The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Much has been said about how the power of the PlayStation 2 with its 'Emotion Engine' will herald a new era of gaming. I'd like to know how this will manifest itself. Looking at its specs, the only significant difference from the PS1 (other than having a DVD drive) is that they decided to give the CPU a name!
I don't know the ins-and-outs of the 'Emotion Engine', but I can only imagine what must be involved. Let's consider emotions in games, presumably meaning the emotions of characters with which the player can interact. These can be simulated easily with a few lines of code, you don't need a special processor to do that. Perhaps 'Emotion Engine' is just a catch-all name for a processor that has dedicated routines to do lots of things that games have previously rarely included, emotions being one of them, or often-used routines which are processor hungry.
Real-time physics routines seem to be one of these, presumable allowing developers the luxury of plugging in the physical attributes of objects and letting the processor worry about how they interact with each other. This is all well and good, but what difference will this make to the gameplay other than perhaps a higher frame rate?
Games tend to be simulations rather than emulations. A simulation uses whatever methods its programmers can think up to make what is happening SEEM real, even if the real world doesn't work that way. A true emulation, however, would do everything 'properly', right down to the smallest detail. This, of course, is very processor intensive which is why games are simulations and not emulations. The 'Emotion Engine' may go some way towards allowing games to be more like emulations than simulations, but will we really notice the difference whilst playing?
The only thing that I can think of which would really make a difference would be if the 'Emotion Engine' allowed characters to have AI, artificial intelligence. Instead of the usual handful of preprogrammed responses that we usually get from characters before they start repeating themselves, we could have proper conversations with them, get to know their likes and dislikes, and ultimately their 'character' - what makes them tick. Rather like the characters in good films, we may begin to make 'emotional attachments' to them as we care about what happens in their lives.
As I said before, I know little about what the 'Emotion Engine' can really do, but I think we will only see a real change in our games if it includes a form of advanced AI.
I don't know the ins-and-outs of the 'Emotion Engine', but I can only imagine what must be involved. Let's consider emotions in games, presumably meaning the emotions of characters with which the player can interact. These can be simulated easily with a few lines of code, you don't need a special processor to do that. Perhaps 'Emotion Engine' is just a catch-all name for a processor that has dedicated routines to do lots of things that games have previously rarely included, emotions being one of them, or often-used routines which are processor hungry.
Real-time physics routines seem to be one of these, presumable allowing developers the luxury of plugging in the physical attributes of objects and letting the processor worry about how they interact with each other. This is all well and good, but what difference will this make to the gameplay other than perhaps a higher frame rate?
Games tend to be simulations rather than emulations. A simulation uses whatever methods its programmers can think up to make what is happening SEEM real, even if the real world doesn't work that way. A true emulation, however, would do everything 'properly', right down to the smallest detail. This, of course, is very processor intensive which is why games are simulations and not emulations. The 'Emotion Engine' may go some way towards allowing games to be more like emulations than simulations, but will we really notice the difference whilst playing?
The only thing that I can think of which would really make a difference would be if the 'Emotion Engine' allowed characters to have AI, artificial intelligence. Instead of the usual handful of preprogrammed responses that we usually get from characters before they start repeating themselves, we could have proper conversations with them, get to know their likes and dislikes, and ultimately their 'character' - what makes them tick. Rather like the characters in good films, we may begin to make 'emotional attachments' to them as we care about what happens in their lives.
As I said before, I know little about what the 'Emotion Engine' can really do, but I think we will only see a real change in our games if it includes a form of advanced AI.
Much has been said about how the power of the PlayStation 2 with its 'Emotion Engine' will herald a new era of gaming. I'd like to know how this will manifest itself. Looking at its specs, the only significant difference from the PS1 (other than having a DVD drive) is that they decided to give the CPU a name!
I don't know the ins-and-outs of the 'Emotion Engine', but I can only imagine what must be involved. Let's consider emotions in games, presumably meaning the emotions of characters with which the player can interact. These can be simulated easily with a few lines of code, you don't need a special processor to do that. Perhaps 'Emotion Engine' is just a catch-all name for a processor that has dedicated routines to do lots of things that games have previously rarely included, emotions being one of them, or often-used routines which are processor hungry.
Real-time physics routines seem to be one of these, presumable allowing developers the luxury of plugging in the physical attributes of objects and letting the processor worry about how they interact with each other. This is all well and good, but what difference will this make to the gameplay other than perhaps a higher frame rate?
Games tend to be simulations rather than emulations. A simulation uses whatever methods its programmers can think up to make what is happening SEEM real, even if the real world doesn't work that way. A true emulation, however, would do everything 'properly', right down to the smallest detail. This, of course, is very processor intensive which is why games are simulations and not emulations. The 'Emotion Engine' may go some way towards allowing games to be more like emulations than simulations, but will we really notice the difference whilst playing?
The only thing that I can think of which would really make a difference would be if the 'Emotion Engine' allowed characters to have AI, artificial intelligence. Instead of the usual handful of preprogrammed responses that we usually get from characters before they start repeating themselves, we could have proper conversations with them, get to know their likes and dislikes, and ultimately their 'character' - what makes them tick. Rather like the characters in good films, we may begin to make 'emotional attachments' to them as we care about what happens in their lives.
As I said before, I know little about what the 'Emotion Engine' can really do, but I think we will only see a real change in our games if it includes a form of advanced AI.
I don't know the ins-and-outs of the 'Emotion Engine', but I can only imagine what must be involved. Let's consider emotions in games, presumably meaning the emotions of characters with which the player can interact. These can be simulated easily with a few lines of code, you don't need a special processor to do that. Perhaps 'Emotion Engine' is just a catch-all name for a processor that has dedicated routines to do lots of things that games have previously rarely included, emotions being one of them, or often-used routines which are processor hungry.
Real-time physics routines seem to be one of these, presumable allowing developers the luxury of plugging in the physical attributes of objects and letting the processor worry about how they interact with each other. This is all well and good, but what difference will this make to the gameplay other than perhaps a higher frame rate?
Games tend to be simulations rather than emulations. A simulation uses whatever methods its programmers can think up to make what is happening SEEM real, even if the real world doesn't work that way. A true emulation, however, would do everything 'properly', right down to the smallest detail. This, of course, is very processor intensive which is why games are simulations and not emulations. The 'Emotion Engine' may go some way towards allowing games to be more like emulations than simulations, but will we really notice the difference whilst playing?
The only thing that I can think of which would really make a difference would be if the 'Emotion Engine' allowed characters to have AI, artificial intelligence. Instead of the usual handful of preprogrammed responses that we usually get from characters before they start repeating themselves, we could have proper conversations with them, get to know their likes and dislikes, and ultimately their 'character' - what makes them tick. Rather like the characters in good films, we may begin to make 'emotional attachments' to them as we care about what happens in their lives.
As I said before, I know little about what the 'Emotion Engine' can really do, but I think we will only see a real change in our games if it includes a form of advanced AI.
The question is, whether the playstation2, is just the same as any other console, but with a name for it's processor. Well, the reply is obviously no, otherwise why would the Akihabara district of Tokyo have been whipped up into such a frenzy on March the 4th?
What tin can failed to mention was the fact that the playstaion2 actually has another 3 processors apart from the emotion engine. One for the video, one for the audio, and one for the i/o ports (which just happens to be the original processor from the psx). Now, I could go into the in's and out's of all the different processors, but that would be an exercise in tedium. But I will say that the playstation 2 has the capability of holding an entire virtual city within is rdram, the sound processor has a ridiculous amount of channels, which if you can imagine walking down a street in this virtual city, would mean that each channel could run the sound effects of each shop you past. Allowing the sounds to fade in and out as you walked past each one. This sort of technology would allow for a more immersive environment, not just better graphics.
After all what is gaming for?...escapism! It's just a better form of escapism than having to watch endless episodes of Ally McBeal and other droll 'entertainment' that we are bombarded with every day.
A valid point has been made about the high numerical values of games that are arriving for the playstation2, but we need release titles, that can then be backed up with new games that push the machine, through new gaming engines etc. But to get people to buy the console in the first place, you need to entice the gamers in with something they know and like. The same way as when you go to the pub and have a beer, beer's the same every time, but you know it's good so you always go for it, once you're in the pub, you may spy a bottle of metz which you could try.
What tin can failed to mention was the fact that the playstaion2 actually has another 3 processors apart from the emotion engine. One for the video, one for the audio, and one for the i/o ports (which just happens to be the original processor from the psx). Now, I could go into the in's and out's of all the different processors, but that would be an exercise in tedium. But I will say that the playstation 2 has the capability of holding an entire virtual city within is rdram, the sound processor has a ridiculous amount of channels, which if you can imagine walking down a street in this virtual city, would mean that each channel could run the sound effects of each shop you past. Allowing the sounds to fade in and out as you walked past each one. This sort of technology would allow for a more immersive environment, not just better graphics.
After all what is gaming for?...escapism! It's just a better form of escapism than having to watch endless episodes of Ally McBeal and other droll 'entertainment' that we are bombarded with every day.
A valid point has been made about the high numerical values of games that are arriving for the playstation2, but we need release titles, that can then be backed up with new games that push the machine, through new gaming engines etc. But to get people to buy the console in the first place, you need to entice the gamers in with something they know and like. The same way as when you go to the pub and have a beer, beer's the same every time, but you know it's good so you always go for it, once you're in the pub, you may spy a bottle of metz which you could try.
Tin Can wrote:
Much has been said about how the power of the PlayStation 2 with
its 'Emotion Engine' will herald a new era of gaming. I'd like to
know how this will manifest itself. Looking at its specs, the only
significant difference from the PS1 (other than having a DVD
drive) is that they decided to give the CPU a name!
I don't know the ins-and-outs of the 'Emotion Engine', but I can
only imagine what must be involved. Let's consider emotions in
games, presumably meaning the emotions of characters with which
the player can interact. These can be simulated easily with a few
lines of code, you don't need a special processor to do that.
Perhaps 'Emotion Engine' is just a catch-all name for a processor
that has dedicated routines to do lots of things that games have
previously rarely included, emotions being one of them, or
often-used routines which are processor hungry.
Real-time physics routines seem to be one of these, presumable
allowing developers the luxury of plugging in the physical
attributes of objects and letting the processor worry about how
they interact with each other. This is all well and good, but what
difference will this make to the gameplay other than perhaps a
higher frame rate?
Games tend to be simulations rather than emulations. A simulation
uses whatever methods its programmers can think up to make what is
happening SEEM real, even if the real world doesn't work that way.
A true emulation, however, would do everything 'properly', right
down to the smallest detail. This, of course, is very processor
intensive which is why games are simulations and not emulations.
The 'Emotion Engine' may go some way towards allowing games to be
more like emulations than simulations, but will we really notice
the difference whilst playing?
The only thing that I can think of which would really make a
difference would be if the 'Emotion Engine' allowed characters to
have AI, artificial intelligence. Instead of the usual handful of
preprogrammed responses that we usually get from characters before
they start repeating themselves, we could have proper
conversations with them, get to know their likes and dislikes, and
ultimately their 'character' - what makes them tick. Rather like
the characters in good films, we may begin to make 'emotional
attachments' to them as we care about what happens in their lives.
As I said before, I know little about what the 'Emotion Engine'
can really do, but I think we will only see a real change in our
games if it includes a form of advanced AI.
Much has been said about how the power of the PlayStation 2 with
its 'Emotion Engine' will herald a new era of gaming. I'd like to
know how this will manifest itself. Looking at its specs, the only
significant difference from the PS1 (other than having a DVD
drive) is that they decided to give the CPU a name!
I don't know the ins-and-outs of the 'Emotion Engine', but I can
only imagine what must be involved. Let's consider emotions in
games, presumably meaning the emotions of characters with which
the player can interact. These can be simulated easily with a few
lines of code, you don't need a special processor to do that.
Perhaps 'Emotion Engine' is just a catch-all name for a processor
that has dedicated routines to do lots of things that games have
previously rarely included, emotions being one of them, or
often-used routines which are processor hungry.
Real-time physics routines seem to be one of these, presumable
allowing developers the luxury of plugging in the physical
attributes of objects and letting the processor worry about how
they interact with each other. This is all well and good, but what
difference will this make to the gameplay other than perhaps a
higher frame rate?
Games tend to be simulations rather than emulations. A simulation
uses whatever methods its programmers can think up to make what is
happening SEEM real, even if the real world doesn't work that way.
A true emulation, however, would do everything 'properly', right
down to the smallest detail. This, of course, is very processor
intensive which is why games are simulations and not emulations.
The 'Emotion Engine' may go some way towards allowing games to be
more like emulations than simulations, but will we really notice
the difference whilst playing?
The only thing that I can think of which would really make a
difference would be if the 'Emotion Engine' allowed characters to
have AI, artificial intelligence. Instead of the usual handful of
preprogrammed responses that we usually get from characters before
they start repeating themselves, we could have proper
conversations with them, get to know their likes and dislikes, and
ultimately their 'character' - what makes them tick. Rather like
the characters in good films, we may begin to make 'emotional
attachments' to them as we care about what happens in their lives.
As I said before, I know little about what the 'Emotion Engine'
can really do, but I think we will only see a real change in our
games if it includes a form of advanced AI.