| Pete_Beast said: jetrii, amazing thread. I played the Demo for Killzone 2 yesterday and it was AMAZING. It was very action-packed and had great graphcis even for a demo. This article explains alot. Never thought of the round edges vs straight edges, that's something good I learned. Thanks. PS- I guess games like Uncharted really are a pain to make? |
Thank you, I am glad you enjoted it. And yes, Uncharted took a lot of effort to develop. I am really looking forward to Uncharted 2. Sony has great first paty studios.
That was a good read, very interesting. I like it when people have something to say other than "KILZNE 2 IS BETTER GRFX THAN CRISIS!!". I really hope you'll revisit this topic in a month or so when the game comes out and you can see more of it first hand.
Also, I've never played GeOW but from your programmers perspective how do the physics stack up against one another? Seeing as how you worked in physics I bet you could write a paper or two on the topic. If you have already somewhere in this topic, disregard, I'm about to go read the rest of the topic (only read the first few pages thus far).
Both games and engines are capable of very advanced physics, killzone 2 just makes better, more frequent, and more intense use of it. Both engines have amazing physics capabilities, however, I think Killzone 2 has the edge. Would be interesting if both developers tried to make a game that highlited physics, I was especially impressed with the water shown by Epic.
Also, if I were to program those physics in the same manner that I program here, the games would run at 0.3 FPS lol. In simulation 43.386 is a LOT different than 43.3888332352034785723457098204987357.
@MikeB
Take a look at this. Although they don't use the same rendering methods used by Killzone, I think it will help illustrate how intensive trees can be.
Good news Everyone!
I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head, in my voice!
