Sony is roughly as evil as every other big company, but their console division is just really blatant about it.
In the case of Lik-Sang, it was partly their own fault. They were in breach of contract for selling stock designated only for asia overseas, and they ignored the warnings for months. However, Sony did the nastiest thing possible: sued them in like 17 countries simultaneously. Even if Lik-Sang won every single case, the legal fees would put them out of business. And they'd only have to lose one to be screwed anyway.
INCREDIBLY stupid on Sony's part, they're already widely hated and they aren't doing anything to help their image immediately prior to a major product launch.
But, this isn't the first time they've shut down (iirc it was Nintendo that sued them last time). Odds are they'll be back in some form in a couple of months.
Edited by the Author.
n/a
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
26th October, 2006 at 06:39:34 -
Let's wait for the PS3 fanboys.
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
Sony: Suing Lik-Sang, overpricing PS3.
Microsoft: Pretty much a monopoly on operating systems. Attempting to claim monopolies on other fields as well. I recall reading that the norwegian goverment switched to Linux so they wouldn't have to pay Microsoft licenses! Also, a revision in later Xboxes made to prevent Linux running on them also made a few legit games incompatible with higher resolution modes.
Nintendo: Monopoly on video games in america during the 8-bit era. Developers not allowed to port their NES games to other consoles.
Sega: Only supplying Saturn to four major retail chains at first.
Atari & Mattel (back in the late 70s-early 80s): Forcing their programmers to be anonymous, so competing software developers wouldn't "steal them".
So they're all pretty much evil.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
World wide releases should make an end to this!
And with world wide releases it's truely global as they pretend to be, but in fact they are shielding different markets, for example: Europe, Japan and US.
That only is to make more profit on the same product, because Europeans always pay high prices for those products, which will only be realesed like years after the first release in Japan.
I had confidence that the PS3 was going to do very well, and I could admit that I have a lot of strong feelings for Sony in defending them. This entire thing though, over pricing it, and now stores only having a FEW (literately). I don't plan to get a PS3 for at least a couple of years, it's not worth all the trouble. I'll stick with the PC, thanks.
PS: I just got the WarChiefs expansion pack for Age of Empires 3 yesterday, it's awesome, I'm just glad they didn't charge a full fledged $50 for it, because it's not worth it. $30 was very reasonable.
I don't think ps3 will sell anywhere near as much as the last two generations. Infact i suspect it will be quite close between the three consoles.
Sony got lucky with the psone because they chose the cd media (n64 had cartridges) and Sega failed to release a killer app for the saturn to compete with final fantasy 7. Oh and it was easier to develop for.
With the ps2 they got by on brand name popularity, the dreamcast was unlucky to be withdrawn and it was out before the xbox and gamecube (which are both considerably more powerfull)
Oh and next gen versions of it's old hits helped out too (grand theft auto, gran turismo, tekken, metal gear solid etc)
With the ps3? it will be out last, it will be expensive to buy and develop for, it will use expensive data storage.
Of course noone can know how things will work out, but it's looking bad for sony imo.
I hate Sony.
Sony is the worst of the big companies. They make trashy products and sell them at ridiculous prices. Heck, even random Chinese companies make more reliable products than Sony and they cost 4 times less! If the PS3 fails, they're dead. But seeing how MS messed up the X360, I think that the 'hardcore' anti-Nintendo freaks will still keep one alive.
The other big companies may be as evil if not more evil (you guys forgot Apple, Disney), but at least they make decent products. Windows may be slow and buggy, but it's got features that Linux doesn't have.
I'd say the Wii is the best of the new-gen consoles, may be the weakest, but it's the best priced, looks nice, and should have plenty of fun games. Every game on the X360 (and most on the PS3) will be out on a PC so might as well get a Wii.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
"Monopoly on video games in america during the 8-bit era. Developers not allowed to port their NES games to other consoles."
That statement is bullshit. The publishers signed an exclusivity deal with Nintendo, and the reason it was done was because at that time, the NES was the only game in town (Unless you count the Master System, which never had a huge following over here), and if I remember correctly, if they signed as exclusive; their liscencing fees went down a slight bit. Once you were under the contract you can bet your ass that if you violated it, The Big N would be all over you. There were countless games that were C64/NES/SMS/Atari/etc.
If I had to pick an evil side for Nintendo, it'd be their lawyers during the late 80's. They did/tried to sue magazines/publishers/developers/fan gamers. (Hmmmm, Lik Sang anyone)?
Fortunately, most of these heavy armed tactics left with the former president.
----------
Microsoft's Gaming division is not at fault with the operating systems; why you're sticking that to them I have no idea. They lied too much in the first generation (Pre launch of the original XBox), but they learned their lesson. They've been very up front with people, and I hope this trend continues. Also, Microsoft's manufacturing has improved (unlike some OTHER company). I will be buying an X360 at some point.
Nintendo didn't have to stop companies from releasing games on other formats, because like you said Shab, there was no competition. But they did put that into their contracts and it was to stop any other companies (Sega for instance) Gaining any possible market share.
As much as I hate Sony, their console is technically under priced; they are loosing money. For what you are physically getting it's a good deal. Same with 360.
With the Wii it's not. It does not cost anywhere near 250 to make(well, maybe just under 200). It's basically a slightly tweaked game cube, and the controller is just a remote with tilt sensors and an accelerometers. Hardly rocket science
Not to mention we're paying roughly $315 for the Wii here, for no good reason.
I love the Wii the same way I love collector's action figures - they're great, but nothing goes into them that really warrants the price.
Nintendo don't have the financial clout to compete with Sony and Microsoft. So they're trying something different and it's working. People are interested in trying something different.
Also i hardly think it's a slightly tweaked Gamecube. It is a considerable jump over the previous generations of consoles. Just not as much as the other two consoles.
Nintendo don't have the financial clout to compete with Sony and Microsoft.
In the multi-billion dollar range it doesn't make much difference. What Nintendo has are execs that aren't prepared to hedge the company's assets on a colossal commercial failure like the Xbox was and the PS2 almost was and the PS3 might very well be. Their handheld sales could cover the massive loss MS took from their console divison and probably still come out ahead, but that's a really stupid way to run a business.
Accept that beta screens of unfinished games at the beginning of a console's lifecycle aren't an indication of anything.
Even if the final version of Far Cry looks like an N64 game, that wouldn't magically change the hardware specs.
Many of the screens on MGS4 look amazing, picking one or two(which are still way above anything Wii does) isn't fair. Especially considerring the PS3 is [i]new[/i] hardware and the Wii has most of the same functionality and architecture as the GC.
Many of the screens on MGS4 look amazing, picking one or two isn't fair.
So you're saying that the quality of a system is determined by the BEST it can do, not the WORST?
ASTOUNDING!
Especially considerring the PS3 is [i]new[/i] hardware and the Wii has most of the same functionality and architecture as the GC.
Actually that hasn't got any fucking thing to do with anything. All IBM-compatible PCs have most of the the same functionality (COMPUTING OLO) and architecture (INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS WOW!) and the spectrum of performance is huge.
You're also full of shit, since we know very little about the Wii hardware at this point since Nintendo hasn't said anything. They've said it'll be several times more powerful than the GCN but not that it'll be based on the hardware--although I'd be happy if it were, since that wouldn't mean anything about the performance but the Cube was by far the best-designed machine of the last generation even though they housed it in purple plastic.
The Wii is a jump into the next generation, not through graphics, but through a next generation style of game play. Which is something that consoles need, considering the fact that we are baring the edge of graphics, and games are getting so self-centered on graphics, the game play is barely paid any attention to.
I think the 'next-gen' buzzword is losing its meaning now. In the past each generation was a huge jump in not just graphics but what was actually -possible- with games, but this time around it's just more complex models and filters. I'm yet to see or hear about anything that wouldn't have been possible on last-gen hardware.
Wii stuff does look interesting, but it'll probably be like the DS in that the really great stuff won't come out for six months. I might pick one up for Twilight Princess at first, but I'll probably upgrade my PC before that. I'll possibly get a 360 when its library expands a bit.
The jump is realestic. To say you expected Mario to look any more real would be kinda stupid. I loved lots of the games on the Gamecube and I expect the same great games with tweaked graphics. Im not buying the Wii because of numbers. The Gamecube came out with beautfiul games like Prime which in my oppinion look just as good as any Xbox game even though the numbers say otherwise.
That picture is very impressive. However, it's a shame making such a good model and textures and not outputting in HD.
Before you say "HDTV isn't everything" or "numbers don't matter", have you seen 720p in action yourself? And I don't count a quick 5 second glance of a 360 kiosk in a store.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
===So you're saying that the quality of a system is determined by the BEST it can do, not the WORST?
ASTOUNDING!===
Which is why I asked for screenshots of Wii games that actually do look like they couldn't be run on an overclocked gamecube.
My main issue with the Wii isn't just graphical splendour, but the fact that it's AI will be more limited and it will never be able to handle vast Oblivion like worlds with loads of characters on screen quite as well as it's competitors. Yes, I know I'm basing perceptions of the graphics, but that generally is the earmark of general power. I doubt they'd put in a super powerful CPU and a crappy GPU.
It looks to me like they're setting it up for very arcadey games, which is something I tire of. I'd rather pay $70 for a 360 title that lasts me months than $50 for a Wii title that I keep coming back to again and again for about a week.
Nintendo have overpriced things before. I don't see what's so hard to believe. The only reason they're charing $250 is because the reaction to it was so positive they got overconfident. That's why they were holding out on the price - to gauge quite how much they could charge.
Meanwhile, in Europe, we're getting charged the equiv. of $315. No way in hell you're telling me that's all taxes. Nintendo got sued in Germany once for artificial price fixing. I hope they do again.
===You're also full of shit, since we know very little about the Wii hardware at this point since Nintendo hasn't said anything.===
We can tell plenty from the screenshots, and what we hear from developers.
===They've said it'll be several times more powerful than the GCN but not that it'll be based on the hardware===
It is not "several times". They initially said 2-3 times and it looks like it's even less than that.
Saying it's "several times" isn't really saying much anyway. What's several times more powerful?
The GPU? The CPU? The FBSQRGQ? What I see is that the graphics really haven't improved much since
last generation GC. GC Zelda is a launch title, FFS. It looks more jagged and less shiny than
the other games, that's about it.
===since that wouldn't mean anything about the performance but the Cube was by far the best-designed machine of the last generation even though they housed it in purple plastic.===
It was mainly the best designed because it was ridiculously cheap to make.
The Cube was $200 when it was a top of the line console.
The Wii is $250 when it is very, very much at the bottom of the line.
This doesn't look good, at all, no matter how good the controller is. They should have charged
$200 - implying that the relative power has been replaced by the controller. But the extra $50
is seriously pushing it - people could have spent that on another game instead, one that took
more than a week to make(Wii Sports).
Which is why I asked for screenshots of Wii games that actually do look like they couldn't be run on an overclocked gamecube.
You defeat your own point by calling it an 'overclocked' gamecube, thereby conceding that it is, in fact, more powerful.
My main issue with the Wii isn't just graphical splendour, but the fact that it's AI will be more limited
Apparently you have absolutely no idea how AI routines work. A good calculator could keep up with modern games in terms of AI.
and it will never be able to handle vast Oblivion like worlds with loads of characters on screen quite as well as it's competitors.
LESS POWER = LESS POWER?
ANOTHER ASTOUNDING REVELATION!
Yes, I know I'm basing perceptions of the graphics, but that generally is the earmark of general power. I doubt they'd put in a super powerful CPU and a crappy GPU.
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? The GPU handles the bulk of graphics processing, which should probably be evident in the name. Graphical performance has nothing to do with anything else, which you hugely overestimate. A dedicated CPU needn't be 'super powerful' if the architecture is designed around a specific goal--something in this case the Wii has going for it, since it's not meant to be a media center from the ground-up.
Nintendo have overpriced things before.
The Wii isn't overpriced, the other two are underpriced. This concept isn't difficult. Look up 'loss leader', then look up Microsoft's console division takings on the Xbox.
Meanwhile, in Europe, we're getting charged the equiv. of $315.
I touched this tangentially in that stupid thread with phredreeke. Europe does get raped when it comes to electronics. By everyone.
Wii: US$249, €249 (US$315) | 315-249=US$66 markup
360: US$399, €399 (US$500) | 500-399=US$101 markup
PS3: US$599, €599 (US$750) | 750-599=US$151 markup
It is not "several times". They initially said 2-3 times and it looks like it's even less than that.
Last time I checked 2-3 counts as 'several'. Is English not your first language or are you just an idiot? I'd really like to hear how you know more about the hardware performance than Nintendo, it must be really wierd to live in a universe where time runs backwards.
It was mainly the best designed because it was ridiculously cheap to make.
Again, if you weren't such a fucking fanboy, or even knew anything at all about hardware, you couldn't possibly make claims like these. The GCN was exceptionally well-designed. It was cheap, yes, AND powerful, build solidly and compactly, with brilliant architecture that dropped apparent load times almost to cart level. The boards of the others, even the PS2's redesign, where oversized, expensive, flimsy and overcomplicated in comparison.
This isn't subjective. Everyone that knows what they're talking about aknowledges that the GCN was the best-designed of the last generation from an engineering standpoint.
The Cube was $200 when it was a top of the line console.
The Wii is $250 when it is very, very much at the bottom of the line.
Yes, sometimes different products are priced differently. It sucks. Especially when they're made of different components. Take bread and lear jets for example. It's even worse when they don't give you hardware for free, huh?
While you're looking up that other homework I gave you, I'd check out 'inflation' and 'consumer perceived value' as well.
SSB was a first generation Gamecube game. Of course Brawl is going to use a better model.
They're also using the Twilight Princess Link, a game which runs on the GAMECUBE and doesn't look notably worse than the Mario model.
Nice contradiction you have there. I'm playing Justice For All now with my free hand, I wish it was this easy.
Yeah Kittie, sorry, but your last post made it obvious how little you actually know about the state of things when it comes to consoles. I give you credit for trying though.
The Cube was $200 when it was a top of the line console.
The Wii is $250 when it is very, very much at the bottom of the line.
If the price is that shocking to you then maybe you should jus wait for the price to drop, because unlike you I've only known about the system since last year. I just got me a job and I've already saved up enough for one. The fact that the Wii is new and something different than the other consoles makes it worth the price to me. Especialy considering you already know great games like Zelda and Brawl will be comming out for it.
You know, if you calibrated the damn thing right, it didn't give you headaches. VB was alright, wasn't worth NEARLY what they tried to charge for it though. I picked mine up for like $25 with 4 games well after the system died from TOTAL lack of support.
Kept it in the trunk of my car, it fit perfectly in the hole in my steering wheel, so it was easy to play.
Virtual Boy was fucking awesome. If the games support had been kept up it would've been worth it; nothing else at the time offered that kind of functionality.
n/a
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
2nd November, 2006 at 21:56:44 -
I remember playing Mario Tennis for the VB! I sucked at it .
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
They are shit. I don't see how they got so highly rated and felt posh. I mean their hardware has always been shit. PS2 DVD player? Didn't even get an upgrade. I had one of them HiFi stacks years back, the amp eventually broke. So I started to use my dads amp he bought in the 70's. Minidisc player? Laser stopped reading. Oh and MP3 overtake them so what do they do? Keep the prices the same but make them in PLASTIC!
Sorry if this is incoherent. My anguish for Sony products is too great.
Even my PSP had 12 dead pixels. PS1 laser died. PS2 laser died. Car CD player died. that 'slide out' TV is a blatant, disgusting rip off of B&O. Fuck off Sony.
Tell you what though, actually fitting the PSP into my pocket made me chuffed. Sold it the next day. Portability Sony. It's a handheld. It's why there are more DS Lites or GB Micro's in pockets than Gameboys.
Firstly, I'd be completely lost without my PSP. Use it every day to play mega drive, nes, snes .etc games. Also GTA of course, and to listen to MP3 (although the volume on PSP is pretty crappy). I was also lucky as I have no dead pixels on my screen at all. Also the PSP fits in my pockets fine, doesn't weigh me down or anything. The reason I sold the DS is because it was a huge heavy brick (although they have now released a DS Lite which I think is sexy)
Regarding the next-gen battle, I think that since Nintendo actually released all these videos and promotion sites .etc of the Nintendo Wii, lots of people are beginning to get really excited about it. I wasn't a big fan of the Gamecube, so I was expecting the next-gen war to be between Sony and Microsoft. However I'm now intending to buy a Nintendo Wii because it's cheap and it's not just a power-machine type thing. If you know what I mean..
This 'war' is really only between those people who wait in line the first day of the console release to buy it. And take the UNKNOWN OUTCOME CONSOLE'S RISK or U.O.C.R.
Imagine all the people unable to wait a year or two to see virtual boy's outcome, and got stuck with the consoles with hardly any good games to buy, these guys got caught in the unknown outcome console's risk and lost.
Those are the real peoples who are going to lose this 'war' you talk about, they'll lose a lot of money to be exact, espeicaly ps3 buyers if the ps3 'loses', like many consoles have 'lost' before. You gotta be careful with the UOCR, you shouldnt even be caring about Sony or Nintendo going into bankrupt, screw them!
Fight over something senseless? You should hang out with Mensa members.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
PS3 scalpers are now losing out, systems are only going for $100 more than retail, when you take into consideration the shipping cost and eBay fees they're looking at a meagre $20 profit. Looks like the bubbles bursting for everyone now.
The PSP homebrew is going downhill with it's new firmware releases. However, the DS's homebrew is getting better and better. We've already got a pretty decent
-Sega Genesis emulator
-Super Nintendo (fullspeed with sound on many games)
-NES
-MSX
-Colecovisoin
-Commodore64
-Chip-8
-Arcade (currently 106 romsets supported)
-GameBoy Color/Mono
-Sega Master System / Game-Gear-Shit
-Homebrew games
-VNC viewer
-Aim and Msn clients that work, which are wifi based.
@My main issue with the Wii isn't just graphical splendour, but the fact that it's AI will be more limited and it will never be able to handle vast Oblivion like worlds with loads of characters on screen quite as well as it's competitors
That's a stupid thing to say. A lot. You're saying that because the console doesn't have as powerful graphics it's AI will be dumber and not as complex? No matter the machine, an AI doesn't usually take up much RAM or Processer power. Rendering sprites / polygons does. With that said, even the GBA or NES could potentially have very complex AI, with simpler graphics; a complex AI nonetheless.
The Wii isn't meant to be another mainstream console that just builds on raw power and graphics capabilities, but acutally wants to deliver something new and fun. It's like when people think they're more right by yelling louder.
"My main issue with the Wii isn't just graphical splendour, but the fact that it's AI will be more limited and it will never be able to handle vast Oblivion like worlds with loads of characters on screen quite as well as it's competitors"
Jackass of the year statement. This statement proves that you have almost 0% understanding of consoles.
Go watch the Mario Smash Football Wii trailers. See the audience? Full 3D. It's an entire crowd of 3D objects. It can handle a lot, though it remains to be seen how it could handle a crap load of AI at once.
Bibin - How on earth did you get "full screen with sound on many games"? I've tried the obvious; Mario World, Yoshis Island, Metroid and some Megaman game to have only Metroid work but with severe layer disappearing issues. Unless I'm using the wrong SNES/DS compiler (Snessie, I believe).
Games like Oblivion use really simple AI, (like move from A to B or follow)
Complex AI would be things like CPU controlled players in games like command and conquer or Bots in a FPS.
I agree that people are stupid to expect cheap hardware when it's already below cost, but it's a marketing tactic that Sony have forgotten how to use properly. The impact is lost when it's expensive bloated shit to begin with. If they could beat the competiton performance-wise at a competetive price with the same per-unit loss, then they'd have a selling platform. Instead the (apparent) difference is marginal and it's a fucking monstrosity.
A) They have a deal with jesus christ, who is the lord. And he's providing them unlimited amount of money so they can keep at it losing money. And eventualy ps3 is going to get cheaper, becoming a reasonable console to be concidered for christmas of 2009-2010
People keep saying that it just have better graphics. But I think it's also cpu procesing power, physics and more characters with better ai in way bigger worlds.
That doesnt mean they wont waste all that making just a FPS game with better gfx, but the posiblity of insanely awesome gameplay is there.
The way i see it, you gotta wait until a few cool games come out before you buy any console, right now, all i've seen on the ps3 are FPS games and racing games, graphics alone only keep me hard for the first 30 minutes, after that i might just grab the cd and throw it out the window, i've done that many times, and i've never regreted it, ever. I did it with my Jamagic cd, and i don't miss it at all.
I've moved away from video gaming since I had a gamecube.
IMO it's been going downhill rapdily.
The lack of quality games on the gamecube made me sell it. (by quality I mean games I enjoy playing. Just because they have super duper graphics or gameplay doesnt mean I enjoy them)
The last game i bought Was Resident Evil 4. I played it for about a week and got shit bored of it.
I doubt i'll ever go back to being a serious gamer again. It seems to me that companies are focusing on quantity rather than quality recently (although there is the odd game that seems to be worth buying)
What I don't get is why the typical company inists on aiming for a high profit rather than an excellent quality game.
If they make an excellent quality game, sure, it'd cost a lot of money. But wouldn't it be worth it if they got all that back on sales of the game?
They need to stop focusing on their needs and focus on what the player wants.
"People keep saying that it just have better graphics. But I think it's also cpu procesing power, physics and more characters with better ai in way bigger worlds."
Stupid console n00bs, consoles don't have physics, characters, or AI in it. That is done by the programmer, and how advanced the AI or character is is independant on the system it is these days. Perhaps the speed of render for the character, but with the AI, you can have the actual routine be advanced, even on the NES.
"People keep saying that it just have better graphics. But I think it's also cpu procesing power, physics and more characters with better ai in way bigger worlds."
Stupid console n00bs, consoles don't have physics, characters, or AI in it by itself. That is done by the programmer, and how advanced the AI or character is is independant on the system it is these days. Perhaps the speed of render for the character, but with the AI, you can have the actual routine be advanced, even on the NES.
"Stupid console n00bs, consoles don't have physics, characters, or AI in it. That is done by the programmer, and how advanced the AI or character is is independant on the system it is these days. Perhaps the speed of render for the character, but with the AI, you can have the actual routine be advanced, even on the NES."
Yeah, but how complex AI/physics algorithms you can make depends on how powerful the machine is. Maybe not that much, but you can't say you ever saw ragdoll physics and WoW-size worlds on any of the NES games back then.
That's true, but nobody is making any AI that actually takes up a significant amount of CPU and RAM that allows it to permenantly overpower other consoles in capability.
Half life 2 was quite physics instense right? and that was possible on the xbox. So I doubt we will see an improvement in any kind of area other than perhaps graphics or framrate on the ps3. I'll bet that there will be only a slight, almost unnoticable difference in ps3 and xbox360 games right the way down the line.
Because I'll also bet companies will probably want to make a game on the xbox360 and then port it to the ps3 (if they choose to make it multi platform.)
Apparently there was quite a large difference in the ps2's and gamecube's power, but some games appeared on both with only a difference in framerate and texture/lighting quality. (although some people think resi4 was 60fps on the gc it was 30 on both, well also polygon counts differed)
Bibin: You're right inasmuch as the current gen goes, but don't bring the NES into this; it did struggle with AI. Try playing Famicom Wars some time, it's a great game (I was going to base my original compo entry on it), but the computer player takes ages to make decisions.
As for physics, they can indeed be hardware-based. In the next few years we'll see physics cards on the market that do dedicated physics processing with libraries.
You know, that something is done by the programmer, means precicely that the console is going to have to do it later, i dont think the console actualy does anything 'by itself'. Unless it's a halloween console, wich are sold only in tokyo. So basicaly bibin smoked some esctacy, and he's bragging about it all day
edit: wtf, ai takes a LOT of cpu. You are thinking on the 60s, when games only used to have 10 enemies at once TOPS, this gen has 500+ units flying around or whatever at the same time. But i didnt mention JUST ai, there's also physics,etc, and if you say physics doesnt take cpu power of any kind you are overmedicated
I always thought drawing the graphics on screen took a lot more time than anything else. That is why you get graphics cards, to give the processor a break.
So i guess nowadays the ai and physics are done by the processor whereas the graphics are almost entirely done by the graphics card. On pc's anyway)
But that all depends on the way the console/pc is designed.
"Stupid console n00bs, consoles don't have physics, characters, or AI in it by itself. That is done by the programmer, and how advanced the AI or character is is independant on the system it is these days. Perhaps the speed of render for the character, but with the AI, you can have the actual routine be advanced, even on the NES."
Obviously you don't know that the Havok Physics engine is part of the Wii.
Andy: physics were never a big deal until recently. Think the introduction of ragdolling, and then the increasing trend towards real-time calculation of debris scattering and whatever. They can be done with simple math, or with animations, or very realistically with real-time simulation.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
jenswa.neocities.org
.
