PDA

View Full Version : Is the physics still included?



twoheart77
6th Mar 2011, 14:32
From all the video footage I have seen on the game play, I have not seen some of the most enthralling features of the first two deus ex games. The physics, items furniture, etc... this was a compelling feature of the first two games. I would be heart broken to see this left out, as it would just not feel like a worthy successor to the originals. I had so much fun making make shift barricades from chairs plants and any object I could pick up to aid me in battles. this level of persistence created a world of realism for me, even for the originals age it still has some interesting concepts that developers overlook today.

I may be a bit to nostalgic about this, having played Deus ex 1 and 2 and then the penumbra series. I have come to find a level of interactivity with my game world to be a must. Sadly this will be a make or break for me, if I am to continue supporting this series:(

VectorM
6th Mar 2011, 14:37
We don't know how much stuff you can actually move in he world, but the game has physics and you will be able to do some cool stuff with it. One of the previews already mentioned moving turrets around for example.

Kvltism
6th Mar 2011, 14:46
We don't know how much stuff you can actually move in he world, but the game has physics and you will be able to do some cool stuff with it. One of the previews already mentioned moving turrets around for example.

Not to mention moving cover. That was an instant plus for me. I don't think it will be a concern at all, we'll probably have plenty of items to interact with in the game-world.

twoheart77
6th Mar 2011, 14:55
Not to mention moving cover. That was an instant plus for me. I don't think it will be a concern at all, we'll probably have plenty of items to interact with in the game-world.
I do have high hopes, this is my favorite series, rpg fps. I will wait till I have some hands on with a demo before a final verdict.

Kodaemon
6th Mar 2011, 15:32
There's some physics, but less interactive objects than in DX. Also, rocket-resistant cardboard boxes FTW.

nomotog
6th Mar 2011, 15:56
If you watched the trailers, you have seen some physics. Lots of moving boxes for cover dragging bodies, an even a box throwing attack. The game has physics. We don't know if you can move chairs or couches though.

ZakKa89
6th Mar 2011, 16:57
Something just struck me!

In the penthouse trailer, we see Adam first person meleeing a cardboard box into a guard while holding the assault rifle.

I wonder if this move can be done on guards directly. That would mean first person melee is in the game and we have been arguing about nothing all along :nut:

Edit: It's more like a push than a melee attack, still wondering though. Maybe we can push guards off rooftops?

Dead-Eye
6th Mar 2011, 18:13
^^ Or if there is only one of them you can keep pushing him into a corner, until your battery recharges to do a takedown...

sadly this sounds too cool to be true.

BigBoss
6th Mar 2011, 21:34
There's some physics, but less interactive objects than in DX.
can you source this?

ZakKa89
6th Mar 2011, 21:36
can you source this?

many 24 feb previews talk about throwing objects at npc's.
Also, gameplay trailers.

BigBoss
6th Mar 2011, 21:51
many 24 feb previews talk about throwing objects at npc's.
Also, gameplay trailers.

Well since all those reviews talk about the exact same 20 minutes of gameplay, I only read one or two. Which trailer was specifically used to demonstrate object interactivity? I must have missed that one.

Irate_Iguana
6th Mar 2011, 22:21
can you source this?

Let me hit you with some sauce (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/5930/inciting_a_human_revolution_the_.php?page=2).

In that sense, since we're going with a very detailed art direction, and we push the envelope in terms of the world art, there are not as many physics objects as in the first game. In the first game, basically everything was a physics object. But we do still have those, and you still can play with them, and figure out ways to use them as weapons or whatever you want.

BigBoss
6th Mar 2011, 22:53
thanks!

[FGS]Shadowrunner
6th Mar 2011, 23:37
Hmm that's interesting, if you can throw an object as a weapon, it must presumably have collision. But when carrying objects, it appears not to have collision, like DX1. So how would you carry something and use it to push an NPC I am not sure.

There's some interaction in the Penthouse trailer. He moves a box to access a vent early on in the trailer.

oscarMike
7th Mar 2011, 01:17
Originally Posted by Dugas
In that sense, since we're going with a very detailed art direction, and we push the envelope in terms of the world art, there are not as many physics objects as in the first game. In the first game, basically everything was a physics object. But we do still have those, and you still can play with them, and figure out ways to use them as weapons or whatever you want.

Bollocks!! If this Dugas wanted to push the envelope he should be a bloody mailman!! And all this is just sweet talking, when he's actually saying that we are all being denied interaction with most IF NOT almost ALL environment> therefore, we are actually being denied with choice which is the essence and the crucial part of DX in general!! Less than DX?? Less than game that was published a decade ago!!!? What if I want to do some zyme and go play some goddamn basketball in the ghetto!?? WHAT THEN?? Do I go and climb some ladders and watch my ass just because I CAN?!! Just like melee, that is being totally crippled leaving us no other choice but the developers one, they tried to compensate that fact with that godforsaken "one-button cut scene" moment thinking that we are all 10 year olds that can settle with "eye candy"....

Deltaslayer
7th Mar 2011, 01:38
Bollocks!! If this Dugas wanted to push the envelope he should be a bloody mailman!! And all this is just sweet talking, when he's actually saying that we are all being denied interaction with most IF NOT almost ALL environment> therefore, we are actually being denied with choice which is the essence and the crucial part of DX in general!! Less than DX?? Less than game that was published a decade ago!!!? What if I want to do some zyme and go play some goddamn basketball in the ghetto!?? WHAT THEN?? Do I go and climb some ladders and watch my ass just because I CAN?!! Just like melee, that is being totally crippled leaving us no other choice but the developers one, they tried to compensate that fact with that godforsaken "one-button cut scene" moment thinking that we are all 10 year olds that can settle with "eye candy"....

I like you!

Jerion
7th Mar 2011, 02:27
oscarMike, chill. Sounds like you're working yourself up a bit too much.

oscarMike
7th Mar 2011, 03:01
oscarMike, chill. Sounds like you're working yourself up a bit too much.

How tha hell can I chill when Dugas WONT let me acquire zyme and go around the corner to play some basketball with homeless people!!!?? :)

Jerion
7th Mar 2011, 03:18
Hmmm. Well, hmm. I... No. Better not to say.

Neuromancer07
7th Mar 2011, 03:41
From PC GAMER (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/03/deus-ex-human-revolution-preview-first-hands-on/):

"It’s one of those games where you can use almost everything – turn on taps, flush urinals, pick up plants and throw them at people. NPCs don’t react to stuff hitting them in the head, unless of course it’s big enough to maim them."

Sounds like there is a lot of physically-reactive objects.

Jerion
7th Mar 2011, 03:55
Perhaps then what Dugas meant was that [relative to total number of objects] "...there are not as many physics objects as in the first game. In the first game, basically everything was a physics object. But we do still have those, and you still can play with them, and figure out ways to use them as weapons or whatever..."

That fits, really, given the sheer amount of environmental detail in DX:HR. :)

ZakKa89
7th Mar 2011, 08:58
What I'm wondering is if I can throw objects to distract enemies with the noise

oscarMike
7th Mar 2011, 11:08
What I'm wondering is if I can throw objects to distract enemies with the noise

"NPCs don’t react to stuff hitting them in the head, unless of course it’s big enough to maim them."

Like what?? A couch?.. or a TV? Considering this fact I sincerely doubt they will react to sound around them... Although it would be a great option to manipulate the environment and NPC's with sound distraction.. But then again, it would be also great to have actual choice with melee and not being forced into that godawful repetitive "cinematic experience"... :hmm:

All bull aside, bottom line is people that have actually played the game said that they are pretty amazed with NPC's, their abilities, and level of interaction toward the player, which is enough for me!.. I guess...

VectorM
7th Mar 2011, 13:29
How tha hell can I chill when Dugas WONT let me acquire zyme and go around the corner to play some basketball with homeless people!!!?? :)

Not sure if serious. So, Dugas will not let you use a CONSUMABLE and he won't let you play with an obviously interactive object?

And your entire rant was stupid.

mahmoudd
7th Mar 2011, 13:32
Will I be able to pick all pieces of junk and different stuff just like in DX1 and use them to distract enemies or do something else with it?
You'll be able to use different types of boxes to distract NPCs indeed. If you're referring to things like a pencil or a glass the answer is no. We have a very detailed and rich world to discover so we had to make some tradeoffs in terms of the scope of interactive objects in order to keep a smooth framerate.


we had to make some tradeoffs in terms of the scope of interactive objects in order to keep a smooth framerate.


in order to keep a smooth framerate.
thanks consoles

Kodaemon
7th Mar 2011, 13:48
It's really frustrating, isn't it? Also, with the "cluttered" design, this means we'll be getting rooms full of unmovable, indestructible stuff. Way to ramp up immersion!

oscarMike
7th Mar 2011, 14:52
Not sure if serious. So, Dugas will not let you use a CONSUMABLE and he won't let you play with an obviously interactive object?

And your entire rant was stupid.

Now I'm not sure if you're serious?? posting way out of context.. Either you didn't read properly what I said or you have a very bad sense for humor...


It's really frustrating, isn't it? Also, with the "cluttered" design, this means we'll be getting rooms full of unmovable, indestructible stuff. Way to ramp up immersion!

Don't be so ungrateful!! At least you can watch your ass from every perspective, whenever you want...:D

pha
7th Mar 2011, 15:21
thanks consoles

Not the best example maybe, but Fallout 3 and New Vegas have trillions of clutter, most of which are interactive.

I believe it's a compromise because of the engine instead of "evil" consoles.

VectorM
7th Mar 2011, 15:35
Now I'm not sure if you're serious?? posting way out of context.. Either you didn't read properly what I said or you have a very bad sense for humor...


You said, that since the game will have less interactive objects (whether they mean the total amount of interactive objects or the % of all objects, that we don't know), therefore, you will not be able to use obviously interactive items. Unless you mean, that those items are the ones the developers wanted you to use, but that's no different than the previous game. It's just that in this one you have more items in general.

mahmoudd
7th Mar 2011, 15:54
Not the best example maybe, but Fallout 3 and New Vegas have trillions of clutter, most of which are interactive.

I believe it's a compromise because of the engine instead of "evil" consoles.

why do you imply that consoles are evil

no body said that consoles are evil

but when you see a developper saying this " tradeoffs in terms of the scope of interactive objects in order to keep a smooth framerate.", i am more inclined to believe the developper than you, you know.

and by "in order to keep smooth framerate", they don't talk about PCs but consoles.

Consoles are 6 years behind in terms of hardward, why is it so hard to understand?

VectorM
7th Mar 2011, 16:09
Consoles are 6 years behind in terms of hardward, why is it so hard to understand?

And yet in both Oblivion and Fallout 3 you can move almost all objects in the world, meaning it CAN be done on a console, regardless.

pha
7th Mar 2011, 16:13
Nothing is hard to understand, especially when you put it so cutely. :D I'm just saying that there are console games and multiplatform games with lots of interactive objects.

Thus if EM sacrificed interactive objects instead of gimmicky details in the static environment it's either because of their style over substance design behavior, or it's a flaw of the supposedly "improved" TR:U engine compared to Gamebyro or whatever engine which can handle many interactive objects, even on consoles and dated PC's.

oscarMike
7th Mar 2011, 16:18
You said, that since the game will have less interactive objects (whether they mean the total amount of interactive objects or the % of all objects, that we don't know), therefore, you will not be able to use obviously interactive items. Unless you mean, that those items are the ones the developers wanted you to use, but that's no different than the previous game. It's just that in this one you have more items in general.

Baaah. In first post I stated my disagreement with Dugas creative decision to reduce the amount of interactive objects in compare to DX1, and then I made a joke about ME not being able "to do zyme and play basketball around the corner" which is reference to DX!...

mahmoudd
7th Mar 2011, 16:41
And yet in both Oblivion and Fallout 3 you can move almost all objects in the world, meaning it CAN be done on a console, regardless.

i don't know

they're probably lazy and don't want to bother with this kind of stuff

or they really hit the limit with everything else, leaving no room for interactivity with every little objects possible

ZakKa89
7th Mar 2011, 16:55
And yet in both Oblivion and Fallout 3 you can move almost all objects in the world, meaning it CAN be done on a console, regardless.

Apples and oranges.

Different engine, different textures, different animations etcetera.

mahmoudd
7th Mar 2011, 17:28
and the fact that dx hr has more graphical details than fallout 3 and oblivion (on consoles)

because on PC fallout 3 and oblivion have been modded to death ( with super high res re texturing mods and more)

VectorM
7th Mar 2011, 17:41
Apples and oranges.

Different engine, different textures, different animations etcetera.

Only that I am not comparing the 2 engines at all. I am just giving an example of a game, where the entire world is interactive. So if it can be done in that engine, it can probably be done with other games too. On a consoles that is.


and then I made a joke about ME not being able "to do zyme and play basketball around the corner" which is reference to DX!...

A reference to DX1, you don't say...

Shralla
7th Mar 2011, 19:33
they're probably lazy and don't want to bother with this kind of stuff

Really? Now you're just being a douche.

mahmoudd
7th Mar 2011, 19:34
no one is discussing the abilities of interation with objects you can have in a game on consoles

it's just that if you want a game too look good and have huge amount of interactivity with objects,
you go on PC.

oblivion and fallout have horrible graphics

Kodaemon
7th Mar 2011, 19:38
And so does Human Revolution. Your point?

pi r squared
7th Mar 2011, 20:22
I wouldn't describe the graphics of any of those three games as "horrible".

As for "limiting for the sake of consoles", surely developers also have to consider a broader PC market too. Sure, your PC might be able to run a game that goes to a resolution of 60000x33750, can churn out a gazillion frames per second, and can handle every single item in the game world being fully interactive, but most can't. I have a pretty solid mid-range PC and I'd rather have a game that runs on my hardware without fuss, than one where I have to upgrade the hell out of it just so that I can pick up and throw around a f**king pencil a couple of times.

Does a few items being "painted on" rather than a physical object make any difference to immersion? Let's not pretend you could interact with everything in DX - there were drawers and cupboards that were unopenable, many many computer consoles that you couldn't interact with, lights you couldn't shoot out, etc. Yet that is still the immersive sim we know and love today. I appreciate people would say they want both, but given the choice I would go for a compelling story and excellent gameplay* over a few wanky interactive objects.

(* Yes, I know, we don't know that DX:HR has either yet - but I'm being optimistic ;) )

mahmoudd
7th Mar 2011, 20:32
And so does Human Revolution. Your point?

on console, human revolution's graphics are tons better than oblivion or fallout 3


I wouldn't describe the graphics of any of those three games as "horrible".

As for "limiting for the sake of consoles", surely developers also have to consider a broader PC market too. Sure, your PC might be able to run a game that goes to a resolution of 60000x33750, can churn out a gazillion frames per second, and can handle every single item in the game world being fully interactive, but most can't. I have a pretty solid mid-range PC and I'd rather have a game that runs on my hardware without fuss, than one where I have to upgrade the hell out of it just so that I can pick up and throw around a f**king pencil a couple of times.

Does a few items being "painted on" rather than a physical object make any difference to immersion? Let's not pretend you could interact with everything in DX - there were drawers and cupboards that were unopenable, many many computer consoles that you couldn't interact with, lights you couldn't shoot out, etc. Yet that is still the immersive sim we know and love today. I appreciate people would say they want both, but given the choice I would go for a compelling story and excellent gameplay* over a few wanky interactive objects.

(* Yes, I know, we don't know that DX:HR has either yet - but I'm being optimistic ;) )

why do you have to think about it in black and white terms?

seriously, look at crysis

the most modulable game there is, it can run on a wide range of PC and yet still be the best looking game after 4 god damned years


being able to interact with many items in games on PC is nothing, DEUS EX 1 did it remember right?

just because you have a **** PC doesn't mean you have to break the game's graphic for everyone else, that's one of the strength of PC, being able to set different graphical settings

what if you want to go extreme? mod the game to hell

Crane
7th Mar 2011, 20:43
being able to interact with many items in games on PC is nothing, DEUS EX 1 did it remember right?

Those cluttered desks, yeah.
Why, I think one of them had a packet of cigarettes, a soda can, and a datacube on it!
So many items to interact with in DX1, clearly this proves that it's possible to make about a dozen times as many items all fully interactive in HR.

Kodaemon
7th Mar 2011, 20:44
I wouldn't describe the graphics of any of those three games as "horrible".

Me neither actually, but I went with him. Certainly the graphics in those games are not exactly impressive though.

Trainwreck
7th Mar 2011, 21:07
Oblivion's graphics were state-of-the-art at the time. Back in '06, us Elder Scrolls fanboys went nuts upgrading our PCs to handle it. A bit of modding, and the graphics still hold up fairly well for being five years old now. Fallout: New Vegas came out pretty recently, though, and using the same engine; all in all, it looks pretty horrible by today's standards, but the world is much more expansive and interactive than Human Revolution will be. Either way, Skyrim is shaping up to look incredible AND retain the interactivity of the series.

That said, Deus Ex wasn't really as interactive an experience as we all like to remember. I've been playing through the original, and aside from the ubiquitous data cube, computer, security terminal, and book, there really isn't much to interact with. You can't pick up most desk lamps. You can't move fluorescent light fixtures. The whole world is relatively sparse with objects, interactive or not, compared to what DX:HR will have. Even if I can't pick up a vase and throw it at the workers of Sarif Industries (or whatever), it's not going to be a huge loss.

When I want unlimited, non-linear interactivity with nearly every object, I launch an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game. When I want a fairly linear story with a few player choices and amazing decision-based approaches to problem solving, I play Deus Ex.

pi r squared
7th Mar 2011, 21:07
being able to interact with many items in games on PC is nothing, DEUS EX 1 did it remember right? But equally there were many items that you couldn't interact with, and it feels like the same is true of DX:HR - only, the general "feel" of the environments will be entirely less sparce. Yes, DEUS EX 1 did it remember right, but it also had only a fraction of the polygon count and textures that a modern game will have, and the physics of the objects (which I'll come to in a mo) was pretty simple. For instance, what could you interact with in this screen:
http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/deusex/naval1/27.jpg
Three things? It is a sparse, empty room and yet even so you can only interact with under half of the things you can see. It's likely you'll be able to interact with the same number of objects in DX:HR, but the environment is set up in such a way that there will be much more detail and intricacy - you just can't interact with it.


just because you have a **** PC doesn't mean you have to break the game's graphic for everyone else, that's one of the strength of PC, being able to set different graphical settingsI don't have a crap PC, and I don't expect games to be limited to the lowest common denominator. I've never played Crisis in the "4 god damned years" it has been out, so I don't know about its graphical modularity, but I would presume this is limited to graphical settings - resolution, antialiasing, bloom, decals, shadows, etc. All of which your PC can either generate and display, or skip. Interactive items go beyond just rendering them in graphics - they need to be full on physics objects too, with weight, collision boxes, 3D models, fragility, tensile strength. All of this goes beyond simple graphics work. Arguably you could switch these non-essential items on or off depending on the power of the PC, but then that just makes them utterly pointless.

Jerion
7th Mar 2011, 21:11
Actually, in Crysis you can adjust the fidelity of the physics as well as graphics to accomodate less powerful systems.

As well, on higher settings you could interact with (as in: Pick up and throw) damn near every little doodad in the environment. I loved screwing around with that stuff. :D

Trainwreck
7th Mar 2011, 21:11
But equally there were many items that you couldn't interact with, and it feels like the same is true of DX:HR - only, the general "feel" of the environments will be entirely less sparce. Yes, DEUS EX 1 did it remember right, but it also had only a fraction of the polygon count and textures that a modern game will have, and the physics of the objects (which I'll come to in a mo) was pretty simple.
I don't have a crap PC, and I don't expect games to be limited to the lowest common denominator. I've never played Crisis in the "4 god damned years" it has been out, so I don't know about its graphical modularity, but I would presume this is limited to graphical settings - resolution, antialiasing, bloom, decals, shadows, etc. All of which your PC can either generate and display, or skip. Interactive items go beyond just rendering them in graphics - they need to be full on physics objects too, with weight, collision boxes, 3D models, fragility, tensile strength. All of this goes beyond simple graphics work. Arguably you could switch these non-essential items on or off depending on the power of the PC, but then that just makes them utterly pointless.

Agree with you about the Deus Ex and objects point; but having played Crysis, you can even adjust physics settings which could affect gameplay; for example, on higher settings, many more objects - such as small sheds and trees - are destructible, whereas on lower settings, they are not.

To address another point: consoles can handle a highly interactive environment; the Elder Scrolls and Fallout games are proof of that.

pi r squared
7th Mar 2011, 21:14
Fair enough - I stand corrected on the Crysis issue. Maybe I should play the game at some point!

BigBoss
7th Mar 2011, 21:32
I wouldn't describe the graphics of any of those three games as "horrible".

As for "limiting for the sake of consoles", surely developers also have to consider a broader PC market too. Sure, your PC might be able to run a game that goes to a resolution of 60000x33750, can churn out a gazillion frames per second, and can handle every single item in the game world being fully interactive, but most can't. I have a pretty solid mid-range PC and I'd rather have a game that runs on my hardware without fuss, than one where I have to upgrade the hell out of it just so that I can pick up and throw around a f**king pencil a couple of times.

Does a few items being "painted on" rather than a physical object make any difference to immersion? Let's not pretend you could interact with everything in DX - there were drawers and cupboards that were unopenable, many many computer consoles that you couldn't interact with, lights you couldn't shoot out, etc. Yet that is still the immersive sim we know and love today. I appreciate people would say they want both, but given the choice I would go for a compelling story and excellent gameplay* over a few wanky interactive objects.

(* Yes, I know, we don't know that DX:HR has either yet - but I'm being optimistic ;) )

:thumb: and the pencil bit was sooooo true. I have a friend who works the **** out of his pc every like 3 months, and that's usually the only difference between what he experiences and what I do:lol:

Viacom
7th Mar 2011, 21:41
oblivion and fallout have horrible graphics

:scratch:

Strange, considering it was a game that had a breathtaking environment that looked completely real. You hook up the HDMI cable while playing it on the PS3 and the graphics are stunning, on the PC they are even better. (When I say stunning I do mean it was one of the best games around graphic wise.)

motsm
7th Mar 2011, 21:49
:scratch:

Strange, considering it was a game that had a breathtaking environment that looked completely real. You hook up the HDMI cable while playing it on the PS3 and the graphics are stunning, on the PC they are even better. (When I say stunning I do mean it was one of the best games around graphic wise.)I didn't see where this conversation started, but I agree with him, they are both very ugly games with almost non existent lighting outdoors, and some of the worst animations I've seen in a modern game. Not to mention, the engine is garbage.

oscarMike
7th Mar 2011, 22:04
A reference to DX1, you don't say...

Heey, you just hit 9 out of 10 Sarcasm Score!!! And also gain level 50 "Demagogue Achievement"!! Congratulations, you're on fire!:thumb:

Trainwreck
7th Mar 2011, 22:36
I didn't see where this conversation started, but I agree with him, they are both very ugly games with almost non existent lighting outdoors, and some of the worst animations I've seen in a modern game. Not to mention, the engine is garbage.

The engine is garbage by today's standards, yes. The games are ugly by today's standards, of course. But back in '06, it was nothing short of jaw-dropping.

Then again, by today's standards, the Unreal engine is crap too. Unreal was yesterday's Crysis, and Oblivion used to be the graphics benchmark.

VectorM
7th Mar 2011, 23:14
All this talk about graphics is kinda pointless, since you've only seen DX:HR's graphics on screens and online videos. Oblivion looked absolutely amazing in trailers and screenshots back in the day too.

motsm
7th Mar 2011, 23:15
The engine is garbage by today's standards, yes. The games are ugly by today's standards, of course. But back in '06, it was nothing short of jaw-dropping.

Then again, by today's standards, the Unreal engine is crap too. Unreal was yesterday's Crysis, and Oblivion used to be the graphics benchmark.In my opinion, it was just as garbage when it came out. The horribly executed loading cubes made the game stutter like crazy and gave you a perfectly formed line of ugly, the engine has always been very unstable for a disproportionate amount of people, and the aforementioned outdoor lighting and animations were bad and outdated years before the game was released. The engine looks alright indoors however, as the lighting was completely different, and the loading zones were placed at doors.

You can like the engine and the graphics, I have no problem with that. In my opinion however, it's ugly and always has been.

BigBoss
7th Mar 2011, 23:17
:scratch:

Strange, considering it was a game that had a breathtaking environment that looked completely real. You hook up the HDMI cable while playing it on the PS3 and the graphics are stunning, on the PC they are even better. (When I say stunning I do mean it was one of the best games around graphic wise.)

Actually, according to Ign oblivion looked ugly...... http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/115/1153816p1.html so maybe this guy works for them


Heey, you just hit 9 out of 10 Sarcasm Score!!! And also gain level 50 "Demagogue Achievement"!! Congratulations, you're on fire!:thumb:

Have you ever seen his other posts??? The man bleeds sarcasm, that's pretty much his only mode of talking. (I don't find that a bad thing Vector, just sayin)

VectorM
8th Mar 2011, 00:33
Actually, that's how I talk in real life too. Not being sarcastic here.

mahmoudd
8th Mar 2011, 02:38
think about it

back in the old days, when we had games with levels in offices, they would be looking very dull and boring
with the advances in physics and particules, you can have flying papers, little objects, glass breaking realistically, shooting through thin walls, computer screens shattering and electric sparkles with dynamic lighting, and all kind of other things like that

as long as this is in, its good, and if you can throw objects to make some noise and attract a guard somewhere, then it's also good

you don't need to be able to grab a lamp, turning it on and off is enough to make you feel like you're in a fully functional world and not some cute scenery just there to be looked at, it can also be used