Quote:Original post by Kest
I'm not suggesting physics simulations can't become more insane, but that most games aren't even employing the current level of it. Half Life 2 is a great example of how more physics does not equal more gameplay.
True, every feature can be misued. But in many cases it also leads to better gameplay.
Quote:Original post by Kest
Quote:Original post by origil
Take the simple case in a 3D First Person Shooter:
You need to hit an enemy hiding behind a wall.
When these games first came out there was no way to hit him - now you can make bullets, discs and what-not bounce off walls.
If you had more types of interactivity between objects [and what better way than make it more general and flexible] the gameplay would increase immensly. [Of course you would also need to find 'holes' that tip the game balance which would become a much more difficult task].
Was that the point? That more processing power can lead to better physics calculations? Isn't that obvious? Or was the point that we should build specialized cards to deal with physics? We already have those. So what was the point?
The point was a small generalized comparison to the question earlier asked of how a simulation would add to the gameplay.
The gap between the old FPS games and between the ones of today also has a lot to do with the object relationship/interactivity. [Bullet didn't bounce off walls, now the do]
This is the same gap with today's FPS games and my idea.
[Bullets bounce off walls but walls will USUALLY never break - for example. Yes, maybe a game already does that, but this is a part of the idea. More could be done as well]
Quote:Original quote by KulSeran
1) Take what you are simulating, and think "What does this add to the game?"
2) Take that 'addition' and think "What was the end goal?"
3) Take that 'end goal' and think about how you can do it without the simultion
4) Now sit back and think "what would simulating this add?"
5) Now that you know what simulating it ADDS, think about what is easier to do: simulate? hard code interactions?
Thanks, you hit the point there.
It's true that going to far with it will lead to a slow game hardware-wise, that is why the balance needs to be found - as well as design it for future hardware which seems like an interesting task especially for hobbyists like me that usually design with today's technology and once finished are 10 years back in tech.
As for the gameplay, I think it would add a lot to the game if done correctly.
Again -> it would incorporate a lot of player creativity because a good flexible design can do a lot more than hard coded ones.
If the player knows every object has a 'maximum heat' attribute in which it turns to liquid he can try melting materials with his flame thrower.
As for the coffee example, turn this into barrels filled with gasoline, let the player tip the barrel, the gasoline will spill and maybe be ignited by the player. Throw some water inside the barrel, you would have more gasoline [less flamable though]
The grenade example would allow interesting weapon customization, as well as many side-effects the designer didn't think of but that still could be used by the player.
Take worms, lemmings, super mario, sandgames and the incredible machine, stir them in a bowl and you will have a very interactive gameplay enviroment for the player.
Now instead of having one solution to the puzzles presented to the player, he/she/it will be able to use the many object properties as can be done in real life.
The questions you present are good.
My answer is as flexible as the idea:
It depends how they are used in the game.
Some games will benefit from this while others won't.
The bottom line is that a flexible design will lead to many more game possibilities than hard coding features.
Wether these possibilities add to the game, that's the game designer's job.
I believe I can incorporate them into a decent game.
The "Infinite objects" idea is the theoretical part - meaning we will never get there.
But increasing the amount of game objects is the practical part that can be supported by today's hardwares as well. The question is how many more objects because obviously [to me at least] more objects, if done correctly, will lead to a richer game experience.
I think this debate lies in a problem of terminology.
Take into account that there is no difference between hard-coding and simulating. There is a thin line between them that is defined by each person differently.
If I make every pixel an object you might call it a simulation, I might call it hard coding pixel objects because each of these pixels has 1,000,000 molecules that I didn't take in to account.
Everything can be broken into more pieces - eventually the smallest pieces will be hard coded no matter what, because as been mentioned earlier we don't have a complete grasp of the universe be it using quantum physics or the atom model.
The question is, which will the smallest piece be in a game.
While some objects will not gain from defining each pixel, others will.
