AlkamistStar said:
Reasonable said:
JaggedSac said:
Reasonable said:
Oh dear, they do seem determined to say just the wrong thing.
A game is code, it can be replicated so long as you understand the principle you're wanting to replicate - i.e. while I think Turn 10 have done some decent stuff with physics (although like the Digital Foundry analysis I don't think it's quite as amazing as they make out) it can clearly be replicated by any suitably experienced coder aiming for the same results.
Sure, your average guys aren't going to match it easily, but a good developer? Of course they could.
|
Can you link to the DF article. I love those guys.
|
I see davygee's already helped you out with that. It's a good read. Forza 3 looks and plays good, but I like the way they pick stuff apart. I'd note the overall article is mainly praise, but they do point out some interesting elements vs. Burnout Paradise, which, despite being an arcade racer, 'feels' the most like a real, dynamic crash.
They've also put up a to be expected rip apart of the Bayonneta demo (poor PS3 port confirmed by the looks of it) and a nice analysis of Uncharted 2 - which is basically full of deep love as they seemed to find little to fault in the title (based on the demo).
|
Only reason the Burnout series feels "the most like a real, dynamic crash" is because as they stated:
"It wouldn't surprise us at all if the damage is indeed pre-determined on both games. The Burnout titles have the luxury of using non-licensed cars; Criterion are the lords and masters of their creations and can do with them whatever they see fit. Both Forza and GT5 don't have that luxury, and it may well be the case that the developers need to get manufacturer sign-off on all the in-game representations of their vehicles. Detachable parts and pre-determined damage would be a convenient solution."
|
Whatever the reason, clipping a wall at high speed in Burnout feels and looks like clipping a wall at high vs a good approximation of clipping a wall at high speed.
