Nice try. Sure, 10 line of code to say, make the basic effect of gravity, but you say like omg Gravity code, game done. You failed to see that way the gravity in galaxy works is the object with the greatest gravitational pull, also based on distance is the object mario will fall towards. That alone is at least 2-3 seperate systems working together in order to produce the effect of gravity... Gravity depends on many other factors in even a simple game. Landing and chaning animations and current player state (assuming a finite state machine) is a part of making sure graivty works correctly. I don't consider the code that moves an object down to a platform alone the full gravity system... ssbfalcoI don't think you understand what gravity is. Gravity is a force along a vector. One of a large number of forces that are calculated when moving an object in a game (provided it has actual physics). Here's basically how it works: - For each dynamic object in the scene, calculate the force applied on the object from other objects in the scene. This includes: - Objects that have collided with it - Gravity - Other effects (static/kinetic friction from moving walkways, blasts of air, whatever) - Multiply this force by the time slice and add to the current velocity vector to determine what distance the object should move during the frame, and the amount of force on it - Attempt to move the object, if it would collide with another object, first calculate the above two for the object(s) that it would hit to determine the transfer of momentum, and thus the proper final location for the object. Now do you understand why gravity is trivial? It's just a force, and it is one of many that contributes to the movement of the object. How you animate the object once forces have been appplied to it is irrelevent, because you have to animate the object in some way regardless of what physics are involved in its movement.
ReverieDLM's forum posts
[QUOTE="ReverieDLM"][QUOTE="bulletmath"][QUOTE="ReverieDLM"]I think you meant "the best of the XBox's output". Which is true. However, "many 360/PS3 games" is just plain wrong. Sorry, but the only 360/PS3 games that SMG remotely approaches are sloppy, awful ports like GUN, which really shouldn't even count as next-gen games in the first place.ssbfalco
sorry dude i corrected it
and if you look at games like Kameo and Folklore on the 360/PS3 (first party titles) Galaxy holds up pretty well as i proved in my screenshot comparison
Except it doesn't. The particle effects and lighting are way, way behind. Also, look at the ground, it's flat polygons with textures. The next-gen stuff all has real grass. Foliage in general actually, is vastly better. Additionally, poly counts on the models are noticeably higher, and things are much smoother due to the presense of AA. There's a vast different in quality.Holds up doesn't mean match. It's not a crappy looking game...
I didn't say it was a crappy looking game, did I? I said it's infantile *IN COMPARISON* to next gen stuff. It doesn't take much looking to see the large divide in graphics between them. That doesn't mean that it looks bad, just that it is vastly *less good* than what is available on next gen. It's actually a perfect argument for when graphics are "good enough". However, that isn't what was under discussion.[QUOTE="ReverieDLM"]I think it's perfectly fair to say that SMG is among the best looking Wii games to date, if not *the* best. However, the phrasing in this preview is fanboy tripe, and people are right to take issue with it: "This is one Wii game that can proudly stand next to the best-looking Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 games." This would indicate that it looks as good as those games. The intent of the wording is clear, and it is utterly false. SMG has infantile graphics compared to things like Kameo, Viva Pinata, and R&C4. It does, however, look great for a Wii game, and is probably one of the first Wii games that really stands up with the best looking games of last gen. "The gravity effects are really impressive and you'll find Mario is pulled towards whichever heavenly body he is closest to." Seriously? How is this impressive? I'm sorry, but this is pathetically easy. It's about 10 lines of code, and they've been done just as well in dozens of games in the past (Sonic Adventure 2, anyone?). It's not impressive for them to get it right. It would be a disgrace if they got it wrong, though. "The camera is very smart and zooms after Mario wherever he goes. One wonders if the open space environment of Galaxy was a means of dealing with that pesky camera, one of the few complaints that can be made of Mario 64." Are they seriously hyping a camera that doesn't lose track of the main character? Seriously? This is also about two lines of code. If you want to make the camera rubber band a bit, then it's about another 4 lines of code. Whoopdie do. Sorry, but the difficulties in making a camera work correctly aren't in having them staying focused on the main character. They're in not obstructing your view of other things in the scene that you're likely to be interested in while also not putting geometry between the camera and the main character. And there's nothing in this preview to indicate how well that works. It's notoriously difficult to get right in games like this, and I'd be interested to hear an impression worth something talk about it.ssbfalco
Don't talk about programming like you know it well...
10 lines of code for gravity... HAH! For a basic 2d flash game maybe, and that wouldn't be smooth or any good at all...
Actually, gravity in most cases is much less than 10 lines of code. It's one. However, in this case when you're dealing with unrealistically enhanced gravity and there are multiple relevant gravity-bearing objects, you have to add all of the gravity vectors before you actually do the object movement. It's still pretty much trivial, but it's a couple *more* lines of code than you'd need for an average FPS (as an example). And I know the programming perfectly well. I have written many games, including 3d games under API's like OpenGL, DirectX, and XNA. So thanks for playing.[QUOTE="ReverieDLM"]I think you meant "the best of the XBox's output". Which is true. However, "many 360/PS3 games" is just plain wrong. Sorry, but the only 360/PS3 games that SMG remotely approaches are sloppy, awful ports like GUN, which really shouldn't even count as next-gen games in the first place.bulletmath
sorry dude i corrected it
and if you look at games like Kameo and Folklore on the 360/PS3 (first party titles) Galaxy holds up pretty well as i proved in my screenshot comparison
Except it doesn't. The particle effects and lighting are way, way behind. Also, look at the ground, it's flat polygons with textures. The next-gen stuff all has real grass. Foliage in general actually, is vastly better. Additionally, poly counts on the models are noticeably higher, and things are much smoother due to the presense of AA. There's a vast different in quality.[QUOTE="MikeE21286"]the real fanboys are the ones who say this graphically stands next to the best looking ps3 and 360 games.
bulletmath
True, but that's an issue you'd have to take up with IGN. Regardelss Galaxy is comparable with the best of the 360's output as well as many 360/PS3 games.
I think you meant "the best of the XBox's output". Which is true. However, "many 360/PS3 games" is just plain wrong. Sorry, but the only 360/PS3 games that SMG remotely approaches are sloppy, awful ports like GUN, which really shouldn't even count as next-gen games in the first place.There are alot of better looking games out there, yes the game looks great but the shadowing and lighting didn't really impress me. Sharp textures,awesome character modelsthoughand overall the game looks great.Butthat sky isreally breathtaking.HummaKavulaThe lighting is the best part of these screens. To date, I don't think I could point to a released game with better lighting than what we've seen in the Halo 3 screens and videos. The shadowing I'll give you.
I think it's pretty fair to say that Rare's effort on the original XBox were pretty weak.
However, they have nothing to be ashamed of on 360. PDZ got mixed reviews, but was considered competent by pretty much all of the review outlets (and supposedly had great multiplayer, which was the best part of Goldeneye and PD as well). Kameo was solid, and when played for score attack, is actually really fun. Viva Pinata is arguably the best game of the generation so far. I think it's better than Gears.
Log in to comment