Wii U is 'definitely more powerful than 360 and PS3' - Scribblenauts dev

[Jay520]

crissindahouse said:

Jay520 said:

 

So destructible environments fall under physics? That would make a lot of sense. Thanks. But for something like racing physics, I don't see limited by power tbh. Doesn't a game GT5 have the same physics as GT4? I believe even reviewers mentioned this.

Also, I've played Killzone and Halo and I didn't think either had amazing AI. When you had an advantage, the acted defensive. When you have a disadvantage, the acted offensive. Of course this is just the opinion of Isomeone uneducated on this topic.

at least halo or killzone ai is better than cod's and if they would put less calculating in that they would have more power for something else. and sure, ai could be still much much better, that's what many hope for next gen.

and i remember that someone from polyphony said once about gt4 that the game didn't have damages because the ps2 had too less calculating power. so yes, the missing power was the reason for no damage calculatings. he said they could make it but it wouldn't be good enough because a good damage model needs too much power.

If Kllzone & Halo's A.I. require power, then shouldn't they be lacking in other areas? Shouldn't Killzone not be one of the best graphical games out there? And shouldn't Halo not be able to handle such large open worlds? And Halo 4 looks to be a graphical beast and have a huge open world. It seems a bit strange that games with the best a.I. also have enough power remaining for the best graphics. Also, if physics require a lot of power, how does battlefield 3 have huge worlds, amazing graphics, AND destructible environments? This all implies that physics doesnt really require a lot of power. Again, just my perspective.