Red Faction Guerrilla did have a problem before release of buildings falling down without the player doing anything.
But the buildings in motorstorm are not made like they are in Red Faction Guerrilla.
How the buildings fall down in motorstorm are pre canned animations, only the parts that can be moved by the cars and fall onto the track would have physics.
It would be hugely wasteful to have the physics engine rip the buildings apart piece by piece.
And lets not forget that you claimed that the buildings falling down was because of the physics engine (and the power of cell) and that you have never seen a cross platform game which does the same things and I pointed out Split Second which does things that are very much alike motorstorm.
Well, it's pretty clear to me that you've not played MS:A much.
The physics affect the alot of the destructive enivromental objects (wich isn't automatically the same as physics in a game) in MS:A.
If it were only precanned animations, like you claim, it would allways be the same each time you saw the event, or crashed through a object. It would not react differently when a huge truck hit it, as if a dirtbike, or buggy hit it, however that's what it does in MS:A, depending on who hits them.
And remnants of the events change when you come around to your second lap, because the other drivers have run into the same places, and hit those objects. If one of the other players is in a bike, he will not be able to move a rock, but if he is in a big truck, that rock will move, or he will crash through a building, wich will open a route for the biker.
I assume that is what the developers mean when they said they had over 2000 dynamic objects on some of the levels, in page four of the interview I linked to.
I can't speak so much about Split Second, or Portal 2, because I havn't played those titles, and besides what youtube show me, I can't know how they are, and you don't get a feel for physics on videos in my layman opinion.
And I havn't '
forgotten' what I claimed - but you have..
I said basically
I didn't know if it is because of the cell-factor, but
it felt that way to me when playing those games, compared to the other titles.
It just felt that way to me when playing, and tried to contribute to the discussion by giving some examples, of when I felt that way.
When I played Red Faction: Guerilla, I found the amount of destructive enviroment really impressive aswell.
The physics itself reacted properly, it did sometimes have wow-factor, but for me I didn't have the same kind of wow-moments as I felt when playing MS:A.
That dosn't mean that it's not impressive, because I did find the physics interacting with the amount of destructable enviroments really impressive.
Besides, there clearly where alot of the issues you claim Motorstorm have in RF:G, aswell various rubble dissepeared if you went away, and came back to the destroyed building a minute later, it would be a clean and neat area, and the buildings building blocks were allways pretty identical, when destroying the enviroment with the sledge-hammer, you could see the same pre-canned animations chopping away the same part of the object into two smaller different objects, the same type of house where allways the same kind of blocks, and the towers had the identical wire-steel - but the physics reacted well with those pieces for the most part, but you could also run ontop of a bridge with the car, when theoretically it should drop down, because when one wheel is on pavement, and three outside, it should fall down - it were not really a problem for me, no game is perfect, and you do make some excuses for a game with as many destructive objects a that RF:G had., however, I didn't feel the physics where as good as in MS:A..
Atleast for me, I think the physics in MS:A were way more crazy, than when I played RF:G. But it's a totally different paced game, and hard to compare.
