Sony @ GDC: Phil Harrison's Keynote

[expletive]

But you agree that the physics here makes the game look better than it otherwise would, no? And what's wrong with that? Most the advances made to date in technology for game's sake has been "just" about making things look better.

I agree it does look better and better is, well, uh, BETTER! I'm just feeling theres a disaprity between how much better it really is at this point and what the industry is claiming. Theyre making it sound like this ageia card will revolutionize gaming this generation of consoles and the corresponding PC generation. I've yet to be convinced that improvements to 'tradiitonal' physics engines (like Havok), wouldnt get us 90% of the way there, with the last 10% being rather subjective.

I think the point is, with Motorstorm, that it will. The terrain as deformed by you or others will affect your handling etc. at least as far as I understand. They even showed a bike apparently getting badly stuck in the mud and so forth.

Well they certainly seem to be trying to convince us it will. Until someone gets some hands on time with a playable version, you and i will probably remain on opposite sides of the optimism/cynicism fence.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What sets me back is that with new Quad-core AMD and Intel CPUs, these machines will have some serious power in them, and i'm not sure what a PPU can do that you couldn't do with these monster CPUs with lots of cores to spare.

The straight-forward answer is the PPU can be added to an existing setup without having to buy a new core and Mobo.

 

[Titanio]

I agree it does look better and better is, well, uh, BETTER! I'm just feeling theres a disaprity between how much better it really is at this point and what the industry is claiming. Theyre making it sound like this ageia card will revolutionize gaming this generation of consoles and the corresponding PC generation. I've yet to be convinced that improvements to 'tradiitonal' physics engines (like Havok), wouldnt get us 90% of the way there, with the last 10% being rather subjective.

I'm not making a case for the AGEIA card specifically, but for more power for physics wherever it may come from. If that comes via GPUs in Havok, for example - I assume that's what you mean by "improvements to 'traditional' physics engines" - then that's great! Although it is worth noting that for now, at least, the extent of physics on GPUs seems to be limited to "effects" physics. More power is the enabler here, wherever it comes from.

Well they certainly seem to be trying to convince us it will. Until someone gets some hands on time with a playable version, you and i will probably remain on opposite sides of the optimism/cynicism fence.

So if the game actually does this as demonstrated to date, you'll be suitably impressed? I get the impression you think its some impossible or unlikely end-goal, so if Evolution do pull this off, I imagine you'll be quite pleased.

Personally I don't share your cynicism. There's no reason to believe that what they're working on at the moment won't be used, the balance of probability doesn't favour such cynicism either. This very mechanic was demonstrated. Kind of by its nature, also, if they're going to include this kind of deformation at all, it has to affect the vehicles (and thus the gameplay), since they're the ones creating it in the first place.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

PS3's future looks great, UT 2007, War Hawk, Getatway and all the games shown looked great. And there still NOT on final hardware.

 

[expletive]

So if the game actually does this as demonstrated to date, you'll be suitably impressed? I get the impression you think its some impossible or unlikely end-goal, so if Evolution do pull this off, I imagine you'll be quite pleased.

Personally I don't share your cynicism. There's no reason to believe that what they're working on at the moment won't be used, the balance of probability doesn't favour such cynicism either. This very mechanic was demonstrated. Kind of by its nature, also, if they're going to include this kind of deformation at all, it has to affect the vehicles (and thus the gameplay), since they're the ones creating it in the first place.

I absolutely think they can DO what theyre claiming. I'm saying that regardless of how effectively they implement what theyre shooting for, i'm not convinced its going to make the game any more 'fun' or feel any more 'real'. This goes for PC as well as PS3, 360, etc.

 

[mckmas8808]

The stuff in motorstorm with deformable road and ruts in the mud seems fairly useless to me. Unless youre in a jeep and can feel the car tilt or the steering wheel jerk becuase of the ditch, is it really going to matter?

Oh come on you took it a bit far with this comment though exp. Don't you think driving with current gen racing games on wet surfaces and seeing the car slide and feeling the car pull through virbation feedback is useful?

I like the added realism. It's something a tad different and I think we will all get to love it once it's on other systems and in more racing games.

 

[London Geezer]

Oh come on you took it a bit far with this comment though exp. Don't you think driving with current gen racing games on wet surfaces and seeing the car slide and feeling the car pull through virbation feedback is useful?

I like the added realism. It's something a tad different and I think we will all get to love it once it's on other systems and in more racing games.

That's the point isn't it. Without Force-Feedback, all that mud sliding and deformation is a bit useless.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

That's the point isn't it. Without Force-Feedback, all that mud sliding and deformation is a bit useless.

Not really, Reduced grip, Reduced vissabilty ( if playing from cock pit view ) and Engine damage......there's of loads of things it can affect

 

[fireshot]

I absolutely think they can DO what theyre claiming. I'm saying that regardless of how effectively they implement what theyre shooting for, i'm not convinced its going to make the game any more 'fun' or feel any more 'real'. This goes for PC as well as PS3, 360, etc.

I feel the same way.

nice explosions but do these 1st gen physics hardware have enough juice left (*ahem* ps3, 360 ) to make a difference ( fully realistic vehicle simulation? ) while still maintaining a high level of visual fidelity?

emot... physics.. synthesis.. demo != game

 

[mckmas8808]

That's the point isn't it. Without Force-Feedback, all that mud sliding and deformation is a bit useless.

While I personally have force feedback in my Dual shock controller too so...

And I second what !eVo!-X Ant UK said too. That's also some great stuff that should be in the game.

 

[mckmas8808]

emot... physics.. synthesis.. demo != game

You are not talking about the Motorstorm demo are you?

Also, with regards to MotorStorm not being representative of a 'game' per se, Phil explained that they stripped out most of the game for the sole purpose of demonstrating the technology involved rather than 'showcasing' MotorStorm. This is GDC folks, remember that.

Keep in mind also that he also mentioned that they stripped the backgrounds, so the other developers couldn't see what they were developing totally as a game. That's why the car with the bullet holes was just in a plain desert.

 

[London Geezer]

While I personally have force feedback in my Dual shock controller too so...

And I second what !eVo!-X Ant UK said too. That's also some great stuff that should be in the game.

Force Feedback in a Dual Shock controller?! I think you're not understanding what Force Feedback really is. Unless i've missed a Force-Feedback Dual Shock but i'm not even sure how that would work anyway.
You're not talking about the silly Vibration function are you?

 

[StefanS]

Not really, Reduced grip, Reduced vissabilty ( if playing from cock pit view ) and Engine damage......there's of loads of things it can affect

The point is that the player needs the feedback, to know what is affecting the cars handling. Image playing Motorstorm and suddenly the car spins totally out of control. Without knowing why the game is behaving so "strangely" you'll likely say that the physics engine is flawed or that the game is bugged. Forcefeedback is not important because it is caused by the physics engine, but because it provides explaination.

 

[Tap In]

.... I can't wait for the game that allow me to blow up a truck like that and the tires, grill, and other pieces of the truck flying off can actually kill or hurt the enemy instead of my having to shoot him.....

You can do it now.... in GRAW :smile:

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

You can do it now.... in GRAW :smile:

You could do that in HL2 and the Gravity gun, barrel slinging was so fun in that game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

i'm not convinced its going to make the game any more 'fun' or feel any more 'real'. This goes for PC as well as PS3, 360, etc.

For me, the difference between Outrun (or more Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge in my case), GT2 and GT3 shows how improved physics makes for a better game that's more challenging and more fun. Having written code using physics libraries, I can assure you that just being able to interract openly with a virtual physical world is extremely engaging. The possibilities for new and very fun gameplay from advanced physics is very real. Whether devs manage to use it is a different matter, but thinking there's no point researching and developing better physics is passing up a great opportunity.

 

[mckmas8808]

The point is that the player needs the feedback, to know what is affecting the cars handling. Image playing Motorstorm and suddenly the car spins totally out of control. Without knowing why the game is behaving so "strangely" you'll likely say that the physics engine is flawed or that the game is bugged. Forcefeedback is not important because it is caused by the physics engine, but because it provides explaination.

Why can't you guys understand that the vibration feature in the controllers will be enough! Games have used rainy and icy conditions to effect the handling of cars for years now! This only takes it to the next level.

 

[London Geezer]

Why can't you guys understand that the vibration feature in the controllers will be enough! Games have used rainy and icy conditions to effect the handling of cars for years now! This only takes it to the next level.

The vibration feature is a silly thing that should have been killed a long time ago.
Force-Feedback is a completely different beast.
If you're happy with vibration, fine, but don't say that's what will take it "to the next level" cause it won't.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well my 2 cents is this, I think that physics are already very good in games, and that there are many much more important advancements in gameplay that we should focus on first before physics, games need better storylines, better Ai, they need more cinematic moments like COD2(which 99% of games can't pull off), they need more non-linear storylines and more control over the story and more replayability.

All these things I think are much more deficient in most games than physics.

If you look at Oblivion, it has a whole physics based world, everything is realistically rendered and you can interact with it. Yesterday I fought a stone beast made of hunbdreds of stones, all whirling and swirling in cyclones as I fought him, the physics were great, and this is a basic PC game from early 2006.

How much better do we really need? The thing about physics is, the effects aren't always noticeable, for 90% of a given game you may not notice any physics, unlike other graphical upgrades which are present at all times. The other thing is, improvements in physics are very hard to notice, like would I really have nopticed if the stone monster had 300 stones instead of 100? Would I really care?

Physics seems to have huge diminishing returns, and we already have good physics processing capabilities, I don't see what more we need.

As far as motorstorm, I don't see why the ruts/track affecting handling gameplay elements couldn't have been done in previous generations, the splatter and eye candy seems to be all that's really 'enabled' by more processing power.

 

[Titanio]

I absolutely think they can DO what theyre claiming. I'm saying that regardless of how effectively they implement what theyre shooting for, i'm not convinced its going to make the game any more 'fun' or feel any more 'real'. This goes for PC as well as PS3, 360, etc.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I really disagree most wholeheartedly. The scope for some interesting scenarios is definitely widened by including something like this. Gamespot mentions one..imagine also mixing in a weather system, whereby the track can change or not with passing rain showers (i.e. after rain, you can manipulate the track more easily to your convenience, and perhaps not to that of your opponents, also forcing you to rethink the best racing lines each time the track changes etc., or the the potential for a well timed nudge into an opponent as their negotiating trickier 'ruts' that could leave them with in more trouble). Asides obviously from just the aesthetic contribution to the experience..

Physics seems to have huge diminishing returns, and we already have good physics processing capabilities, I don't see what more we need.

As far as motorstorm, I don't see why the ruts/track affecting handling gameplay elements couldn't have been done in previous generations, the splatter and eye candy seems to be all that's really 'enabled' by more processing power.

I'd disagree totally. Looking at some of the stuff coming from AGEIA etc. it's pretty obvious what more power is bringing. With more power you can either do more of the same as before, or do new more complex kinds of simulation. "More of the same" is arguably very noticeable depending on the context (and new contexts which may simple REQUIRE that scale to be a compelling representation of what you're doing), while the latter will be where the more exciting stuff still will probably happen.

The argument that we need no more power for physics is kind of laughable. We're just getting started! For a technology forum, we really do seem to have some luddites about