How come I can't collapse ceilings or blow half a guy's head off yet?

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: TBSN
Hmm, interesting topic.
I remember playing SOF (1or2, I don't remember) that had 'destructible enemies." It did make things more interesting and actually changed the gameplay, but most of the time it was just over-the-top gory. But especially in games that have swords, melee fighting, etc. there should definitely be destructible enemies.

There are those who would complain about the possibility of too much gore, though. My take on it is this. If games take on a more realistic rendition of violence, then perhaps the actual games themselves will change. As games become more and more interactive, the possibility for gameplay that excludes mowing down fields of enemies will become the norm. But then again, people like pretend killing, myself included (I play CS:S, HL2, etc.) I found SOF a little too much, however (it was a little disturbing).

SOF was a little too much, but for what it's worth it was realistic, in a lot of FPS's if you blast somebody point blank with a shutgun they fall and die, in SOF they blow back and usually loose a limb or something, much more realistic. Gory? hell yes, but I found it better than shooting somebody in another game and having them die with no sign of bullet holes and zero blood.

SOF III is going to raise the bar for realism, from the preview I read if they leave it as it is. The game could end up with a AO rating, definitely M at the lowest.

A shotgun blast isn't going to send you flying back and it most likely won't blow off a limb unless its liek point blank, so its not really realistic in that aspect.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: TheUnk
Yeah we need more gore like Rise of the Triad but in 3D!

YES!

 

[imported_Imp]

SoF was excessive-sive. I remember all the "talk" when it came out, but it was a blast. The first level in the subway blew me away and it felt great to shotgun chunks and chunks off everyone. Best thing was that what you shot came off, not some random arm or leg flies off once in a while. Guess they want to keep things rated "T" these days if they can. Not to mention the media that would rape it if SoF came out now.

I really hope someone redoes Red Faction. I tried the demo way back when, the concept was great, but execution sucked.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Imp
SoF was excessive-sive. I remember all the "talk" when it came out, but it was a blast. The first level in the subway blew me away and it felt great to shotgun chunks and chunks off everyone. Best thing was that what you shot came off, not some random arm or leg flies off once in a while. Guess they want to keep things rated "T" these days if they can. Not to mention the media that would rape it if SoF came out now.

I really hope someone redoes Red Faction. I tried the demo way back when, the concept was great, but execution sucked.

There is a new sof game with what looks to be more gore than sof2. release is scheduled for Nov. but it seems to be all kept very secret.

i don't really give a crap about the gore as long as the the awesome mp gameplay from sof2 is left intact. the gore is just a bonus.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Nice quote smilin, interesting stuff.

I think what some people are saying though is there an endless parade of games that look pretty...why can't we have a few that maybe look uglier but have more dynamic envirnoments and enemies. It does feel like graphical developments have moved at a blistering pace while AI has been at a standstill. We're FINALLY seeing some physics stuff, but the developers usually don't even incorporate it into a game as more then an afterthought. (like trash rolling around)

However, multiplayer games are pretty big and based on what I've seen this kind of stuff would be pretty hard to pull off without some insane connections as well.

Well after playing the demo for several hours (how many demos can you REALLY play for 5+ hours), I have to admit that crysis is managing to pull off quite a bit of what youre looking for.

Sure, you cant level buildings, but you can do a decent amount of damage to the shack. The AI is certainly stellar. And the nano suit combined with the AI certainly gives you options for some very interesting and unique gameplay.

On the other hand, they did SUCH a good job, that I purposely tried to shoot someone in the knee to see if theyd keep walking. They did.

That cant be far off, but I'm FAR more interested in AI that I would be in destructable environments.

 

[CaptainJackSwallows]

i would rather not have true destructible environments

 

[shadowofthesun]

Agreed. Half-Life 2 was a fantastic game, because it combined puzzles and critical thinking with exciting FPS action and horror elements thrown in. While having more destructable environments would undoubtably be awesome, I could not imagine the difficulty in designing a game with as fun and engaging of a storyline as Half-Life 2 with fully destructable environments. Could you imagine coding not only for the guy who walks through the door to rescue Ely, but also the guy who accidentally brings half of the building down on himself and blocks off all passages to Ely? Trying to code for a game where you could literally approach an objective in an infinite number of ways would be almost impossible. Triggers would be virtually useless if you could approach from any direction. I cannot honestly believe that I would have had as much fun with HL2 as I did if I had to continually reload because I accidentally blew up a key hallway or doorway and had no way of reaching my objective. Destructability is cool, but just like shiny graphics, it should take a backseat (or at least shotgun) to gameplay and storyline.

 

[tranceport]

SoF style dismemberment should be standard in all FPS, cannot agree more. I cannot see this being that difficult to include with all of the humanoid character models.


Destructible environments in red faction were ok. But you have to keep in mind it was only destructible in the parts it needed to be. It was like they said "Hey! we have this cool destructible environment thing lets through that in there to get past this gate." If I remember correctly I was able to go around 2 or 3 doors and that was about the extent of it. And the rockets knocked out big chunks of earth that seemed to always be the same. It was cool when I first saw it but I have to admit I think it would get old unless they really put some effort into it. Bringing me to my next point which is, If the developers do not put enough thought into what is destructible I see you easily getting yourself stuck in a single player. Such as making a pit with rocket launch 3000 and falling in it. Of course if you fell you deserved it....

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Nice quote smilin, interesting stuff.

I think what some people are saying though is there an endless parade of games that look pretty...why can't we have a few that maybe look uglier but have more dynamic envirnoments and enemies. It does feel like graphical developments have moved at a blistering pace while AI has been at a standstill. We're FINALLY seeing some physics stuff, but the developers usually don't even incorporate it into a game as more then an afterthought. (like trash rolling around)

However, multiplayer games are pretty big and based on what I've seen this kind of stuff would be pretty hard to pull off without some insane connections as well.

Well after playing the demo for several hours (how many demos can you REALLY play for 5+ hours), I have to admit that crysis is managing to pull off quite a bit of what youre looking for.

Sure, you cant level buildings, but you can do a decent amount of damage to the shack. The AI is certainly stellar. And the nano suit combined with the AI certainly gives you options for some very interesting and unique gameplay.

On the other hand, they did SUCH a good job, that I purposely tried to shoot someone in the knee to see if theyd keep walking. They did.

That cant be far off, but I'm FAR more interested in AI that I would be in destructable environments.

Naw, Crysis (or at least the demo) isn't anything like Red Faction. In Crysis you can can take down the components of the building, whereas with Red Faction you can actually blow holes in the walls (think of an enemy hiding behind a wall for cover and then liken it to hiding behind the shields in Space Invaders...). In Crysis you can knock down the piece of sheet metal for a wall, but that's it, you can't blow a hole in it. If that piece of wall remains propped up then it remains as perfect protection from bullets...weaksauce.

And as far as fully destructible environments, you certainly don't need fully destructible environments. Red Faction had its limits and that was fine. Designers can always make it so you'll die (or make it very hard or something) if you don't go a certain way and collect a certain item that will keep you alive should you choose to blow apart the blue door instead of collecting the blue key to open the blue door, because the room with the blue key might also contain an environment suit you'd need to stay alive...stuff like that.

Heck, and it isn't just the destructible environments but the more dynamic ones as well. I remember all the gun battles back in the days of Goldeneye that took place through the doors (as long as the guns were powerful enough to shoot through the certain doors). We simply don't see that anymore (or at least not as much as I thought we would). Here I'm playing Crysis, and the game takes place in 2020, but the piece of crap shacks that I can punch to the ground offer perfect bullet proof protection...WTF!

 

[Oyeve]

Red Faction had the most blow-up-useless-environments and Soldier of Fortune had the most points of body damage. Merge the 2 concepts into a real game and it would be awesome.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: ZappDogg
Everyone clamoring to destroy everything is a stupid argument, in my opinion. There would invariably come a point at which 1) you create so much havok (pun intended) that the physics engine can't keep up, or 2) you end up blocking a vital path/destroying an objective, etc...there has to be a shred of linearity in order to keep the game moving along.

maybe they should start making games with non-linear objectives.

This is a tough one. People have been talking about it for 20 years, but I don't think most know what it really means. Narratives are linear. Stories have plot points and progression, climaxes and anti-climaxes. Even the thinnest story underlying the most basic shooter takes you from point A to point B. The only genre where complete nonlinearity works is in multiplayer games, where the players become the story, and the basic idea is repetitive but enjoyable action. A single player game built that way would be boring as hell. Oblivion is not a counter-example. Sure, you can wander the world and collect stuff, but the story moves forward linearly. If you don't move it forward then eventually you get bored of doing the same stuff over and over. Drama is important to entertainment, and drama doesn't arise spontaneously from artificial worlds. At least not yet, and maybe not ever.

a shooter where an objective was inside a building or whatever and you could get in anyway you want, including blowing up thru walls. how sweet would that be??

 

[coloumb]

Both are gimmicks unless they are a necessary part of game play. Most people who play FPS don't care about "the laws of physics and gore" - they just care about killing and surviving until the next objective.

There are a few games that do provide simplistic versions of geomod and gore - HL2 being a prime example - falling ceiling tiles, saw blade that cuts monsters in half, destructible environments - but only when it's a necessary part of the game play.

 

[BladeVenom]

I wouldn't call it a gimmick. I would call it extra realism and choice. If it's only done where it's a necessity it's a linear game on rails like so many boring games before it.

 

[PingSpike]

It'd work if you had fairly limited explosives in the game. That way, you'd have to carefully choose where to destroy walls to advance. Plus, there's still materials that are pretty explosive resistant.

 

[Skunkwourk]

have you seen Fracture? Not exactly what you're describing, but somewhat related.

http://www.lucasarts.com/games/fracture/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlGeFJgnC_s

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: Eghck
have you seen Fracture? Not exactly what you're describing, but somewhat related.

http://www.lucasarts.com/games/fracture/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlGeFJgnC_s

Sort of - looks like it's limited to terrain deformation - the video shows a lot of terrain adds [hills] and a few subtracts [craters]... I wonder if you can keep adding/subtracting onto the same area - or if it's a one time deal...

I sighed when I read this though:

"Platforms: PLAYSTATION 3, Xbox 360"

Hopefully they'll release a PC version too...

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Both are gimmicks unless they are a necessary part of game play. Most people who play FPS don't care about "the laws of physics and gore" - they just care about killing and surviving until the next objective.

I care about "the laws and physics and gore", especially when it comes to single player FPS experiences. However, I'd also scoop up a game that offered said gore in multiplayer in a heart beat. It would be immensely satisfying to mangle foes in CS or whatnot and laugh about the destruction with them, much moreso than simply watching them fall-down-go-boom.

For those of you that don't want realistic damage models, go play Hello Kitty or Nerf Blast.

 

[esun]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Both are gimmicks unless they are a necessary part of game play. Most people who play FPS don't care about "the laws of physics and gore" - they just care about killing and surviving until the next objective.

There are a few games that do provide simplistic versions of geomod and gore - HL2 being a prime example - falling ceiling tiles, saw blade that cuts monsters in half, destructible environments - but only when it's a necessary part of the game play.

Agreed. The point of a game is to be fun and entertaining (or perhaps addictive). Unless having destructible environments directly adds to that purpose (or the perception is that it does), I don't think game companies will be focusing on destructible environments. I'll admit, I enjoyed blowing off body parts in SoF2, but HL2 was a better game anyway.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: esun

Originally posted by: coloumb
Both are gimmicks unless they are a necessary part of game play. Most people who play FPS don't care about "the laws of physics and gore" - they just care about killing and surviving until the next objective.

There are a few games that do provide simplistic versions of geomod and gore - HL2 being a prime example - falling ceiling tiles, saw blade that cuts monsters in half, destructible environments - but only when it's a necessary part of the game play.

Agreed. The point of a game is to be fun and entertaining (or perhaps addictive). Unless having destructible environments directly adds to that purpose (or the perception is that it does), I don't think game companies will be focusing on destructible environments. I'll admit, I enjoyed blowing off body parts in SoF2, but HL2 was a better game anyway.

Ya, they are kinda gimmicks, but you can't deny that they are a major selling point that add a lot to your enjoyment. Red Faction did directly incorporate the geomod into puzzles as did HL2 and its physics. Guess if you have the additional options, people/developers would use them. 'If you build it they will come' seems to fit this situation.

However, gotta admit that "effects" like chunks'n'lumps ala SoF was totally gimmicky that added nothing, but visual pleasure for sadists like me... Right now, most revenue-producing (very casual playing) people don't care. They'll buy stuff just from the hype and gimmicks, so developers are probably catering to them than making the next HL2 or something new.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I don't necessarily need a building to collapse when I tunnel 500 feet under it with explosives. Make me hit bedrock before that happens. Or something. I do want to be able to blow a reasonable sized hole through a window or wall and be able to walk in, rather than go in the front door or do a stupid jumping game to get to oh-so-sneaky ceiling drop-in. Or make more things like Quake Wars where completing objectives alters the map (ie, blowing out the side of a building to enter).

I also loved the original Deus Ex damage modeling. I remember to kill one big boss (just remember it was in Hong Kong) I killed him and crippled myself with a big rocket blast. As a result, I had to crawl back to home with my view switched to pavement level at a snail's pace, unable to jump. Oddly, that was fun. Likewise, having your accuracy affected by being shot in the arm or flying back after a single shotgun burst to the chest (and not just the kill shot!) would be amazing.

 

[BladeVenom]

Not having destructive terrain takes some of the fun out of a game. Like shooting someone and the shot is blocked by something as flimsy as a houseplant. Or driving a 55+ ton tank and being brought to a dead stop because you clipped the corner of a sandbag.

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: shadowofthesun
Agreed. Half-Life 2 was a fantastic game, because it combined puzzles and critical thinking with exciting FPS action and horror elements thrown in. While having more destructable environments would undoubtably be awesome, I could not imagine the difficulty in designing a game with as fun and engaging of a storyline as Half-Life 2 with fully destructable environments. Could you imagine coding not only for the guy who walks through the door to rescue Ely, but also the guy who accidentally brings half of the building down on himself and blocks off all passages to Ely? Trying to code for a game where you could literally approach an objective in an infinite number of ways would be almost impossible. Triggers would be virtually useless if you could approach from any direction. I cannot honestly believe that I would have had as much fun with HL2 as I did if I had to continually reload because I accidentally blew up a key hallway or doorway and had no way of reaching my objective. Destructability is cool, but just like shiny graphics, it should take a backseat (or at least shotgun) to gameplay and storyline.

Although I do agree that a compelling gameplay and storyline take center stage I think a fully destructable environment can help to enhance that aspect of the game. Imagine trying to rescue the hostage in said building but blowing up the foundations instead so it collapses and thus your objectives now change now that the character has been removed from the storyline and the game adapts to such a change, instead of having to go back and reload the save point making sure you did it in the linear fashion. That would provide amazing replayability which is what I think PC gaming needs at the moment.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Not having destructive terrain takes some of the fun out of a game. Like shooting someone and the shot is blocked by something as flimsy as a houseplant. Or driving a 55+ ton tank and being brought to a dead stop because you clipped the corner of a sandbag.

Haha I think we have all had that happen way too many times, definitely takes the fun out of it- I want to ram my tank through a building, reach the objective, then chug off into the sunset.

 

[Coldkilla]

1. Crysis is great, but you cannot take a hard concrete slab, and dynamically distroy cement walls.
2. In games with "destructible environments", the break points are all predetermined, cut up nice and neat, and kind of sad to look at after a while.
3. Dynamic building destruction is sorta the same as dynamic water. CPU power has a long, long road ahead before we start seeing massive dynamics in our games.

All hail light source data transfer! - Whenever that day comes.