-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
OliverKahn
Banned
Are you really this dense? take a look at Zelda BOTW that game at least has a physics that's worthy enough to be mentioned while HZD also known Horizon Zero Physics has a really bad physics simulation and the world is entirely build with static physics interaction in mind.this is on 1,8 tf console
imagine hzd2 in a 10 tf console
Horizon Zero Dawn Arrow didn't even arc lol
small comparison
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
Are you really this dense? take a look at Zelda BOTW that game at least has a physics that's worthy enough to be mentioned while HZD also known Horizon Zero Physics has a really bad physics simulation and the world is entirely build with static physics interaction in mind.
Horizon Zero Dawn Arrow didn't even arc lol
small comparison
Reminds me of the comparisons between Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 5
Shmunter
Member
Man that Farcry 2 video makes me cry for a wasted gen. Luckily we will have a gen soon befitting goddamn physics again.
Last edited:
Solarstrike
Gold Member
Balducci30
Member
No way in hell
jackets with pockets
Banned
Latest physics research video from NVIDIA. Impressive stuff.
It is of course not mentioned but I get feeling that the calculations were done on an Ampere GPU.
It is of course not mentioned but I get feeling that the calculations were done on an Ampere GPU.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
Are you really this dense? take a look at Zelda BOTW that game at least has a physics that's worthy enough to be mentioned while HZD also known Horizon Zero Physics has a really bad physics simulation and the world is entirely build with static physics interaction in mind.
Horizon Zero Dawn Arrow didn't even arc lol
small comparison
zelda also look like utter shit, that's why he can have all that physics, do you think guerrilla can't achieve even better physics than zelda with a better cpu inside ps4 if they scale down the graphics and stuff on screen?
One small dinobot on horizon has more polygon that an entire screen from zelda...imagine having 10 og them on screen at the same time.
The usual stupid comparison of 2 games with far different objective, zelda has to rely only on physics because the combat is some basic shit compared to horizon that doesn't need to throw metal weapons to enemies during a thunderstorm to be fun and engaging.
And this video doesn't even have all the examples of destruction present in horizon like small wood houses or small to medium rocks or plant destruction.
Last edited:
OliverKahn
Banned
Thread about physics whining about graphics kek.
GymWolf
Member
I was just explaining that you can have that physic just because you sacrifice the graphic and your comparison was wrong to begin with, also horizon has far more physics and destruction than many people think, if you watched the video or even played the game (i doubt about it) you can't call it horizon zero physics without being wrong, especially when a lot of open world games have even less physics compared to it.
Red faction on ps2 or noita on pc has far more physics and destruction than zleda botw but at what cost??
The ideal scenario is having realistic graphics AAAAND physics, this is what the topic is all about, we already have major physics games with shitty graphics, botw is only one of them not some special magic stuff.
Noita has a system where every single pixel on screen is phisically simulated, probably more advanced and with faaaaaar more gameplay involvement than all the tech demo that i posted in this topic, but nobody gives a fuck about that game because the graphic is shit.
Posting botw like it's some kind of miracle when you can clearly see all the shit they have to cut to have that physics is pretty stupid, espacially compared with horizon that has very different objective.
You can't destroy a gigantic dinobot just by throwing metal weapon to it during a sandstorm or using a giant magnete to hit enemies with a piece of steel, it will looks and sound absolutely ridicolous giving how realistic the game looks.
Last edited:
Nero_PR
Banned
Using rendering farms and cloud services for one user per time, then yes haha. This isn't viable when your hardware has to deal with models, textures, lighting, IA, physics all at the same time. And I just pointed out the most basic of the basics of gaming. If only we could use our own brains to boost the hardware power. A brain farm would be interesting, but it isn't feasible yet.
Handy Fake
Member
This thread is making me hungry.
Guilty_AI
Member
Errr, thats not how it works?
Crysis has realistic graphics + Great physics system, and we're talking about a 10 yo game.
Then there's also Just Cause 3, BeamNG.drive, Wreckfest... and i'm not even considering other types of physics aside from destruction ones.
Haven't played a lot of Horizon ZD, but in the video you showed there were only fairly simplistic examples of dynamic physics. Other games, inlcuding older ones or ones already mentioned (and they all have the "good graphics" you're talking about) do similar things or even more.
Not saying the game is bad because of it, but it definitely should not be used as an example of great destruction physics in games, open world or not.
A lot of people do give a fuck about that game actually, it was even one of the top releases of September 2019 on steam
GymWolf
Member
crysis was the most taxing game of that era for that reason, great graphics and good physics, that result was not free.
just cause 3 has a lot of physics but the graphic is meh compared to many other open world games, same for wreckfest, it doesn't exactly look like a gt sport or driveclub...it's the cost of having a shitload of physics on screen (among the other things like budget etc.)
nobody on earth is gonna post screen of jc3 or wreckfest in a graphical contest topic, nobody.
don't get me wrong, i know that horizon is not a game with revolutionary physics, but calling the game horizon zero physics is bullshit, like i said, in that video you can't see a lot of distruction like small to medium size rocks or small wood constructions, i played almost every big open world game and i can assure you than in very few of them you can destroy trees and rocks or having enemies loosing parts who respond to physics laws, so just by taking that in account, the game has more destructible stuff on screen than many other open world while still having a great graphic with a shitload of ultra detailed chara and creatures, not exactly an easy stuff to pull off with a shitty jaguar and better than many games with very limited distruction.
if guerrila choose to reduce graphics and stuff on screen they can pull off even more physic than zelda, it is a design choice because in no way a tablet cpu on switch can sustain more physic even compared to a shitty jaguar like nintendo fans or stupid video comparison like to make you believe.
and i love noita, i bought the game when it launched on steam at full price and it is a wonderfull roguelite game, but let's be honest here, not many people know or care about that game and when you point out the great physic system people respond with "yeah but look how simple and unimpressive the graphic is".
the goal here is having realistic graphic and great physics like crysis did many years ago, but that game didn't run on max setting in any pc when it launched.
zelda sacrifices something to get something, it's not magic or the famous nintendo difference, is a design choice.
noita has by far the most impressive physics system in any game ever, but you can't physically simulate every fucking pixel on screen with horizon graphic and current gen hardware.
rdr2 is the real magic game here because he has an acceptable level of physics, destruction with a very good graphics, but the game was in development for 8-9 years with gigantic budget and 1000+ dev working on it and crazy optimization.
far cry 2 was another game with good graphic and good physic.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
Don't forget crysis is 10 yo, a game like that can be properly pulled of nowadays. The remaster will even have a switch version.
And in the open world games i've played, the level of destruction in HZD is fairly common. Forza Horizon 4 for example lets you run over most trees, fences, objects on the side of the road, etc. In every GTA, although trees can't be destroyed, fences, masts and almost every object in city related areas can be destroyed. Then theres also Battlefield games that on top of open enviroments also need to consider other player's presence.
Only open world games i've played that usually don't contain destructible enviroments are RPGs like The witcher 3, where interaction with the scenario isn't really all that important.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
i'm pretty sure that the remaster of crysis is not gonna look better than top tier open world modern games tho, if they push the graphic to that level you can forget all the major physics on a jaguar.
the locations are probably gonna be beatiful but horizon has hands down the most detailed (and probably better animated) creature in every current gen game and having 8-10 of them on screen is very taxing (they also have a shitload of polygons, just look the close up screens)
just ask to yourself, if it's easy to have top tier graphic and top tier physics,why almost no dev can achieve that?
why rdr2, the biggest game of this generation doesn't let you destroy houses or trees or rocks or whatever with dynamite? because the resources are limited and they have to smartly use them.
like i said, horizon doesn't have major physics, i'm not a fool, my problem is with people who never played the game who talk about the game having zero physics, it is just patently false, you are not gonna find 10 open world game with tha level of graphics when you can destroy all the thing you can destroy in horizon .
it's pretty great when you fight in a giant arena full of rocks and trees just to have all that shit destroyed by you and creatures by the end of the fight, of course it's not every rock or every tree in the map, but when it happen it's pretty great nd immersive.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
Honestly, old crysis already looks almost as good as a lot of the "top tier" open world of today. With some higher-res texture it wouldn't look all that out of place.
Because its unnecessary, and it'll often contradict the vision of the devs towards the game. In RDR2, it'd be weird (from the devs point of view) to be able to blow up a house and then when you go back to it its just there again. And if the house remained destroyed, there would be loads of story implications that they'd have to deal with. In the end its better to just make them undestructible.
In HZD, they most likely put that level of destruction because it would look weird for some gigantic creature to just go through trees and rocks without anything happening.
GymWolf
Member
ok leaving aside destructible houses because you may be right, rdr2 has still some destruction when you use dynamite or guns and it's all for the immersion, so why i can destroy some things but not a lot of things that will make the game even more immersive? for me it is clearly a resource problem.
i bought crysis 1 for 1 dollar like 1 years ago and even at max setting is clearly outdated in term of graphics tbh, and like i said, locations are only a part of the graphics, character and enemies are important too, horizon has some of the most detailed protagonist and npc ever, tertiary character with zero lines are more detailed than some main protagonist in other games (looks some screens), that shit is heavy to render.
happy to be disproved of course, i'm happy when games with both great graphic and physics come out, we win as gamers.
we are a little bit off topic tho
Last edited:
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Would be possible with the use of machine learning.
