SCE presentation from PlayStation Meeting 2005
- Thread starter one
- Start date
seismologist
Regular
PC-Engine said:
and what would those ways be?
seismologist
Regular
I would look to see all of those incorporated. Basically instead of ducks in the bathtub I want to see DOA fighting characters.
seismologist said:I would look to see all of those incorporated. Basically instead of ducks in the bathtub I want to see DOA fighting characters.
In a fighting game you can have friction from crosswinds, friction from fighting in sand, friction from being soaked in water. You can add those elements onto surfaces too so the ground becomes more slippery etc. Then you can have objects that can be picked up and thrown with physics based collisions/animation.
seismologist
Regular
yes all of that too. I guess what I really meant "destructive environments" is "interactive environments".
In a fighting game I would most appreciate if physics were used for good cloth and hair simulation, and ragdoll physics as it's the characters that are the main focus in fighters, not so much environments.
Hair and clothes that flow through the characters should be left to this gen as it looks even worse in high res.
Destructable environments will do well with faked physics animation.
Hair and clothes that flow through the characters should be left to this gen as it looks even worse in high res.
Destructable environments will do well with faked physics animation.
seismologist said:
That's great, but most games are not realistic by design. Most games still follow the arcade formula, which really isn't going to benefit from major physics advancements. Their lack of physics is a design choice not a hardware limitation.
Like photo-realistic graphics, only a few games will actually benefit from physics advances. The vast majority of games won't use these types of features because that's not what the developer wants their games to be. (Photo-realistic, or uber-realistic physics.)
Powderkeg said:
A game does not have to be of a realistic, or photorealistic design to benefit from believable behaviour and interaction. You could have the most fantastical world design etc. and still have heavy physical modelling to bring it to life and make it believable. Even the most out-there visions need to be believable in order to drag the player in and make them feel like that world is solid and "real". Think of the most non-photorealistic movie CG..think of a pixar movie for example. They use a lot of physical modelling to bring depth and "realness" to the unreal.
Even games that are heavily design-orientated with almost pre-scripted behaviour can use physics just to make things look better. And then obviously games that are more sandbox with "emergent" gameplay can use physical modelling more integrally.
edit - here's a couple of good articles on how pixar etc. use physics:
http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2002/02/p110202monstersinc.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020126/bob10.asp
A relevant quote from the first: "We take the laws of physics as we know them, and expand on them, so that they work in the worlds that we invent"
Powderkeg said:
Physics will play a big role, I cant imagine many Games that wont benefit from it.
The whole point is to eliminate predefined patterns, Ragdoll-Deaths where the first big step, and you cant argue that you liked Corpses stuck in walls or laying horizontally on a stair. Repeated animation is one of the first things that stick out in any Game. That doesnt means physic has to make the Game more "real", just more dynamic.
seismologist
Regular
Seems that most genres could benefit in some way...
FPS - interactive environments
Racing - environment effects
RPG - facial animation
Adventure - real world puzzles
Sports - collision
Action - interactive environments
Fighting - cloth physics/environment
genres that might not benefit:
2D
Arcade
FPS - interactive environments
Racing - environment effects
RPG - facial animation
Adventure - real world puzzles
Sports - collision
Action - interactive environments
Fighting - cloth physics/environment
genres that might not benefit:
2D
Arcade
mckmas8808
Legend
Plain and simple graphics and physics are important. I think physics will play a bigger role next-gen than the upgraded graphics.
osvaldomartins
Newcomer
What abou this:
http://www.videogamerx.net/bbs/view.php?id=vx01&no=9810
http://www.videogamerx.net/bbs/view.php?id=vx01&no=9810
mckmas8808
Legend
_leech_ said:
What does that Japaneese stuff even say? What are they showing in those slides?
Mefisutoferesu
Regular
Hehe, no that's actually Korean... I know no Korean, but from what I can tell, thanks to google translator, it's pretty generic press talk. "Here's a scene from a conference held for SCEK... blah blah blah blah blah". Nothing of interest.
The slides have my curiosity though...
"Ray-Intersect Math"
The slides have my curiosity though...
"Ray-Intersect Math"
Ray intersects are used all over the shop and don't point to any one use (ray-tracing...).
Having had a look at the latest PS3 media I'm slightly confused.
The latest stuff seems to suffer a lot more in terms of jaggies/AA than the E3 stuff. And when I say E3 i don't mean KZ before I get shot down, I mean e.g. The Getaway (that was "real" right?) which had no discernable jaggies.
Or is there something I'm missing? Perhaps the high resolution?
The latest stuff seems to suffer a lot more in terms of jaggies/AA than the E3 stuff. And when I say E3 i don't mean KZ before I get shot down, I mean e.g. The Getaway (that was "real" right?) which had no discernable jaggies.
Or is there something I'm missing? Perhaps the high resolution?
