More realistic games if customed made for specific PC hardware?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
A relatively primitive CPU in a handheld camcorder can encode high definition in 1080p or 720p real time, but it would take all the resources on a good computer. This is a good example of application specific hardware.

On the opposite, Adobe Flash based games take a huge amount of CPU resource even though the games' graphic quality resemble that of SNES games.

I think there will be a good amount of inefficiency as long as the program has to be coded around the hardware. i.e. making a encoder/decoder to run on x86 architecture.

You'll need a fuel powered generator to provide hundreds of watts needed to run a standard computer to process the raw signal from the CCD and encode to HDTV standard in real time and such a setup would look like a 1970s VHS camcorder with separate unit for camera unit and a separate unit for recording/processing unit.

Camcorders do not use CPUs. They typically will use a dedicated ASIC like one of these:
http://www.4i2i.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=30

This is basically an FPGA but hardcoded. It is essentially a hardware implementation of an encoding algorithm. This is only possible because the encoding algorithm is fixed and will not change. It allows extremely power-efficient encoding.

What it does NOT allow is any sort of general processing a la CPU. Games are not algorithmic like video encoding so there is not a direct parallel to your example. Certain aspects like 3d rendering are, but there are already video cards to handle that. Physics processing is another example. However, it is not really practical to dump an entire game to a hardware chip.
 
Last edited:

jimhsu

Senior member
Mar 22, 2009
705
0
76
As the Unreal on iPhone demo hopefully showed, running games that look "decent" on clearly incapable hardware (compared to desktop GPUs) actually works, as long as you carefully control the resolution.
 

AndroidVageta

Banned
Mar 22, 2008
2,421
0
0
As the Unreal on iPhone demo hopefully showed, running games that look "decent" on clearly incapable hardware (compared to desktop GPUs) actually works, as long as you carefully control the resolution.

I saw this on Joystiq...it looked pretty GD impressive! I was like...yeah theres no dynamic shadows/lights, nor is there any normal/bump maps...but damn did it run smooth and look a lot more impressive than any other FPS on the iPhone...but it was on a small map though...we'll see...even if Epic doesnt do iPhone games its good to see that the Unreal 3 engine can go that low hard ware wise.

Maybe some game makers that already have Unreal 3 licenses will make some iPhone games?
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
Graphical realism is only one small part (that I don't care so much about). What I do care about in game development right now is AI: either a) massively parallel simulations of thousands of individual AI units (i.e. a war), or b) extremely intelligent motivation-based AI (which does NOT mean that the AI is extremely "good" at the game, BTW). Currently few games deliver on one or the other, and it is currently computationally infeasible to develop an AI that does both. GPGPU may slowly change that though...

I.e. a scenario:

1. Dark corridor. AI cannot see player.
2. AI sees "something" blocking a ray of light. (happens to be the player). Goes to check out what it is.
3. Player throws grenade. Explodes at nearby wall. AI is shocked (severe penalty to aim for a few seconds), and then goes check out wall, then tries to deduce where grenade came from.
4. Walking to place where grenade should have been, AI finds nothing. Spooked out, he tries to report to his superiors.
5. Player stops that with a knife on his back.

This is only an example with a "brave" AI. An AI with the "coward" personality would go straight to step 4, while an AI with the "psychotic" personality would fire at random at every dark corner in the room.

Currently some games (i.e. Crysis) do implement one or more of these things, but the behavior never seems "natural". All actors have the same reaction to stimuli, same degree of perception, etc.

I totally agree.
I got bored playing games because A : The AI of the adversaries is to simple and thus has some abilities that kill the gameplay. I crawl around a building, I am hiding around the corner and the enemy AI sees me. i am not making any noise, but the AI uses some simple Z depth test between me and itself.
If the AI sees nothing is in between because of rounding errors, it sees me. At least that is how i think it works. I had this with a game i liked very much for the story and the graphics( it was called FEAR) but that i could be seen through solid walls of concrete buildings really made me really sad. That and the fact that the enemy could shoot straight trough buildings of concrete with a pistol. These kind of glitches i find very saddening. I see them more and more often in games. I do like how there is more realistic physics calculations, if only you could actually use the physics and not just see spectacular explosions. I have seen this only in halflife 2 where there where puzzles with weights. But even there it was limited. If it was not specially made for that puzzle, it just did not exist. I feel that with most games you do not really have enough degrees of freedom. You can follow the path and the rest is just fenced off.

But there is 1 thing that would make me give up almost all graphics candy of today. The details of Halo 1 is enough for me, and when i was playing with people the fun part was to use the physics. To be honest, the graphic details of the halo 1 engine and a completely destroyable world would be enough for me. I also loved the way the controls of the vehicles worked flawlessly with the mouse keyboard combination. It was the best experience aside from a hydraulic racing simulator in the arcade hall.

Slap on a great story line like for example : Halflife,Jericho, Return to castle Wolfenstein, FEAR, Stalker, The undead, Legacy of kain, Shadowman, Deus ex. It would make me go play games again.

Today it is all about eyecandy and not about gameplay. It is the combination that makes a game fun.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
graphical richness even with lower polycounts etc from much higher budgets is probably the answer. they just have tons of money to throw into building the graphics/world in more detail. pc has more power but to populate that power with assets = massive $$$