Extra Punctuation: Time for Gaming's Physical
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Now my ideal game would be a fantasy warfare style game with:
Fully Destructable Environments (for the warriors... thieves get wall climbing, wizards levitate).
possibly FP perspective in an Eldar Scrolls Kinda way...
Basically my dream is town-wide melee's with multiple people, people charging through walls, stuff getting set on fire, thieves having rooftop skirmishes whilst the roofs are there... and if there are no more walls to hide behind, the wizard gets to mop up with fire and lightning... *sigh* a guy can dream though
Fully Destructable Environments (for the warriors... thieves get wall climbing, wizards levitate).
possibly FP perspective in an Eldar Scrolls Kinda way...
Basically my dream is town-wide melee's with multiple people, people charging through walls, stuff getting set on fire, thieves having rooftop skirmishes whilst the roofs are there... and if there are no more walls to hide behind, the wizard gets to mop up with fire and lightning... *sigh* a guy can dream though
I like to think that the reason people like destroying things other people have made is that other people are assholes. Odds are whatever complicated structure they built either has nothing to do with you or is designed to take stuff from you/kill you and take your stuff.
Office building? Either takes you time or shuts its door to you. DMV? Takes your money and your time. Any of the Vaults in Fallout? Um, yeah.
Otherwise excellent points. I would totally play a game where you're running out of a building with realistic physics that falls apart on its own rather than in a scripted way.
Office building? Either takes you time or shuts its door to you. DMV? Takes your money and your time. Any of the Vaults in Fallout? Um, yeah.
Otherwise excellent points. I would totally play a game where you're running out of a building with realistic physics that falls apart on its own rather than in a scripted way.
Physics engines are underused and abused, certainly. Yahtzee makes a good point when he says that games need to widen their horizons in how they apply these engines and diversify an experience. Not just how something blows up, but what we can do with it after it partially blows up, and even the proper dismantlement of objects and being able to put them together again.
As with all art forms, destruction is many thousands of times easier than creation. If we can build worlds which we can recreate and rebuild as easily as we can destroy them, then that will be a huge advancement in gaming. Not to say that it hasn't been touched upon already.
It is also a bit of a problem when we go from a game with a brilliant physics engine like HL2 then enter a later released AAA game that has little to no engine for this, like Fallout 3. So the increased integration and advancement of physics is an important part of improving games as an immersive experience in general.
As with all art forms, destruction is many thousands of times easier than creation. If we can build worlds which we can recreate and rebuild as easily as we can destroy them, then that will be a huge advancement in gaming. Not to say that it hasn't been touched upon already.
It is also a bit of a problem when we go from a game with a brilliant physics engine like HL2 then enter a later released AAA game that has little to no engine for this, like Fallout 3. So the increased integration and advancement of physics is an important part of improving games as an immersive experience in general.
Your idea here is brilliant, and well done on that. However, you'd have to give it thirty years before it's viable on the kind of scale that people would really like, assuming that technology continues its advance as it has been (it may yet run into some concrete walls of improvement).rembrandtqeinstein said:
I do agree with everyone here in this thread, and Yahtzee most of all. His Extra Punctuation columns proves that he is more than a troll... or maybe he's just a very professional one, I dunno.
But yeah, implementing physics engines like this would be a bit of an innovation to both linear and sandbox games where levels where you're required to kill a target, progress through a level, avoid dying, etc. can have environments drastically altered by your very actions. Of course, in missions that require precision timing, I can expect doing too much damage would be detrimental to the efforts, but it would be nice seeing this kind of destructive physics engine be used more often, as well as it being used in stealth games such as Assassin's Creed.
But yeah, implementing physics engines like this would be a bit of an innovation to both linear and sandbox games where levels where you're required to kill a target, progress through a level, avoid dying, etc. can have environments drastically altered by your very actions. Of course, in missions that require precision timing, I can expect doing too much damage would be detrimental to the efforts, but it would be nice seeing this kind of destructive physics engine be used more often, as well as it being used in stealth games such as Assassin's Creed.
"...as much as games like Assassin's Creed might refute this, the last thing an infiltrator should want to do is draw attention to himself."
God, I've been waiting to hear that from you.
God, I've been waiting to hear that from you.
I think there are generally two ways to add player interaction.
One way is to map out every action that the player may want to attempt and design each an every one individually.
The other is to create a coherent world and then interactive options simply may appear automagically.
The first approach is far the simplest when only a low level of complexity is desired. But at some point the number of options become so great that the second approach becomes viable.
Comparing the first Deus Ex to DE:HR seems obvious. DE:HR uses individually designed choices, if there is a vent it will probably lead you somewhere beneficial. The original DE makes use of the second approach, it maps a complete building with ladders, vents, walkways etc in a logical layout. Some of the pathways may lead somewhere beneficial but the player needs to decide the best approach.
I think the same goes for physics. At a certain stage of world building the environment may reach a critical mass where stuff simply reacts as we would expect, without the need to specifically design for it.
This is of course obvious for sandbox games since they are designed for making use of full worlds, but structured games could make more use of it as well.
One way is to map out every action that the player may want to attempt and design each an every one individually.
The other is to create a coherent world and then interactive options simply may appear automagically.
The first approach is far the simplest when only a low level of complexity is desired. But at some point the number of options become so great that the second approach becomes viable.
Comparing the first Deus Ex to DE:HR seems obvious. DE:HR uses individually designed choices, if there is a vent it will probably lead you somewhere beneficial. The original DE makes use of the second approach, it maps a complete building with ladders, vents, walkways etc in a logical layout. Some of the pathways may lead somewhere beneficial but the player needs to decide the best approach.
I think the same goes for physics. At a certain stage of world building the environment may reach a critical mass where stuff simply reacts as we would expect, without the need to specifically design for it.
This is of course obvious for sandbox games since they are designed for making use of full worlds, but structured games could make more use of it as well.
well, gta 4 made a "Realistic" physics. see where that went.
on the other hand, a hitman with red faction guerilla physics engine would be a fun thing.
physics in games were made very well available by the nvidia due to thier physx engine that radeon is still trying to replicate (tee-hee). Problem is that due to the trend of "no optimization is cheaper" games with good physics loose most of its audience simply because they cant run it anymore.
P.S. capcha: seanse above ???
on the other hand, a hitman with red faction guerilla physics engine would be a fun thing.
physics in games were made very well available by the nvidia due to thier physx engine that radeon is still trying to replicate (tee-hee). Problem is that due to the trend of "no optimization is cheaper" games with good physics loose most of its audience simply because they cant run it anymore.
P.S. capcha: seanse above ???
I think RFA was right in not demanding anything smart, it's a fine mindless shooter but I wish it had used those destructo physics to model large enemies where destruction is actually a challenge instead of something that happens so quickly that it doesn't matter. Strategically picking bosses apart bit by bit would be much more interesting than just leveling random buildings.
Of course the "pig escape" example has been done thousands of times, the first time I've seen it was in Boom Blox (those two games are really designed to do everything that can possibly be done with physics) where I had to slowly disassemble a stack of blocks without having the people on the top platform fall too fast. That's not my kind of gameplay though, I preferred checking large constructs for weak spots and then demolishing the whole damn thing in 1-2 throws.
Also there's the good old bridge builder/pontifex series and who doesn't remember The Incredible Machine?
Of course the "pig escape" example has been done thousands of times, the first time I've seen it was in Boom Blox (those two games are really designed to do everything that can possibly be done with physics) where I had to slowly disassemble a stack of blocks without having the people on the top platform fall too fast. That's not my kind of gameplay though, I preferred checking large constructs for weak spots and then demolishing the whole damn thing in 1-2 throws.
Also there's the good old bridge builder/pontifex series and who doesn't remember The Incredible Machine?
Reading this article, especially the second page, I'm suddenly having visions of the Minecraft Adventure update and the possibilities therein. Minecraft may not have "realistic" physics, but that's a game that knows how to break things (and how not to do so) for a reason.
It still surprises me the tropes game developers fall into. I'm loving Deus Ex: Human Revolution's open ended game play....but, wet electrified floors? We already have circuit breakers today that make it impossible that this would happen.
There's an iPhone game called "Siege Hero" that has elements of NOT destroying. It's an angry birds game but you shoot cannonballs instead, and soldiers instead of pigs. You also don't have to judge trajectory, you're shooting from a first-person perspective and just tap where you want them to hit. However there are civilians you are supposed to avoid killing so need to think about what NOT to destroy.
I'd love to see a "real" action adventure game. Like Far Cry I guess but less gung-ho and more oh-shit-what-am-I-going-to-do scenario. An 'everyman' who doesn't know how to use a gun but can MacGyver stuff together. I liked that in Alone in the Dark. Making petrol trails, and making molotovs. It comes and goes but I like games that let you trick enemies with noises a-la Metal Gear Solid wall knock. Being able to use ropes and planks to make paths anywhere. Nightmare to design and probably to slow and boring for mainstream though. You wouldn't get arm blades for a start...unless you made some with lawn mower blades and super-glue.
There's an iPhone game called "Siege Hero" that has elements of NOT destroying. It's an angry birds game but you shoot cannonballs instead, and soldiers instead of pigs. You also don't have to judge trajectory, you're shooting from a first-person perspective and just tap where you want them to hit. However there are civilians you are supposed to avoid killing so need to think about what NOT to destroy.
I'd love to see a "real" action adventure game. Like Far Cry I guess but less gung-ho and more oh-shit-what-am-I-going-to-do scenario. An 'everyman' who doesn't know how to use a gun but can MacGyver stuff together. I liked that in Alone in the Dark. Making petrol trails, and making molotovs. It comes and goes but I like games that let you trick enemies with noises a-la Metal Gear Solid wall knock. Being able to use ropes and planks to make paths anywhere. Nightmare to design and probably to slow and boring for mainstream though. You wouldn't get arm blades for a start...unless you made some with lawn mower blades and super-glue.
LOL Ezio accidentally drops bomb
blows up half of a tower, other half collapses
everyone looks at him
oh wait but at this point in the series he can lay waste to an army in about 5 minutes...
well, Altair's (lesser) level of badassery might not appreciate destructible buildings too much
blows up half of a tower, other half collapses
everyone looks at him
oh wait but at this point in the series he can lay waste to an army in about 5 minutes...
well, Altair's (lesser) level of badassery might not appreciate destructible buildings too much
a person who knows what makes up a good game may nto be able to create a good gmae but he surely would make thme stay away from making extremely bad ones. also msot of the unfeasable/unrealistic doesnt exist anymore with todays technology, and the only reason why its not there is because its much easier to sell generic shooter than an actually innovating game.Tin Man said: