Porridge said:It doesn't matter because:
1. 360 will have a lot of sorry PS3 games ( not the good ones):lol .
2. Wii will be successful if you wish.
That's why.
Martoo said:AI? Have we slipped back into the early 90s? Do we need mobs in games that die in a few hits that can think of 3 more ways to hide behind a crate? Really? I thought the future was online, playing other human beings.
Could have fooled me!As an example, he asked the audience at BAFTA to consider the game character of Lara Croft and her movie counterpart, played by Angelina Jolie - arguing that the most important difference between the two is not visual, but lies instead in the fact that Jolie has a brain and human emotions.
_leech_ said:The guy's entirely right (along with animation, physics, [simulation,] and procedural technologies). Good thing the industry's in a good position where we can enjoy it along with significant graphical improvements.
Dragona Akehi said:Seriously, this is why Nintendo is ****ed. Power isn't just for graphics.
JCX9 said:I think wii could be so much better if it could handle as advanced physics as ps3/360.
To be fair, Wii does have an overall processing advantage over GameCube to the tune of 2-4 times, right? So, if a developer actually tries to tap into that added power, you may see some nice results. Not on the X360/PS3 level, but a jump nonetheless.Dragona Akehi said:I do agree - I have immense fun with my DS. However, the PSP is also just a handheld PS2... can't really do "exciting" stuff with that...
I don't doubt that Nintendo won't have awesomely fun games on Wii. But for all the talk they have of pushing the medium forward with new control... I can't help but be disappointed there isn't anything hardware wise they can use to make new gameplay experiences.
i'm by no means a techie, so i'm not even sure what allthis means, but a poster at gonintendo.com posted this:GoldenEye 007 said:To be fair, Wii does have an overall processing advantage over GameCube to the tune of 2-4 times, right? So, if a developer actually tries to tap into that added power, you may see some nice results. Not on the X360/PS3 level, but a jump nonetheless.
http://gonintendo.com/?p=5035#comment-76309If Nintendo (and the engineers at IBM and ATI) are clever and cut just the right corners and cheat in just the right places, it *should* be possible for Wii to output comparable graphics to at least 360.
Heres why (among other things): One of the aspects of graphics, where the diminishing returns of increasing power, is most apparent is with regards to resolution.
320×240 looks a lot better than the legobrick resolution of the Atari 2600. 480i/p looks quite a bit better than 320×240, but not quite the aforementioned leap.
720p without AA looks a *little* better than 480p.
But, 480p with good AA and all effects on, actually looks better than a game where a lot of the power has gone towards achieving the high HD resolution.
720p takes up 3x the bandwidth, 3x the memory and 3x the fillrate of 480p, but it doesnt look 3x better at all.
Even if Hollywood (the Wii VPU) is only half the overall speed of xenos, it would still be faster at filling its smaller resolution with similar quality pixels.
The CPU is a different story.
The CPUs major tasks are
- Keeping track of the gameworld
- Transforming geometry
- Physics
- AI
First of, theres seemingly an awful long way from a singlecore 700-1000Mhz processor to a triple core 3,2Ghz processor.
For general purpose stuff though, access to memory as fast (low latency) as 1T SRAM, coupled with a healthy cache (at least 256kb) means that the CPU can be feed data continuously without having to stall all the time, waiting for the relevant random piece of data.
An important factor is also how much helper logic (OoOe and branch prediction etc.) the Broadway has, something which ms and sony has chosen not to have so much of in their CPUs.
Geometry transformation is of course done to a large degree on the geometry engine of the VPU, which can be fixed hardware and with very high polycount, or flexible but with less polygons per second.
ms and Sony chose the latter.
If Nintendo has a fixed geometry engine (like in the GC) it should be able to throw a lot of geometry around coupled with a CPU thats good at floating point calc, for the more demanding geometry tasks.
In other words you wont be getting pervasively destructible environments and models mapped with particles on the Wii, but comparable geometry complexity overall.
The CPU is also used for physics, something which can be very important for gameplay.
It would really be a clever move, to have a small part of either the Hollywood or Broadway dedicated to a physics processor, like it has been hinted by some developers in interviews.
Like geometry, physics calculations has characteristics that are very suited for implementing, at least partly, in fixed hardware, making it run cool and fast but of course losing some of the flexibility.
The last point, AI, isnt suited for hardware implementation, but in the usual way of implementing it, it depends entirely on general-purpose power. Whats more, AI is one of the smallest posts on the CPU time allocation table.
Branching, scripted behaviour and not genuine AI, is still by far the most common way to do AI.
And then lastly to memory:
How much memory is really needed for impressive visuals? Well, that depends entirely on what you mean by impressive. But let me just point out that half of Wiis supposed memory size of ~100Mb is enough for 400 512×512 textures. More than I have ever seen any console game use in a single level!
If the drive is fast enough (as fast or faster than the GC one) it should be a relatively easy to use the DVD as a kind of very slow virtual memory.
jko said:i'm by no means a techie, so i'm not even sure what allthis means, but a poster at gonintendo.com posted this:
http://gonintendo.com/?p=5035#comment-76309
Deku said:How advanced. I also think PS3 would be more successful if it could handle the fun of the Wii
I suppose you have a point, if your definition of 'fun' involves being forced to flail your arms around like you're having a seizure in order to play games.
Games can't be fun without a motion sensor? Give it a rest, Deku
DCharlie said:and every Wii game is going to be exactly like swimmng with the controller? enough already, all the anti-Wii statements are sounding similar to the anti-DS crap we had to put up with.
why not just wait and see?
DCharlie said:sonys late inclussion of the motion sensors makes me think that Sony think Nintendo might be on to something!
Blablurn said:"GTA is unimportant!" :lol
Spider_Jerusalem said:However, this statement sounded a little bit like someone who discovered that gfx isn't a field in which they can show their superiority and are now looking at other fields to pimp
Soneet said:I doubt the boss has seen any line of code (like some gamers who try to argue as techs). While processing power is nice to have, most of the difficulty in AI lies in programming and the intelligence of the programmer himself/herself.
Yeah, he just used an acronym totally the wrong way. I think he's trying to explain emotional facial expressions and social reactions.gofreak said:*snip*
But I think what he's talking about here isn't simply A.I. but a range of issues that contribute to what he wants to see achieved, which he's just labelling in a broad sense as "artificial intelligence".
Soneet said:However, I don't totally agree that's an improvement for every game. I still believe games shouldn't be about humans and much less about every day's life.
So in that sense, I don't believe he knows what true interactive art means. For example, I see more art in Okami and Zelda than in Shenmue and Grand Theft Auto.
Flo_Evans said:I think AI is really an overused term that really doesn't apply much to games.
Flo_Evans said:Most games simply use patterns or events to trigger pre-set actions. I don't think we will see real AI until we move past binary. You can create the most complex branching logic but in the end the computer will choose one of the pre-programed options. It can't really improvise or form a new strategy beyond what it is told to do.
i agree.Flo_Evans said:I think AI is really an overused term that really doesn't apply much to games. Most games simply use patterns or events to trigger pre-set actions. I don't think we will see real AI until we move past binary. You can create the most complex branching logic but in the end the computer will choose one of the pre-programed options. It can't really improvise or form a new strategy beyond what it is told to do.
Soneet said:Yeah, he just used an acronym totally the wrong way. I think he's trying to explain emotional facial expressions and social reactions.
However, I don't totally agree that's an improvement for every game. I still believe games shouldn't be about humans and much less about every day's life.
So in that sense, I don't believe he knows what true interactive art means. For example, I see more art in Okami and Zelda than in Shenmue and Grand Theft Auto.
jko said:
"Come with me if you want to liiiive."
Skilotonn said:So they've gone from gloating that the PS3 is where "true HD" lies, to saying that graphics are no big deal now? Okay...
gofreak said:Well, there's a certain amount you have to give your AI to start with. There are techniques that allow an AI to compose and try new strategies etc. but they are all derived from the building blocks you give it. We could debate how different that is from how human intelligence doed it, though..the mechanisms are different, obviously, but do we start with nothing?
Nvidia said:
linsivvi said:Come on, we are not talking about chess here, where you need as much CPU power as you can muster to do build a gigantic tree of possible moves. We are talking about action games where the enemies that can react in a smart way to human players, and all you need is just some improved algorithms. Developers could have done that with PS1. They just couldn't/didn't bother to come up with better algorithms, that's all.
Flo_Evans said:well you need to give your NPC some skills of course! it seems some developers miss this and thier NPCs are unable to even navigate through thier own game world
You kind of have to consider game balance and design when talking about AI. It would be real easy to make an enemy that dodged all your bullets everytime while headshoting you in the blink of an eye. AI in games have to have exploitable flaws for you to defeat them.
What I want to see more of is NPCs reacting naturally. Hell even conversations with them. We have software than can recognize your voice (BLOOOO), but does it understand what it means? Typical RPG senario: you walk into a tavern and start talking to a wizard. What if instead of correctly navigating through a multiple choice menu, you actaully talked to the wizard and convinced him to join you (or paid him, or theatened him?). What if he hears word that his hometown is being attacked and he has to decide on his own to continue with you or go help his town - all based on your interactions with him.
Too bad the PS3 and, to a lesser extend X360, are far more good at building gigantic trees than doing complex branching computations...linsivvi said:Come on, we are not talking about chess here, where you need as much CPU power as you can muster to do build a gigantic tree of possible moves.
Yes, this is what I value most. That and 60fps.PhatSaqs said:AI along with animation should be every devs focus.