Technology and Gameplay

[L. Scofield]

Like my previous threads, this is about examples (preferably in video form ).In this case, technology used to enhance/add to the gameplay (not immersion). With technology I meant any technical part of the game, graphics, physics, animation, etc...

The game doesn't have to use it all the time, it could be just a small section. Also, the technologies don't have to be cutting edge either, the only requirement is that they're used for gameplay, not just pretty aesthetics.

First example, covers graphics and physics:

Dynamic cloth used as cover (0:45) and lens flares to blind the player (1:05, 1:24) in Metal Gear Solid 2.

 

[Nesh]

Like my previous threads, this is about examples (preferably in video form ).In this case, technology used to enhance/add to the gameplay (not immersion). With technology I meant any technical part of the game, graphics, physics, animation, etc...

The game doesn't have to use it all the time, it could be just a small section. Also, the technologies don't have to be cutting edge either, the only requirement is that they're used for gameplay, not just pretty aesthetics.

First example, covers graphics and physics:

Dynamic cloth used as cover (0:45) and lens flares to blind the player (1:05, 1:24) in Metal Gear Solid 2.

Oh yes. MGS2! One of my favorite games. I can say that sections like this one was immersing too! It didnt achieve it by throwing stuff for the sakes of the eye candy. It achieved it through interactivity and choice. You could literally play with the physics and the AI responding to it. It made the game feel natural. Physics was outstanding.
Like the Killzone trailer thread, and also the other CGI trailers shown in E3 2005 its the detail in the interactivity and physics depicted that bring them to life.
This is why the experience with Shadow of the Colossus felt so next gen to me even though it was on such an old hardware. Probably even more next gen than the 360 games released at the time. The character animation, the interactivity and feedback coming back to you from characters like the horse or giants made the world believable

 

[kagemaru]

Destruction in BFBC games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vwiT1G9350

=)

 

[Prophecy2k]

Euphoria animation and physics engine in GTAIV as well as the general Physics that affect everything including the driving physics made the game world one of the most enjoyable GTA game worlds for me to play in... it's a pity that the missions and side mission content wasn't there to keep me playing.

The car physics in particular were glorious though. Best open world driving in a game so far for me. I just loved burning round Liberty in my Infenus

 

[Nesh]

Destruction in BFBC games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vwiT1G9350

=)

Very good tech
But the implementation in this game for some reason didnt immerse me in the gameplay. Probably because the buildings were simply there for me to destroy and the destruction was isolated on them only.
I think what makes such physics have more impact is when they affect gameplay in creative ways and the AI also seems to use the physics (allies and enemies) or responds to it.
Lets not forget. Physics isnt exactly predictable either. When its predictable it becomes repetitive and boring.

For example lets say that the building didnt simply destruct. Lets say the foundations and parts of it were loosened after you shot it and made a hole. If some walls and parts of the building fell at an unpredictable time creating a domino effect that affected the surrounding environment and the AI it would have made things more interesting.

I think physics and visual feedback should follow these four rules:
1) AI awareness of the physics
2) Interaction between the AI and Physics. Not simply between you and physics
3) Physics that affects other physics in the environment
4) Unpredictability in the Physics. Lets not forget. If you are predictable, a woman will get bored of you . Its the same thing for physics too. It keeps things interesting and different


I believe L.Scofield's video shows some examples of this. Olga shot the projector to blind you and the sheet hiding the boxes to cover where she was. She was aware of the objects around her and interacted with them. You could also shoot the sheet to remove it completely or the wind would take it away for you after some time (some form of unpredictability)

 

[nightshade]

Very good tech
But the implementation in this game for some reason didnt immerse me in the gameplay. Probably because the buildings were simply there for me to destroy and the destruction was isolated on them only.

You are forgetting the fact that Battlefield is primarily a multiplayer game, the destruction does affect the gameplay a lot.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Talking about destruction....

HOW CAN WE FORGET RED FACTION GUERRILLA!!!!

The gameplay WAS the destruction. Probably the game that defines this gen for me in terms of gameplay and gameworld interaction that simply wasn't possible before.

Red Faction Guerrilla 1 is my top entry and contribution to this thread ;-)

 

[sebbbi]

Graphics can be also used to improve the game play. High quality shadows and dynamic ambient occlusion from moving objects are both important. It's hard to sense the exact 3d place and proximity of an object without them (especially if an object is flying in the air). Stereo 3d also helps a lot in games that require precise movement and quick object placement/distance estimation. Brain just works so much better when all these things work like they should in the real world.

60 fps is also very important. It reduces the input lag, and makes the game respond better to your actions. 30 fps allows better visuals (2x time to generate a single frame) but I personally prefer 60 fps because it just improves the game play so much. It's sad to see so many recent games compromising smooth 60 fps game play for slightly better visuals.

 

[Brimstone]

Agree with Sebbi.

I think the next step is to offer curved displays for better FOV. A game would become more immersive and look more "natural". Sony could take the lead on this issue with OLED displays.

 

[kagemaru]

You are forgetting the fact that Battlefield is primarily a multiplayer game, the destruction does affect the gameplay a lot.

Yeah this is what I was thinking when I posted it. You can't confidently camp in the corner of a building anymore when that corner can be blown out, taking you out in the process.

 

[Jedi2016]

The biggest problem I have with new technology like this is the way it's built into the game. It's one thing to simply add a new toy for us to play with, but I can't stand it when the entire game is built around using that new toy in a very specific way.

Take Fracture, for example. Cool idea, piss-poor execution. There's just zero room for creativity with the tool.. they put it in there, but you can really only use it when the developers say you can, and only in a specific way, mostly for solving puzzles for which there's only one solution. There's a few other examples that I've seen over the years, but I can't think of specifics right now, where they tout some new "feature" and you end up barely using it in-game.

The destruction in BFBC was very cool, no doubt, and it does affect multiplayer in a big way, as mentioned... I remember playing the MP beta on X360 back in the day, and we kept getting hit by a sniper in a building.. so we blew the entire top half of the building off. The cool factor was very high. But, it doesn't really come into play that much in single-player.

I think it was a good stepping-stone.. it can do much more and go much further if they throw some more physics at it, like Nesh said up above. And, thankfully, the game wasn't actually built around the destruction engine.

In terms of overall graphics and art, the biggest thing for me is immersion. Make me feel like I'm really there, and I'll love every minute of it. That doesn't necessarily mean making it look "real", though.. Bioshock is very stylized, but I found it quite immersive and enjoyable.

 

[nintenho]

Well Red Faction: Guerrilla was pretty much all built around destruction and forced you to use it in nearly every mission but it was still fun since the demolition itself felt dynamic. So it feels different every time you destroy a big building. That probably had to do with it's destruction being more physics based while blowing away a wall in the bad company games was more scripted.

 

[L. Scofield]

Here's a good one, space warping in Torsion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W67Gmd97hR8

http://alphanew.net/index.php?section=projects&site=torsion&lang=eng

 

[Tea2]

A small thing I like in Crackdown is that it keeps your vehicle were you left it for an extended period of time. I can leave a ramp truck where I want it, go to the other side of the island to look for a fast car, go back and the ramp truck is still there. It's too bad that in most free roaming games stuff like that gets reset pretty fast (heavy RAM limitations I suppose?). It kills any potential for a fun "emergent gameplay" kind of experience.

 

[_phil_]

no sotc ,Ico , or uncharted animation systems ?

 

[assurdum]

Yeah, it's really a pity with all that tech from 2001 no one is used seriously to evolve the gameplay... for example the shadows could be used in an horror game to detect the enemies, increase the tension, also the light etc... I never seen a game which really use the graphic for increase the gameplay experience & not only for replicate virtually the reality....

 

[function]

As a thought experiment, try and come up with a new gameplay idea that requires advanced technology, then try an turn it into an explicit rule (or set of rules). Then screen out the ideas that would be i) confusing or difficult to understand for the target market ii) not consistently be fun, or iii) undermine other aspects of the gameplay (unless a rule is so awesome it's basically the entire game, like Tetris, you can't consider it in a vacuum).

Try and do this for a while and I think you can start to see why things are the way they are. It's not that no-one can come up with exotic, abstract ideas or wants to incorporate them into games, it's that incorporating them into games is very, very difficult.

 

[kagemaru]

no sotc ,Ico , or uncharted animation systems ?

The animations are nice, but how does the tech behind them add to the gameplay?

 

[zed]

Yeah, it's really a pity with all that tech from 2001 no one is used seriously to evolve the gameplay... for example the shadows could be used in an horror game to detect the enemies, increase the tension, also the light etc... I never seen a game which really use the graphic for increase the gameplay experience & not only for replicate virtually the reality....

fancy burning some vampireballs?
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pdcjmcoakgklifndgbjfcidadbadlfaa

true not really what you mean
also FWIW heres what Im doing at present (destructable landscape), since that was mentioned in this thread

 

[assurdum]

fancy burning some vampireballs?
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pdcjmcoakgklifndgbjfcidadbadlfaa

true not really what you mean
also FWIW heres what Im doing at present (destructable landscape), since that was mentioned in this thread

Well, I'm talking to use simples improvements in the graphic department like lights, shadows in real time, compared to 2001, to increase the gameplay experience & not only in order to impress gamer.