What to expect of next gen gameplay?

[StefanS]

Nice article about next gen gameplay:

http://www.planetgamecube.com/editorials.cfm?action=profile&id=148

What we really want to look at is how gameplay has been evolving since the dawn of 3D gaming, and we only have one generation transition to observe. Interestingly enough, many of the changes that occurred this generation parallel those that occurred during the 16-bit generation. While the size of characters in 3D is relative (and thus meaningless from a hardware perspective), the number of onscreen characters has definitely increased as 3D hardware has gotten more powerful. Games like Rogue Squadron II, Pikmin, and Resident Evil 4 demonstrate this advancement nicely. Another major change since the first 3D generation is draw distance. Thick walls of claustrophobic fog have gone from commonplace to practically non-existent. Detailed physics simulation is just within reach on the current crop of consoles. However, rarely is it used to significantly change gameplay (as in Half-Life 2). Artificial intelligence (AI) has gotten incrementally better since the previous generation, but the changes have been subtle in most cases. Finally, as 3D hardware increases in power, split-screen cooperative modes are becoming feasible (at reasonable framerates).

This should give us a good idea of what to expect from the next generation of console games. Most of the things that were new or rare this generation due to technical restraints will multiply profusely in the next generation. There will be no shortage of polygons for drawing numerous characters. There will be plenty of CPU power for detailed physics simulation. Most developers will use physics for relatively superficial purposes, but some ambitious developers will certainly couple it intimately with gameplay, as Valve recently did in Half-Life 2.

 

[London Geezer]

but some ambitious developers will certainly couple it intimately with gameplay, as Valve recently did in Half-Life 2.

I care to disagree but well...

 

[hey69]

i want the return of VR helmets and glasses for next gen!

 

[Acert93]

but some ambitious developers will certainly couple it intimately with gameplay, as Valve recently did in Half-Life 2.

I care to disagree but well...

What part of this do you disagree with in this statement: "Most developers will use physics for relatively superficial purposes, but some ambitious developers will certainly couple it intimately with gameplay, as Valve recently did in Half-Life 2."

(1) That most developers will use physics relatively superficially or (2) that HL2 used physics intimately with gameplay?

 

[cthellis42]

What part of this do you disagree with in this statement: "Most developers will use physics for relatively superficial purposes, but some ambitious developers will certainly couple it intimately with gameplay, as Valve recently did in Half-Life 2."

(1) That most developers will use physics relatively superficially or (2) that HL2 used physics intimately with gameplay?

I'm going to guess that since he boldcased only the last part of that quote...

 

[AlNom]

(1) That most developers will use physics relatively superficially or (2) that HL2 used physics intimately with gameplay?

Yes.

 

[hovz]

agree with london, physics were hardly a large part of the gameplay and were much more a novelty.

 

[Cryect]

Heh, my prediction for gameplay next generation is more of the same except with more

 

[Deepak]

Post subject: What to expect of next gen gameplay?

*****

Madden, NFS, FIFA, MGS, GT5, FF, Mario, Zelda, Tekken, DoA, Halo etc etc....

 

[Acert93]

agree with london, physics were hardly a large part of the gameplay and were much more a novelty.

Name one FPS style game (1st or 3rd person) where physics is more relevant to the gameplay and general feel of the game.

 

[hovz]

just because its more relevent than others doesnt make it physics based.

 

[_phil_]

I want a game fully built on a completly realtime that :

endorphin.
http://www.naturalmotion.com/pages/products.htm
(don't miss the demo videos)

for that we need a strong CPU.

 

[Acert93]

just because its more relevent than others doesnt make it physics based.

No one every said physics based, that is changing the subject and avoiding the question. What was said:

Most developers will use physics for relatively superficial purposes, but some ambitious developers will certainly couple it intimately with gameplay, as Valve recently did in Half-Life 2.

HL2 has physics based puzzles, a gravity gun that can pick up items that have such factors as weight, friction, boyancy, and so forth, and all the ragdolls in HL2 interact with the environment, yet these are "hardly a large part of the gameplay" as you claim. How so? How are these not a part of the gameplay? Is picking up and item, using it as a shield from bullets and then hurling it at two approaching foes and knocking them both out not a part of gameplay?

Curious, how are these merely novelties? And what would be required to make "physics coupled intimately with gameplay" more than a novelty?

 

[Wunderchu]

just because its more relevent than others doesnt make it physics based.

No one every said physics based, that is changing the subject and avoiding the question. What was said:

Most developers will use physics for relatively superficial purposes, but some ambitious developers will certainly couple it intimately with gameplay, as Valve recently did in Half-Life 2.

HL2 has physics based puzzles, a gravity gun that can pick up items that have such factors as weight, friction, boyancy, and so forth, and all the ragdolls in HL2 interact with the environment, yet these are "hardly a large part of the gameplay" as you claim. How so? How are these not a part of the gameplay? Is picking up and item, using it as a shield from bullets and then hurling it at two approaching foes and knocking them both out not a part of gameplay?

Curious, how are these merely novelties? And what would be required to make "physics coupled intimately with gameplay" more than a novelty?

not to mention the materials; in HL2 wood acts like wood when you hit it/shoot it etc., steel acts like steel, etc.



here are some quotations from interviews with Valve:

Everything is reflected back in physics. It's totally integrated into our game. We have weapons that allow you manipulate objects with physics. All of your conventional weapons are reflected in phsyics. You can throw a grenade bullets exert force player exerts force. You can push things and rolls things and jump on top of things and have them react to your mass. All of those things are integrated into the gameplay and you can do things at a level that you're couldn't do before.


...

Using combat as an example again: enemies will react to you changing the position of physics obejcts, and if you knock something over maybe they can get behind it and use it for cover, or maybe you could knock it out of the way and they're not in cover anymore. That kind of thing really makes the situaiton more dynamic and more replayable.

[source: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1298&page=2 ]

Does the crowbar deal damage straight ahead of you, or does it sort of swing like a bat, and it depends at what angle you hit something?

Gabe Newell: it's physically simulated - it's a bar swinging through air

...

How complex will the physics engine be exactly? Is there a limit before things start clipping and not doing what they're supposed to be? Such as some of the ideas going around about making a map with just a huge building made out of wood. Will shooting the supports out from under the building make the rest of the building react? Same if other objects, i.e barrels were put on top of the wood building. Would it all react physically, or is there a limit to the engine? Thanks.

Gabe Newell: The two scenarios you describe are actually pretty easy. Jay's physics system pretty much does that automatically. We're doing a lot with physics, but we're really curious to see what the MOD community figures out. Where you run out of gas is with lots and lots of objects.

...

In the E3 video there was a table that was pushed against the door. If you stood on the table would the table collapse because of the weight? Would the result of an interaction depend on the mass/volume of the supports? Would the material change this?

Gabe Newell: No, the table wouldn't collapse, simply because you don't weigh enough. Yes, you could make a table that would collapse under your weight. Yes, the material does affect the strength. Yes volume drives physical properties (e.g. weight, buoyancy).

...

Could I make my map completely destructible?

Gabe Newell: Yes.

If you shot a rocket at the ground would the ground deform as a result of the explosion?

Gabe Newell: Yes.

...

Is your rag doll effect implemented for every creature or just human-like bodies?

Gabe Newell: Yes, physics applies to pretty much everything, including non-human bodies.

...

If a wooden board is floating in the water and you jump onto it, will it slowly sink?

Gabe Newell: Yes.

...

Is it possible to set up a teeter-totter type of device where the player jumps on one side of a board, and doing this makes something on the other end of the board fly up in the air?

Gabe Newell: Yes. The player is physically simulated.

...

Will standing on barrels for an extra boost be ruled out because they'll wobble and fall down when you stand on them?

Gabe Newell: You can stand on barrels and do the circus trick of walking backwards to move it forwards or whatever else makes physical sense. The player is physically simulated. Water effects actually scale back reasonably well.

[source: http://forum.webgaul.com/archive/topic/24575-1.html ]







however, even so, I am expecting substantially more on the next gen. consoles in terms of realistic physics 8)

 

[London Geezer]

My god i've created a monster!!!

All i said is that HL2 was "supposed" to be a game based on physics, but as it turned out, it was a game with a couple of gimmicky tricks to make you believe its gameplay is "coupled intimately with Physics" when it really isn't.

But hey that's just me.

 

[Acert93]

not to mention the materials; in HL2 wood acts like wood when you hit it/shoot it etc., steel acts like steel, etc.

Another good example

however, even so, I am expecting substantially more on the next gen. consoles in terms of realistic physics 8)

I wish I had your optomism. While I expect more over the lifetime of the next gen, I do not see it soon on consoles. It took 5-6 years and $40M to make HL2/Source. I am not very confident many titles will be out by 2006 that really make us go "Ewww Next gen gameplay with physics". Hopefully I am wrong.

The time required to build an engine, and art assets, next gen is huge and expensive. When looking to get a title out by a launch date you have to pick your battles and often indepth gameplay is first to get axed. Increasing the complexity by adding physics and physics based material systems, and having them work (Read: HL2 is the first game to even make an attempt with a positive result, at least in the FPS genre) is not a guarantee. WE, that is gamers, want this. But it will take time.

This is where projects like Havok2 and the licensing of engines comes into play. I think we will see even more licensed engine and more technologies that allow developers to cut corners so they can focus on the game design. And while there are some engines in development or out (UE 3, Source is said to be fairly forward looking with some features, namely HDR and dynamic lighting model, left out, and D3) these engines are not as mature as we want *right now*. And fall 2005 is right around the corner My guess: we wont be seeing many games really push physics interactive gameplay until 2007. We may get a few titles in 2006 on the consoles, but I think 2007 is when we will start seeing the new consoles really begin to shine (read: after the pathetic launch libraries that are all graphics and no substance).

 

[Acert93]

My god i've created a monster!!!

All i said is that HL2 was "supposed" to be a game based on physics, but as it turned out, it was a game with a couple of gimmicky tricks to make you believe its gameplay is "coupled intimately with Physics" when it really isn't.

But hey that's just me.

I think you need more time to couple with the gravity gun.

 

[London Geezer]

My god i've created a monster!!!

All i said is that HL2 was "supposed" to be a game based on physics, but as it turned out, it was a game with a couple of gimmicky tricks to make you believe its gameplay is "coupled intimately with Physics" when it really isn't.

But hey that's just me.

I think you need more time to couple with the gravity gun.

No really, i mean the gravity gun ultimately becomes just like any other gun, only the "ammo" is stuff you pick up from the floor. Pick up, shoot, pick up, hold it, shoot. Just liek any other gun, with potentially infinite ammo. Might feel "revolutionary" for the first few hours, but in the end that's what it's all about, whether each object happens to react differently (LOVE the circular blades).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I wish I had your optomism. While I expect more over the lifetime of the next gen, I do not see it soon on consoles. It took 5-6 years and $40M to make HL2/Source. I am not very confident many titles will be out by 2006 that really make us go "Ewww Next gen gameplay with physics". Hopefully I am wrong.

The time required to build an engine, and art assets, next gen is huge and expensive.

There are several off-the-shelf freeware Physics solvers out there, including Newton and the ODE library. Adding physics to a game is now very simple with these. It's just a case of rewriting them to take advantage of different hardware, but the complicate maths and solvers no longer need to be worked out from scratch as those 5-6 years of HL2 development needed.

 

[London Geezer]

Well, one day probably too far away, processors will be powerful enough for us to just input a Gravity equation, different materials, and the hardware would calculate the physics according to the mass of each material and the weight of each object. Easy for us, and "how things work in reality", but i assume, very taxing on the hardware.

And one day, it will be about particles, or VERY small Voxels, they won't need to be atom-sized cause we don't need that kind of precision, but small enough for things to behave like in reality.