Why wont game makers make a REAL GAME

[Zatrix]

Let me explain.

Im going to use Grand Theft Auto San Andreas as a example.

Why cant they make a game that is totally life like. In san andreas why cant you go to your home, Have your homies sitting in chairs, watching tv, why cant you sit down with them, have a chat convo with them. walk around the house. and chill with them

Why cant action games have real bullets and missles. When i shoot a missle in bf2 why cant the building be BLOWN UP. and not just have that stupid black burnt mark...... why cant i go into the aircraft carrier and talk to the commander.... you know REAL STUFF.


Its hard to explain you know? Im talking about why cant they implement every real feature just like real life. why cant i dig in the sand, lay down, play dead, laugh at fellow team mates. joke with them in the hellicopter, have a inside view of the hellicopter and adjust my equipment, why cant i have a inside view of the tank and look the at controls, why cant i do anything like i could in real life.

Again this is really hard to explain but i want a game that lets you do anything and everything. And dont say the sims because the sims suck and is fake. But the idea is there though

[boris_37]

simple because of 2 things:

A. the game would be a single level, 1/100 the size of any GTA game.

B. it would take forever to make, and it would be 1/100 the size, so it really wouldn't be worth it.

Understand? Until the technology comes out it's like asking for a 8 core 207ghz processor for $100... it won't happen

[FudgeNuggets]

Go "play" Second-Life.

[Krogen]

^^^

Also, the more stuff there is the harder it is to control. Simulation games are very hard to get into because there is so much to learn. And when the learning curve is so high, the game's just not fun.

[wa77ss]

Because REAL life has an infinite amount of variables :)

[Elif Tymes]

not infinite, just a number that is very high

[wa77ss]

Universe is expanding, infinite :D

[jivetrky]

Let me explain.

Im going to use Grand Theft Auto San Andreas as a example.

Why cant they make a game that is totally life like. In san andreas why cant you go to your home, Have your homies sitting in chairs, watching tv, why cant you sit down with them, have a chat convo with them. walk around the house. and chill with them

I think that would be an interesting idea. San Andreas already has many other ways to just "pass the time" I think this could be an interesting addition.

Why cant action games have real bullets and missiles. When i shoot a missile in bf2 why cant the building be BLOWN UP. and not just have that stupid black burnt mark...... why cant i go into the aircraft carrier and talk to the commander.... you know REAL STUFF.

As far as buildings and the environment being destructible, this is coming. Crysis and Unreal Tournament 2007, just to name 2, both have destructive environments. So it's definitely possible. I think in previous games, the Power and flexibility of the hardware and software just wasn't quite good enough for this to work (at least work well). If you've seen one of the demo videos for Crysis, you'll see then shooting down trees and stuff...it looks really awesome.
And as for things like the aircraft carrier having a crew and stuff in BF2, I think that is just a creative decision for gameplay. I think the main point of gameplay in BF2 is just squad based military fighting. There just wouldnt' be a point for it in that game. But I DO know what you mean by that, and I get that BF2 was just a quick example. I think the answer is just that the authors of the game choose to focus on other aspects of the game.


Its hard to explain you know? Im talking about why cant they implement every real feature just like real life. why cant i dig in the sand, lay down, play dead, laugh at fellow team mates. joke with them in the helicopter, have a inside view of the helicopter and adjust my equipment, why cant i have a inside view of the tank and look the at controls, why cant i do anything like i could in real life.

I think things like digging in the sand and stuff is just out of the grasp of the software and hardware technology. For that to work i think you would have to have each grain of sand be an individual object, which would be murder on any current hardware to render. (Bazillions of particles to render, not to mention their physics attributes, etc)
Again, the inside views of vehicles, I think is just a creative decision. They could do that, but they focus the gameplay on other things. And not to mention that it would be mighty hard to control a tank realistically when you are looking at it with a false 3D environment.
I really hope that SOME day, hopefully before I'm no longer interested in playing games, there will be games and systems that are more like virtual reality typed simulators. In which case i think these internal vehicle shots would almost be necessary to carry out the virtual effect.

Again this is really hard to explain but i want a game that lets you do anything and everything. And dont say the sims because the sims suck and is fake. But the idea is there though




But I DO get what you are saying and I agree. To further the realism, they need to have realistic situations. Some people will say, "But it's just a game, if you want reality, then stay in reality." But I say that I want it in a game, or at least as close as it can be. But I know that it's just not possible yet. So like I said, I hope it comes someday before I no longer care :)

[DareDevil_747]

Just wanted to add that in BF2, be glad that you can drive the tank and fire it at the same time... in reality (for the M1A1 Abrams tank), it takes 3 men just to do that. One man to drive the tank (driver), one man to fire it (gunner), and one man to load the 120mm rounds into the primary weapon (loader).. and optionally, a TC (tank commander) who is on top of the tank, watching everything going on and firing the 50 cal up there. I know this because I've been in one several times (served 3 years), wouldn't this totally ruin that game? How would you like being able to fire the tank's cannon, but not be able to control where the tank is going, etc? It's kind of like when someone else is driving the tank in-game, and all you can do is get on top of it and fire the 50 cal? Sucks doesn't it? Like jivetrky explained, sometimes gameplay is more important than being "real", because if all games had everything COMPLETELY based on reality... they wouldn't be as fun would they?

[rainless]

Let me explain.

Im going to use Grand Theft Auto San Andreas as a example.

Why cant they make a game that is totally life like. In san andreas why cant you go to your home, Have your homies sitting in chairs, watching tv, why cant you sit down with them, have a chat convo with them. walk around the house. and chill with them

Why cant action games have real bullets and missles. When i shoot a missle in bf2 why cant the building be BLOWN UP. and not just have that stupid black burnt mark...... why cant i go into the aircraft carrier and talk to the commander.... you know REAL STUFF.


Its hard to explain you know? Im talking about why cant they implement every real feature just like real life. why cant i dig in the sand, lay down, play dead, laugh at fellow team mates. joke with them in the hellicopter, have a inside view of the hellicopter and adjust my equipment, why cant i have a inside view of the tank and look the at controls, why cant i do anything like i could in real life.

Again this is really hard to explain but i want a game that lets you do anything and everything. And dont say the sims because the sims suck and is fake. But the idea is there though

You gotta go outside man. Experience REAL LIFE. You want real life through a game? Why not just go knock over a liquor store or two? (Do NOT do this really. 'Cuz last time...) You'll never beat the force feedback you'll get.

Why would I sit around for hours watching CJ and his homies watch TV? I already gotta watch him driving and listening to the radio. I already gotta watch him and Woozie playing video games. How much of my time do I need him to take? It took me forever to increase that fool's lung capacity. I maxed out his muscle mass the second day I had the game. Now there's not even anything to do at the gym.

You gotta take it easy man. Get a girlfriend and invent your OWN games :beer:

[Krogen]

Oh, about those destructive environments, anyone remember Red Faction?? Oh man, THAT was fun!!

[Mr.Guvernment]

shipping now GTA:Go Nuts availible now on 500 DVD"s!!!

[Shadowhawk109]

Personally, I find that once a game reaches a certain point of realism, it no longer becomes fun. For example, lets say you are playing CS:S for the FIRST time EVER after playing years of Halo or Halo 2. You're used to having shields and surviving sniper rifles and stuff like that (good example being a battle rifle being able to kill someone with a full clip to the chest).

Now you're playing CS:S:
And suddently, someone nails you in the chest with a three-shot burst from an AK and kills you instantly. Where's the fun in that?

I'm not gonna lie-I would love fully destructive enviroments...but realistically, in games like Halo or Call of Duty, when half the map is covered in debris from the destroyed building, the map becomes non-navigatable. Where's the fun in that?

Also, building on "life-like is not fun", the first time I played FEAR I practically wet myself. And this wasnt OMG THIS GAME IS FREAKIN AMAZING wet myself. This was OMG WTF WAS THAT THAT JUST CAME OUT OF NOWHERE wet myself. Nothings fun about wetting yourself. Granted, FEAR is a fun game...but when it gets too spooky to enjoy, then it's not enjoyable. Seems like common sense to me.

Admitally, I scare easily, and it PROBABLY wasnt a good idea to be playing FEAR for the first time ever at 3:00AM... d'oh!

My $0.02.

[Neural Net]

Most of the things you're asking for are on their way. For example look at the trailers of Half Life 2 : Episode 2 and you'll see a house been blown apart by a Strider. The hardware to calculate and render building damage is just about here, (if a game utilizes more than one core). Crysis also has destructible environments such as jungle, but I don't know about the buildings. Red Faction had destructible terrain but it was highly unrealistic, (blowing a 4 foot deep hole in the ground takes some pretty special hardware, as most of the force on an explosion will just dissipate into the atmosphere rather than the ground...)

Also, the content you want, would take a huge amount of hours to complete, especially with current game developer tools, the cost would also be too high to justify. So that part isn't really feasible.

[Zatrix]

There's a difference between a cgi explosion blowing a house apart and a literally ingame constant barrage of houses/buildings being blown apart.

[Neural Net]

You talking about Episode 2? I thought it was a house was made entirely out of wood and therefore destructible through the havok physics engine. :shrug: Well we're not too far off the 'real thing' anyway. Well, when everyone gets a four core processor at least. :beer:

[jack222]

Do you understand the amount of coding that would take? Yes, there are military simulations that do exactly what you want. Why dont we have them? its expensive and more time consuming then you think.

Just not cost effective for game makers.

[Shadowhawk109]

There's a difference between a cgi explosion blowing a house apart and a literally ingame constant barrage of houses/buildings being blown apart.

Think about it this way-a house exploding means every piece of that house has to be charted as it falls, then the surrounding scenary would have to be ajusted to allow the "new" scenery to fit in/be added.

THUS, with just ONE building being destroyed (using Call of Duty CtF as an example) the scenery could be ruined-a corridor of houses could be blockaded off with no way of moving the problem. While this would promote on-the-fly stratagy changes and better teamwork, the risk of ALL ways to the enemy flag would be made, which means that no one could win. BOOORING. Bad.

Even on a larger scale map without corridors, the n00bs using rocket launchers to level the house you're hiding in would kinda suck, no? And the houses would still crush your tank that you waited forever to respawn with, and the houses could STILL blockade half the level.

Sounds to me like a compromise is needed-some houses can be blown up, some can't. This would allow for:

1) Easier charting of physics and results
2) No un-beatable and thus boring maps
3) Fair(er) gameplay that results in a group of n00bz being unable to rocket the house you are sniping from from the inside out.

To make this better, randomize the houses that can be blown up. That way new stratagies will still be developed, and the paths can't be blocked. Certain houses in specific will be blown up, but in a planned, preprogrammed set (like 2 houses on opposite sides of the map can't be blown up to blockade the map).

Fair?

/rant.

[hitbyaprkedcar7]

It would take such a redicilous amount of software challenges, and time, and such a redicilous amount of hardware requirments, that i dont think its phsycialy possible right now to create a game like that.

By the time you got done coding a beach, new hardware would be out and you would have to recode it. It would take forever and never get finished with how fast technology is advancing and how long it takes to create a game.

[Krogen]

By the time you got done coding a beach, new hardware would be out and you would have to recode it. It would take forever and never get finished with how fast technology is advancing and how long it takes to create a game.

Hehe... Reminds me of Duke Nukem Forver. FOREVER. lol

[orionlion82]

first thought. you dont have to define each individual grain of sand.
first off, lets just pick 3 states of sand to define.
"wet"
"moist"
"dry"
you just define sand as a "stuff" like a single physical object. or really three...
and make a pattern of tiles on it across the map.

okay, now you want to dig in it.
lets define "you" the charecter in the game.
hands? fingers? shovel? bucket?
ummm....
gravity. wind speed. temperature. humidity. solar radiation.

even in general terms, its hard to realistically build a sandcastle in a game, or watch it get washed away by the tides. or collapse from lack of moisture, or get blown away. ever tried to dig a hole in dry sand? .

okay, so the wind is blowing. hard. what - do you loose health and vision from sand getting into your eyes or what?
and where exactly are you a beach or the sahara?

games are most fun when in a very narrow, limited universe.
everything that needs to be defined is - and then you fall off the edge of the world. or at least bump into it.

descent:freespace and freespace two is a perfect example of this.
its VERY narrow and confining, but the licence redeems it because not only was the licence sane from the start, but apparently its now opensource...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freespace

you can still find freespace in bargian bins and ive actually played the freespace 2 demo literally countless times.
games are for fun.
reality is not allways fun.

[jivetrky]

I just don't see how you guys think that adding more realism would take away the fun... ? I dunno, just difference of what is fun I guess. To me a dumbed down environment isn't what makes it fun. HL2 was probably the best game I've played...since, well probably HL1, because of the great physics and the puzzles that were brought on by that. I mean if you were trapped in a room that had a window too high to reach, but there were several boxes in the room, wouldn't you stack them up to try to get out? It just adds to the game IMO.


And someone said something about halos gaming style being better than CS ....I'd say ppl don't agree since CS is the most popular FPS game there is. Because you can't take 50 bullets just means you have to play differently, use your head a bit, that kinda stuff.

[TUK101]

Well, HL2 has a pretty destructive environment, it impressed me with how well things worked. But as far as making real life out of a game, well why not just get a kick out of your own life? Do you mean something like The SIMS with violence? And in some games, you really cannot blow up a building for good since it serves too big of a purpose for the scenario that you are playing. Also, most of what you are asking would require waaaay too much from your computer. Usually the more interactive a game is, the more load times that there are and the more pauses and the more that we as the player complain about it, so there is the majority of your questions answered with my own honest opinions.

[Neuromancer]

"the n00bs using rocket launchers"....

Someone pointed out rocket launchers taking out snipers nests would suck.

I completely disgree. Destructive environment would vastly improve the game. Way back when Mortal Kombat was king there were people that were msters of cheep moves. Sniping is no different. Without the abilityto bringthe roof down over the snipers head they hold too much an advantage. Not realistic at all.

COD2... you cant hide in a window against the computer because they call in tanks that blow up the walls or shoot through them, player vs player its not that way.

I understand that its complicated to do. However the physics engine was created so that this type of scenario could be achieved much easier then having to map every building and its destruction sequence.

JMHO

[jivetrky]

Ugh....why does everyone's answer have to be "why do you want to make a game realistic, can't you just live your real life"
For the love of god, just because I want to play a REALISTIC game for a couple of hours after working all day and being with the family in "Real Life" does that mean that my "real life" isn't good enough?

Maybe some of you are happy just firing up a game of ole windows solitaire...but I'd prefer to use my "escape" time playing a sophisticated, realistic, un-dumb game.

[Sir. BOBSONATOR]

How about this, walk outside, and pretend like you are playing san andreas, steal a car or two, then try to get six stars.

[>HyperlogiK<]

:)

[freakdiablo]

Even though an ultra-realistic game would be kind of neat for a while atleast, it would be stupid in some aspects.

1. the price would be really high, since the designers/writers put so much time into it
2. like stated before, the system demands will be extreme. first, the size of the files will be enormous, the codes got to be somewhere. then youve got the cpu, gpu, and possibly ppu demands. If your walking down a beach, and the wind blows, your computer would have to proccess how every grain of sand would have to react.

[jivetrky]

But those reasons are only there because todays hardware couldn't handle something like that. But future hardware will. And I think whenever we get there, the games won't cost as much becuase that will be the norm. Just think of the ole NES games compared to say, oblivion or even something like Crysis.

Since I was only like 5 when the NES was popular, I don't know exactly what they cost back then..but I'm guessing it was like $40 (someone jump in there) or so....compared to the ~$60 that current games cost (XBox360)
According to an inflation calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) I used, that $40 game then, would cost $74 today. And the amount of information is obviously dramatically increased. But the game authors can't just charge more and more for their work otherwise ppl just wouldn't buy it. Their goal is to make the game desireable so MANY people buy it and they make their money back because of the volume of sales.

I think that the ultimate goal for game developers is to have a tool which would let them create the game more easily. Like someone makes an engine and then many other developers license that engine to make their game (ie the Unreal Engine).

So it's not so much that the game would be too expensive to develop. And certainly games like this couldn't/wouldn't happen until hardware was capable, but I think it will happen...someday.

I really think that a totally new idea for game development will come that will allow all of this uber realism without so much work. But that's just a longshot hope/idea. :)

[Daleon]

There was $60 NES games, many were $50. PC games back then were really expensive to. So prices haven't inflated much at all.

Your argument is fairly off though. "todays hardware couldn't handle something like that. But future hardware will." So you want a game today that won't be playable until future hardware comes out? How far into the future are you talking about this hardware being available? What hardware exactly are you talking about?

As the hardware gets better, the games will get better. But there is no serious lack of hardware power limiting gaming. What your basically asking for is Artificial Inteligence. A game that will re-act on the fly to whatever input you give it. It doesn't exist. It won't exist for quite a long time. And even when it does, gaming will not be the first thing its used for. I wouldn't even hope to see it in your lifetime.

As far as gaming worlds, destructable environments, better phsyics, etc. Thats all been here and there and getting better as time goes by. I'm sure in 10 years games will be in a whole new world and will have shifted into directions no one can imagine right now. So the best you can do is enjoy the games you have now and go out and buy a Wii when its available. :)

[jivetrky]

In saying, "todays hardware couldn't handle something like that. But future hardware will." what I was trying to say was that some of the things the OP was saying he wanted in games just isn't quite there yet. And by hardware in the future I mean that hopefully within 10 years CPUs and GPUs will be advanced enough to be able to handle on the fly, semi-realistic AI, being able to draw bazillions of particles on the screen at once (at acceptable rates of course), having an accurate physical game world, etc.

Wow, NES games were that much? Thanks Mom and Dad. :) It's amazing that the game prices haven't changed that much and even the Console prices (considering the Wii will be so cheap).
I'm a semi-console hater...but the Wii seems almost intersting to me. While the 360 and PS3 will have all the graphics and etc. that I am normally drawn to, the Wii seems to have that intuitive factor that is quite interesting to me (Just as long as I don't play in the sunlight, according to a few articles I've read :))

[Krogen]

It will always be semi-realistic, no matter what. I mean, WE are not made out of polygons, are we? Even though it seems we're getting closer and closer to a photorealism, a PC rendering polygons will never make it there.

[jivetrky]

Well I'm not expecting to sit down at my PC and not be able to tell the difference between it and the real world (At least not until a direct brain interface allows for it :)), but there are just certain things in games that I think, that if they were in there, would make the game a little more, I don't know...complete? Fun? I'm not sure of the right word to use, but I think you get what I'm saying.

Like take for instance Oblivion. That game is Awesome, and definitely one of my favorites. And of course with a story line of mythical creatures and magic, etc. I'm not expecting it to seem "real" to me...but things like going up to a guard and having them say one of 5-10 programmed responses gets a bit annoying after a while and kind of takes you out of that imaginary world you are playing in. But I understand that the level of AI required to tailor responses evertime would be quite high, and possibly higher than current CPUs could handle.

While I understand (and agree) that there are certain things left out of the game for practicality (Such as the tank driving in BF2 that DareDevil_747 was talking about), there are other things that I think should be in there to keep you in that immersive state.

[zexmarquies01]

Meh, i'm personally don't care about being able to do everything in real life. I just have a few things that i believe most games should have.

1 - YOU CAN JUMP!!!!

2 - YOU CAN JUMP OVER THAT LOG!

3- YOU CAN REACH THAT WALL!, THE LOG IS NOT THE END OF THE MAP!

4- In games that are resident evil type, WHY CAN'T WE JUST KICK DOWN THAT 80 YEAR OLD WOODEN DOOR THAT IS ROTTING?? Noooo, we have to go around and find some 80 year old key thats on the other part of town. Then the second you get INTO that door, A monster jumps in through the window, from the location you was JUST AT!. BLARG!.

or in a game like resident evil, You spend 2 hours killing, finding keys, so you can unlock a gate, walk though an alley, to get to a room that a total of less than 300 feet from where you was originally at!. Is it THAT hard to climb a gate???

and does EVERY SINGLE door HAVE to have a key? I know research buildings ( suchs as seen in metal gear games ) require key-cards. thats understandable. extremly important stuff in in those rooms, hence their locked and someone has the key. But other times, your in the middle of a town, and come to some 80+ year old house, and yet the key is on the other side of the map, hidden on a SHELF!.

In resident evil, if you heard someone scream, and a zombie walk by a LARGE WINDOW, wouldn't the first idea be, break the window with a chair, a table, or SOMETHING, and climb through it? instead of spending an hour finding a key?

Just little things like that annoy the hell out of me. But personally, i don't really like the whole " go find this key, And figure out 15 puzzles in this level " style games to much, unless the fighting gameplay makes up for it.


And yes, Red Faction was a GREAT game. I needed a key to open a door, couldn't find it. So i took out my rocket launcher, And shot at the rock walls next to the door ( the door was in a mine shaft ), and blew out a tunnel that lead to the other side. That aspect of the game made me SO happy.

[pik4chu]

Some quick responses to a couple things I noticed.

While I would really love a destructive or atleast semi-destructive environment in games like COD2 (one of my most favorite games) it would still need a limit. However, one of my biggest annoyances with games are locked doors...the average wooden door could not stand against a clip from an MP4 let alone a rocket launcher, in games they do and it annoys the crap out of me, but alas thats just how it is.

FEAR, I loved that game because it scared the crap outa me the first time I played it but it did it with surprises and not just wonton gore (like Silent hill, which wasnt scary just disturbing).

As for going out and doing a RL GTA... http://www.jinx.com/scripts/details.asp?affid=-1&productID=324 heh


Game prices, the prices of games have gone up a little Xbox360/PS2 games when new are a bit more than the old school games were, now granted many popular old school games are painfuly pricy now (FF7 for the PS1 fetches 70-90bucks on ebay regularly) when they first came out they were a little less than today's games. (like about 40bucks for new SNES/PS1/Sega games).

Crysis, dont get me wrong that game looks freaking sweet, but blowing up trees is NOT considered a destructive environment, granted they have taken it up a level but even the original Turok for N64 had destructive trees ;)

[Speciale]

Operation Flashpoint 2...

yeah baby

[Neural Net]

Crysis, dont get me wrong that game looks freaking sweet, but blowing up trees is NOT considered a destructive environment, granted they have taken it up a level but even the original Turok for N64 had destructive trees ;)

Well yes but Turok had what, one tree? ;) It is a destructive environment, sure not fully, but seeing as all the trees in it can be shot down by a minigun and 90% of the level is jungle, I'd say that is a destructible environment, just not fully destructible. But then again, the buildings are probably rock solid. It'll be interesting how the jungle carnage translates into urban environments, if at all. :-/

BTW, the indestructible wooden door thing drives me nuts as well, especially when it is actually a path you can take, and you need a keycard or something. Of course shooting a door is an option, but it could be part of the game-play. For example, shooting the door open will alert who ever is in the room to a hostile presence, while opening it normally will give you a slight advantage against the AI. Accuracy would count as well, if you can blow the hinges off with charges or good shots, you may have the element of surprise, if you use an entire machine pistol clip then the enemies are going to be ready for you. :attn:

Also, if game developers actually did make a room behind every door, even if they serve no purpose, the time players might take to explore these parts of the levels, making levels less linear in the process, could increase the overall amount of game-play time and thus be another selling point. Then again some gamers could become hopelessly lost and frustrated with the game. :D

[XxNightfirexX]

From the video of Crysis I've seen, taken at E3, the buildings are also destructable in a pretty realistic fashion. The developer/rep/whoever he was, that was demonstrating the game showed not only the trees getting mowed down, but destroyed a small building with his minigun, grenades, and punching (yes, puching in "strength mode"). Now whether it will be all buildings, or just certain ones, that remains to be seen when the game comes out.

[Jotolicious]

i'm waiting until fully realisitic physics and fully destructible environments are realized in games. that will kick ass. i hope to see it in the next 10 years. :)

[Zatrix]

Games Like battlefield 2, GTA have so much potential to have destrcutable enviroments or more indoor features.

[Enablingwolf]

Isn't that the idea behind the physics cards? To offload some of the game elements to a dedicated processor.

If this was in the realm. Having a varied distructible enviroment woudl be possible.

For shooters in general.

A small arms can't do much.. A larger rifle like a nice browning can go through doors and thin walls. Get into the 50 cal and your going through thin stone walls and brick.

Tanks can do alot of damage, but cannot pass through anything. Would be nice to actually penatrate a wall. Then you might have a selection of rounds. AP would go through thicker structures, but not be as distructive.

Aircraft loosing to gravity would level most structures but hardend placemnts.

Bunkers could stand up to tanks and aircraft assults. Like in life to the degree they are built too.

Games are about how fast they can be produced. If there was a good engine to build on , the physics would follow. Then it comes into our realm...


Would we pay for all of this. New hardware to run this and the price of waiting and development investments.

[Niku-Sama]

Universe is expanding, infinite :D

but people arent expanding.....oh wait, never mind

[Neural Net]

From the video of Crysis I've seen, taken at E3, the buildings are also destructable in a pretty realistic fashion. The developer/rep/whoever he was, that was demonstrating the game showed not only the trees getting mowed down, but destroyed a small building with his minigun, grenades, and punching (yes, puching in "strength mode"). Now whether it will be all buildings, or just certain ones, that remains to be seen when the game comes out.

Yes I think I saw that too, correct me if I am mistaken but wasn't it a small hut in the jungle and not a 'proper' concrete building? I want to know if a rocket launcher can bring down a proper building... I doubt it to be honest. :-/

[>HyperlogiK<]

i'm waiting until fully realisitic physics and fully destructible environments are realized in games. that will kick ass. i hope to see it in the next 10 years. :)

I don't mean to be pedantic, but what does "fully realistic" mean, buildings modelled out of individual bricks and timbers, or bricks and timbers that can break apart themselves, or something even smaller? atoms? quarks? A lot of terms like "fully photorealistic" get bandied around, without people taking the time to qualify them (not having a go at you here, it's the games journalists and PR people).

[pik4chu]

Well yes but Turok had what, one tree? ;) It is a destructive environment, sure not fully, but seeing as all the trees in it can be shot down by a minigun and 90% of the level is jungle, I'd say that is a destructible environment, just not fully destructible. But then again, the buildings are probably rock solid. It'll be interesting how the jungle carnage translates into urban environments, if at all. :-/

BTW, the indestructible wooden door thing drives me nuts as well, especially when it is actually a path you can take, and you need a keycard or something. Of course shooting a door is an option, but it could be part of the game-play. For example, shooting the door open will alert who ever is in the room to a hostile presence, while opening it normally will give you a slight advantage against the AI. Accuracy would count as well, if you can blow the hinges off with charges or good shots, you may have the element of surprise, if you use an entire machine pistol clip then the enemies are going to be ready for you. :attn:

Also, if game developers actually did make a room behind every door, even if they serve no purpose, the time players might take to explore these parts of the levels, making levels less linear in the process, could increase the overall amount of game-play time and thus be another selling point. Then again some gamers could become hopelessly lost and frustrated with the game. :D
Well it doesnt have to be a room behind each door, they could add windows or make the doors kinds that were not destructible. like instead of making a bajillion new rooms just add a few new rooms that you can shoot open if you wish and maybe have some stuff to see or added goodies. I like the idea of incorporating the enemy AI into the method of opening doors.

[Arkangyl]

Most everything you mentioned, as others have said, hasn't been implimented because of hardware limitations. Programmers can't just do everything they want and have it work; there are restrictions.

That said, destructible terrain is coming. As for the aircraft carrier, I find that in BF games it's already hard enough to get everyone at a combat choke point, lose a few people to inane vessels and where's the fun? Also I'm thinking Wake island, park the US base outside the japan / china base (1942, 2) and it's a different battle. Certain aspects of the game need to be set to maintain a balance. Imagine if you could spawn anywhere in a CS match? It would screw up the game.

I don't get the GTA example though, that's honestly just sad. Why the hell would you want to watch your toon sit on a couch and watch TV? Go and sit on a couch with your REAL friends and watch TV, hell, talk about drugs, hookers and killing peeps while you're at it; that's what I do (I being a very white, middle-class American, you don't need to do stuff to talk about it on a couch).

IMO some of the best games are the ones WITH limits, Doom, Half-Life and Quake come to mind; in these games there are very limited environments for the levels. Of course I say that being one of the twelve people who don't like GTA.

[Zatrix]

Most everything you mentioned, as others have said, hasn't been implimented because of hardware limitations. Programmers can't just do everything they want and have it work; there are restrictions.

That said, destructible terrain is coming. As for the aircraft carrier, I find that in BF games it's already hard enough to get everyone at a combat choke point, lose a few people to inane vessels and where's the fun? Also I'm thinking Wake island, park the US base outside the japan / china base (1942, 2) and it's a different battle. Certain aspects of the game need to be set to maintain a balance. Imagine if you could spawn anywhere in a CS match? It would screw up the game.

I don't get the GTA example though, that's honestly just sad. Why the hell would you want to watch your toon sit on a couch and watch TV? Go and sit on a couch with your REAL friends and watch TV, hell, talk about drugs, hookers and killing peeps while you're at it; that's what I do (I being a very white, middle-class American, you don't need to do stuff to talk about it on a couch).

IMO some of the best games are the ones WITH limits, Doom, Half-Life and Quake come to mind; in these games there are very limited environments for the levels. Of course I say that being one of the twelve people who don't like GTA.

You think searching for all types of keycards is fun compared to getting a rocket launcher and blowing the hell out of the door blocking you from the next area? Games like doom and stuff were so limited it wasn't even funny.

I remember windows in that game that would of been perfect to climb over and get to another area BUT i had to go alllll the way around the world just to get to a area that was like 5 feet out of my reach. Things like that were dumb.

[shard]

A fully realised enviroment, and practical destruction of the enviroment, and I will be happy. I wanna be able to shoot holes in walls, and blow down doors, but I dont need to be able to blow houses up, yet....

[SteveLord]

i play games to get away from real life.....

and thats why i look down on people that play games like The Sims.

[striker85]

I can understand the general argument to a degree. Sometimes I'm playing a game, for instance COD2 of BF2, and there is a time when I'm thinking "Damn, it would really help if I could blow up that house, or kick that door in, or move objects to make cover, etc." The introduction of the dedicated physics processors will help, I believe. New features like bullet drop and the like would add a more skillful approach to sniping for those sniper jerks in BF2. Also, I'd like to see more flying games, but physics is crucial for a fun time.

I'm optimistic about the future of games. I understand that people like to get away from reality when playing games, like mario or whatever. I also understand that some people would like to play a game that is very real so that perhaps they can do things in a simulated environment that they couldn't be free to do in reality. To each his own. I'd just like to see what will happen next.

[jivetrky]

i play games to get away from real life.....

and thats why i look down on people that play games like The Sims.


While I also don't see the point or draw of the Sims....I'd never look down on anyone for playing any game.