Mark Rein Interview @ Shack News

Honestly all jokes aside, based on the demos on Ageias own page comparing a PC version of GRAW without a PPU and a PC w/PPU the explosion STILL looked way better on X360... who cares how many ugly, aliased, polygonal fragments it can create?

I guess art trumps flops/polys again.

 

In the behind-closed-doors demo for the press, they showed vehicle destruction in UT2007 for PS3.

 

well until 2k7 is annoucned as exclusive i'm convinced it's cross platform, so we can do a straight up comparison on the same game.

 

When used properly to improve 'imersiveness' physics should be very subtle, I'm all for that sort of usage for icing on the cake, I think that stuff's great.

But most developers don't create these great subtle, realistic effects. You get a pile of logs at the top of a hill, a room full of 100 pipes, exploding barrels in 1/3 of every level.

I want to see subtle realistic physics, not shoved in your face, leaves bending as I brush by, wind blowing objects across the ground, water flowing as I step through it, these are when physics are used best, and it's a VERY subtle thing which I agree adds to the imersiveness.

So, it will be interesting to see how the physics in this game are used to improve the experience, or whether they're relegated to the usual role of exploding barrels, and breakable crates. It will also be very interesting to see how noticeable the differences are on the 2 systems.

I wouldn't expect much though honestly, it's only a 1st gen PS3 game, PC port as well.

 

The irony is that those subtle effects, like cloth, liquids and flexible objects, are the most intensive to simulate.

 

Mark Rein said don't expect it. But we know things do change so....

 

They can always be simulated, it's just a matter of how well it does it. Which is why it will be interesting to see how noticeable the differences are.

 

Always the fight guys!
PS3 more cooler"thought out" Cpu, 360 more cooler"thought out" Gpu.

 

The more "subtle" they are, the less noticeable they will be.
Is that why you want them subtle

I'm all for "subtle" effects too, but there is a place for over the top explosions, collapses etc. as it's games we're talking about, and if you want the physics to have an effect on gameplay you need effects and reactions that are more than "subtle".

These effects being "subtle" will likely be missed by many, they won't have that much effect on review scores, magazine/internet screenshots... and they are harder to market.
So I don't see many developers putting much effort in these "subtle" effects, as they can often be faked convincely enough using less processor intensive methods (I think).

There was talk (by Ken Kutaragi?) that much of the (character) animation in future games would be "physics driven" or something like that.
That could have a much bigger impact in the feel and look of the game as well as gameplay.

 

Why are you guys even trying to make the xcpu as good as cell? It's not, mmkay?

 

Hardware is frankly not my turf, but still, of what PS3 has shown us, effects such as Aeris´s dress dinamically moving according to her body are things that are just not present in X360 games, no matter how you spin it.

Those kinds of effects, while somewhat subtle, are very impressive and add so much to a game´s immersiveness. If physics are to thank for those, then why downplay them?

 

I didn't mean to downplay those subtle effects, but I wouldn't downplay those less subtle implementations of "physics" either.

When I think of it, I don't really know where to put the line of subtle and not subtle physics effects.
Sure, an explosion and a pile of rolling logs are not subtle, but those effects in itself might contain some sublte "sub-effects", like smoke and ash particles affected by "physics" from air currents, or the rolling logs colliding with trees and an "sub-effect" of "physics simulated" leaves falling from that tree on impact.
What about "physically" swaying trees, or lapping waves, they might not be that in-your-face effects, but I wouldn't say they're very subtle either, as they are likely longer in duration than those explosions and collapses.

These examples might still be out of reach in real game situations, but I hope my point got through.

I wholeheartedly welcome more alive worlds, with natural pehnomenons replicated as believably and unrepetitively as possible, but not with the sacrifice of gameplay mechanics.

 

And to add to that what about the great looking physics in the Crysis video? Everybody seems to love it when the guy walks past branches and the leaves fling backwards in a realistic motion.

That's just one of many new things that these strong powered machines will give us physics related. Yeah that branch moving might not add 100% better gameplay but it sure as hell looks very very nice.

 

Please give your little 'reading between the lines' a rest, you are really terrible at it.

Physics are by their very nature subtle. Walk outside right now, and tell me how many examples of physics you actually see.

My point was that the subtle effect are the realistic ones, and these are the ones in my opinion that add to teh imersiveness, anything that makes it more realistic adds to the immersiveness.

The other types of physics, like rolling logs etc are gimmicky, and they get old damn fast, and don't make the game any better really. Now explosions, they sorta fall in the middle cause they never really get old, but at the same time, if 30 pieces of debris fly off instead of 100 pieces of debris, that really doesn't add anything.

The greatest thing about the PS3 news is that Ageia has provided alot of libraries for PS3, which greatly improves the chance we see alot of these effects become more commonplace in games since developers will have the middleware ready to go.

 

So me bringing up the Crysis demo is actually proving your "subtle" argument right? Because it was damn amazing seeing that branch realistically move with the player.

 

exactly.

 

Actually ,in Crysis ,AI will be able to see moving branches and then act in consecquence.

 

Games are not the same as real life though, if they were they'd be pretty damn boring mostly.
So, I don't see explosion and rolling logs when I go outside, but neither do I see gunmen, soldiers shooting aliens, six legged monsters, cars crashing and plummeting meters into air... but I do see people playing ball, cars leaning into corners, people slipping in the icy roads and falling, a gust of wind throwing a mans hat off... there's not much exciting things happening in real life, it all is subtle, that's true.

I really don't know what I am arguing any more, so I'm sorry, I think you're right and I might have read a bit too much between the lines in what you wrote.
But to me you just seemed to forget that what works in real life might be a bit too subtle in games, and that it's doesn't necessarily have to be just the same old rolling logs and explosions, if you want to "show off" with physics in games.

You seemed too quick to downplay flashy physics effects, as if they're a bad thing to have in games that mostly are "flashy" by their nature, and need to have those moments.

Those effects that I understand you mean by "subtle" do have their place in the background of even more action oriented games, and especially in adventure games, but I don't think it's even reasonable to expect developers to prioritize the still limited resources to such things that maybe could be done convincely enough by simpler means, and you know it I think...

I too hope physics will be used more creatively, but I also hope it won't be "wasted" on effects that can be done in other means, and affects that would only be appreciated by those who know "they were done with physics simulation".

 

So the extra physics in the game does affect gameplay in Crysis?

 

And thus the circle of life (or game development). Improved physics can lead to improved gameplay, graphics and AI. Obviously, though not in all circumstances.