great news: more realistic games
yesterday while i was driving home, i heard over the radio that a new game chip was develop that would make the games more realistic, it means that it would make the laws of physic apply in games. maybe someone knows more details about who developed the chip and when it is going to be applied
>_> well iam pretty shure that really isnt a new thing i mean half-life 2 and a few other game have almost real physics in them...anyway games getting a to little realistic is kinda cool but probobly bring the fun value for a game down a bit i mean do you need physics on your side when your a cyborg marine defending the earth from a hoard of over zealous alien ( <--halo 2 for those who dont know what iam talking about)
Originally Posted by hadou-ken
The Ageia PhysX Physics Processing Unit is, at the moment, a real waste of money.
Why? It's $299 and works only in a handful of games (Callfactor, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, City of Villains, some tech demos and several Unreal 3-powered games like Unreal Tournament 2007). The problem is that the PPU can only be used if the physics engine in the game is the Novodex Physics Engine developed by Ageia. Moreover, the way the developers are implementing its use is ridiculously retarded: The addition of physics effects, not actual physics calculations of existing in-game bodies. In English, this means that the PPU is used to enhance the visual quality of explosions, collisions, particles and fluids. One example is that instead of having 100 particles flying around during an explosion, the PPU will calculate the physics of 500 particles and show them on the screen. The HUGE disadvantage of this is that to render all these extra objects, the graphics processing unit, commonly known as "video card" is given extra work and thus the game will run more slowly.
There are, in my opinion, far better ways of calculating physics and this is done through the central processing unit itself. The Havok Physics Engine (Half Life 2, The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion, Halo 2, Max Payne, etc) does this wonderfully well and Havok are working in collaboration with ATI and NVIDIA to offload the physics calculations to a graphics processing unit with shader model 3.0 capabilities or simply to a second video card. Another solution, the best one in my opinion, is to make use of Hyperthreading technology and the secondary core(s) of the central processing unit itself.
If ever you look at Cellfactor, you WILL be amazed at how complex the physics engine is, but it really is nothing that a modern day central processing unit cannot achieve easily. Proof? I made a video a long time ago of Cellfactor running without a PhysX card and here's how it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3CiwhbLc_Y
It looks weird since I was playing it through the level editor, but there are no slowdowns at all from the explosions and every supposedly intensive physics calculations.
My computer at that time was:
Pentium D 940 at 4.0GHz
2GB DDR2-667 RAM
Two Geforce 7800GTX 512MB in SLI
Physics processors will certainly not revolutionize gaming until better implementations are done.
Last edited by Jyuu; 08-05-2006 at 08:46 PM.
How much more realistic do games have to be? Will it get to the point of photo realism? Then what is the point of playing a game when I can look outside and see the same thing?
I personally play games because they aren't realistic, I like being able to jump 40 ft in the air for no apparent reason or shoot laser beams out of my ass, gaming companies focus too much on graphics and not gameplay.
Read: GRAPHICS ARE FINE, PHYSICS ARE FINE, LEAVE THEM ALONE
Read: MOST GAMES SUCK, IMPROVE YOUR GAMEPLAY
some games take pages from being realistic, sports games for example, they also happen to be some of the most boring, rehashed crap on the market (I'M LOOKING AT YOU EA LOL!) Shooting games can be realistic, but if your guy can take 3 bullets and use a medkit in .5 seconds and be fine then why the hell would you want it to be more realistic? If it was you'd probably die in 1 shot (or soon afterwards).
So in summary 2:
Some physics engines are good, but only when you don't apply them to normal physics, I wouldn't mind seeing a guy flail around realistically because I happen to be slamming him into a wall with my wall-gravity gun. Then again, I would like to see some bones broken in ways that shouldn't be broken...
Last edited by Elcura; 08-06-2006 at 03:01 AM.
Originally Posted by Elcura
You really don't know what you are talking about.
Realism doesn't mean that you will just live another life in your computer, There's already Second Life for that. Realism is just the application of natural factors like graphics and physics to draw you more in a more immersive and enjoyable experience.
Look at Crysis. The graphics are so unbeliebably good that it draws you more into the world and feel like you actually are a living part of it.
Physics are becoming more and more important in gameplay because it improves it by a lot if used properly. Half Life 2 uses physics extremely well and it's one of the better games I've ever played. Gravity gun? I'm sold. Take a look at Oblivion and Morrowind. Everyone who's played both will agree on the fact that Oblivion has a far better combat engine due to the physics engine and makes slapping goblins far more enjoyable.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Graphics and physics are great and do contribute to the enhancement of games.
They really should just integrate those PPU's on motherboards. In fact, I hope they do, so that when I build my rig for Vista in a year or so, I don't have to add more components.
Oh I don't there there will anytime soon (5 years?).
Originally Posted by AKofC
They will offload the physics to the GPU and that seems to be the far better option.
The Vista driver model and DirectX will give applications direct access to hardware, much like consoles do. That will make physics processors useless, if you ask me.
People like you are bringing the gaming industry down. When did I say realism had anything to do with living in your computer? When did I say graphic weren't a nice thing? I personally wouldn't like to play KH2 if it had 16bit graphics but:
Originally Posted by Jyuu
Graphics aren't everything, they are nice - but it's come to the point where it doesn't need to be improved as much as gameplay. I can easily name you loads of games where the graphics were spectacular but the gameplay was rehashed and boring. Ultimately graphics aren't a saving grace for games - gameplay is. Good looking games look good forever, but aren't played as much as games that are enjoyable (funny how the games that are fun are still being played)
Gameplay sadly has been on a backburner for a long time now. If you had read what I said I didn't exactly say better physics was a bad thing, it's just that companies use them in far to boring a way. HL2 was the only time I saw it being used in a fun way and that was at the end of the game, FAIL. I would seriously have gotten bored of playing it and would never have known if my friend didn't show me.
Some games HAVE unbelievable graphics, but is that enough for you? If it is then that's too bad, I kinda like my games to be fun, not just pretty. HL2 again, yes great physics, but the gameplay was the same as every other FPS out there, nothing really stood out till the Gravity gun's second enhancement (and Ravenholm, that was scary), and the story? You've gotta be joking, it was pretty much the only thing that could've been interesting and kept it in the game despite the gameplay. There's much more to a game then meets the eye, technical aspects are great and all but without the right gameplay and control schemes who cares past playing the game for the first time?
Do you even know the requirements for a good game? Graphics and physics happen to be only 2 out of a list of things...
Technology is letting game developers do what wasn't possible before.
Originally Posted by Elcura
The portal system in Prey wasn't possible before and the game has been delayed for over 6 years now. Result? Prey is out and the portal system is unbelievably cool. That's just ONE example.
So gameplay has been a "backburner"?
Hmm look at Battlefield 2142. The new mode looks really fun and BF2 just came out last year too. They tweaked the graphics engine but brought A LOT of new gameplay elements.
Spore is all about the use of technology to enhance gameplay.
Hellgate: London looks promisingly awesome due to the randomization of levels.
Even Halo 3 looks a lot better. Why? Technology is able to provide game developers to develop the sense of scale in the Halo world.
Nintendo are using technology to improve gameplay. What do you think the Wii-mote is? Isn't it the use of technology to improve gameplay?
And you claim that HL2 is just like every other first person shooter. I call that bullshit. The gravity gun offers an unprecedented level of gameplay. Moreover, the variety of environments is huge. From the train station, canals, highway 17, Nova Prospect, City 17, Ravenholm and the Citadel, there's so many different things. Halo 2 was all concrete and corridors and Doom 3 is just plain boring, but HL2 is on an entirely different level.
If you want more examples on how gameplay isn't being neglected, check out:
Supreme Commander, Quake Wars, Assassin's Creed, Double Agent, and a whole lot more.
Graphics are not everything, but it is an important aspect.
I think you misunderstood me. I was merely speaking about graphics and physics being top priority (ok maybe not physics). I've already said graphics are an important aspect, like I've said before it's not the only aspect and it DEFINATLY is not more important then gameplay and story.
Originally Posted by Jyuu
I'm not dissing technology. Technology is great but game devs don't have to worry about MAKING the specs for the PS3 or MAKING the Wii-mote, they have to worry about the game, the gameplay (how to use what you've got), the story, the UI and whatever. After all, Sony aren't making the games for the PS3, someone else is.
Technology doesn't instantly = graphics, better systems and specs mean more memory and vastly deeper enviroments and deeper gameplay, gameplay is hindered by how many buttons there are on a control and ourselves as humans (some extra arms would do great). So companies need new creative ways to deal with a control scheme, and great control scheme makes games 100x more fun.
Gameplay has been backburner. For every game you say has good gameplay and graphics I can tell you 20 more that don't (just look at any list of games for PS2 and you can figure it out). Gameplay has nothing to do with graphics, graphics are just visual add, saying something graphical improved the gameplay isn't right...
As for Halo 3: It looks better, but does it play better? Did Halo 2 look better then 1? Yes. Was it a better game? Hell no (lol@needed to load textures).
HL2: I agree, the enviroments were crazy hot. That's not what made me bored. When I play a FPS the enviroment isn't exactly what I'm focusing on (shooting that guy with the shotgun happens to be much higher on my list of things to do). I didn't examine the enviroments but I felt them and they added to the atmosphere, something that an enviroment should do. Yet despite it looking pretty I was still shooting people the same way I would in any other game. I've said the gravity gun was nice, but it only seems to shine at the very last moments. Give me 3+ hours of the gravity gun and I'd have been happy. The only time it wasn't useless was in Ravenholm against the monsters there (picking up the saws and launching them was fun). Yet the physics still messed up a bit and it still looked forced when the saw came falling down.
You know what game is better then HL2? Time Splitters 2, why, because it's more fun (and multiplayer). I can easily tell what one has better graphics but I can also easily tell what one I'd rather play.
You listed a lot of what seems to be PC games. Can't say I've played any of those but I will look them up.