content becomes much easier. This makes it important for a designer to adjust numbers easily and they should always know how changes affect the overall system. Sight of the greater picture should never be lost to create a positive experience for the player. Especially extremely powerful game elements and dominant strategies are dangerous to latter goal and should therefore be identified and corrected. Game elements that provide a highly situational use but have a fixed cost value, that is comparable to less situational elements, are particularly difficult to balance. Another priority is providing multiple viable options. Generally, players react better to buffing something than nerfing it. It is possible, however, to achieve those indirectly by changing another part of the system, since most content, if not everything is connected and related to each other.
1498_33	Goals of balancing The highest goal of balancing is always preserving or increasing the fun or engagement. This, however, can highly depend on the individual game and its audience and might even consist in great imbalance or turn into the opposite of fun: Especially in games with in game purchases or In-game advertising, the developer or publisher has an interest to monetize the game, even if it is detrimental to the fun. Such games may frequently interrupt the experience with advertisements or provide low chances (e.g. in loot boxes) to intentionally frustrate the player but keep engagement high to encourage spending money to skip frustrating parts. Otherwise, the player may face huge disadvantages (imbalances) even against other paying players.
1498_34	In general, though, there is a consensus that huge imbalances are bad for a game, even if the game still is fun to play – a better balance would make it even more fun. Opinions on exactly what should be balanced, how well-balanced a game should ideally be and even if perfect balance is achievable or even a good thing vary. In some cases, it is even stated that a slight imbalance is actually beneficial. A crucial goal of balancing a is preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform.
1498_35	One balancing approach is to set strategies as the goal, so all offered strategies have roughly equal chances of success. Strategies can only be affected by changing underlying game elements, but the balance between game elements is not the focus here. Strategies should offer a deep gaming experience. The balance can depend on player skill. Therefore, one level of skill should be chosen as the goal of all development efforts. This might be professional or casual players, for example. On all other levels, that do not fit the prime audience, more imbalances can be accepted.
1498_36	Preserving strategies and game elements from becoming irrelevant also is emphasized: Every given option should have at least some use and should be viable. To achieve this, strategies and game elements should be compared within all contexts the compete in, e.g. combat or resource investments. Extremely powerful (“broken”) strategies and elements are viewed as especially damaging since they devalue all their competitors. Beyond all of that, there is an argument for some imbalances within a game, since that constantly encourages players to find new solution, e.g. by interacting in the metagame. This especially applies to frequently updated games. On the opposite end, (nearly) perfectly balanced games would result in mere execution of proven strategies, with only top players being able to create new successful strategies. Also, giving all game elements the exact same amount of power would make all decisions meaningless, since everything is equally powerful anyway.
1498_37	Another approach emphasizes that balance between game elements, strategies and actions is not the most important factor, but providing counters against any situation that may arise. This always allows players to find them together and they never face unsolvable problems. At least, there is the idea to include players in the balancing regarding their skills and other prerequisites. Matchmaking and handicaps can help achieving that. This might also decrease the influence of imbalance since players are more equally matched. In addition to that, the players’ perception of balance should be considered: Player behavior can affect success rates of strategies and game elements. Therefore, all changes should be communicated accordingly.
1498_38	Characteristics of a well-balanced game Despite not all goals of balancing are clear, many characteristics of well-balanced games are usually not disagreed on: Decisions should be meaningful. The player should still have a chance to win in most situations and no stalemates should arise, in which nobody can win or lose. Leading player or computer controlled opponents should never get an irretrievable advantage until they almost won. Early mistakes and chance should not make a game unwinnable. Also, the game should provide the player with enough information and control to avoid those errors, so the player always feels responsible for his or her actions. Measuring the state of balance is another matter though, since it requires interpretation of data. Sheer win rates of strategies or game elements do not have a great significance without considering other factors like player skill and pick rates. Making correct conclusions is therefore crucial to find causes for imbalance.
1498_39	Methods and tools The following paragraphs present a collection of tools and methods used to measure the state of balance or to balance a game. Not mathematical perfection, but fun, engagement or a mix of both is the main goal and human evaluation still is the only known measurement for successfully achieving those, especially fun. Also, balancing is an intricate process and typically needs many iterations. Aesthetics and narration The visual impression of a game should not contradict with its balancing. On the contrary: Especially real models, e.g. historic facts, can serve as inspiration for mechanics, counters, orthogonal unit differences or intransitive relations.
1498_40	Balancing strategies One approach is to move the balancing goal to strategies instead of game elements. Strategies typically include multiple elements and decisions. This makes sure that all game elements have at least some use and decisions stay meaningful. Also, seemingly fine game elements might become too powerful only in certain combinations. A difficulty of this is though that strategies can only be influenced by changing the game elements and mechanics they include. Ban Banning certain game elements or strategies is a way to remove dominant strategies from otherwise well-balanced games, especially in the competitive sector. This should be avoided when possible, however.
1498_41	Central resource A chosen value, this may be an attribute of a game elements, costs or an additionally calculated value like power, can be nominated as a benchmark for all other values. Every change of one of them means another one must change as well. It can affect the central resource but also any other value to still fit the same budget. Counter There should be a counter to every action, game element strategy that beats those in a direct competition. This does not only make dominant strategies unlikelier to develop, it also allows players to find new solutions for current challenges. Ideally, a counter relation is assessed within properties of game elements rather than simply defined. Also, decisions that are made at the beginning of a game that cannot be revised by the player should not determine the outcome right away. Difficulty level
1498_42	Video games often allow players to influence their balance by offering a choice of "difficulty levels". These affect how challenging the game is to play, and usually run on a general scale of "easy", "medium", and "hard". Sometimes, the difficulty is set once for the entirety of a game, while in other games it can be changed freely at any point. Modern games, e.g. Horizon Zero Dawn, may also feature a difficulty setting called “Story” for players who want to focus on the narrative rather than interactive parts like combat. There are also other terms. The Last of Us, for example, offers two settings above “hard”, called “survivor” and “grounded”.
1498_43	In addition to altering the game's rules, difficulty levels can be used to alter what content is presented to the player. This usually takes the form of adding or removing challenging locations or events, but some games also change their narrative to reward players who play them on higher difficulty levels or end early as punishment for playing on easy. Difficulty selection is not always presented bluntly, particularly in competitive games where all players are affected equally and the standard "easy/hard" terminology no longer applies. Sometimes veiled language is used (Mario Kart offers "CC select"), while at other times there may be an array of granular settings instead of an overarching difficulty option. An alternative approach to difficulty levels is catering to players of all abilities at the same time, a technique that has been called "subjective difficulty". This requires a game to provide multiple solutions or routes, each offering challenges appropriate to players of
1498_44	different skill levels (Super Mario Galaxy, Sonic Generations).
1498_45	Feedback While tester feedback is important when developing and updating a game, there are certain things to be kept in mind: Skill and the ability to explain do not necessarily correlate with each other. There are typically more players than developers, so they are better at solving it. Additionally, new tester should be added from time to time since practice effects emerge. Gamemaster A game can be balanced dynamically by a gamemaster who observes players and adjusts the game in response to their actions, emotional state, etc, or even proactively changes the direction of the game to create certain experiences.
1498_46	Although gamemasters have historically been humans, some videogames now feature artificial intelligence (AI) systems that perform a similar role by monitoring player ability and inferring emotional state from input. Such systems are often referred to as having dynamic difficulty. One notable example is Left 4 Dead and its sequel Left 4 Dead 2, cooperative games that have the players fight through hordes of zombie-like creatures including unique creatures with special abilities. Both games use an AI Director which not only generates random events but tries to create tension and fear by spawning-in creatures to specific rule sets based on how players are progressing, specifically penalizing players through more difficult challenges for not working together. Research into biofeedback peripherals is set to greatly improve the accuracy of such systems. Game theory
1498_47	Game theory focusses more on players and their decision making and therefore is only for limited use in game design. However, it does offer knowledge and tools like a Net Payoff Matrix that can be helpful to measure power and understand player reasoning. Handicaps Handicaps may create a competitive situation between players of different skill level, but they might also go too far and render skill irrelevant. Handicaps are disadvantages that sometimes are deliberately self-inflicted. Intuition Games can be complex systems. Since development resources are limited, relying on intuition can sometimes be useful or even necessary. The designer should always keep in mind how changes affect other parts of the game and guesses should always rely on evidence or proof. Matchmaking and ranking
1498_48	An approach to avoid some balancing problems all together is ranking players depending on their skill. Ideally, the ranking system predicts the outcome almost perfectly and every player (in a PvP game) has roughly the same win rate, even considering factors that lie outside the game, like the gaming device. In any case, good match making benefits a game greatly, since, for example, newbies are not matched against experienced players who leave them with no chance of winning and the challenge of stronger opponents rises together with each player’s skills. Observation Some obvious problems become clear through sheer observation of the game and player behavior. This includes mathematical superiority of game elements or strategies but also extremely high or low usage of those. In any case, statistics do not necessarily represent causalities and that there are typically multiple factors.
1498_49	Orthogonal unit differences Orthogonal unit differences describes properties of game elements that cannot be compared by inherent numbers. Ideally, every game element has at least one unique trait. This also helps creating intransitivity and counters. Pacing Player versus environment games are usually balanced to tread the fine line of regularly challenging players' abilities without ever producing insurmountable or unfair obstacles. This turns balancing into the management of dramatic structure, generally referred to by game designers as "pacing". Pacing is also a consideration in competitive games, but the autonomy of players makes it harder to control.
1498_50	Power curve A power curve (also: cost curve) is basically a relation that reflects the ratio between power and costs. It is especially useful when dealing with multiple game elements that provide varying benefits depending on different values of the same cost, e.g. when using a central resource. While a power curve always shows an order, it does not necessarily represent exact relations, depending on the level of measurement. Randomization Randomization of starting conditions is a technique common in board games, card games, and also experimental research, which fights back against the human tendency to optimise patterns in one's favor.
1498_51	The downside of randomization is that it takes control away from the player, potentially leading to frustration. Methods of overcoming this include giving the player a selection of random results within which they can optimize (Scrabble, Magic: The Gathering) and making each game session short enough to encourage multiple attempts in one play session (Klondike, Strange Adventures in Infinite Space''). Statistical analysis Statistics can help collecting empiric data of player behavior, success rates, etc., to identify unbalanced areas and make corrections. Ideally, a game gathers this data automatically. Statistics can only support a designers‘ abilities and intuition and are therefore only one part of making design decisions, together with, for example, tester- or user feedback. Statistics and their interpretation should also consider factors like skill and pick-rates. Tier list
1498_52	A tier list orders game elements according to their power in multiple categories. This ranking can be achieved using feedback, empiric data or subjective impressions. While the number and names of tiers can vary, a list typically goes from “god tier” through multiple tiers in between to “garbage tier”. While balancing, all elements within the god tier should be nerfed first. Too powerful elements make many other elements worse if not useless. After this, all elements within the garbage tier should be buffed until they are no longer useless. In the end, the power differences between all other tiers can be adjusted until a satisfying state is reached. A tier list is especially useful when working with game elements that have exactly the same cost, e.g. characters in a Fighting game. References Game design Video game terminology Gaming
1499_0	Computer animation is the process used for digitally generating animated images. The more general term computer-generated imagery (CGI) encompasses both static scenes and dynamic images, while computer animation only refers to moving images. Modern computer animation usually uses 3D computer graphics to generate a three-dimensional picture, although 2D computer graphics are still used for stylistic, low bandwidth, and faster real-time renderings. Sometimes, the target of the animation is the computer itself, but sometimes film as well.
1499_1	Computer animation is essentially a digital successor to stop motion techniques, but using 3D models, and traditional animation techniques using frame-by-frame animation of 2D illustrations. Computer-generated animations can also allow a single graphic artist to produce such content without the use of actors, expensive set pieces, or props. To create the illusion of movement, an image is displayed on the computer monitor and repeatedly replaced by a new image that is similar to it but advanced slightly in time (usually at a rate of 24, 25, or 30 frames/second). This technique is identical to how the illusion of movement is achieved with television and motion pictures.
1499_2	For 3D animations, objects (models) are built on the computer monitor (modeled) and 3D figures are rigged with a virtual skeleton. For 2D figure animations, separate objects (illustrations) and separate transparent layers are used with or without that virtual skeleton. Then the limbs, eyes, mouth, clothes, etc. of the figure are moved by the animator on key frames. The differences in appearance between key frames are automatically calculated by the computer in a process known as tweening or morphing. Finally, the animation is rendered.
1499_3	For 3D animations, all frames must be rendered after the modeling is complete. For 2D vector animations, the rendering process is the key frame illustration process, while tweened frames are rendered as needed. For pre-recorded presentations, the rendered frames are transferred to a different format or medium, like digital video. The frames may also be rendered in real time as they are presented to the end-user audience. Low bandwidth animations transmitted via the internet (e.g. Adobe Flash, X3D) often use software on the end-user's computer to render in real time as an alternative to streaming or pre-loaded high bandwidth animations.
1499_4	Explanation To trick the eye and the brain into thinking they are seeing a smoothly moving object, the pictures should be drawn at around 12 frames per second or faster. (A frame is one complete image.) With rates above 75-120 frames per second, no improvement in realism or smoothness is perceivable due to the way the eye and the brain both process images. At rates below 12 frames per second, most people can detect jerkiness associated with the drawing of new images that detracts from the illusion of realistic movement. Conventional hand-drawn cartoon animation often uses 15 frames per second in order to save on the number of drawings needed, but this is usually accepted because of the stylized nature of cartoons. To produce more realistic imagery, computer animation demands higher frame rates. Films seen in theaters in the United States run at 24 frames per second, which is sufficient to create the illusion of continuous movement. For high resolution, adapters are used. History
1499_5	Early digital computer animation was developed at Bell Telephone Laboratories in the 1960s by Edward E. Zajac, Frank W. Sinden, Kenneth C. Knowlton, and A. Michael Noll. Other digital animation was also practiced at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. In 1967, a computer animation named "Hummingbird" was created by Charles Csuri and James Shaffer. In 1968, a computer animation called "Kitty" was created with BESM-4 by Nikolai Konstantinov, depicting a cat moving around. In 1971, a computer animation called "Metadata" was created, showing various shapes.
1499_6	An early step in the history of computer animation was the sequel to the 1973 film Westworld, a science-fiction film about a society in which robots live and work among humans. The sequel, Futureworld (1976), used the 3D wire-frame imagery, which featured a computer-animated hand and face both created by University of Utah graduates Edwin Catmull and Fred Parke. This imagery originally appeared in their student film A Computer Animated Hand, which they completed in 1972.
1499_7	Developments in CGI technologies are reported each year at SIGGRAPH, an annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques that is attended by thousands of computer professionals each year. Developers of computer games and 3D video cards strive to achieve the same visual quality on personal computers in real-time as is possible for CGI films and animation. With the rapid advancement of real-time rendering quality, artists began to use game engines to render non-interactive movies, which led to the art form Machinima. Film and television
1499_8	CGI short films have been produced as independent animation since 1976. Early examples of feature films incorporating CGI animation include the live-action films Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Tron (both 1982), and the Japanese anime film Golgo 13: The Professional (1983). VeggieTales is the first American fully 3D computer animated series sold directly (made in 1993); its success inspired other animation series, such as ReBoot (1994) and Transformers: Beast Wars (1996) to adopt a fully computer-generated style. The first full length computer animated television series was ReBoot, which debuted in September 1994; the series followed the adventures of characters who lived inside a computer. The first feature-length computer animated film is Toy Story (1995), which was made by Disney and Pixar: following an adventure centered around anthropomorphic toys and their owners, this groundbreaking film was also the first of many fully computer-animated movies.
1499_9	The popularity of computer animation (especially in the field of special effects) skyrocketed during the modern era of U.S. animation. Films like Avatar (2009) and The Jungle Book (2016) use CGI for the majority of the movie runtime, but still incorporate human actors into the mix. Computer animation in this era has achieved photorealism, to the point that computer animated films such as The Lion King (2019) are able to be marketed as if they were live-action. Animation methods
1499_10	In most 3D computer animation systems, an animator creates a simplified representation of a character's anatomy, which is analogous to a skeleton or stick figure. They are arranged into a default position known as a bind pose, or T-Pose. The position of each segment of the skeletal model is defined by animation variables, or Avars for short. In human and animal characters, many parts of the skeletal model correspond to the actual bones, but skeletal animation is also used to animate other things, with facial features (though other methods for facial animation exist). The character "Woody" in Toy Story, for example, uses 700 Avars (100 in the face alone). The computer doesn't usually render the skeletal model directly (it is invisible), but it does use the skeletal model to compute the exact position and orientation of that certain character, which is eventually rendered into an image. Thus by changing the values of Avars over time, the animator creates motion by making the character
1499_11	move from frame to frame.
1499_12	There are several methods for generating the Avar values to obtain realistic motion. Traditionally, animators manipulate the Avars directly. Rather than set Avars for every frame, they usually set Avars at strategic points (frames) in time and let the computer interpolate or tween between them in a process called keyframing. Keyframing puts control in the hands of the animator and has roots in hand-drawn traditional animation. In contrast, a newer method called motion capture makes use of live action footage. When computer animation is driven by motion capture, a real performer acts out the scene as if they were the character to be animated. Their motion is recorded to a computer using video cameras and markers and that performance is then applied to the animated character.
1499_13	Each method has its advantages and as of 2007, games and films are using either or both of these methods in productions. Keyframe animation can produce motions that would be difficult or impossible to act out, while motion capture can reproduce the subtleties of a particular actor. For example, in the 2006 film Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Bill Nighy provided the performance for the character Davy Jones. Even though Nighy doesn't appear in the movie himself, the movie benefited from his performance by recording the nuances of his body language, posture, facial expressions, etc. Thus motion capture is appropriate in situations where believable, realistic behavior and action is required, but the types of characters required exceed what can be done throughout the conventional costuming.
1499_14	Modeling 3D computer animation combines 3D models of objects and programmed or hand "keyframed" movement. These models are constructed out of geometrical vertices, faces, and edges in a 3D coordinate system. Objects are sculpted much like real clay or plaster, working from general forms to specific details with various sculpting tools. Unless a 3D model is intended to be a solid color, it must be painted with "textures" for realism. A bone/joint animation system is set up to deform the CGI model (e.g., to make a humanoid model walk). In a process known as rigging, the virtual marionette is given various controllers and handles for controlling movement. Animation data can be created using motion capture, or keyframing by a human animator, or a combination of the two.
1499_15	3D models rigged for animation may contain thousands of control points — for example, "Woody" from Toy Story uses 700 specialized animation controllers. Rhythm and Hues Studios labored for two years to create Aslan in the movie The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which had about 1,851 controllers (742 in the face alone). In the 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow, designers had to design forces of extreme weather with the help of video references and accurate meteorological facts. For the 2005 remake of King Kong, actor Andy Serkis was used to help designers pinpoint the gorilla's prime location in the shots and used his expressions to model "human" characteristics onto the creature. Serkis had earlier provided the voice and performance for Gollum in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Equipment
1499_16	Computer animation can be created with a computer and an animation software. Some impressive animation can be achieved even with basic programs; however, the rendering can require much time on an ordinary home computer. Professional animators of movies, television and video games could make photorealistic animation with high detail. This level of quality for movie animation would take hundreds of years to create on a home computer. Instead, many powerful workstation computers are used. Graphics workstation computers use two to four processors, and they are a lot more powerful than an actual home computer and are specialized for rendering. Many workstations (known as a "render farm") are networked together to effectively act as a giant computer, resulting in a computer-animated movie that can be completed in about one to five years (however, this process is not composed solely of rendering). A workstation typically costs $2,000-16,000 with the more expensive stations being able to
1499_17	render much faster due to the more technologically-advanced hardware that they contain. Professionals also use digital movie cameras, motion/performance capture, bluescreens, film editing software, props, and other tools used for movie animation. Programs like Blender allow for people who can't afford expensive animation and rendering software to be able to work in a similar manner to those who use the commercial grade equipment.
1499_18	Facial animation The realistic modeling of human facial features is both one of the most challenging and sought after elements in computer-generated imagery. Computer facial animation is a highly complex field where models typically include a very large number of animation variables. Historically speaking, the first SIGGRAPH tutorials on State of the art in Facial Animation in 1989 and 1990 proved to be a turning point in the field by bringing together and consolidating multiple research elements and sparked interest among a number of researchers. The Facial Action Coding System (with 46 "action units", "lip bite" or "squint"), which had been developed in 1976, became a popular basis for many systems. As early as 2001, MPEG-4 included 68 Face Animation Parameters (FAPs) for lips, jaws, etc., and the field has made significant progress since then and the use of facial microexpression has increased.
1499_19	In some cases, an affective space, the PAD emotional state model, can be used to assign specific emotions to the faces of avatars. In this approach, the PAD model is used as a high level emotional space and the lower level space is the MPEG-4 Facial Animation Parameters (FAP). A mid-level Partial Expression Parameters (PEP) space is then used to in a two-level structure – the PAD-PEP mapping and the PEP-FAP translation model. Realism Realism in computer animation can mean making each frame look photorealistic, in the sense that the scene is rendered to resemble a photograph or make the characters' animation believable and lifelike. Computer animation can also be realistic with or without the photorealistic rendering.
1499_20	One of the greatest challenges in computer animation has been creating human characters that look and move with the highest degree of realism. Part of the difficulty in making pleasing, realistic human characters is the uncanny valley, the concept where the human audience (up to a point) tends to have an increasingly negative, emotional response as a human replica looks and acts more and more human. Films that have attempted photorealistic human characters, such as The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol have been criticized as "disconcerting" and "creepy".
1499_21	The goal of computer animation is not always to emulate live action as closely as possible, so many animated films instead feature characters who are anthropomorphic animals, legendary creatures and characters, superheroes, or otherwise have non-realistic, cartoon-like proportions. Computer animation can also be tailored to mimic or substitute for other kinds of animation, like traditional stop-motion animation (as shown in Flushed Away or The Peanuts Movie). Some of the long-standing basic principles of animation, like squash & stretch, call for movement that is not strictly realistic, and such principles still see widespread application in computer animation. Animation studios Some notable producers of computer-animated feature films include:
1499_22	Animal Logic – Films include Happy Feet (2006), Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010), Walking with Dinosaurs (2013), The Lego Movie (2014) Aardman Animations – Films include Flushed Away (2006), Arthur Christmas (2011) Big Idea Entertainment – Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie (2002) and The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything: A VeggieTales Movie (2008) Bron Studios – Films include The Addams Family (2019), The Willoughbys (2020) Blue Sky Studios – Films include Ice Age (2002), Robots (2005), Horton Hears a Who! (2008), Rio (2011), Epic (2013), The Peanuts Movie (2015) DNA Productions – Films include Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (2001), Santa vs. the Snowman 3D (2002) and The Ant Bully (2006) DNEG - Films includes Ron's Gone Wrong (2021)
1499_23	DreamWorks Animation – Films include Shrek (2001), Shark Tale (2004), Madagascar (2005), Over the Hedge (2006), Bee Movie (2007), Kung Fu Panda (2008), Monsters vs. Aliens (2009), How to Train Your Dragon (2010), Rise of the Guardians (2012), The Croods (2013), Trolls (2016), The Boss Baby (2017) ImageMovers – Films include The Polar Express (2004), Monster House (2006), Beowulf (2007), A Christmas Carol (2009), Mars Needs Moms (2011) Ilion Animation Studios — Films include Planet 51 (2009), Mortadelo and Filemon: Mission Implausible (2014) Wonder Park (2019) Illumination — Films include Despicable Me (2010), The Lorax (2012), Minions (2015), The Secret Life of Pets (2016), Sing (2016), The Grinch (2018), The Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019) Industrial Light & Magic – Films include Rango (2011) and Strange Magic (2015) Pacific Data Images – Films include Antz (1998), Shrek (2001), Shrek 2 (2004), Madagascar (2005), Megamind (2010), Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)
1499_24	Paramount Animation – Films include The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water (2015), Monster Trucks (2017), Sherlock Gnomes (2018), Wonder Park (2019), The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run (2020; 2021) Pixar Animation Studios – Films include Toy Story (1995), Monsters, Inc. (2001), Finding Nemo (2003), The Incredibles (2004), Cars (2006), Ratatouille (2007), WALL-E (2008), Up (2009), Inside Out (2015), Coco (2017), and Soul (2020) Rainmaker Studios – Films include Escape from Planet Earth (2013) and Ratchet & Clank (2016) Reel FX Animation Studios – Films include Free Birds (2013) and The Book of Life (2014) Wizart Animation – Films include The Snow Queen (2012), Sheep and Wolves (2016) Shirogumi – Films include Friends: Mononoke Shima no Naki (2011), Stand by Me Doraemon (2014) and Dragon Quest: Your Story (2019) Square Pictures – Films include Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.