Havok Exec Says Destructibility Is the Future

[Andy Chalk]

Havok Exec Says Destructibility Is the Future

Havok's head of product management predicts that in the coming generation of consoles, gamers will be able to smash everything.

Everybody likes destruction, right? But probably nobody more than Andrew Bowell, the worldwide head of product management at physics middleware maker Havok, whose technology has been used in hundreds of games to very impressive effect. But with a new generation of hardware on the way, Bowell said it's time for videogames to up the destructo-ante even further.

"The way that ragdolls became the last generation thing and everything had to be ragdolls, we reckon next generation, everything's going to have to be destructible," he told GamesIndustry. "It will be no longer acceptable to walk into a room where you can't punch a hole in the wall or break a table and see it splinter."

That evolution would obviously be good for Havok but Bowell said it will also benefit developers, who won't have to "waste time writing actual tech," he explained. "Guys that I talk to and publishers, they just want to get their games to market as quickly as they can. I think it's a great opportunity for all middleware, to be honest."

I'm generally a pro-'splo kind of gamer, but I have to admit that the technology uber alles approach that appears to be on display here makes me a little twitchy. Blowing stuff up is fun but as id Software used to remind us on a semi-regular basis, great tech is a means, not an end.

Source: GamesIndustry [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-30-destruction-is-the-new-ragdoll-says-havok]


Permalink

 

[fix-the-spade]

Good, as the Battlefield series has proved, 'splosions improve games.

There's still nothing as cool in first person shooters (to me) than when that radio tower on Caspian Border comes down, except for when it swipes a helicopter out of the air on the way.

Whilst stuff like that is still semi-scripted, if it becomes the norm then the push will be towards completely unscripted destruction and that could finally live up to the promise of Red Faction all those years ago. It'll certainly be more interesting than the 'walk through this cutscene' level of interraction we get from triple A games at the moment.

 

[Robetid]

It looks like I may have to be a little more careful with my RPG launcher in future GTA instalments... Or not.

 

[RonHiler]

Countdown to someone pointing out that Red Faction did this years ago: Three...Two...

Oh, wait...

 

[AJey]

Where do these idiots come from?

 

[DTWolfwood]

I'm game with having everything being destructible. Its a cathartic experience when you just start wrecking the place for no raisin.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

Misguided as the reasoning may be, I'm not against it entirely

Publishers love gimmicks, but it soaks up a lot of a game devs time; farming out the gimmicky side of things to middleware companies like this could be a more efficient means to placate those who crave the shiny & let the main dev team focus more on quality

 

[Subatomic]

Countdown to someone pointing out that Red Faction did this years ago: Three...Two...

Oh, wait...

Red Faction actually used Havok for its destruction effects, so yeah.

Also, the article puts a bit of a negative slant on his comments without considering where he's coming from. As a developer of a 'middleware' like Havok or PhysX, of course you're focused on technology above everything else, as you're not developing games but rather the tools to make games.
Game engines and middleware gives game developers the means to focus on the important aspects like gameplay or story, without having to worry about developing a graphics and physics engine from the ground up.

 

[gigastar]

Countdown to someone pointing out that Red Faction did this years ago: Three...Two...

Oh, wait...

I wouldnt mind more game being able to be like Red Faction, in terms of the destructale enviroments.

 

[FFP2]

So we might get a good sequel to Red Faction: Guerilla ?

I'm totally down with that.

 

[lancar]

With the graphics fidelity approaching its peak, destructibility and game physics is the next logical thing for devs to pass off as "innovation".

And I'm actually cool with that. Since it's inherently a game mechanic I can't see how this would make the games worse, so... go for it!

 

[viranimus]

Wait, is it just me, or are "Destructible environments" Soooo two generations ago?

Honestly I would MUCH rather see the new gen utilization of horsepower focus not on graphic fidelity, but genuinely expanding the types of gameplay and how we interact with digital virtual worlds. Not to retread ground in the name of enhancement of an existing concept.

Give me a completely narrative driven game with meaningful and expansive consequences for actions
Give me a viable means to effectively combine gameplay types previously thought too large to put into one existing engine.
Ill pass on what really looks like borderline voxelism.

 

[JamesBr]

With the graphics fidelity approaching its peak, destructibility and game physics is the next logical thing for devs to pass off as "innovation".

And I'm actually cool with that. Since it's inherently a game mechanic I can't see how this would make the games worse, so... go for it!

This.

As Bowell said, this is really good for middleware designers. Someone has to design these engines and since a single engine can be used for a plethora of games, I'm all up for this to happen.

 

[deathzero021]

I don't think this is going to happen. either way you look at it, adding more havok physics to all unimportant objects is only going to severely hurt the performance of games. with the mainstream market trying it's best to improve visuals, adding destructible walls isn't worth losing the extra horse power. Not to mention Havok is shit.

Also being able to destroy everything is not going to improve gaming in any significant way. only a few games would that even make sense (shooter maybe) but most games aren't going to need this or benefit from this. Havok is basically trying to convince people (developers) that they're going to NEED Havok for the next generation. Just like they got so many people to use Havok for it's terrible ragdolls that make serious games look like a poor child's game with it's wacky flimsy physics.

 

[rofltehcat]

As much as I like destroying stuff, I don't see this happening. Most game developers focus and rely so much on everything being "perfect" and scripted, the player doing stuff that might mess things up is probably their worst nightmare.

And if "destroy everything" means just being able to destroy certain (or unimportant) objects.... then this is just as "important" and as much of a "feature" as Tomb Raider's pony tail technology.

 

[Desworks]

I'm generally a pro-'splo kind of gamer, but I have to admit that the technology uber alles approach that appears to be on display here makes me a little twitchy. Blowing stuff up is fun but as id Software used to remind us on a semi-regular basis, great tech is a means, not an end.

But unlike id, Havok isn't a games developer. This allows them to concentrate entirely on creating great tech for developers to use in interesting new ways. It's why I suspect that the market for middleware will continue to grow in importance this generation, as it frees up developer resources, allowing dev teams to create bigger and, hopefully, better games.

Sure, some will be all flash and no substance but we should still want better tech for those games that decide to go for flash and substance.

 

[Something Amyss]

What worries me is what this actually means for gaming. I've seen some bad applications with what we already have, and I worry a rush to fill the market will lead to a ton of those. In the right games, awesome. However, I can definitely wait to see my favourite game series plagued by bad applications.

 

[FEichinger]

So we might get a good sequel to Red Faction: Guerilla ?

I'm totally down with that.

The thing with Guerrilla is that it's essentially the least-Red-Faction-ish game out of the entire series.
Every game had environmental manipulation, some more than others, but the series was mostly underground and linear. Guerrilla largely was neither.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't love a new Guerrilla style game (because, funnily enough, Guerrilla is still my favorite Red Faction game), but with THQ gone and Red Faction sold to Nordic ... I'm not too hopeful we're gonna see anything ambitious from that IP anytime soon.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

Destructibility is nice but I would prefer better Improved AI. a lot of thing being Destructible won't go with every game but Having Good AI improves all games.
make things destructible is really not meaningful but it's kinda fun.