What to expect of next gen gameplay?

[Shifty Geezer]

These physics engines are pretty much like that already! I've used Tokamak in my own code. You set bounding primatives to compartmentalise your objects (eg. five cuboids for a table, top and four legs), assign the materials, set gravity, and away you go. You can apply forces and the engine solves all the collisions, rebounds, frictional rotation etc. with me the developer not needing to worry about how it's done. I suppose ideally models will use a bounding mesh in such physics, but the results from the existing methods are very competant, easily implemented, and pretty quick too.

I'm expecting physics in absolutely everything next-gen!! (okay, maybe not turn-based RPGs)

 

[London Geezer]

These physics engines are pretty much like that already! I've used Tokamak in my own code. You set bounding primatives to compartmentalise your objects (eg. five cuboids for a table, top and four legs), assign the materials, set gravity, and away you go. You can apply forces and the engine solves all the collisions, rebounds, frictional rotation etc. with me the developer not needing to worry about how it's done. I suppose ideally models will use a bounding mesh in such physics, but the results from the existing methods are very competant, easily implemented, and pretty quick too.

I'm expecting physics in absolutely everything next-gen!! (okay, maybe not turn-based RPGs)

Well yeah but i'm talking about a total more advanceness allround

 

[hovz]

lol the gravity gun is not detrimental to gameplay, its a weapon. if thats your idea of physics coupled intimatly with gameplay, then i guess the doom 3 expansion is going to be on half lifes level. a few puzzles in the entire game that use physics is also hardly an example of physics coupled intimatly with gameplay.

 

[ERP]

The problem with physics in games is that once you commit to a "real" physics model your pretty much stuck with it. objects behave how they behave and you live with it.

Objects driven by physics models are unpredictable, and you don't always get what the designer wants. Lets take something trivial a game that uses a wall of things to block your way, blowing it up or knocking it down may not always clear the way.

Physics will probably be the next "lens flare" but for the most part physics isn't gameplay

 

[London Geezer]

The problem with physics in games is that once you commit to a "real" physics model your pretty much stuck with it. objects behave how they behave and you live with it.

Objects driven by physics models are unpredictable, and you don't always get what the designer wants. Lets take something trivial a game that uses a wall of things to block your way, blowing it up or knocking it down may not always clear the way.

Physics will probably be the next "lens flare" but for the most part physics isn't gameplay

Yikes!!!!

 

[passerby]

Physics will probably be the next "lens flare" but for the most part physics isn't gameplay

Yes.

You don't create physics models, them design gameplay around it. Create the gameplay first, and if some physics model helps with the design, include it. If not, push it back into the 'nice optional gimmick' list.

And I dislike how the 'p-word' is being abused by fans and gaming media. Law of gravity already holds monochrome pixel characters to the ground. Friction allows objects to move forward on the ground. Why, Pong gives a simple illustration of Newton's Laws of Motion. And considering the amount of blood-letting in video games, I'm waiting for fanbois and PR to start marketing about 'biology'.

PS: I seem to be incredibly grouchy nowadays.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Perhaps we should talk instead of rigid bodies and closed systems, or full Newtonian modelling?

For gameplay FNM (Full Newtonian Modelling ) will add a substantial dimension if done right. eg. in a hack 'n slash, your warrior has a strength rating that exerts a force. Equip him/her/it with a heavy weapon and damage dealt goes up but speed goes down, and vice versa for a light weapon. Games would then become balanced (speed versus damage versus armour penetration etc) as they're limited to the laws of physics, unlike existing games where weapons are often given an arbitary approximation. In the case of blowing a wall to clear it and it's not cleared properly, the game design would factor that in. You'd have to destroy the wall intelligently, making sure you don't get caught in the blast.

There's room for designers to be dumb but I'd hope they've enough experience of living in the real world with real physical limitations that they don't screw up with FNM!

 

[Evil_Cloud]

I want fluïd, non-monotonous animations in the next-generation. I want to feel like the character I am controlling is alive, and not just a nicely detailed model with a defined set of moves that are always the same.

 

[GwymWeepa]

I want fluïd, non-monotonous animations in the next-generation. I want to feel like the character I am controlling is alive, and not just a nicely detailed model with a defined set of moves that are always the same.

I hate when NPC's slide across the floor when turning around in one spot.

 

[_phil_]

yes ,super monkey ball and mercury are too much scripted games...

I want fluïd, non-monotonous animations in the next-generation. I want to feel like the character I am controlling is alive, and not just a nicely detailed model with a defined set of moves that are always the same.

check my post on Endorphin,page 1 of this thread.

 

[passerby]

Regarding my opinion that game design is more a result of a creator's willingness and commitment to design, not tech...

I'm impressed by how the extensive AI and scheduling scripts for Radiata Stories is running off a puny 300MHz MIPS CPU. Lending evidence that a lot of things can actually be done - just depends on whether designers want to commit to it.

EDIT: And Rakugaki Kingdom(Magic Pengel) must be mentioned too. Amazing stuff on year 2K hardware.