View Full Version : PSP could have a 3D worms title...
i mean, its certainly powerful enough, i suppose DS could too but its weaker stature could hamper its abilities.
im not saying this is really a GOOD idea, but i think team17 should give worms for the handhelds another shot.
MtlAngelus
1 Jul 2006, 18:46
You can't have fully destructable 3d land as in Worms 3d in a PSP, it's not powerful enough.
You can't have fully destructable 3d land as in Worms 3d in a PSP, it's not powerful enough.
Well, Worms Forts then, where only the forts are destructible. :)
Well, Worms Forts then, where only the forts are destructible. :)
if they made a woms forts again, they would have to make one major change:
SMALLER MAPS! the fact that the terrain isnt destructable makes successfully hitting a target VERY difficult (especially if theres an obstical in the way). this often leads to very, very long, drawn out battles.
i mean, its certainly powerful enough, i suppose DS could too but its weaker stature could hamper its abilities.
Neither of them is powerful enough. No really, we've had this argument many times before.
SiN
if they made a woms forts again, they would have to make one major change:
SMALLER MAPS! the fact that the terrain isnt destructable makes successfully hitting a target VERY difficult (especially if theres an obstical in the way). this often leads to very, very long, drawn out battles.
No points for guessing who didn't play WF:US but thinks he knows all about it!
No points for guessing who didn't play WF:US but thinks he knows all about it!
i got this game for ps2, whenever i play a quick challenge i always get a map where theres some pyramid or mountain or statue in the middle of the map between me and my opponent, and niether can really hit anything untill our towers meet face to face. even at that, the games become extremely long and drawn out.
i got this game for ps2, whenever i play a quick challenge i always get a map where theres some pyramid or mountain or statue in the middle of the map between me and my opponent, and niether can really hit anything untill our towers meet face to face. even at that, the games become extremely long and drawn out.
Well then you shoot over the mountain.
It just requires a good bit of practice, and clusters can really help.
Well then you shoot over the mountain.
It just requires a good bit of practice, and clusters can really help.
tried that: cluster weapons are limited in number (all the meaningful weapons are), and the most plentiful doesn't seem to do nearly enough damage to break any sort of stalemate.
its almost liike WWI.
i would have practiced more but... Starcraft, AVP2, and Me and My Katamari distracted me lol.
quakerworm
22 Jul 2006, 11:40
Well, Worms Forts then, where only the forts are destructible. :)
that could actually work. the graphics might have to suffer a bit, but the small screen should mask that.
@zasz: just learn to use balistic trajectories.
AndrewTaylor
22 Jul 2006, 12:16
that could actually work. the graphics might have to suffer a bit, but the small screen should mask that.
@zasz: just learn to use balistic trajectories.
Oh, I think you could release Forts on the DS if you cut it down a bit. Heck, you could make Forts isometric if you wanted.
SupSuper
22 Jul 2006, 14:43
Well, you certainly couldn't cut it down any more than Forts Mobile.
AndrewTaylor
22 Jul 2006, 14:51
Well, you certainly couldn't cut it down any more than Forts Mobile.
That wasn't really Forts at all. You can't make Forts in 2D without altering it radically. You could make it isometric or something, though, and it would be essentially the same game.
I thought the same thing when I played W:OW on PSP. Don't PSP and PS2 have nearly the same specs? I remember that they both have 32mb ram, dunno about graphics/processor power...but it doesn't seem dramatically weaker at all when compared to it's big brother.
If Daxter was made look exactly (if not better) like the J&D series on PS2 without slowdowns, why Worms couldn't be made for PSP? All they would need to do is to drop down a detail or two and do an exact port from the PS2 version...and ta-da, portable W3D for everyone. ;)
I wouldn't mind WF on PSP either- more worms the better. Maybe WF could be even improved somehow, perhaps by adding a proper online possibility and a chance to download more content like landscapes for it.
AndrewTaylor
23 Jul 2006, 17:19
Don't PSP and PS2 have nearly the same specs?
Well, no, not really -- the specs are totally different but of roughly equal capabilities. Which is more powerful depends on what you're asking them to do, and I would suspect that the PS2 would be the better suited to Worms3D -- and being fair to it, it could just barely run Mayhem.
quartzlcc
23 Jul 2006, 22:04
Neither of them is powerful enough. No really, we've had this argument many times before.
SiN
Yes, and for the love of God, DS isn't bad! It can handle Rayman 2, which was on the DREAMCAST and the Dreamcast STILL has okay graphics... (Rayman DS is just a port of Rayman 2)
Though, the PSP is better, just not by as much as people think.
Neither are powerful enough. Next generation, OKAY. But not now.
They should just make a port of Worms Armageddon to the DS and PSP. (And yes, they could handle it, no argument there.)
Yes, and for the love of God, DS isn't bad! It can handle Rayman 2, which was on the DREAMCAST and the Dreamcast STILL has okay graphics... (Rayman DS is just a port of Rayman 2)
Though, the PSP is better, just not by as much as people think.
Neither are powerful enough. Next generation, OKAY. But not now.
They should just make a port of Worms Armageddon to the DS and PSP. (And yes, they could handle it, no argument there.)
ehh,,, i wouldnt want another worms armageddon port, or another WWP port; those games have just been ported too many times.
id rather have Team 17 go at Worms: Open Warfare 2, only FIX IT (as in, add more weapons, iron bugs, fix AI, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, ADD ONLINE)
Though, the PSP is better, just not by as much as people think.
Yes it is, much more powerful than DS.
I found these PSP specs while searching, dunno if they are correct.
* CPU: PSP CPU (System clock frequency 1~333MHz)
* Main Memory: 32MB
* Embedded DRAM: 4MB
Should that be enough to handle destructive terrain? At least the terrain in W3D?
AndrewTaylor
24 Jul 2006, 12:19
i wouldnt want another worms armageddon port ... id rather have Team 17 go at Worms: Open Warfare 2, only FIX IT (as in, add more weapons ... )
So, essentially, port Worms Armageddon?
You people just don't listen, do you? The whole point of W:OW was that it didn't have a hundred weapons where twenty would suffice. It was supposed to be easy to get into for non-Wormers, and a key part of that was not including a myriad near-identical weapons with opaque names and functions. If you add all the W:A weapons into it all you have is W:A with new graphics.
Personally, I'm in favour of that. A bloated weapons panelk like W:A's is fine for a long game between experienced players on a large screen with a mouse, especially since the PC already has a simple Worms game with few weapons. But the PSP didn't. It had a lot of non-Wormers, a small screen, and is generally better suited to shorter games. Fewer weapons was probably the right call.
So, essentially, port Worms Armageddon?
You people just don't listen, do you? The whole point of W:OW was that it didn't have a hundred weapons where twenty would suffice. It was supposed to be easy to get into for non-Wormers, and a key part of that was not including a myriad near-identical weapons with opaque names and functions. If you add all the W:A weapons into it all you have is W:A with new graphics.
Personally, I'm in favour of that. A bloated weapons panelk like W:A's is fine for a long game between experienced players on a large screen with a mouse, especially since the PC already has a simple Worms game with few weapons. But the PSP didn't. It had a lot of non-Wormers, a small screen, and is generally better suited to shorter games. Fewer weapons was probably the right call.
In short: you don't make the more advanced game on the weaker system.
(Which is happens with such long a time span since W:A's release in 1999.)
If you make a W:A remake which fully utilizes the PSP's capabilities it will be better than the PC version.
And since there are many more PCs which easily surpass the PSP's specs it would be insane not to make a new version for the PC too.
This is something which todays publishers obviously don't want.
But fewer weapons means people have to resort to strategy. And strategy means longer games.
More weapons means shorter games.
Anyway it doesn't matter. I like Worms: Open Warfare the way it is.
Whilst a 3d worms game would be feasible on PSP (I'm not saying we could effectively port mayhem - the best of the 3d worms games by a margin) we have no plans to do so.
We've taken advantage of the relaxation in publishers minds of the whole 2d/3d thing and taken worms back to where it belongs, in 2d, particularly on systems where 2d makes most sense for Worms.
There are currently no plans to make a 3d worms game on either system.
There are currently no plans to make a 3d worms game on either system.
"Either system" refers to PSP and DS?
AndrewTaylor
24 Jul 2006, 18:12
But fewer weapons means people have to resort to strategy.
The fact that you just used the word "resort" suggests to me that you really play Worms more for anarchic chaos than for the cunning tactical game at its heart. I think you're missing out on the best part of it.
The mayhem is all well and good, but I find it's best showcased on those occasional moves where everything goes off at once, rather than by playing with a weapon set where it happens every other move. Mayhem gets old fast.
If you want an anarchic mayhem game, really W:OW wasn't the right version of Worms to buy. You want W2 for that.
The fact that you just used the word "resort" suggests to me that you really play Worms more for anarchic chaos than for the cunning tactical game at its heart.
Most of the time, yes.
However, that doesn't mean that I don't like the occasional 'cunning tactical game'. And when I do, I play Open Warfare. ;)
Anyway, a 3D Worms game on the PSP wouldn't work. The controls and camera would ruin it.
Anyway, a 3D Worms game on the PSP wouldn't work. The controls and camera would ruin it.
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
I understand where he's coming from. We don't put too much faith in the analogue nub for example. The dual-shock controller on PS2 is much better for controlling play and camera in a 3d space.
I understand where he's coming from. We don't put too much faith in the analogue nub for example. The dual-shock controller on PS2 is much better for controlling play and camera in a 3d space.
good point; i didnt think of that.
A lot of PSP games use L1 and R1 for camera controlling, wouldn't that work in worms too?
quakerworm
26 Jul 2006, 03:45
I thought the same thing when I played W:OW on PSP. Don't PSP and PS2 have nearly the same specs? I remember that they both have 32mb ram, dunno about graphics/processor power...but it doesn't seem dramatically weaker at all when compared to it's big brother.
If Daxter was made look exactly (if not better) like the J&D series on PS2 without slowdowns, why Worms couldn't be made for PSP? All they would need to do is to drop down a detail or two and do an exact port from the PS2 version...and ta-da, portable W3D for everyone. ;)
the problem with that kind of reasoning is that you relly to make a comparison only on what you see on the screen. while psp can, without a doubt, render a scene with quality matching that of w3d, it does not have the power to take care of things in the background without signifficant sacrifices. at very least, i would expect very signifficant lags on each terrain deformation, because at these times the system needs to analize the damage done, descide which lattices of poxels have been affected, scrap the meshes for these lattices, adjust the poxel state arrays for each of these lattices, and then finaly rebuild the meshes for each of these lattices based on the new lattice and poxel data. (might be in slightly different order) and that does not even include the computations required for light mapping, which is probably just one of the things that would have to be cut from a psp version.
AndrewTaylor
26 Jul 2006, 12:17
A lot of PSP games use L1 and R1 for camera controlling, wouldn't that work in worms too?
Well it would in theory, but then you have to put movement or aiming on the analogue nub. There aren't enough buttons to get around that, unless you ban people from aiming except in first person mode. Also you couldn't look up or down that way. You'd be as well using L1 and R1 as shift keys to turn the D-pad from walk to look or to aim.
Well it would in theory, but then you have to put movement or aiming on the analogue nub. There aren't enough buttons to get around that, unless you ban people from aiming except in first person mode. Also you couldn't look up or down that way. You'd be as well using L1 and R1 as shift keys to turn the D-pad from walk to look or to aim.
Well, you could just hold in the L1 and R1 buttons, and aim with the analog nub when you got the right angle. Solve problems, dont create them...
They could do Worms:Tanks. You only have first person view and it's basically Tanks (the old game: http://home.satx.rr.com/aquarian/bzone.jpg) but with sheep and stuff.
It'd be good if it had some good things to make it strategical and limited enough to run on a PSP with full 3D graphics... perhaps.
quakerworm
15 Aug 2006, 09:56
you aren't confusing the psp with an oscilograph by any chance, are you?
besides, it's not a problem with graphics. psp can easily render w3d terrains. some fancy stuff might have to be cut down a bit, but still, w3d and w4 are not that intense graphically to begin with. and whether you render with a moddern graphics chip or have an old atari do the job, you still need destructible terrain to make a good worms game, and that is where difficulties arise.
AndrewTaylor
15 Aug 2006, 13:15
That's as maybe, but no matter what hardware you're using, there's an intrinsic limit to how well fully destuctible terrain can be displayed on a screen a few inches across.
you aren't confusing the psp with an oscilograph by any chance, are you?
besides, it's not a problem with graphics. psp can easily render w3d terrains. some fancy stuff might have to be cut down a bit, but still, w3d and w4 are not that intense graphically to begin with. and whether you render with a moddern graphics chip or have an old atari do the job, you still need destructible terrain to make a good worms game, and that is where difficulties arise.
What I am saying is that by cutting out a lot of other features and having a Tanks style game with Worms style graphics, perhaps the processing power to generate destructible terrains would be freed up.
quakerworm
18 Aug 2006, 06:35
but is it going to do any good? the whole point of having a graphics processing unit is to unload the cpu. gpu takes care of transformation, lighting, texturing, clipping, depth and alpha testing, and just about everything else that makes a difference between 3d tanks-style and w4-style graphics. the cpu is primaraly working on supplying the vertecies for the mesh, and due to the destructible terrain, you cannot cut down a whole lot on the polygon count. so whether you do poor or high quality graphics, the cpu load is nearly the same.
on the other hand, the processing capability of the psp is comparable to that of the ps2. the biggest problem i see is the fact that the psp cpu runs underclocked. if sony would allow it to run at full 333MHz for the psp version of 3d worms, it should be able to pull almost as much load as the ps2's emotion engine. there would be rotten tomatos thrown because of the battery life, though.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.