PDA

View Full Version : Graphics/Physics/Storyline


Sparky8
Apr 13, 2007, 05:45 PM
Im a new new Mac owner but a long time gamer and set to do the game production mnagement course at Abertay Dundee University-Just heads up on me.

This thread is to ask what means most to you as next gen is upon us. Improved graphics like we've seen in Gears, intelligent physics like what's being implemented into Force Unleashed or a good ol storyline be in Linear or not but keeps you gripped better than a film or book could ever do.

Chone
Apr 13, 2007, 05:49 PM
Physics are the future of gaming. Games are still so primitive in terms of physics.

The previous gen was all about graphics and bigger experiences but this one focuses not on how they look but how they move (and in the case of the Wii how YOU move :p)

risc
Apr 13, 2007, 05:56 PM
For me it has to be graphics and physics there have always been games with good stories all the way back to Zork or Adventure. Having said that the Wii and Wii Sports in particular have shown me a next gen way of controlling a game.

So there you go 2 different definitions for what I consider next gen both valid imo. :)

Sparky8
Apr 13, 2007, 06:04 PM
For me it has to be graphics and physics there have always been games with good stories all the way back to Zork or Adventure. Having said that the Wii and Wii Sports in particular have shown me a next gen way of controlling a game.

So there you go 2 different definitions for what I consider next gen both valid imo. :)

But if you think back to some of your most memorable games ( i don't know what they are so it's guess work on my part) unless they're sports titles or games like DDR and GH, i'd say its highly likely that MGS, FF and KOTOR fit in there becausse of that storyline.

Could you say Gears is better when the campaign is so bland?

BTW for me depending on the genre it's usually the storyline and physics battling with GFX last, not to say that isn't important

Vidd
Apr 13, 2007, 06:06 PM
I was surprised by some GameCube graphics. :/
The Wii having widescreen has been enough but touches like the reflective surroundings in Sonic are excellent.

Games to me have always been about pure fun and engaging storylines but I've always been a diehard Nintendo fan so they're latest move sat very well with me.

Sonic was, I suppose, one of the first Wii games that I've owned to break the gimmick trend like Excite Truck did but the biggest problem with it was the storyline. As badly as the 3D Sonic games seemed to be received, I always enjoyed the storylines (even in Heroes!).
Secret of the Rings was a huge disappointment to me in that department. I didn't mind the handling of "chapters" but it has made it apparent to me that a storyline is one of the most important factors in some games.

Then again, look at Super Mario 64 and Sunshine. They're two of my favourite games but any story present is very sparse and they do not suffer because of it.

As you may have noticed if you've read all of that, things that let me decide what makes a good game transcends the "gens".

Also, when is the "next gen", "current gen"? Every console has been released yet people (not necessarily yourself) won't update their definitions.

Sparky8
Apr 13, 2007, 06:21 PM
I was surprised by some GameCube graphics. :/
The Wii having widescreen has been enough but touches like the reflective surroundings in Sonic are excellent.

Games to me have always been about pure fun and engaging storylines but I've always been a diehard Nintendo fan so they're latest move sat very well with me.

Sonic was, I suppose, one of the first Wii games that I've owned to break the gimmick trend like Excite Truck did but the biggest problem with it was the storyline. As badly as the 3D Sonic games seemed to be received, I always enjoyed the storylines (even in Heroes!).
Secret of the Rings was a huge disappointment to me in that department. I didn't mind the handling of "chapters" but it has made it apparent to me that a storyline is one of the most important factors in some games.

Then again, look at Super Mario 64 and Sunshine. They're two of my favourite games but any story present is very sparse and they do not suffer because of it.

As you may have noticed if you've read all of that, things that let me decide what makes a good game transcends the "gens".

Also, when is the "next gen", "current gen"? Every console has been released yet people (not necessarily yourself) won't update their definitions.

I agree that generations have changed my outlook on storylines, before it was central because of the limitations of the hardware, but now because of advances i find myself craving an interesting story. Gears (i know its been ued alot ere to compare, but its perfect for it) couldve been made into an even better game but it lacked the sory and campaign. RFOM could one day be seen in a better light because of its superior length, diversity and story.

BTW i don't really see the wii as either last or next, more current gen. The price and type of gmes are just far too different to that of the PS3 and 360. Its a second console, which isnt a shameful thing, and because of that it shouldn't be compared. How can you compare Smooth Moves to Gears.

Vidd
Apr 13, 2007, 06:34 PM
Its a secnd coneole, whihc isnt a shameful thing, and because of that it shouldn't be compared. How can you compare Smooth Moves to Gears.

All 3 of the consoles are part of the current gen and it's meaningless to compare Smooth Moves to Gears of War.
It's like comparing Geometry Wars to Zelda.

apfhex
Apr 13, 2007, 07:04 PM
This thread is to ask what means most to you as next gen is upon us. Improved graphics like we've seen in Gears, intelligent physics like what's being implemented into Force Unleashed or a good ol storyline be in Linear or not but keeps you gripped better than a film or book could ever do.
Graphics: what matters most is art direction. Look at Paper Mario, Katamari Damacy, WoW. I couldn't care less about the most detailed, realistic graphics if they're boring to look at.

Physics: yeah, intelligent physics can really add a lot to a game. Half-Life 2 comes to mind.

Story: depends on the game of course. If it's a story driven game then yes, it needs a good one. :p I think this is a rare find too. I guess HL2 again comes to mind — it excelled in just about every category including characters and story. Halo too.

I don't think I can single out any one thing. What matters most depends on the type of game. You don't need crazy physics in Paper Mario, but you do need story and good art (which is one of the main attractions of the series to me). You don't need a story in Motorstorm, but you want nice physics.

Dagless
Apr 13, 2007, 07:16 PM
For me, at the moment it's all about the story. I'm working on a huge project with a massive script, multiple plot paths branching all over the show. So needless to say I'm playing through a lot of story-heavy games for research. The same can be said for the couple of indy studios I'm working with. Theres huge pressure, both in 3D (next gen systems) and 2D (PC, DS) for a really engaging plot.

I actually see the order of importance as, for my personal taste dev style-

Story-gameplay-level design (utilising the gameplay elements)-sound design-art design*-expandability/upgradeable lastability

*this is a totally common misconception. It isn't all about big graphics=best. It's about getting them big graphics looking great. Metroid Prime did a fantastic job in this department. Look into ICO, Metroid series, Viva Pinata, Yoshis Story/Island for great examples of art design that can be scaled and applied down the line. Throwing raw graphics around doesn't work. Colour themes, charactured models/environments, consistency within variation are just too important factors to skip out on.

Physics important? Chrone, you realise physics will be just an enhancement in a minority of games? Unless you really feel like boxing yourself into the action FPS/3rd person shooter genre. Plenty of games in my Wii, 360, DS and PC library that don't need physics to be enjoyable. Physics are awesome and they are going to get oh-so excellent in upcoming games but it is never going to be too important.

kakkoiimac
Apr 13, 2007, 07:39 PM
I think that when creating a game, you need to have a vision...and then use whatever aspect of game creating to really drive your point home...i think that all of these aspects are only useful when they highlight a fun idea. Then you spend your resources on the aspects that most enhance the experience. It depends on what you want to accomplish, when deciding between the three aspects.

mrgreen4242
Apr 13, 2007, 08:19 PM
Graphics: what matters most is art direction. Look at Paper Mario, Katamari Damacy, WoW. I couldn't care less about the most detailed, realistic graphics if they're boring to look at.

Physics: yeah, intelligent physics can really add a lot to a game. Half-Life 2 comes to mind.

Story: depends on the game of course. If it's a story driven game then yes, it needs a good one. :p I think this is a rare find too. I guess HL2 again comes to mind it excelled in just about every category including characters and story. Halo too.

I don't think I can single out any one thing. What matters most depends on the type of game. You don't need crazy physics in Paper Mario, but you do need story and good art (which is one of the main attractions of the series to me). You don't need a story in Motorstorm, but you want nice physics.

The comment about art direction is the most dead on thing that can be said. Games can be done with minimal graphics power and look great still. Zelda: Wind Waker, Paper Mario and WoW like you mentioned, even older games like Link to the Past, Super Mario 3, all look fantastic even though they aren't super detailed 3D models and HD resolutions.

Again, agreeing with you that you really need just one outstanding element to make a great game. An engaging story can make up for poor graphics and limited gameplay options. Super fun game play can be all you need to make a game great (one of the all time best games, Lemmings, has pretty basic graphics, no story at all, but is a blast to play). On the other hand, games that are just good to look at can be enough as well, although for me gorgeous graphics need to have at least a decent level of another element - Unreal Tournement and Quake 3 were great looking games at their times, but had good gameplay without which would they might not have succeeded.

Physics, though, is something that I think will assist these other elements but not be enough on it's own. Great looking games where things behave realistically will be better than ones with crappy physics models, but without the graphics, gameplay, or storyline they're just simulators and there's not much fun in that.

The area that I think will define this generation of games, at least to some degree, is AI. I'm starting to see lots of reviews about games with enemies that fight back intelligently, or computer controlled allies that are actually helpful, not hindrances. Shooters with allies who understand your verbal commands, improvise, choose to disregard your commands, take initiative, etc. will be the next gen. Not just FPS games, but RPGs, strategy games, simulators... these games can all benefit from better AI.

EM87
Apr 14, 2007, 02:38 AM
For me I like Physics and Story the most but I also like good graphics. Physics is a thing that has been missing from games really up until the Xbox 360 and PS3, I can't wait until we are getting games where you have to shoot down an object to take cover behind or games that have realistic destructible environments.

Story is a must have IMO, games without a decent story line just don't make me want to keep on playing to see what happens next. Zelda: OoT is probably my favorite game when it comes to good stories.

Graphics IMO are not really that important, sure I like to play games that look good but if games this gen didn't end up looking any better than Resistance, I would not really care. Ōkami is a game that IMO look fantastic even though it is on the PS2, it just looks really good even though the graphics are not that great.

JackAxe
Apr 14, 2007, 03:16 AM
I agree wtih the art direction comment. I'm personally a fan of art that really conveys the mood of the game, weather it be simple or complex.

Without physics, I wouldn't have Wii Sports Bowling, so I would be bummed. But I also view physics as something that makes the developer's job easier once they get the kinks worked out. I hope that they'll take the time/money they've save from not needing loads of animation and put that effort towards my next rambling point.

Story and gameplay are King! I know graphics can be important in catching a peep's eyes, but they're not what intrigue me to play the game, unless it's some kind of simulator.

<]=)

BoyBach
Apr 14, 2007, 03:45 AM
'Story-telling', or the complete lack of any writing skills evident in most games are a blight on gaming. The same is true of the pursuit of swanky, shiny graphics. Physics could be interesting if the game was designed to utilise them in it's core gameplay and not just another 'feature' to tick off on the back of the box.

Call me crazy or a radical, but physics, graphics, sound design, story-telling et al. are secondary, if not tertiary. Surely the key factor is if the game is actually fun to play, if indeed it plays at all?

BoyBach
Apr 14, 2007, 03:52 AM
Graphics/Physics/Storyline...This thread is to ask what means most to you as next gen is upon us.

...and because of that it shouldn't be compared. How can you compare Smooth Moves to Gears.


No offence, but with comments/thoughts like these I hope that you are never involved in any games that I play in the future.

Sparky8
Apr 14, 2007, 04:59 AM
No offence, but with comments/thoughts like these I hope that you are never involved in any games that I play in the future.

i'm sorry but what?????

pcypert
Apr 14, 2007, 05:03 AM
I'm just odd...games have always been as much about graphics and experience as the gameplay....they go hand in hand. For me, most games these days have pretty decent story lines and gameplay...the costs of creating a game are so much that all games have a fair amount of development in them (the big ones...not the movie port type games).

Besides this NO game these days has that radical a change in gameplay. I played the NES with the power glove so wagging something isn't really new. There are very few genres and all have been done so many times over at this point. There's such minor changes over the years, but people blow them up and say they are crazy changes, but aren't really.

I'm still entertained though and still love playing games. So all things considered I want it to involve me visually as much as story, gameplay. Doesn't have to be photo-real to pull me in, but it needs as much time put into the visuals, because there's just as much gameplay in a text line game as a graphic one and we're all choosing graphic based consoles :)

Paul

GFLPraxis
Apr 14, 2007, 10:33 AM
I don't care the slightest about graphics. But I LOVE physics. Realistic animation and reactions are where it's at.

Chone
Apr 14, 2007, 10:44 AM
You guys are missing the whole point about physics! Advancement in physics will bring new ways of play (simple games can have complex physics models and still be fun and simple) take a loot at Blast Miner for example, a simple game with great gameplay because it has a great physics system or games like Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander where every projectile is calculated, tanks move realistically and take appropiate damage based on where they are hit, it makes the game more fun because you have a lot more to deal with and makes you feel like you are really playing a war and not a complex rock paper scissors game.

And that is only with RTS, think about the uses you can give to physics in an action game, imagine being able to destroy the enviroment at will and use it for attacking your enemies (for example a superhero game). Racing games can get more fun with dirt that behaves like real dirt or crashes that tear up circuit and cars in a more fun way (watching crashes is fun in Burnout but it could be even funner with more realistic physics). Simulation racing games will only get better (and don't go around saying sim games are not fun because I've had tons of fun with GT3/GT4 and so have other people).

Have you even looked at Force Unleashed? It's using physics not only for aesthetic or realism purposes but for GAMEPLAY additions... Physics can change a lot about a way a game is played by making it dynamic and letting you interact with your enviroment. And Blast Miner (and to a point Elebits) has proved that simple games can also become entirely new experiences just because of physics.

I honestly believe physics are going to be the revolution in this generation, the possibilities are mind boggling. I don't like pretty graphics as much especially when things are so static and plastic looking, physics can make a PS2 game look fantastic simply because everything moves so beautifully, so you see, physics are also a way of making the experience more interactive, more immersive and more fun.

Trying seeing physics as an extension and essential part of gameplay not an extension to graphics :p

Dagless
Apr 14, 2007, 11:35 AM
You probably missed the lectures on making games *too* realistic.

Okay, you're in WW2 in some tank. Well you could just blow up houses and trundle through the wreckage and beat the game. Or you could play it how games work, in that a player is forced into a corridor or somewhere they can't just shoot through/bulldoze to test their skills and get better at the game.

A great example would be the later half of Half Life 2 with the RPG. You have a rocket launcher that in theory could blast through a wall. So why not forget the level design and just clear a path through the houses or that town-hall looking place?

Like you said - this will make sims better. Games are not sims. You can't just blow through a wall and reach the goal, you press A to use a health pack, you get shot countless times, you jump much higher than in real life, firing bullets doesn't make the player go deaf... Games are games and sims are sims. Wonder why the only "sim" genres span into racing and flying and not "fun" genres?

zap2
Apr 14, 2007, 12:26 PM
BTW i don't really see the wii as either last or next, more current gen. The price and type of gmes are just far too different to that of the PS3 and 360. Its a second console, which isnt a shameful thing, and because of that it shouldn't be compared. How can you compare Smooth Moves to Gears.

Well the Wii is a currant gen sysystem...just like ps3 and xbox 360. Lower price is a good thing and WW:SS isn't a type of game u compare to GoW...but Metriod P3 is...u wouldn`t compare Viva Pinta to LoZ:TP, would u?

Dagless
Apr 14, 2007, 12:58 PM
BTW i don't really see the wii as either last or next, more current gen. The price and type of gmes are just far too different to that of the PS3 and 360. Its a second console, which isnt a shameful thing, and because of that it shouldn't be compared. How can you compare Smooth Moves to Gears.

Easy - WarioWare is addictively fun, GoW is a long pace game. That's how you compare. I couldn't be bothered learning the controls for GoW so my gaming ended whilst I took the tutorial path at the start. Nothing pulled me in. Wario Ware pulled me in with the ridiculousness the game possesses. The humour and easy controls brought in my friends and family whilst my bro sat up in his room alone on GoW.

It's a second console? I know there was a lot of prediction and speculation about the Wii coming in first place because of it's "second console" styling. Has this come into fruition? Seems to me (again this is just from my personal experience) in the UK that it's more the army of non-gamers rather than people getting one to sit alongside a 360 or PS3. How can something this insanely fun to play and addictive be second to a system as lacklustre as a PS3?

greatdevourer
Apr 14, 2007, 01:10 PM
It depends on the type of game. For example, take 2 of my favourite franchises - Unreal Tournament and Final Fantasy. Physics have no ground in a Final Fantasy game, as a RPG, whereas Unreal Tournament doesn't even contemplate the concept of story.

Sparky8
Apr 14, 2007, 01:29 PM
Easy - WarioWare is addictively fun, GoW is a long pace game. That's how you compare. I couldn't be bothered learning the controls for GoW so my gaming ended whilst I took the tutorial path at the start. Nothing pulled me in. Wario Ware pulled me in with the ridiculousness the game possesses. The humour and easy controls brought in my friends and family whilst my bro sat up in his room alone on GoW.

It's a second console? I know there was a lot of prediction and speculation about the Wii coming in first place because of it's "second console" styling. Has this come into fruition? Seems to me (again this is just from my personal experience) in the UK that it's more the army of non-gamers rather than people getting one to sit alongside a 360 or PS3. How can something this insanely fun to play and addictive be second to a system as lacklustre as a PS3?

The wii is not in the same market as the ps3 and 360, that has to be obvious. Its price point and motion controls place it away from the other 2, You cant compare a 3rd party game anymore because its so vastly different. Im not saying this is a bad thing and im not saying it will be a failure (because it wont) im just saying it how it is. Its intellogent in truth, multi plat games have rarely prospered on the cube so it was intelligent to go down this path

From what ive seen around me (obviously cant be said for everyone) peope who buy the wii seem to be those who buy a 360 or ps3 anyway. Non gamers dont generally buy a wii, they just play it.

Your opinion is subjective when compring the PS3, you dont like it (i like all 3 consoles) but that doesnt ake the wii better, its different.

As my sig says i own a 360 and a wii just to be clear.

Mr. Anderson
Apr 14, 2007, 01:39 PM
I don't see physics as the way of the future - sure, its nice to have all things fall/explode/react realistically, but after a while, no matter how much you blow things up, etc. what's going to keep you interested in playing the game?

Its the storyline - but more than that as well. AI is going to be huge, interactivity and the ability of the game to adapt as you play. Why do you think online gaming is so big? Because you're playing against other gamers who are doing their own thing. So for single player gaming, good adaptive game play will be the way to go.

D

Chone
Apr 14, 2007, 02:38 PM
And you are still missing the point! :)

I'm not talking about realistic physics, that was just an example that would work (and does work) for some RTS.

I was talking about complex physics models where you can create amazing stuff for your game to be wacky/fun/real/whatever.

You guys are not getting me at all... and honestly I don't know how to explain myself anymore.

Ever played the Lobby map in Red Faction? Did you ever drill holes in the walls to ambush people and create tunnels? Now imagine that on a much grander scale and you can get an idea of how much fun cool physics can make a game. Think Geo-Mod but much more interactive and free.

If I think of a good example I'll post it here but good physics does not necessarily mean realism.

And by the way, who says sim games are not fun? And realism CAN make a game more fun just as long as it doesn't get in the way of gameplay (for example being able to use medkits for instant health gratification or taking tons of shots) but still be real in how bullets and explosives affect the enviroment for example.

Open up your mind and let your imagination flow!:)

BoyBach
Apr 14, 2007, 04:12 PM
i'm sorry but what?????


(I was extremely grouchy this morning and I'm sorry for my wording (maybe), but not my message.)

What I meant was that you want to get involved in the management of the development of videogames, yet you seem to think that new/next-gen gaming will be about graphics, physics and story-telling. I disagree passionately because the 'rules' of what raises a game from merely 'good' to 'exceptional' is the 'gameplay', the 'rules', the 'design' - level design, art direction etc. - the 'pace' and so on. Not multipass real-time procedural shading or ( :mad: ) interminable, un-skippable cut-scenes telling a badly written hackneyed story in glorious high definition.

As for your comments about not being able to compare Gears of War and WarioWare: Smooth Moves: if you cannot critically compare acclaimed games of different genres do you really think that a career in videogame development is for you?

Vidd
Apr 14, 2007, 04:29 PM
And you are still missing the point! :)

I'm not talking about realistic physics, that was just an example that would work (and does work) for some RTS.

I was talking about complex physics models where you can create amazing stuff for your game to be wacky/fun/real/whatever.
Open up your mind and let your imagination flow!:)

I really agree with you here! :)
It's a good sign when the physics engine in a game can be applied to other things. For example the Adventure mode of SSBM where it ran like a platformer.
I know there are other examples!

JackAxe
Apr 14, 2007, 05:39 PM
Like I said, physics make the developer's job easier. :)

Just like it was for me in Maya when it comes to animating, since with a few simple assignments and tweaks of the provided variables, I can quickly animate a scene that would have been a time-consuming-nightmare with keyframing, and it always looks better.

<]=)

Dagless
Apr 14, 2007, 07:09 PM
Oh I do like a good physics engine. It's been months but I'm still tweaking the physics engine in Tormishire, not that there's a gravity gun or other gravity manipulation device short of pushing objects around.

It doesn't sound like Sparky8 is right for video game development. It just sounds like he loves certain games, not the actual development process. I mean it's great studying something you like but you have to know which end you'll be at when you graduate.

pcypert
Apr 14, 2007, 10:05 PM
No one is wrong here, but all are also not right. It really does take all three and then some...there's just dumb luck and voids in the market at the time and other stuff that also comes into play....like the current offerings on the 360 making Viva Pinata stand out so much.

Physics will become more important as everyone else starts nailing everything else. There's plenty of up and coming art directors, story editors, etc. Especially now that games are going into the millions for development, we're going to see more and more polish to the games, decent storylines (sorry but game story lines at best are still cheesy), solid graphics, etc...the physics will actually start to separate the games. The average consumer won't know what this is called or what makes these things possible, but it will actually start separating the games in the future.

And graphics will still be important for a large segment of the population. But art direction is king here because it doesn't have to be just photo real graphics. But you're foolish if you say graphics don't matter....there's a reason people are paying hundreds of dollars for consoles and not dropping 20 bucks on a D&D book or something...they want a visual gaming experience...not a mind wander.

Paul

JackAxe
Apr 14, 2007, 10:11 PM
Paul, you're clearly the most wrong of all of us, for just reiterating what all of us have already reiterated and smearing your opnion all over it. :p

<]=)

Dagless
Apr 14, 2007, 10:15 PM
Oh no one is saying graphics don't matter, but I personally don't like the side effects that come with them - increased game cost, increased system cost to cope with new graphics, lengthened game dev time and game load time.

Personally I think the PS3/360 are a little before their times. I was under the impression the 360 would always be outputting 1080i regardless, and the PS3 at 1080p regardless. I just think it would be much better all round if there was a lower ceiling resolution to get games running smoothly. I think the only smooth game from start to finish I've played on any HD system is Hexic :p

Kingsly
Apr 15, 2007, 01:23 AM
Personally, games like GRAW provide me an excellent balance of physics, graphics, and storyline. The only complaint is that the AI of my teamates suck. :(

It's a delicate balance. Storyline is the most important to me... reinforce the excellent story with beautiful graphics and realistic physics and one is bound to become drawn into the game!

GFLPraxis
Apr 15, 2007, 03:47 AM
You probably missed the lectures on making games *too* realistic.

Okay, you're in WW2 in some tank. Well you could just blow up houses and trundle through the wreckage and beat the game. Or you could play it how games work, in that a player is forced into a corridor or somewhere they can't just shoot through/bulldoze to test their skills and get better at the game.

A great example would be the later half of Half Life 2 with the RPG. You have a rocket launcher that in theory could blast through a wall. So why not forget the level design and just clear a path through the houses or that town-hall looking place?

Like you said - this will make sims better. Games are not sims. You can't just blow through a wall and reach the goal, you press A to use a health pack, you get shot countless times, you jump much higher than in real life, firing bullets doesn't make the player go deaf... Games are games and sims are sims. Wonder why the only "sim" genres span into racing and flying and not "fun" genres?


Nobody said the physics had to be realistic.

I want to play Rogue Squadron 4 or 5 or 6 someday in the future and have 10,000 TIE fighters vs 10,000 X-Wings all at once while a Star Destroyer explodes and blows debris that has to be individually dodged all over the place.

I don't care if it works the same way as it does in real life or not :)

But mainly I care about animation more than anything else. But that really just comes down to talent. Look at how well animated the Kingdom Hearts games are; I get more in to the game than many 360 games with far more realistic-looking people and technically superior graphics, because the way the characters look and move and feel looks so much better. And I don't necessarily mean I want physics to make people look more REALISTIC. I loved how physics were implemented in Super Mario Sunshine for the water, and I can't wait to see how physics could be used in future Zelda games. And Star Fox.

Sparky8
Apr 15, 2007, 04:02 AM
(I was extremely grouchy this morning and I'm sorry for my wording (maybe), but not my message.)

What I meant was that you want to get involved in the management of the development of videogames, yet you seem to think that new/next-gen gaming will be about graphics, physics and story-telling. I disagree passionately because the 'rules' of what raises a game from merely 'good' to 'exceptional' is the 'gameplay', the 'rules', the 'design' - level design, art direction etc. - the 'pace' and so on. Not multipass real-time procedural shading or ( :mad: ) interminable, un-skippable cut-scenes telling a badly written hackneyed story in glorious high definition.

As for your comments about not being able to compare Gears of War and WarioWare: Smooth Moves: if you cannot critically compare acclaimed games of different genres do you really think that a career in videogame development is for you?

Did i say all thats involved is the three listed? No. If i asked whats better wine/beer/vodka does that mean i think whisky doesnt exist? of course not.

Ive just spent some time at Lionhead Studios, ive been accepted into one of the best game universities in the world, im fully aware of what other aspects are involved in dvelopment.

Chone
Apr 15, 2007, 10:02 AM
Nobody said the physics had to be realistic.

I want to play Rogue Squadron 4 or 5 or 6 someday in the future and have 10,000 TIE fighters vs 10,000 X-Wings all at once while a Star Destroyer explodes and blows debris that has to be individually dodged all over the place.

I don't care if it works the same way as it does in real life or not :)

But mainly I care about animation more than anything else. But that really just comes down to talent. Look at how well animated the Kingdom Hearts games are; I get more in to the game than many 360 games with far more realistic-looking people and technically superior graphics, because the way the characters look and move and feel looks so much better. And I don't necessarily mean I want physics to make people look more REALISTIC. I loved how physics were implemented in Super Mario Sunshine for the water, and I can't wait to see how physics could be used in future Zelda games. And Star Fox.

Thank you GLFPraxis, that was my point about physics and your rogue squadron example illustrates it adequately.

takao
Apr 15, 2007, 12:59 PM
i would like to have realistic physics.. i really do .. the problem is that realism has very little impact on games sales

what are the flying _game_ references now ? Lock On, Falcon 4.0 and Il-2 Sturmovik and their add ons ? which got released when ? how many realistic combat games are upcoming ? 1 ? 2 ?

with ships it's even worse.. what's left ? Silent Hunter IV ? (which has been as all others again a smash hit here) and SH4 was a few times close to getting canceled too

Tank simulation games: gone long ago


i would be happy if shooters actually had realistic grenades: dead zone of standard hand grenade without cover: 10 meter radius
potentional heavy injury radius: 100 meters

and so on and so on

Chone
Apr 15, 2007, 01:51 PM
i would like to have realistic physics.. i really do .. the problem is that realism has very little impact on games sales

what are the flying _game_ references now ? Lock On, Falcon 4.0 and Il-2 Sturmovik and their add ons ? which got released when ? how many realistic combat games are upcoming ? 1 ? 2 ?

with ships it's even worse.. what's left ? Silent Hunter IV ? (which has been as all others again a smash hit here) and SH4 was a few times close to getting canceled too

Tank simulation games: gone long ago


i would be happy if shooters actually had realistic grenades: dead zone of standard hand grenade without cover: 10 meter radius
potentional heavy injury radius: 100 meters

and so on and so on

Please read the whole thread before commenting.

takao
Apr 15, 2007, 03:36 PM
Please read the whole thread before commenting.

i did and we thought we were talking about physics

and i for some reason would really like _realistic_ physics for once since now we have enough computation power but we get "more enemies, more effects" for it mostly.. unless it's the "see the barrels roll around" stuff or how dead corpses fly through the air

physics are a fashionable word at the moment but so far i haven't really seen much beyond "hollywood physics"

you know like in ww2 shooters where enemy tanks always required you to hit it 3 times with a bazooka no matter _where_ you hit it (or take some other number as 3 )
or how the enemy tank is in no aspect handicapped if hit by bazooka.. it's either destroyed or in full working condition unless of course it's part of the pre scripted storyline to have some handicapped tank
and it's even worse with cover: why do games copy hollywood with it's "trees are cover" and "helmets protect you from gun fire" physics ?

JackAxe
Apr 15, 2007, 04:37 PM
I enjoy some of these Hollywood titles as much as the next peep, but playing Falcon 4.0 with my friend linked at MCGA was more realistic than anything I've tried as of late. I bought the Novalogic collectors set a few years back and all of their included games were complete cheese compared to the first Commanche. Almost all games these days are just tooo arcade-ish. If I'm not expecting this type of play, it bothers me.

Rambling some more and kind of related to your comments:
I got so mad when I first played BF1942 and my friend in his Sherman shot me once and my Panzer exploded. I yelled out some profanity, because I had just watched a documentry about the Panzer's armor. :o I was a big fan of M-1 Abraham when I was younger.

<]=)

GFLPraxis
Apr 15, 2007, 09:25 PM
and i for some reason would really like _realistic_ physics for once since

Realistic physics? Okay, cool. When you take ONE bullet you die, or are severely handicapped (barely able to walk, or not able to aim properly) and die from bleeding shortly thereafter. There is no way to heal without quitting the battle.

When you clip a wall in a flying game, your wing is ripped clean off, no damage meter.

When someone hits you with a sword attack, you die instantly.

If you are hit with a flame attack, your clothes catch on fire and you die.

Does any of this sound fun? Games aren't realistic. Nor are they mean to be.

savar
Apr 15, 2007, 11:00 PM
Im a new new Mac owner but a long time gamer and set to do the game production mnagement course at Abertay Dundee University-Just heads up on me.

This thread is to ask what means most to you as next gen is upon us. Improved graphics like we've seen in Gears, intelligent physics like what's being implemented into Force Unleashed or a good ol storyline be in Linear or not but keeps you gripped better than a film or book could ever do.

There are so few games with good storylines that it's not even worth thinking about. I think when games get mainstream enough that everybody plays them, then (and only then) will people really turn them into an art form.

Graphics are getting pretty good, physics is definitely the next big thing. GPU, meet PPU. I would like to see computer AI get better too.

savar
Apr 15, 2007, 11:02 PM
Realistic physics? Okay, cool. When you take ONE bullet you die, or are severely handicapped (barely able to walk, or not able to aim properly) and die from bleeding shortly thereafter. There is no way to heal without quitting the battle.

When you clip a wall in a flying game, your wing is ripped clean off, no damage meter.

When someone hits you with a sword attack, you die instantly.

If you are hit with a flame attack, your clothes catch on fire and you die.

Does any of this sound fun? Games aren't realistic. Nor are they mean to be.

That has more to do with biology than physics...I don't really see your point.

pcypert
Apr 15, 2007, 11:06 PM
Playing multiplayer 007 with one hit kills was a lot of fun. I'd actually love a game that required lots of stealth, planning of attack and you could actually die with one shot. Maybe not everygame...but a nice realistic shooter here and there would be great. Just another way to add some tension to the gameplay...sure with one shot kills you can't single-handedly take down an entire army :) but it'd still be a fun play.

I loved in Crackdown and GeOW being able to shoot folks in the arms or legs and make them unable to move or shoot...it did add something to my enjoyment of the game.

Paul

JackAxe
Apr 15, 2007, 11:41 PM
That was a great part of 007. I had forgot about that until I fired up my n64 the other month and noticed it was substantially better than Red Steel when it came to gameplay. It's good to hear newer games are finally taking the time to implement the old ways. I've only seen GeoW, can you lean around coners and fire? If yes, are there varying degrees of leaning, so crouch and standing?

<]=)

GFLPraxis
Apr 16, 2007, 12:49 AM
That has more to do with biology than physics...I don't really see your point.

A wing being ripped off when it barely scrapes a rock at 500 MPH is physics, not biology. Fire burning is physics, not biology. Bullets piercing human skin more physics.

Vinnie_vw
Apr 16, 2007, 02:12 AM
My favourite game of all time is Indigo Prophecy, aka Fahrenheit. And I've played a fair amount of games in the last 20 years. It combines great story-lines with innovative game-manipulation techniques and convincing graphics. It plays like a movie, but one you create.

Great stuff, make more like those.

takao
Apr 16, 2007, 02:53 AM
Does any of this sound fun? Games aren't realistic. Nor are they mean to be.

i don't want all games to have only realistic physics

what i want is adjustable realism options in _more_ games like it is standard in mentioned flying games

i want more choice not less


and why is getting his wing ripped off when flying at 500 something not entertaining .. it is in il 2 ... where you can after you use up all your ammunition use it if you want to ram another plane.. though surviving that is quite hard ;)

or going into a dive with me109 in multiplayer being followed by a hurricane only to see a few moments later the hurricane getting their wings ripped off or pulling up really close and seeing the following plane being too late and smashing to the ground


i played fahrenheit too and i hated it like no other game before because it was like a movie which was disappointing after all the praise it got before by critics which sadly are often biased toward movie like games

to sum it up again: i want more choice in physics not less...

whooleytoo
Apr 16, 2007, 06:45 AM
There isn't any one correct answer to this. If you're making an adventure/explorative game then the storyline and graphics (in which I would include the art direction) are paramount. If you're making an action/arcade game, then the physics and level design are most important.

Just like the movies - the type of movie you're making will determine (or be determined by.. ;) ) the areas you concentrate on - storyline, art direction, action sequences, method actors or "big names".

One area that rarely gets enough attention in my view is sound & music in gaming. For me, sound = mood. The sound effects and background music sets the mood & ambience the game is played in. Too often, games just add in loud bass heavy rock tracks with no connection with what's on screen. Bungie are one of the best gaming studios for its use of sound & music. They know how to set the right tone, how to use the tempo of the music to determine the player's pace through the level and know how to use silence too to build the tension.

GFLPraxis
Apr 16, 2007, 09:42 PM
and why is getting his wing ripped off when flying at 500 something not entertaining .. it is in il 2 ... where you can after you use up all your ammunition use it if you want to ram another plane.. though surviving that is quite hard ;)



It's not fun because it makes the game frustrating. It's much more fun to have Burnout-like insane durability and ram your OPPONENTS into the walls (where in reality it would destroy your plane/car too).