Mark Rein Interview @ Shack News

[scooby_dooby]

You seemed too quick to downplay flashy physics effects, as if they're a bad thing to have in games that mostly are "flashy" by their nature, and need to have those moments.

I don't mean to downplay them, it just seems physics has had so much 'up-play' lately. I feel like their importance is being greatly exagerated, that's not to say they aren't important, but they are really getting far too much hype lately IMO, as if they are going to cause some amazing new level of gameplay.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't mean to downplay them, it just seems physics has had so much 'up-play' lately. I feel like their importance is being greatly exagerated, that's not to say they aren't important, but they are really getting far too much hype lately IMO, as if they are going to cause some amazing new level of gameplay.

But you of all people scooby know that gameplay isn't the only reason why people like me and many others are excited about next-gen physics. They are also pretty to look at. And we should be very happy that due to next-gen physics games are going to feel more real, not just look more real.

I think the biggest problem with this whole "physics will change next-gen games" conversion is that sometimes people just few physics as a bunch of boxes rolling over 20 times or like you said a bunch of logs falling down realistically. As you know physics is way more than that, so we should keep things in perpective.

 

[rabidrabbit]

I don't mean to downplay them, it just seems physics has had so much 'up-play' lately. I feel like their importance is being greatly exagerated, that's not to say they aren't important, but they are really getting far too much hype lately IMO, as if they are going to cause some amazing new level of gameplay.

That "up-play" propably is because of the "Cell" and PS3, which is thought to excel at physics.
There's always some element that is up-played, were it powerful graphics prosessing or some online funcionality, revolutionary controls etc...
In the end, not nearly all of these end up having much effect on the gaming experience.

 

[_phil_]

So the extra physics in the game does affect gameplay in Crysis?

exactly.see april Edge.

 

[zoost]

exactly.see april Edge.

Please inform the less inaugurated. What is april Edge?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't mean to downplay them, it just seems physics has had so much 'up-play' lately. I feel like their importance is being greatly exagerated, that's not to say they aren't important, but they are really getting far too much hype lately IMO, as if they are going to cause some amazing new level of gameplay.

A friend came round this week and showed me Oblivion. I was disappointed that the physics seemed like such an afterthought. You could drag bodies and knock bottles with arrows, but why would you? It didn't seem to contribute. And then in other physics applications, you couldn't fireball some wood and set light to it, and when you did drag a body across the ground there was no animation for you character; the body just moved. Physics animation could have your character bend down , grab hold, and pull by leaning back, adding to realism and immersion. Also there was a log thing cutting off a bridge way. The gameplay is limited to standing and crouching, so it wasn't possible to crawl under the log. Physics based animation would allow the player to take any position, so if the player thinks 'I should be able to crawl under that if I was really there' they'll be able to.

I don't think anyone has got close to actually using physics properly to extend gameplay in most cases, perhaps because the physics has to be kept to a minimum to run on lower spec machines, but when they do I'm sure there'll be no going back to the limited subset of activities that games currently entail.

 

[Platon]

The gameplay is limited to standing and crouching, so it wasn't possible to crawl under the log. Physics based animation would allow the player to take any position, so if the player thinks 'I should be able to crawl under that if I was really there' they'll be able to.

But that has to do with gameplay. Maybe the developers didn't want you go over that bridge and instead take a detour or something. If you had the possibility to crawl they might have choosen to have a broken bridge instead and the end result would still be the same. If they wanted they could have put crawling in the game, you don't need physics for that. And I don't think physics will make things always easier as you need to apply rules/restricitions all the time for everything. And the developers will always have to ask themselfs how can the physics break the game at every given moment...

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Please inform the less inaugurated. What is april Edge?

Edge Magazine is a UK based, cross-platform glossy magazine with a heavy industry bias.

 

[Sis]

But that has to do with gameplay.

Agreed. I think we often confuse game design decisions with physics-enabling technologies. If the game designers wanted wood to burn realistically, wouldn't that suck if you bumped into a candle and burned down your house? How does the fire get put out? A fire squad of guardsmen? When bending over and picking things up, who keys the animation? Do we need an animation for every single object? Because if so, that'd be a huge undertaking..

If you allow ultimate flexibility as opposed to guided flexibility, the gamer could end up wedging himself into game play elements that not only aren't any fun, but counterproductive.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

When bending over and picking things up, who keys the animation? Do we need an animation for every single object? Because if so, that'd be a huge undertaking..

No, because physics simulated bodies need no/little keyframing. That's the point. Improved physics engines means less content workload, as the Natural Motion demos have showcased. As for combustibilty, that's just a property you set the material. For each object, you set physical properties like mass, friction, restitution, combustibility. That adds variety and creates a realistic world at little extra effort, save the designers marking out properties for objects.

 

[Sis]

I don't mean to downplay them, it just seems physics has had so much 'up-play' lately. I feel like their importance is being greatly exagerated, that's not to say they aren't important, but they are really getting far too much hype lately IMO, as if they are going to cause some amazing new level of gameplay.

I'm a huge fan of technologies that enable better physics and AI implementations, but "better" should not be viewed as "more accurate". Instead, "better" would be anything that allows the game designers vision to be more accurately renderered in the game. Given this, I think gamers will be hard pressed to notice a difference between physics implementations across platforms--unless some effect is completely turned off on the Xbox 360 for performance considerations.

Otherwise, how would one know whether the physics was simulated in depth or just approximated, seeing that in the end it's approximated on both systems to some degree?

I look at Oblivion as an example of "good enough" physics: a wooden bucket was hanging from a rope, over a well. I shot an arrow into the bucket and the arrow stuck into the wood. This caused an imbalance in the weigth distribution, which caused the bucket to hang at an odd angle (once it came to rest from the impact of the arrow). Is there a way that some new technology will make that bucket hang at an even more realistic angle?

 

[Sis]

No, because physics simulated bodies need no/little keyframing. That's the point. Improved physics engines means less content workload, as the Natural Motion demos have showcased. As for combustibilty, that's just a property you set the material. For each object, you set physical properties like mass, friction, restitution, combustibility. That adds variety and creates a realistic world at little extra effort, save the designers marking out properties for objects.

Ah, good point. I was categorizing that as procedural generation of animation not related to physics. And I agree about configuring certain properties, but I do believe this is a design decision more so than a technological one.

For example, in Oblivion there is certainly mass. Dragging a dead body is different depending on your strength and the weight of the body (females weigh less than males, and there are even differences within genders). As well, grabbing an arm drags the body differently than grabbing them by the chest or leg.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I'm a huge fan of technologies that enable better physics and AI implementations, but "better" should not be viewed as "more accurate". Instead, "better" would be anything that allows the game designers vision to be more accurately renderered in the game. Given this, I think gamers will be hard pressed to notice a difference between physics implementations across platforms--unless some effect is completely turned off on the Xbox 360 for performance considerations.

Otherwise, how would one know whether the physics was simulated in depth or just approximated, seeing that in the end it's approximated on both systems to some degree?

I look at Oblivion as an example of "good enough" physics: a wooden bucket was hanging from a rope, over a well. I shot an arrow into the bucket and the arrow stuck into the wood. This caused an imbalance in the weigth distribution, which caused the bucket to hang at an odd angle (once it came to rest from the impact of the arrow). Is there a way that some new technology will make that bucket hang at an even more realistic angle?

Man that's what I've been tryin to say for weeks...well put.

 

[scooby_dooby]

For example, in Oblivion there is certainly mass. Dragging a dead body is different depending on your strength and the weight of the body (females weigh less than males, and there are even differences within genders). As well, grabbing an arm drags the body differently than grabbing them by the chest or leg.

Or if you kill a wolf up in the mountains, you can watch his body ragdoll all the way down the hill, whereas a big brown bear, he'll just slide a bit and stop.

 

[rounin]

I think improved realistic physics will increase the immersion factor several times over for "sandbox type" games and fully immersive RPGs like Oblivion. Now you can swing that axe at that chest without fear of breaking the suspension of disbelief when it doesnt break properly, etc.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

but I do believe this is a design decision more so than a technological one.

No, because current physics engines are limited to what they can simualte. eg...

For example, in Oblivion there is certainly mass. Dragging a dead body is different depending on your strength and the weight of the body (females weigh less than males, and there are even differences within genders). As well, grabbing an arm drags the body differently than grabbing them by the chest or leg.

That's standard to any rigid body simulator. Friction, mass, force and restitution are there for any engine to use. It's not hard to add related custom properties either. My latest product has added magnetism as a property to ODE. That's just a combination of forces and custom values.

No-one yet has realtime physics derived animation (though I think some games like SOTC use it in part) and no-one has other properties like flammability. I don't think anyone has softness of materials linked to normal mapping either, to create footprints in the sand for example. No-one's really using softbody physics either, save Mercury perhaps. There's lots of technologies that haven't found their way into games yet because either the processing grunt hasn't been there to power them, or the resources needed haven't been available (like RAM).

 

[onetwo]

I'm a huge fan of technologies that enable better physics and AI implementations, but "better" should not be viewed as "more accurate". Instead, "better" would be anything that allows the game designers vision to be more accurately renderered in the game. Given this, I think gamers will be hard pressed to notice a difference between physics implementations across platforms--unless some effect is completely turned off on the Xbox 360 for performance considerations.

Otherwise, how would one know whether the physics was simulated in depth or just approximated, seeing that in the end it's approximated on both systems to some degree?

I look at Oblivion as an example of "good enough" physics: a wooden bucket was hanging from a rope, over a well. I shot an arrow into the bucket and the arrow stuck into the wood. This caused an imbalance in the weigth distribution, which caused the bucket to hang at an odd angle (once it came to rest from the impact of the arrow). Is there a way that some new technology will make that bucket hang at an even more realistic angle?

Making the bucket hang more realistically is incredibly unimaginative. What if the bucket was filled with water? When the arrow hits the bucket, it swings realistically, with water spilling over, coming to rest with a slow overflow until the water level is lower than the tilt. You could then walk up to it, take back your arrow, and have the water spill out more until it's again lower than the level of the unplugged hole. You then realize that it's not water but rather some magical substance and you just found the well. You dip the bucket into the well to get some of this potion to fill a few bottles, and when you fill the bucket and bring it back up, the substance again spills out through the hole, realistically spraying the side of the well on the way up. After you've filled up the bottles, you look to your feet and you notice a big puddle from the mess. Not a flat puddle, but one that has seeped into the cracks and followed the seams in the ground. While looking at this, you hear some large creature approaching your position, with large ripples appearing with each footstep, causing the water to move down the seams in a different pattern. Etc, etc, etc...

Physics can easily take the experience to the next level.

 

[Nesh]

Making the bucket hang more realistically is incredibly unimaginative. What if the bucket was filled with water? When the arrow hits the bucket, it swings realistically, with water spilling over, coming to rest with a slow overflow until the water level is lower than the tilt. You could then walk up to it, take back your arrow, and have the water spill out more until it's again lower than the level of the unplugged hole. You then realize that it's not water but rather some magical substance and you just found the well. You dip the bucket into the well to get some of this potion to fill a few bottles, and when you fill the bucket and bring it back up, the substance again spills out through the hole, realistically spraying the side of the well on the way up. After you've filled up the bottles, you look to your feet and you notice a big puddle from the mess. Not a flat puddle, but one that has seeped into the cracks and followed the seams in the ground. While looking at this, you hear some large creature approaching your position, with large ripples appearing with each footstep, causing the water to move down the seams in a different pattern. Etc, etc, etc...

Physics can easily take the experience to the next level.

Is that an excerpt of a new Terry Prachet book?


I think you took it too far

 

[EndR]

Making the bucket hang more realistically is incredibly unimaginative. What if the bucket was filled with water? When the arrow hits the bucket, it swings realistically, with water spilling over, coming to rest with a slow overflow until the water level is lower than the tilt. You could then walk up to it, take back your arrow, and have the water spill out more until it's again lower than the level of the unplugged hole. You then realize that it's not water but rather some magical substance and you just found the well. You dip the bucket into the well to get some of this potion to fill a few bottles, and when you fill the bucket and bring it back up, the substance again spills out through the hole, realistically spraying the side of the well on the way up. After you've filled up the bottles, you look to your feet and you notice a big puddle from the mess. Not a flat puddle, but one that has seeped into the cracks and followed the seams in the ground. While looking at this, you hear some large creature approaching your position, with large ripples appearing with each footstep, causing the water to move down the seams in a different pattern. Etc, etc, etc...

Physics can easily take the experience to the next level.

But will this make the game more fun? I remember the shenmue-syndrome where you could open drawers, closets etc... but that got old really fast and after a while, you didn´t bother.

Apparently, you can exaggerate with physics as well, meaning that you don´t have to simulate everything 100% as reality just to make a fun game. Depeding on what type of game it is, you need to strike a balance with everything else..

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Obviously not every physics function is going to contribute to gameplay, but a lot can contribute to the game experience in one way or another, and I feel a lot of current gameplay can be improved by judicious use of physics. Eg. having to look through drawers to find stuff might be tedious on the whole, but when you combine that ability with a mission to find a secret document in an office, and the gameplay is sneaking around, and you ahve to look through drawers knowing a guard is getting ever nearer, it's upping the ante and generating a lot of excitement. Much better than having the docs open on the desk where it's more plausible to script finding them there, or cutting to a cut-scene where the game goes through the motions of searching for it and the player hasn't any choices to make.