Havok comments on GRAW

[Sly]

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10096

What interested me the most was that the engine used for the console ports actually uses Havok.

Which comes down to another question. Which is better at handling software physics? Havok or Ageia?

 

[Nobi125]

I wasn't impressed with the PC demo at all.

 

[defiant007]

Most interesting part of that article:

AGEIA appears to imply and consumers conjecture that the PPU is generating so many objects that the GPU cannot handle the load. Multiple direct tests on the game by using NVIDIA’s and ATI GPUs indicate the GPU has room to spare and in fact, if the PPU is factored out of the game, that the particle content generated by the PPU can easily be drawn at full game speeds by the GPU. So the introduction of the PPU most certainly appears to be the cause of the slow down in this case. NVIDIA specifically can technically verify that the GPU is not the cause of the slowdown.

 

[Terra]

Funny, since the "phycis" in GRAW seems to be the same kind of effect physics that HavockFX is all about...
I wonder why they didn't comment on CellFactor ..or do I?

Terra...

 

[koopaGG]

I wasn't impressed with the PC demo at all.

The full version is worse. 5 maps for online play? There was 7 servers with a total of 6 people playing. They dont even have TDM yet. Game blows.

 

[LuminaryJanitor]

Funny, since the "physics" in GRAW seems to be the same kind of effect physics that HavockFX is all about...

I think that's pretty much what you can expect to see in the near future... Developers are unlikely to make gameplay dependent on the presence of a PPU until it's widely adopted. Until then it'll probably be limited to effects (and taking the gameplay physics load off the CPU).

But at least they still have the potential to go somewhere with it, unlike Havok's attempt to perpetuate this kind of useless crap.

 

[Gun_Strife]

The full version is worse. 5 maps for online play? There was 7 servers with a total of 6 people playing. They dont even have TDM yet. Game blows.

thats almost as lame as red faction 2 not having mp
5 fn maps im sure glad i decided to not pick it up
so was it just dm and did u have any fun playing it sp or mp

 

[MrNasty]

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10096

What interested me the most was that the engine used for the console ports actually uses Havok.

Which comes down to another question. Which is better at handling software physics? Havok or Ageia?

Funny that - because I finished GRAW 360 a few days ago and the credits only have the AGEIA logo in them. No Havok to be seen...

Good question about which is better in software mode - Haven't seen anything on that yet. Might be difficult to put two different games that use the two head to head though. Maybe an SDK Iron cage? (they both have demonstration modes)

Looked it up some more but can't find anything other than vague hints at "unparralleled physics system". Marketing bumf

This looks like the start of the next "OMGNOESYOUCANTCLAIMTHAT" war a la Nv/ATi.

Who'd have thought Havok, which stands to lose the most from widespread physics adoption, would try to paint AGEIA black...

"Our own in-house testing has confirmed that GPU's aren't even being fully utilized"

Sound like a plug for HavokFX, anyone?

And using forum comments to validate their statements? Even ATi/NV have never stooped *that* low. What's next? Inquirer articles?

 

[CEREAL_KILLER]

they seemed to say that ATi and Nvidia have done testing and showed the GPU to have headroom to spare. i dont see that as some sort of evil scheme to advertise Havok. seems more like proper testing done to see if there is anywhere things can be improved.

 

[magoo]

GRAW on the PC is wicked good. Ive blown up stuff just to see what the physics looked like, it was/is impressive. IMHO PC GRAW is very much better than 360 GRAW, which is an excellent game.

The PC version is a giant graphic hog, but is visually stunning.

I think you either like the tactical shooter stuff or you hate it.
I got caught a bunch gawking at the scenery and the banditos nailed me.

Just my 2 cents from my initial 2 hours with the SP portion of the game. It is quite different from the 360.

 

[Terra]

GRAW on the PC is wicked good. Ive blown up stuff just to see what the physics looked like, it was/is impressive. IMHO PC GRAW is very much better than 360 GRAW, which is an excellent game.

You miss the pint.
The "physics" in GRAW, that Havock is "punking" Ageia" for is not gamplay physics(REAL interactive phycis) but effect physics.
The same kind of wannabe-physics that Havock is promoting via HavockFX.
But in HavockFX's case ot the CALULATIONS and the RENDERING would be added to the workload on the GPU.
For what?
More fake debri?

Terra - I would looooooove to see Havock comment on Cell Factor...

 

[wkarma]

The big question is: Is Ageia to blame for GRAW physics, or is ubisoft? Obviously as we have seen in cellfactor, PhysX is capable of much more than its implementation in GRAW, with apparently no slowdown. Could this just be a case of sloppy porting gone wrong? Personally I think that we should point fingers at ubisoft first.

 

[quadnad]

First off, just as I know Terra will agree with me, GRAW as a game is crap. Bring back the Rainbow Sixes/ Ghost Recons of yesteryear

moving on, I agree that the GRAW physics application with the PPU was minimal, and it seems as though it was tacked on as an afterthough. The drivers on the PPU aren't mature, and GRAW isn't taking advantage of what it has to offer. That and it seems like whoever coded the engine decided to take "meh" level graphics and require "wtf" specs to run it decently, even at low resolutions.

As for cellfactor, yes of course it looks good. Yes of course it's far more impressive. Then again, it isn't coming out for ages yet. What does have me a bit disturbed is the framerate in that video...this was what I was worrying about with the PPU from the start. I'm assuming the system they had setup for the (non-optimized by a longshot, not finalized) game was an sli/crossfire rig (why would they want to show it on anything less) and it was STRUGGLING to keep up those FPS. Again, I have to stress that since it's coming out in another year and a bit that hardware will be up to spec then, but it makes me wonder whether because of all these new bits and pieces flying around will require more hardcore specs.

Then again, DX10 and the new card architecture may run a billion objects on the screen at once no problem, but it makes me nervous...

 

[Skirrow]

What i got from the interview was that all the ingame physics are done using the Havoc API and that AGEIA is only used for extra particle effects.

Ripped from the article.

'AGEIA Novodex is said to be used in the single-player GRAW version for added PPU-accelerated effects – at the most AGEIA appears to be used for particle effects – and in no-way affects game-play outcome. AGEIA is NOT used in any way in any GRAW sku other than the PC.'

and

'Havok Physics (on the CPU) is used for all game-play physics in both the multiplayer and single-player PC versions of the game. All persistent collidable objects in the game are simulated using Havok software technology running on the CPU. '

So even though the game supports the use of a PPU, its actual use is very limited.

I'm not entirely convinced a PPU is necessary at the moment. I was hoping GRAW would sway me toward buying one and the PPU support was being hyped a lot. But i guess not yet.

As for Cell Factor. I would love to see a comparison of how the game runs with and without a PPU. With the same settings. I.E The same number of objects, effects etc.

If i see proper HARD numbers then i'll be convinced as to the benefits.

 

[jebo_4jc]

The big question is: Is Ageia to blame for GRAW physics, or is ubisoft? Obviously as we have seen in cellfactor, PhysX is capable of much more than its implementation in GRAW, with apparently no slowdown. Could this just be a case of sloppy porting gone wrong? Personally I think that we should point fingers at ubisoft first.

I agree that Ubi is probably the main culprit here. However, it probably would have been a wise business decision for Ageia to lend some free help to Ubi to make the physics effects much more substantial. This is a big title after all, so you would think Ageia would be more willing to help make it more impressive, to give the PPU a kick in the pants.

(hopes for good things froum UT2k7)

 

[ikarinokami]

GRAW is a badly programmed game. Anyone who would take this to be an indication of what the PPU can do, is insane. we won' really go a good indication until unreal 3 and the PS3. I think the PS3 will sell the PPU. I think SONY is going to really hard on the Physics front, because it has a clear and distinct advantage on the Xbox360. This reminds to the voodoo days, when some hardware engine were barely better than the software engines. It was not until games were built on hardware rendering first, and sofware as an afterthough, that 3d graphics really took off, I expect the same progession here, eventually we will get the killer app, that puts the ppu on the map.

 

[MrNasty]

As for Cell Factor. I would love to see a comparison of how the game runs with and without a PPU. With the same settings. I.E The same number of objects, effects etc.

If i see proper HARD numbers then i'll be convinced as to the benefits.

It's as simple as this: The game won't run without it, and I think you can take that to mean it really won't run without it, not it won't let you run without it.

With about 8-17k effects/bodies in motion per frame I just don't think it's possible - quoted somewhere as approx. 60% of the PPU's capacity - but it'd be really interesting to see how this works in software...

 

[magoo]

You miss the pint.
The "physics" in GRAW, that Havock is "punking" Ageia" for is not gamplay physics(REAL interactive phycis) but effect physics.
The same kind of wannabe-physics that Havock is promoting via HavockFX.
But in HavockFX's case ot the CALULATIONS and the RENDERING would be added to the workload on the GPU.
For what?
More fake debri?

Terra - I would looooooove to see Havock comment on Cell Factor...

Well, I dont think I missed anything. I played the game, did you???
Show me interactive physics anyway. Except for the gravity gun in HL2, no one has interactive physics yet.
Cell Factor is not interactive physics. All I saw in that demo was a bunch (oops hit the wrong button)

of boxes flying around....in your words....larger debris.
To me, when a character can pick up a chair and wack someone with it. Pick up a brick and throw it through a window.....thats interaction.
Ageia was an afterthought in GRAW, no doubt. Im sure a ground-up game will look good. But the real question is, can it improve my experience in a meaningful way.
I think the effects in GRAW are some of the best anywhere. Its much better than COD2 or HL2 and I thought those were very good. Im anxious to see what SiN episodes has to offer.

 

[Skirrow]

GRAW is a badly programmed game. Anyone who would take this to be an indication of what the PPU can do, is insane. we won' really go a good indication until unreal 3 and the PS3. I think the PS3 will sell the PPU. I think SONY is going to really hard on the Physics front, because it has a clear and distinct advantage on the Xbox360. This reminds to the voodoo days, when some hardware engine were barely better than the software engines. It was not until games were built on hardware rendering first, and sofware as an afterthough, that 3d graphics really took off, I expect the same progession here, eventually we will get the killer app, that puts the ppu on the map.

Confused. I remember a story about Sony licensing Ageia technology, but i havent heard anything about them adding a PPU to the PS3. All i heard was that the PS3 would use the Ageia API in games.

Mind you. I havent really been paying a whole lot of attention.

 

[jebo_4jc]

Confused. I remember a story about Sony licensing Ageia technology, but i havent heard anything about them adding a PPU to the PS3. All i heard was that the PS3 would use the Ageia API in games.

Mind you. I havent really been paying a whole lot of attention.

Since Sony licensed Ageia's tech, more games should be optimized for Ageia's engine. I think what he was trying to say is, let's say a big PS3 game uses Ageia's engine, then it should also benefit from a PhysX PPU if the game is released on PC.

 

[Terra]

Well, I dont think I missed anything. I played the game, did you???
Show me interactive physics anyway. Except for the gravity gun in HL2, no one has interactive physics yet.
Cell Factor is not interactive physics. All I saw in that demo was a bunch (oops hit the wrong button)

of boxes flying around....in your words....larger debris.
To me, when a character can pick up a chair and wack someone with it. Pick up a brick and throw it through a window.....thats interaction.

Does the "debris" interact or not in Cell factor?
Did the extra debris in GRAW do anything..expect to DISSAPER af 5 sec?

Ageia was an afterthought in GRAW, no doubt. Im sure a ground-up game will look good. But the real question is, can it improve my experience in a meaningful way.
I think the effects in GRAW are some of the best anywhere. Its much better than COD2
or HL2 and I thought those were very good. Im anxious to see what SiN episodes has to offer.

GRAW flat out sucks..3 sniper bullets to kill a man hiding behind a car?
Welcome to the world of "dust my brom" coding...

Terra...

 

[magoo]

Does the "debris" interact or not in Cell factor?
Did the extra debris in GRAW do anything..expect to DISSAPER af 5 sec?



GRAW flat out sucks..3 sniper bullets to kill a man hiding behind a car?
Welcome to the world of "dust my brom" coding...

Terra...

I'm not here to argue or start a fight or anything, and I apologize ahead of time, BUT....what is so different about flying boxes versus dust particles or anything else for that matter. These are programmed movements. The character doesnt interact with them. When the character can catch one and throw it back, deflect one, or pick it back up and throw it, thats interaction. Opening a car door is another example. Id call the PPU an amplifier more than anything else. There's just more of the same, nothing interactive.
It doesnt justify an extra 200 dollars to me. Thats what appeals to me about HavokFX.
Im sorry you didnt like GRAW. Its not perfect, but I sure like it.

 

[quadnad]

I'm not here to argue or start a fight or anything, and I apologize ahead of time, BUT....what is so different about flying boxes versus dust particles or anything else for that matter. These are programmed movements. The character doesnt interact with them. When the character can catch one and throw it back, deflect one, or pick it back up and throw it, thats interaction. Opening a car door is another example. Id call the PPU an amplifier more than anything else. There's just more of the same, nothing interactive.
It doesnt justify an extra 200 dollars to me. Thats what appeals to me about HavokFX.

I'm not saying that anything right now is worth the money for the PPU, but in the future that may very well change.

Also, about "catching and tossing back" etc. I'm not sure you actually watched the Cellfactor bink video....here is a link just in case. I'd say there is a fair amount of interaction going on there...

 

[magoo]

I'm not saying that anything right now is worth the money for the PPU, but in the future that may very well change.

Also, about "catching and tossing back" etc. I'm not sure you actually watched the Cellfactor bink video....here is a link just in case. I'd say there is a fair amount of interation going on there...

I watched it a bunch. Lots of boxes flying around. I agree with you though, there's a lot to come. We just have to wait. All in all its going to benefit games!
I guess you refer to that force field looking thing that deflects the boxes in the demo.....its the same concept as the gravity gun. Look Im not knocking anything....I cant program anything and Im very glad all this stuff is coming available. I just dont think we should bad mouth Havok,Aegia,nVidia or ATI until it all comes together. I just have a hard time with interactive......none of these things are truely interactive.

 

[MrNasty]

These are programmed movements. The character doesnt interact with them. When the character can catch one and throw it back, deflect one, or pick it back up and throw it, thats interaction. Opening a car door is another example. Id call the PPU an amplifier more than anything else. There's just more of the same, nothing interactive.

Erm - the Cellfactor demo shows people being squashed by thrown boxes and being run down by cars, missiles flinging heavy objects into people and a whole load of other stuff. None of this is "programmed" in the traditional sense - it's calculated on the fly, and that is what defines "interactive physics": when objects/environments are programmed to comply to approximations of physical laws that we observe.

The other two examples you've mentioned (picking up a brick etc. etc.) could easily be scripted FYI. Throwing a brick to have it bounce of a rubber disc and dislodge one of 6000 tiles on a roof that then falls on someone else's head is scriptable as well - but very difficult, hence why having a physics SDK at all is a good idea.

People are panning GRAW because it uses the PPU for non-interactive physics - as Havok claims their engine is being used for gameplay - and hence see it as a lost opportunity.

 

[Terra]

I watched it a bunch. Lots of boxes flying around. I agree with you though, there's a lot to come. We just have to wait. All in all its going to benefit games!

Do the boxes interact?
Can you use them as weapons?
Is there kinetic energy involved?

It's really simple yes/no questions, would you mind answering them?

Terra...

 

[magoo]

No
yes
no (kenetic energy exists only in the real physical world)

The gravity gun can fling a toilet as a weapon. The only interaction is the gun picks up the toilet.

Like I said I'm not here to argue. Have a PPU day.

 

[Terra]

No

Either you havn't seen the videos or you are lying now

yes

Thought so

no (kenetic energy exists only in the real physical world)

Or in an artificial enviroment with physics...

The gravity gun can fling a toilet as a weapon. The only interaction is the gun picks up the toilet.

So the speed, impact, mass ect. mean nothing?

Like I said I'm not here to argue. Have a PPU day.

Your answers where 66.66.....6% wrong, that is indeed some to "argue" over...

Terra - Please watch the videos one more time, and then answer my questions again...

 

[magoo]

Look Mr.Terra.....please do not assume that I am a liar. That is the kind of language I do not care for.
I have not nor will I stoop to arguing over concepts in video games.
I have a different view point on interaction than you do. Lets leave it at that.
When I graduated from university I completed all the graded testing I was required of.

Please do not call me a liar unless you have some fact to back it up. I resent that very much.
Good day.

 

[MrNasty]

Look Mr.Terra.....please do not assume that I am a liar. That is the kind of language I do not care for.
I have not nor will I stoop to arguing over concepts in video games.
I have a different view point on interaction than you do. Lets leave it at that.
When I graduated from university I completed all the graded testing I was required of.

Please do not call me a liar unless you have some fact to back it up. I resent that very much.
Good day.

You're not a liar, just misguided as to what interaction means.

Oh and congratulations on graduating from university - welcome to the university of life, where, by exposing our opinions to others, we learn more about theirs.

Rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and whistling dixie.



EDIT- It also shocks me that you do the following:

1) Define "interactivity" as "the gravity gun in HL2", the effect of which is what 70% of the CF video demonstrates.

2) Say there is "no difference" between that and "crates in other games" - please show me a game that allows "player interaction", defined as above, on the scale that is in the video.

3) That you then say that "interactivity" is what you like about HavokFX, in apparent ignorance of the fact that the effects HavokFX are purely cosmetic and cannot be interacted with as defined above.

4) That you imply "kinetic energy" doesn't exist outside of actual reality and by your wording deny that modelling such things is impossible - My CFD simulations beg to differ, and indeed other things that wouldn't be possible without them such as F1 cars, novel plane designs (a la stealth bombers), jet turbines, hydrofoils, the oil piping industry and so on.

Please, if you formulate an opinion, base it on the vast wealth of information available to you and do not state as fact that which is not.

 

[ikarinokami]

Confused. I remember a story about Sony licensing Ageia technology, but i havent heard anything about them adding a PPU to the PS3. All i heard was that the PS3 would use the Ageia API in games.

Mind you. I havent really been paying a whole lot of attention.

The SPE's in the sony PS3 are very similiar in design to the PPU. This is the one big advantage the PS3 has over the xbox360, and i think sony is going to attempt to exploit it. which can only help ageia, since they are novadex engine requires minimal effort of take advantage of the SPE, at least according to ageia. so i except big things in future.

 

[ikarinokami]

You're not a liar, just misguided as to what interaction means.

Oh and congratulations on graduating from university - welcome to the university of life, where, by exposing our opinions to others, we learn more about theirs.

Rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and whistling dixie.

I don't want to call you a liar either, but seriously if you are going to claim there was no interaction in that video, the only options are that you didn't see the video in which case in point of fact you are untruthful. 2. you don't understand what the word interaction means in which case, you now stand corrected.

 

[Terra]

Look Mr.Terra.....please do not assume that I am a liar. That is the kind of language I do not care for.

I gave 2 options.
1. Either you havn't seen the videos.
2. You where a lying.
I should, in retrospect have included options 3: "ignorance"(sorry don't know any better english word)

I have not nor will I stoop to arguing over concepts in video games.
I have a different view point on interaction than you do. Lets leave it at that.

When you enter a debate and try to use personal definitions that is bad.
There is a reason why we don't use "personalized" concepts when presenting our views.
It makes it impossible to understand the other side.
I don't new any colloge/university degree to know that.
It's common logic.
Please refrain from using words based on "personal definitions", thanks

When I graduated from university I completed all the graded testing I was required of.

1. Off Topic.
2. It dosn't prove anything...that is what I call a "red herring"..an argument directed at shifting the focus.
Fact is, you used a personal defination of the word "interaction".

Please do not call me a liar unless you have some fact to back it up. I resent that very much.
Good day.

I am simply pointing out that you answers where VERY incorrect.
Based on you replies.
As I can see now it steems from the misconception of the word "interaction"...

Terra...

 

[reddhaus]

I love this thread!!

 

[HighTest]

Look Mr.Terra.....please do not assume that I am a liar. That is the kind of language I do not care for.
I have not nor will I stoop to arguing over concepts in video games.
I have a different view point on interaction than you do. Lets leave it at that.
When I graduated from university I completed all the graded testing I was required of.

Please do not call me a liar unless you have some fact to back it up. I resent that very much.
Good day.

Since you graduated from a University, you "may" have heard about the following phrase but perhaps not if none of the courses delt with debate.

Ignoratio elenchi, rather than going on about it's terms myself, I'll use the follwoing Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

In order to bring the discussion back to the original thread of debate, let's look at the definition of interactive in terms of "physics" so that the understanding is equivalent between both parties of the debate:

interactive - capable of acting on or influencing each other


From what I understand is that the actual explosion creates debris that can be capable of causing damage to the player beyond just the explosion. Perhaps this link of CellFactor information may help to fill in the gaps that the video is not demonstrating enough http://artificialstudios.com/news.php

Also Tera may have already understood this information and it helped to see the interactiveness in the Video clip.

 

[Apoxi]

i was over at my friends house playing GRAW on the 360 and i was like HOLY CRAP THIS IS FREAKIN AWESOME! but of course, i haven't run out to the store to drop 400+ on a 360....yet....so when i heard that GRAW was coming to PC i was like !!!!!!!!! so i get the demo and i'm playin it...and i'm thinking to myself...*i just spend 1.5K on a new PC and this game is running like crap...wtf* so there is proof of a halfassed coding job and i know this thread is about physics, so i was playin around with shooting cars and what not and the physics in the game are very un-impressive. Can't even touch half life 2. and that is my 2 cents, as irrelevant as they may be )

 

[Tsumari]

I think it is too early to judge these products against each other. Havok has some maturity to it but PhysX is just getting started and at this point it is difficult to determine if the performance and "fluff" issues are related to the technology itself or just a certain development team's implementation of the card. I can take a 3D game and mod it so a certain action kills the GPU, it doesn't make the GPU bad. If lots of games are slowing down and showing weak physics with PhysX I would start to worry.

Tsumari

 

[magoo]

Well, Im going to step in the mud again.
I did not debate in any educated forum in college.
I do not agree with you. But I do not have to.
I do agree that objects currently in games "interact" with each other in a pre-planned way.
How I see interaction is in a more random fashion. To example: I might place a grenade in a room and its explosion "moves" objects,like chairs and tables. BUT when I walk into that room I cannot interact with those same objects. I cannot move them aside, I cannot replace a chair or brick to upright. I cannot even shake hands....a simple human interaction. That to me is also interaction, and what Ive been talking about all day.
Please dont resort to name calling or telling me Im off topic.
Mr Terra, you introduced the grading aspect of this, I just replied. I had no intention to go "off topic".

I feel that to date the game "physics" are one way reactions. Yes it forces the character to" react" to the given moment, but the character cannot fully interact in random,unplanned and human interaction events. The PPU is an accelerator, or multiplier. It does not give a new dimension to physical interaction at this point.
This is just my opinion. It is not an argument. It is just MY point of view.

 

[MrNasty]

Well, Im going to step in the mud again.
I did not debate in any educated forum in college.
I do not agree with you. But I do not have to.
I do agree that objects currently in games "interact" with each other in a pre-planned way.
How I see interaction is in a more random fashion. To example: I might place a grenade in a room and its explosion "moves" objects,like chairs and tables. BUT when I walk into that room I cannot interact with those same objects. I cannot move them aside, I cannot replace a chair or brick to upright. I cannot even shake hands....a simple human interaction. That to me is also interaction, and what Ive been talking about all day.
Please dont resort to name calling or telling me Im off topic.
Mr Terra, you introduced the grading aspect of this, I just replied. I had no intention to go "off topic".

I feel that to date the game "physics" are one way reactions. Yes it forces the character to" react" to the given moment, but the character cannot fully interact in random,unplanned and human interaction events. The PPU is an accelerator, or multiplier. It does not give a new dimension to physical interaction at this point.
This is just my opinion. It is not an argument. It is just MY point of view.

Well assuming this definition of interaction is your final version I would point out to you that the problem you have does not lie with physics acceleration or in game physics at all, but game programming.

And, for some small part, I agree with you - interactive environments are difficult to program and there are few very good examples of this type of gameplay, games such as Half Life 2 have stretched these boundaries, but I disagree with you as I believe physics SDK's may make them easier to implement.


I suggest you look up what goes into developing a game to better understand the task, but here's a sample:

User interaction is a huge element of games, but predicting what people will do within that environment and thus provide further developement for all possible outcomes is a branching and complex task - and one which physics acceleration does not help with.


One task that Ageia will help with is providing environments that react realistically to the player's array of possible inputs - by accurately modelling believable behaviour for such things as chairs etc. I.E. if you drop a chair from a 10 story building it will break and so on.

Why then would you believe that HavokFX would offer anything more, as you originally stated? As arguably it will do less than Ageia's solution and just add to the non-interactive eye candy that you seem to detest.

Look elsewhere in this forum for ideas about what both implementations can and can't offer - it's worth it.

 

[H-street]

Trespasser == Interactive Physics.. with the Wonder Arm (woooo).. even though the game wasn't the best (but at least i did beat it, don't ask me why)

everything else up until now has been blah for interaction (with the exception HL2 coming close)..