Yep. People have been doing this kind of stuff for computer games for decades. It's actually not that difficult. It's not clear what novel problem is being solved here.
Yep. People have been doing this kind of stuff for computer games for decades. It's actually not that difficult. It's not clear what novel problem is being solved here.
Yeah but those traditional procgen techniques don't use AI, and this one does use AI. They solved the problem of them not being AI enough for the AI era. AI!
Do you have some particular piece of software or tech demo or game in mind with interesting very large generated 3D worlds?
Age of Empires got me into tinkering with content generation. The flexible map rules were fantastic in making this possible.
Minecraft is of course the poster child for very large worlds of interest these days.
Dwarf Fortress crafts an entire continent complete with a multi-century history, the results of which you can explore freely in adventure mode.
Most of the recent examples of 3D worlds like the post tend to do it through wave function collapse.
> Minecraft is of course the poster child for very large worlds of interest these days.
Minecraft used to create very interesting worlds until they changed the algorithm and the landscapes became plain and boring. It took them about 10 year until the Caves and Cliffs Update to make the world generation interesting again.
Valheim and No Man's Sky are ones I've played recently.
In Mario 64 there is a staircase you can run up forever, granted it looks the same no matter how long you have Mario run up the stairs, but that certainly fits "big but uninteresting 3d world."
> big but uninteresting 3d world.
I know 'interesting' is subjective, but your comment is demonstrably false. Just type "mario 64 staircase" into youtube, and look at the hundreds (thousands? millions?) of videos and many millions of views.
People are interested in it as a form of trivia. It is extremely uninteresting from the perspective of the player and more importantly how the word was actually used, which was in reference to the quality of world generation.
Redefining “interesting” just so you can provide a completely irrelevant “correction” is bad faith trolling.
Not sure why you're so defensive about this. I'm not trolling. Whether something is interesting or not is subjective, which is my point. You might think you know why that staircase is interesting to people (it's just trivia), but that's just your opinion. This is a tech community, so you're obviously unimpressed by the technology used to make it, but most people don't care about that at all.
There's no secret formula to culture. Some programmers and AI people seem to think there is some magic AI model that will be able to produce cultural hits at the click of a button. If you're a boring person, you're not likely to "get" why something is interesting, or why that part can't just be automated away. No technology can help with that.
Minecraft surely fits those criteria.