Welcome, BTW good firstt post.
Just a opening note I am not trying "to put down the Nintendo machine" as I like it very much, just trying to showhere it is weak.
OnT, you are right I should gave a deffinition on physics and AI, once that the way I did is too oversimplistic, relative (to the power of the machine) and subjective, I think that there is none avaliable sp I will create two to use here and for my purposes.
I call good physics when you can "pick" objects in the game and use it according to some law of physics (Newtons Laws or not); eg1: in a FPS if you can think something like "if I shoot that rock the fallen tree(s) will roll and hit the gates killing the guards on patrols around it; eg2: you need to reach to some place but there is no way to get there, but you do have (eg) rocks, wood, steel sticks... whatever and you can pick those and order in a way that you can get a structure high enought to reach that point, of curse that it is much more fun if you need to concern about your weight and such. But GC does not have any game like that howerver in XB (eg, in HL2) already there is this to some extent (yet still very very limited).
The more objects you have and the more you can do, the better the physics are IMO.
For AI I shouldnt have said nice or good AIas by the deffinition I will gave it is not obtained by any game , but here is go a deffinition only for "tatical/strategic" gaming AI only (as a deffinition for AI in general is problematic from a phylosophic POV) so this will not be good for Fable and such only here enemys combat.
I would call a good AI one here the AI (anymey or not) acts and reacts always in a dangerous way (even) not being more powerfull than the player (here I am using a principle way that if two players (humans) have equal skills the winner will be the smarter/more inteligent one), so if they have equal powers only tatics/strategy can lead to victory.
The more dangerous, impredicable, better learning, better planing ... the AI have the better it is IMO.
Of curse there are no AI like that in todays games but BC games are mostly some patterns that you learn, find the weakness and the AI is ruined, in a FEW XB games like Halo I already thinks that try to do something closer from what I described, anyway it is much better defy (to your mind, not a matter of timings aiming and such) and much more fun.
I hope that those satisfy you and give a better understanding from what I want for next gen that I dont see (GC) or still to limited (XB) this gen.
Just a opening note I am not trying "to put down the Nintendo machine" as I like it very much, just trying to showhere it is weak.
OnT, you are right I should gave a deffinition on physics and AI, once that the way I did is too oversimplistic, relative (to the power of the machine) and subjective, I think that there is none avaliable sp I will create two to use here and for my purposes.
I call good physics when you can "pick" objects in the game and use it according to some law of physics (Newtons Laws or not); eg1: in a FPS if you can think something like "if I shoot that rock the fallen tree(s) will roll and hit the gates killing the guards on patrols around it; eg2: you need to reach to some place but there is no way to get there, but you do have (eg) rocks, wood, steel sticks... whatever and you can pick those and order in a way that you can get a structure high enought to reach that point, of curse that it is much more fun if you need to concern about your weight and such. But GC does not have any game like that howerver in XB (eg, in HL2) already there is this to some extent (yet still very very limited).
The more objects you have and the more you can do, the better the physics are IMO.
For AI I shouldnt have said nice or good AIas by the deffinition I will gave it is not obtained by any game , but here is go a deffinition only for "tatical/strategic" gaming AI only (as a deffinition for AI in general is problematic from a phylosophic POV) so this will not be good for Fable and such only here enemys combat.
I would call a good AI one here the AI (anymey or not) acts and reacts always in a dangerous way (even) not being more powerfull than the player (here I am using a principle way that if two players (humans) have equal skills the winner will be the smarter/more inteligent one), so if they have equal powers only tatics/strategy can lead to victory.
The more dangerous, impredicable, better learning, better planing ... the AI have the better it is IMO.
Of curse there are no AI like that in todays games but BC games are mostly some patterns that you learn, find the weakness and the AI is ruined, in a FEW XB games like Halo I already thinks that try to do something closer from what I described, anyway it is much better defy (to your mind, not a matter of timings aiming and such) and much more fun.
I hope that those satisfy you and give a better understanding from what I want for next gen that I dont see (GC) or still to limited (XB) this gen.
). No, Metroid Prime isn't something you can count. It's not even remotely taking the same approach to gameplay or graphics design. For one thing, lock-on would render an AI like Halo's (which I'm not entirely sure what made it so incredible, having played the game a billion times) useless. Comparing it to Halo is useless...there's far more geometry and texturing in an environment, the animations are much smoother, there are quite a few SFX, and the framerate is much, much better. But the physics and AI aren't as good, nor were they intended to be (there's some decent ragdoll...try blowing up some boxes surrounded by corpses around the Earth landing cruiser, and the physics for the morph ball are fine), and there's no bump-mapping or reflections. The closest thing I can compare to AI-wise to Halo available on Gamecube that I've played is Everything or Nothing, but that was cross-platform. The only thing Metroid Prime and Halo have in common is camera angle. While we're comparing apples to toaster ovens, let's compare F-Zero GX and Forza.
