No one said anything about a graphics engine enhancing AI, a overall more powerfull engine will enhance all those things Vivi22 said.
No one said anything about a graphics engine enhancing AI, a overall more powerfull engine will enhance all those things Vivi22 said.
imo the people on that web site say imo way too much to be taken seriously imo.
.opt
It will not enhance AI at all itself, the game developers and programmers must do that.Originally Posted by Croyles
More CPU power does allow for more calculations to be processed, but that's only 10% of the battle. Actually programming the AI is 90% of the work.
This means i am going Revolution like i planned D:
I am never a big fan of Sony as a company and would rather switch as soon as i can, however that doesnt mean i dont like the games that come out on PS2, its the only reason why i buy them becuase they whore out the 3rd party games. MS i never cared for and probably never will unless something great happened..but even then i dont like MS as a company, the only company i have any sort of respect for my entire time is Nintendo. Maybe a little biased, but i like Nintendo more as a whole company than Sony or MS. The only thing that makes me purchase Sony is the games they whore out deals with to produce, else i probably get Nintendo and wont give a second thought about the others.
Last edited by Lionx; 11-10-2005 at 10:46 AM.
Ok your right, sorry, what I meant was that a more powerful CPU can leave some of the way open to better AI.It will not enhance AI at all itself, the game developers and programmers must do that.
More CPU power does allow for more calculations to be processed, but that's only 10% of the battle. Actually programming the AI is 90% of the work.
In a documentary about MGS2, the developers said that they devoted about 30% of the CPU for AI calculations, and they still couldn't add everything they wanted. I think we can get much better AI than we have today, if the developers have more CPU power to play around with.
I sais MGS3, not 2.
Yeah, but the point is I guess that CPU can account for more than 10% of the sophistication of the AI.
I've still seen the A.I. in a lot of games make stupid mistakes. Fact is, I've yet to see a game where enemies work as a unit in a realistic sense and truly adapt to what you do. I've seen games get better at it over the years, but they've got a long way to go. And have a look at what Kojima has said about his hopes for the A.I. for MGS4 http://ps3.ign.com/articles/654/654973p1.html. There are other articles that talk about it as well, but most of them just say the same thing. That would be some pretty innovative stuff if they can pull it off. More powerful hardware makes it much easier to perform complex AI calculations without having to sacrifice in other areas.
I would argue they don't quite frankly. Few games impliment realistic physics as part of the gameplay and it's a shame considering how incredible HL2 was thanks to their excellent implimentation of physics in the core gameplay. The fact is though, physics calculation in a game tend to be very complicated, which is why even in games like HL2 we're a long way from seeing everything in a game being affected realistically by what you do. I mean, honestly imagine how cool it would be in some games if it was possible to interact with everything and have it obey realistic laws of physics. It might make level design a pain, and not everyone would do it, but HL2 proved physics can be fun, and other games and genres could benefit from their implementation. The fact is though, you need really powerful hardware to even pull it off. Physics calculations for every object in a game are way beyond what even the coming generation is capable of because the CPU just can't handle the processing load. This is part of why the physics processing unit story that showed up around the internet months back was pretty important news. If they could catch on, then just like we've got graphics processors to handle the calculations for graphics and effects, we could have a dedicated processor to handle physics. Some would probably scoff at this and say it'll never catch on, or what's the point. I say that the physics gameplay in HL2 was one of the most fun and innovative things I've seen from the industry in years, and I hope it was just the tip of the iceberg.
That's enough ranting for me I think.
Not only physics, but also environmental effects. I'm still looking forward to seeing massively realistic particle systems for water/smoke/fog/sand effects...but this may be long in coming.
That's the sort of stuff I look forward to as well with more powerful hardware. Yeah, better graphics are nice, but all of the little things like physics, high levels of interactivity with the environment, environmental effects like what you mentioned, all add up to a more believeable and immersive world. They may not seem like much, but when they're there, they just help suck me into the experience.Not only physics, but also environmental effects. I'm still looking forward to seeing massively realistic particle systems for water/smoke/fog/sand effects...but this may be long in coming.
The MGS3 AI isn't a lot better than in MGS2. MGS3 has better graphics than MGS2 too, and they're using the same old hardware. It wouldn't be easy to put in a lot more AI routines than in the previous game.
I would say the same. Except Nintendo has a bad habbit of scaring away the developers. For console systems anyway. Nobody wanted to be on N64, and nobody wanted to be on GC. I think I've given up on Nintendo. I ended up having to buy the other systems anyway. I'm honestly bored of 1st party games. Zelda doesn't do it for me, and Mario quit being interesting long ago. So the only good GC games to me are usually multi-platform. Which leaves me with no reason to really be in that court. Unfortunately :/ I would love to support them if they gave me things that I want, as they seem to be the least corrupt of the three companies. They're usually also kinda the stupidest...
After Sony and MS compete with the two forefront game systems, slashing prices and losing a lot of money, Nintendo may be the only one left standing. They seem to be taking things carefully and biding their time.
Companies have always taken huge losses on consoles. Often they never see a profit on them until they're ready to start rolling out the new generation, if they see a profit on them at all. Fact is, they make enough money from game sales that they still come out way ahead.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
