 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > That's actually one of the limitation of lightmaps:
> I thought it was pretty cool that (as I understand it), the Thief 3 game
> actually forces you to mind your shadows. If you're hiding around a
> corner and your shadow sticks out, the guard will notice you. At least,
> that's my understanding. I don't have a machine equiped properly to play
> it here.
That's one problem I have noticed with new gaming technologies: Most of
them are put into games just for looks, but very seldom actually used
for gameplay.
For example Doom3 supports accurate shadows for all the objects. However,
it's a purely visual element and plays absolutely no role in the actual
gameplay.
I don't know if Thief3 uses shadows in the way you describe, but it would
be a rare exception.
(OTOH, one could argue that something which is rather heavy to calculate
and which can be turned off with a rendering quality settings shouldn't be
a relevant gameplay feature because when it's turned off then it makes
little sense.)
Another example is physics simulation: Most modern games use Havoc or
some other physics engine, and once again purely for visuals only. There
really aren't many games where the physics engine would actually be a
relevant part of the gameplay. For example, The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion
uses Havoc, but the physics engine is not used for *anything* related to
gameplay. It's a purely visual element.
Half-Life 2 and its sequels are somewhat of a borderline case. It does
use the physics engine for gameplay. However, most of the situations where
it's used could IMO very well be implemented without the physics engine.
For example, at some points you need to use the gravity gun to pull a
plug (in order to shut down a barrier). The physics engine is used for
this, but it could well be done without it (just move the plug towards
the gravity gun when the user aims properly and fires). So while the
physics engine is used, it's not used for anything that couldn't be done
without one.
At another point you need to balance a plank to the other side by
putting weights on that side (so that you can then run accross the
plank and jump over the wall). While the physics engine is also used
here, it could still very conceivably be done without one.
(HL2:Episode 2 has some impressively massive physics simulations at
some points, such as a collapsing bridge. However, these could also be
simply precalculated motion paths, and a physics engine would not really
be needed.)
OTOH, the physics engine *does* contribute visually a lot, so games
really are better with one. For example throwing a grenade near a pile
of boxes can be visually quite fun. Also ragdoll physics make falling
enemies more realistic in all kinds of terrain, something which is very
difficult to do with precalculated motion paths.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's one problem I have noticed with new gaming technologies: Most of
> them are put into games just for looks, but very seldom actually used
> for gameplay.
Yeah. Eyecandy seems to be the way to go these days.
> I don't know if Thief3 uses shadows in the way you describe, but it would
> be a rare exception.
Farcry uses (what appears to me to be) a fairly sophisticated foliage
rendering system, and sure enough much of the game revolves around
sneaking through the undergrowth trying to avoid being seen. (I have no
idea to what extent the enemeis "see" like a human does.)
> (OTOH, one could argue that something which is rather heavy to calculate
> and which can be turned off with a rendering quality settings shouldn't be
> a relevant gameplay feature because when it's turned off then it makes
> little sense.)
When I played in one CSS match, the server operator demanded that all
players have their game set to DirectX 9 only, to avoid things like
people not being "properly blinded" by flash grenades. (At least, that
was their excuse. I'm not sure if it's really true...)
> (HL2:Episode 2 has some impressively massive physics simulations at
> some points, such as a collapsing bridge. However, these could also be
> simply precalculated motion paths, and a physics engine would not really
> be needed.)
I was under the impression that those really big scenes *are*
precalculated...
> OTOH, the physics engine *does* contribute visually a lot, so games
> really are better with one. For example throwing a grenade near a pile
> of boxes can be visually quite fun. Also ragdoll physics make falling
> enemies more realistic in all kinds of terrain, something which is very
> difficult to do with precalculated motion paths.
I guess you're probably the best person to ask about this Warp... How
"hard" is it to build a working game physics engine? I mean, how easy is
it to get good framerates? What other problems are involved?
(One thing I notice about all the Steam-powered games is that
slow-moving objects resting on surfaces sometimes seem to pathologically
jiggle around apparently without dissapating energy. Which, obviously,
looks a little weird...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I don't know if Thief3 uses shadows in the way you describe, but it would
> be a rare exception.
Given it's a sneaker, and given that doing things like leaving doors
open behind you can get you caught, and making too much noise can get
you caught, it seems reasonable they'd put that much effort into it. I
wouldn't think it would be all that much more difficult to have the NPCs
react to seeing shadows than to the player himself. Especially since
they only seem to react to the player in the other games. (I.e., make a
noise, get caught, even if you're standing near others arguing loudly
next to a pneumatic hammer.)
> (OTOH, one could argue that something which is rather heavy to calculate
> and which can be turned off with a rendering quality settings shouldn't be
> a relevant gameplay feature because when it's turned off then it makes
> little sense.)
I don't think you can turn it off. The game needs "pixel shader 3" and
won't run on my "pixel shader 1" cards. Not sure (don't really care)
what the differences are.
> For example, at some points you need to use the gravity gun to pull a
Altho if you watch the speed-runs, it's clear the use of the physics
engines make it possible to do things you wouldn't expect otherwise.
Like shoot the lever in the tower that holds up the giant logs that
break the doors down. Or maybe he's shooting the rope. (Took me a couple
viewings to figure out what he was doing there.)
One of the things in Black&White was the desire to make the physics good
enough that anything you could do for real you could do in the game. You
could, in theory, create a ball of water, use it to focus the sun on
some trees, light them on fire, set a boulder in the fire until it's
hot, and throw the bolder into another forest to light *that* on fire.
> Also ragdoll physics make falling
> enemies more realistic in all kinds of terrain,
But nowhere near as fun as watching Jumpman bounce on the way down. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:45:51 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> (OTOH, one could argue that something which is rather heavy to
> calculate and which can be turned off with a rendering quality
> settings shouldn't be a relevant gameplay feature because when
> it's turned off then it makes little sense.)
I remember that in X-Wing the trench run became a lot easier if you
lowered the detail setting, thus removing most of the obstacles in the
trench.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
