oh wow that is pretty amazing.
i'm more interested in how the physics is done though.
take those barrels falling done for instance. you can be sure half of them would be deformed if not downright destroyed if they're falling down like that for real. however, no machines on earth (i estimate that not even say a 20,000 processor supercomputer) can do that in "real time".
if you treat those barrels as rigid bodies, which looks like what they do here, that's very simple physics. not interesting or realistic at all.
naznatip's nuclear explosion clip to me looks more convincing though. maybe partly has to do with the lighting, and partly has to do the debris modeling. after all, the human eye can only discern up to a certain threshold. i would have like still more "dust" or debris etc in the nuclear explosion clip though. but they did a good job masking those inevitable shortcomings (possibly from lighting, i don't know).
naznatip's second clip is much less impressive, largely because too many bodies are treated as rigid bodies. not interesting.
it's largely because of these reasons i never find myself interested at all in so-called "great/real graphics" games. realism, those games' selling point, becomes exactly their bane. the more real life element they claim, the more faults i can start finding. so to me, decision by artists to mask those shortcomings play perhaps a bigger of a role in bringing me realism.
games like ratchet and clank, to me, is "great graphics". it's never meant to depict the "real world" anyway, so there's no reference point for me to critique, and i have no issues with their art decisions.
the Wii is an epidemic.
