ricanflow
Golden Master
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Euless, Tx
havok sucks, its just software and still uses the cpu.
physx is hardware accelerated and runs seprately, leaving the cpu free.
12 Reasons Why Console's Are Better Than PC's..
- Thread starter Oreo
- Start date
- Status
havok sucks, its just software and still uses the cpu.
physx is hardware accelerated and runs seprately, leaving the cpu free.
Wildside
Hellfire!
- Messages
- 3,038
- Location
- Riverside, CA
unforunately not very popular titles use the PhysX Accelerator. Yes, i wish more game did. The only games im interested in that support it is Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3. Gears of War i already have.
Hussein19891
Biostar Stole my heart
- Messages
- 2,210
- Location
- Canada
Isn't that because they both use the Unreal Game Engine?
Wildside
Hellfire!
- Messages
- 3,038
- Location
- Riverside, CA
why yes. So it seems. Other than that i dont see any other game i like that the PhysX Accelerator supports:
PhysX Games List
maybe Mass Effect only for those.........scenes
.
QuaziBee
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 661
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Rag doll is just one step in the long process of creating amazing physics engines. My very first FPS was Wolfenstien, my first serious FPS was Bungies Marathon (effing love that game). Compare those to the games we have to day and think about what could happen 10 years from now. In 10 years we could all be chatting on the forums saying "man i cant wiat till xmas so those centi-core processors go on sale!". In 10 years my 42Thz processor will have a tough time keeping up with the physics engines of the day. And we will still be having this discussion about gameplay over graphics.
Down to the skinny, game play is personal. It's what touches your heart and either makes you scream from terror in Gears or cry like a baby when you find out you just killed your avatars true love.
Graphics, on the other hand, are relative. They will never be good enough, they will always be better than what was there, and there will always be old games you can point at and say "Hey! That games graphics aren't as good as yours but it's a better game! Why are you such a poopy game?"
To summarize, good graphics dont make a good game. They make good games better. Try to argue that.
Edit: Also they make bad games sell.
Down to the skinny, game play is personal. It's what touches your heart and either makes you scream from terror in Gears or cry like a baby when you find out you just killed your avatars true love.
Graphics, on the other hand, are relative. They will never be good enough, they will always be better than what was there, and there will always be old games you can point at and say "Hey! That games graphics aren't as good as yours but it's a better game! Why are you such a poopy game?"
To summarize, good graphics dont make a good game. They make good games better. Try to argue that.
Edit: Also they make bad games sell.
I never played marathon, but what makes it so great along with the Halo games? I never quite understood the appeal, I mean sure they have somewhat solid gameplay mechanics, but in my opinion they really do not offer anything new to the FPS table to warrant their mass popularity. COD4 is sort of similar in that it doesn't offer much to the table either, but I consider its massive multiplayer mode and how well its implemented the reason for its success.
QuaziBee
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 661
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Halo 1 was immensely successful due to its ground breaking visual effects, physics, and multi-player abilities for being a console game. Not to mention the story was amazing. The rest of the halo series rode the gameplay wake and tried very hard to to make the player fall in love with the story that is Halo. The perceived scope of the game is also tremendous.
Halo 1 was the "new", it defined what new FPS games would be like in terms of scale and depth. The newer ones again just rode off it's success and, you are correct, do not offer anything new.
COD4, imho, was successful not for it's story line, which was amazing, but due to its dedication to perfecting the genre. The whole game "feels" real, it never feels linear and, unlike crysis, when I shoot a bad guy he dies.
This feeling is even transferred into the multiplayer mode of the game. I duck out of enemy fire, I feel lucky when I see a grenade go off and I'm not hurt, I feel bad when the point man through a door goes down. The game does a marvelous job of immersing you into its world.
Halo and COD4 are two examples of great games made better by great graphics. I would still play either if they looked like the original half life.
Halo 1 was the "new", it defined what new FPS games would be like in terms of scale and depth. The newer ones again just rode off it's success and, you are correct, do not offer anything new.
COD4, imho, was successful not for it's story line, which was amazing, but due to its dedication to perfecting the genre. The whole game "feels" real, it never feels linear and, unlike crysis, when I shoot a bad guy he dies.
This feeling is even transferred into the multiplayer mode of the game. I duck out of enemy fire, I feel lucky when I see a grenade go off and I'm not hurt, I feel bad when the point man through a door goes down. The game does a marvelous job of immersing you into its world.
Halo and COD4 are two examples of great games made better by great graphics. I would still play either if they looked like the original half life.
Halo 1 had ground breaking visual effects and physics? This is news to me
but I do agree with what you said about COD4. Crysis multiplayer is lacking not because of the damage characteristics ( Farcry 2 is similar to this ), but because the net coding is horrible and the game always makes me feel like I'm playing a beta despite the fact I'm getting 50 ping and running at 60 fps ( due to me setting the graphics on low for multiplayer ).- Status
