PDA

View Full Version : why DX3 could be far better than DX1



pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 05:29
ok bit of a ramble here, see what you think.

personally i feel DX just hinted at just how great games could be - but what a great hint!

- when DX came out there was almost no physics.

for me physics is the greatest advancement in computer games since 3d games first came out. it really is life simulation on screen, that has an `almost` random element.

replayabilty in deus ex was great as each section had multiple solutions, yet it was still rather fixed and static in the world interation.

half life 2 implimented physics with some success and so did crysis, forget IW - that was a disaster, especially regarding the physics.

but so far physics has played little effect in games, it usually plays such a small role as to be insignificant - a gimmick. even in action the effect of physics is minimal.

it may even be time to allow physics to really impact on a games plot. this can be done in a multiple solution game like deus ex.

lets say that you are in a situation that is highly physics dominated, and a main figure could die if you get it wrong. judging how physics works in day to day life will get you most of the way but there will be a element of physics that makes certain reactions almost imposible to predict when the situation is physics complex, as it can be in life.

some may argue that it may be seen or implimented as a little too random, but while this depends on implimentation(how complex the pysics is or the harness level) i would suggest that if there is an alternative choice/route that has other costs then you will be choosing a level of `randomness/physics` and `luck` should you take that physics route!

as in life some like to take more risks than others and sometimes those risks have a random element and real life impact.

it adds a new level of skill - physics perception.
it also ads replayability.

the programers could even code a randomness to the problem you may face - meaning no two times will it play the same - poor example but bare with me - lets say barrels rolling down a hill - the order of the barells could be randomly generated in game.
not making it harder, but making it unpredictable.

also computer generated randomness and clever adaptable enemy AI, go a long way to making replayabilty work.

i feel its time to push the boat out and allow physics to impact the story and games more.

any ideas on how to further physics in game?

RedFeather1975
4th Feb 2008, 08:36
I enjoy how modern games are more realistically portraying the dynamics of high speed projectiles. I've played a number of games where if the enemy is using a high caliber weapon, standing behind a wood/fiberglass insulated wall is going to do you little good.

Also getting hit by a stray bullet that went into a dumpster, and deflected out the other side is intense. You instinctively panic and have to rethink your type of cover very quickly in a gun fight. That dumpster is still good cover, but now there is a small chance that a bullet will penetrate the one end and still manage to deflect in a way to hit you. It's very rare, but it's just as deadly.
When the enemy switches to an even more powerful weapon, time to find something with denser mass for cover!

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 13:30
physics and graphics are just eye candy, and don't make a great game. they make it sell better, but thats about it. 2 best games ever made are still System shock 2, and DX. neither employed cutting edge graphics or physics. and thats not just my opinion. those games (with SS usually #1) are on every best games ever list.

RedFeather1975
4th Feb 2008, 13:35
I could be wrong but SS2 and DX didn't have great graphics and physics because it wasn't possible.
If they were made today as exactly as they were back then, I highly doubt they'd be as well received.
The playing field changes. Adapt or die. Is the law of evolution. :lol:

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 14:29
They'd still be considered the best. This topic is exactly why there is a death of good games. Far too much focus on looking pretty and not enough on actually making a good game.

in the end, its just eye candy and as I said, they are considered the best EVER. not just the best of their time.

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 15:20
my post has nothing to do with gimmics - real life physics simulation is not a gimmic, quite the opposite - it creates immersion, reality based options and natural more complex thinking with more choices. just as redfeather1975 suggests in his example.

you do as you would do, not as the limited game engine would expect you to.

yes deus ex was great, no doubt there. but if you think it wouldnt have been better with better graphics and physics then you are plain wrong.

there are times in dx when you will say - that looks a bit crap or that didnt react the way it should or why cant i just do this, and it pulls you out of the game. you try to ignore it after your initial reaction but its always there - so you grudgingly except it as part of the game. what made the games you mention great was choices/thinking and story, physics can add more choices/thinking.

another example a bit like redfeathers1975 - in stalker i believe you can shoot at a wall the bullet deflects to kill an NPC, you dont even have to see him, just his shadow or a previous glimps is enough. but if you shoot you will alert the enemy and your chances of a kill are greatly reduced.

as redfeather1975 says what you use as cover for certain guns could have an impact - making you use you mind and giving you choices to make.

then you have physics puzzles, i have never seen one so far that is very impressive but i believe it can be done.

halflife 2 used some such as the seesaw counter balancing - which was rather basic and dull but could be expanded upon.

physics can have real game event impact unlike graphics(not forgetting that more realistic graphics add more realism and immersion also) - as i said i would like to see more of a real plot impact from such real life physics simulation. where physics risks can be part of the plot options - what kind of a risk taker you are or how great your real life physics perception is using skill.

i would also like to see more water physics - i have seen it done, it could be translated into lava etc also.

id like others to expand on how they feel physics could be used in a more grand style than before, where it could impact the plot or a scene.

RedFeather1975
4th Feb 2008, 15:20
I'm sorry, but best ever is subjective.
There are critics who believe Half Life was the best game of all time and I know there are people here who would disagree.
It depends on who you ask as there were players who although they felt SS2 and DX were amazing games, held criticisms towards certain aspects of both.

A game needs to evolve over time. I'm not one of the people who felt SS2 and DX were perfect and have no room for improvement.

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 15:22
I'm sorry, but best ever is subjective.
.

yes it is. but there are very few best game ever lists that don't put SS2 at #1, and DX in the top 5 or top 10.

if graphics were everthing, then the Wii wouldn't be the top selling system right now.

and your right, DX and SS could have been improved on. thats how we got IW. they thought better graphics and the addition of phisics would do the trick.

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 15:26
yes deus ex was great, no doubt there. but if you think it wouldnt have been better with better graphics and physics then you are plain wrong.

.


would have made it prettier, thats all. those graphics and physics wouldn't have changed the story, or the gameplay at all.

RedFeather1975
4th Feb 2008, 15:34
I'm going to post excerpts from a lecture about game play by Steve Harvey.
You can see where he believed Deus Ex's strengths lied and how what is being suggested here is supporting that.


The success cases in Deus Ex tended to rely on the interaction of flexible sub-systems within the game (and were about what the player wanted to do). The moments that I perceive as failures tended to rely on special-case triggering or scripting (and were more about what the designer wanted the player to do). The experiences we had working on DX1 motivated us to move further toward more deeply simulated game environments.


Continuing with "realistic physics": The first game I played that allowed me to realistically bounce grenades around corners was System Shock. Bouncing grenades around corners is an example of "physics as gameplay." It's one step less direct: Instead of going toe-to-toe with an enemy, the player can take up a safer (more strategic) vantage before attacking. The player suddenly had new, interesting options. It also makes the environment more dynamic: If someone moves a crate out into the center of the room, a grenade can then be bounced off the crate. Obviously, collision physics that allow for grenade bouncing gameplay have been around for a while. But the more thorough and more realistic physics simulations of the next generation of games should have interesting ramifications. To cite some examples:

* New gameplay tools: If we track mass and gravity, for instance, we can arm the player with a tool that increases mass, allowing for all sorts of interesting effects. This is one of the goals of our studio-to continue to widen the range of gameplay tools beyond "more guns." Not because we dislike games with guns, but because we are looking to make the game more interesting…to expand the possibility space.

* More intuitive environment: "Of course paper should burn." (In today's games, casual players might be baffled by the physics of the world: Only explosive barrels and bodies burn, sometimes pieces of light furniture cannot be moved around, the player-character can often not perform simple tasks like climbing up onto a desk and sometimes glass does not break. Why *wouldn't* this harm accessibility? To play, you must re-learn the physics of the world, like a child.) When the world works in a way that makes sense to a human (non-gamer), because it functions in ways that reflect their lifelong experience, the average person is more likely to find the game environment "intuitive" even in fantasy realms and alien dimensions.

I hope you don't mind me pressing the idea that DX could utilize the most realistic physics possible to provide a more rich experience. I really see no harm in it. We aren't talking about cutting corners to get it done. Only a supplement to what's already there.

Xcom
4th Feb 2008, 15:36
but there are very few best game ever lists that don't put SS2 at #1, and DX in the top 5 or top 10.


Eh? :scratch:

The only one I could find is GameFaq's Top10 Cyberpunk games. SS2 occupies glorious number one. :thumbsup:

Usually, it's nowhere near close to Top 10. Admittedly, maybe it was closer to the top 8 years ago, but hey, many good games have been made since then.

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 15:50
thank you redfeather1975

those quotes do a great job in summing up what i was trying to say
and i would like them to expand on it much much further than ever before.

those guys really were on the ball at that time.

RedFeather1975
4th Feb 2008, 15:53
It's too bad I often feel that nothing said here will make a lick of difference.
I get so excited thinking about what realistic physics could add to the game.
Imagine if you didn't want to kill someone who was after you, you could:
Set the rug on fire to block him off.
Run into a room and push a chair against the door and break the window to escape.
Or shoot him in the leg so he'd still live, but couldn't chase after you.

I really would like to see that type of interaction in the game.
I think it would be very fun for everyone. :)

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 15:55
I hope you don't mind me pressing the idea that DX could utilize the most realistic physics possible to provide a more rich experience. I really see no harm in it. We aren't talking about cutting corners to get it done. Only a supplement to what's already there.


I don't mind, and think DX3 should utilize the best graphics and physics available while still running on mid range PC's. What I don't agree with is the idea that graphics and physics will make the game better than the original. Those types of ideas really get under my skin because its that kind of thinking that gets games dumbed down and stripped down. its how we get games like IW. the dev's get it in their head that all anybody wants is something pretty to look at. and many times thats exactly what we get. for DX three I want the top priority to be game play and story. I want the 2nd and 3rd priorities to be game play and story. then they can worry about graphics and physics.

I don't want another IW.

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 15:56
fun real life simmulation leading to choices - gimmicks :mad2:

tanonx
4th Feb 2008, 18:17
I think physics could easily be a subset of gameplay. I mean, pull the rug out from under the guy chasing you and then throw it at him while you run. More choices to take out one's enemies was a good point for me in DX, and this would mean more choices. Environment as weapon is physics feeding into gameplay. Do I think it'll happen with DX3? Heck no. Nobody ever seems to get the idea that just because one has a franchise, one must now stay within the paramaters without anything more than streamlining gameplay. And what do we get? IW, that's what.

Although.. Physics impacting game plot? I don't want my plot revolving around weither or not Bob Expedible got grenaded so hard his ragdoll body took out a Jack Plot, so to speak. Plots should have player imput, lots of it. Like, if I chose to angle my grenade just right. But then the real question is why I didn't just shoot Jack in the first place. Unless I wanted it to look like an accident...

jordan_a
4th Feb 2008, 18:31
Since when do physics enhance games?

A game is just about the story, plots, twists. Believable and charismatic characters. Challenge and inventiveness.

Developers who concentrate on physics (Half Life 2 crap) tend to miss the all point of the game. Those are the games which will be forgotten.

RedFeather1975
4th Feb 2008, 18:44
Jordan, I think physics enhance games when developers take the time to really explore the possibilities of how it can be used to it's fullest.
Thank goodness for developers who take chances and try new things.
You may not give a crap about games like Portal, but I consider them a welcome step in innovation.
If developers never attempt to explore new ideas I doubt DX would ever have been made.

SageSavage
4th Feb 2008, 19:03
Today we already have superb audio and almost photorealistic graphics and lifelike animations as well as a great variety of storytelling techniques. I believe physics and new types of interfaces (those contact lenses (http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=39094) for example) will become the most important parts of future developments by the game industry.

AaronJ
4th Feb 2008, 19:12
Graphics mean nothing in DX. Nothing.

Xcom
4th Feb 2008, 19:27
Graphics mean nothing in DX. Nothing.

So you wouldn't mind if DX looked like this:

http://i32.tinypic.com/2wmgl07.gif

O.m.a.r
4th Feb 2008, 20:01
I wouldn't. As long as those sticks have a good story.:D

tanonx
4th Feb 2008, 20:19
ANNA NAVARRE is standing to your NORTH. She is holding an ASSAULT RIFLE.
ANNA NAVARRE says "Manderly will be disappointed in your insubordination."
ANNA NAVARRE shoots at YOU.
ANNA NAVARRE misses.
ACTION>_

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 20:56
So you wouldn't mind if DX looked like this:



of course he would. the point is, DX isn't about graphics and physics. that's not what made the game great, and isn't what will make DX3 even better. IW is case in point. After DX was released, the two biggest things it was criticized for were
1. graphics
2. AI.

now granted, those criticisms were in the context of it being a great Game. The textures weren't bad, but the character models were terrible, especially the hands. the lack of physics allowed corpses to float in the air. and combined with the way they went stiff, created some pretty bad situations from a standpoint of realism. So what did Ion do? they focused on lighting, physics, and graphics and gave us a crappy, consolized, watered down idiot version of DX that a lot of people couldn't even get to run on their PC's. And spare me the comments of "I could build a PC that would run IW for $300". I was there on the MB's, and LOTS of people were having a terrible time with the game running. people had to turn everything (especially the AA) way down just to get it to run. And yes I know, some of it was the terrible coding job. The point is, if they again focus on superficial eye candy graphics and physics we'll again get an average game that will have high system requirements and lots of technical issues.

But if you happen to have bought or built a high end system, boy will it look pretty.

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 21:17
Plots should have player imput, lots of it. Like, if I chose to angle my grenade just right. But then the real question is why I didn't just shoot Jack in the first place. Unless I wanted it to look like an accident...

ah now we might be getting somewhere - you could make something look like an accident using physics, much harder to do without physics.

in this way it could act on the plot - whether they think someone was murdered by you or whether it was an accident that can be shrugged off.

at last i feel something may be a good plot use for physics!

this is why i wanted input, even if that is not what you had in mind with the above?

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 21:20
ANNA NAVARRE is standing to your NORTH. She is holding an ASSAULT RIFLE.
ANNA NAVARRE says "Manderly will be disappointed in your insubordination."
ANNA NAVARRE shoots at YOU.
ANNA NAVARRE misses.
ACTION>_:lmao:

SageSavage
4th Feb 2008, 21:27
I've said it months before... I want all elements of DX3 to be top notch! Of course the story and the level design is crucial but nonetheless I want graphics, physics and sound to be excellent as well. You want it too, you just seem to think it's not possible to get it done at the same time but I think it is. It's just a matter of time, money and the right people working on it. I think it's stupid to not want it to be perfect in the first place - as long as a decent machine can run it. I can live with graphics that aren't next-gen but nonetheless I hope they will be great!

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 21:34
just want the priorities to be in the right order.

tanonx
4th Feb 2008, 22:49
Well, one could handle 'accidents' via scripted events, alongside simulating enough physics to fake whatever option you'd have. I dunno just how much easier handling it that way would really be. But grenades, assassinations, and ragdoll physics are all fun, so the logical conclusion...

pauldenton
5th Feb 2008, 00:32
Well, one could handle 'accidents' via scripted events, alongside simulating enough physics to fake whatever option you'd have. I dunno just how much easier handling it that way would really be. But grenades, assassinations, and ragdoll physics are all fun, so the logical conclusion...


scripted events! - go wash your mouth out :rasp:

v.dog
5th Feb 2008, 09:38
Physics can be fun in and of itself (just look at Crayon Physics (http://www.kloonigames.com/crayon/), or Portal), but for Dues Ex, physics aren't a king maker (neither are graphics) . Without a compelling story, believable characters, and interesting choices, it's just another shooter.

Physics needn't be a gimmick tho, if it's used well throughout the game to solve puzzles in new and interesting ways (for instance, using a LAM to take out one guard and tip a crate jamming the door to block his buddies from coming after you).

RedFeather1975
5th Feb 2008, 10:41
Physics can be fun in and of itself (just look at Crayon Physics (http://www.kloonigames.com/crayon/), or Portal), but for Dues Ex, physics aren't a king maker (neither are graphics) . Without a compelling story, believable characters, and interesting choices, it's just another shooter.

Physics needn't be a gimmick tho, if it's used well throughout the game to solve puzzles in new and interesting ways (for instance, using a LAM to take out one guard and tip a crate jamming the door to block his buddies from coming after you).

Oh wow v.dog. That crayon physics looks amazing. :eek:
It reminds me of Little Big World in a way. So very neat.
Thanks so much for posting this.

pauldenton
5th Feb 2008, 22:04
love that crayon physics vid - physics rock

some more cool vids here

cloth, cloth tearing and inflatables
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8LpC0rrUC8

water/lava sim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuPN800KS6Q

water
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o07KjfBx8GE

wind/tornado
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ0HNHO5Uik

wood/glass/rubber
http://www.videosift.com/video/Euphoria-physics-engine-GC-2006-demo

action reaction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HyT19JfY0

gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Diys-JpGA2M

inflated wheels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE_Gt68ZVds

now imagibe DX with these effects - it would freak you out.

jordan_a
5th Feb 2008, 22:07
Engine (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=73816) ?

EDIT for PD:

Should we incorporate this thread into the Engine Thread?

pauldenton
5th Feb 2008, 22:44
i dont care where it goes hopefully people will still bother to read it and imput!

rhalibus
6th Feb 2008, 10:23
I'm not one of the people who felt SS2 and DX were perfect and have no room for improvement.

DX wasn't perfect, but it's intentions were. :)

rhalibus
6th Feb 2008, 10:31
Keep in mind, everyone, that DX didn't have Havok style physics, but was still more immersive than DX:IW. Physics is cool, and it certainly won't hurt a game--I actually had fun throwing bodies around in DX:IW--but, as many people here have affirmed, the immersion of DX is based not on physics but on the choices the developers made in regard to versatility, plot, interactivity, and character depth. Anything beyond the basics should be worked on after they get the fundamentals down...:D

matches81
7th Feb 2008, 02:07
Anyone ever played "Penumbra - Overture"? A game that clearly shows that physics can be more than ragdoll and other "gimmicks" (yes, I consider ragdolls in the common sense a gimmick, as it's purpose mainly is to have corpses fly believably and adds nothing else to the game).
Physics can greatly add to the actual gaming experience. Simply put, it can easily add dozens of solutions to a problem just by putting a few objects in a room. An easy example would be reaching a ledge that is high up. Stack up some crates, propel yourself up improvising a seesaw-kind-of-thing and so on. The environment can get more volatile, enemies could break through doors believably, with the player blocking the door actually having an effect on their actions and so on and so on.
I agree that most games currently only use a really small portion of physics, but I'm confident these aspects will be improved, and I actually think that physics aren't more pronounced in games because many game developers think of it just the way some of you guys here think of it: "It's just a gimmick, let's put it in because it might help sell the game".

Don't get me wrong: I second the opinion that a well-written story with deep characters is very important, but don't write physics in general on the "gimmicks" list just because it was "abused" in most games so far.

!mphasis
7th Feb 2008, 02:16
->pauldenton
I read your first post, and did you know that most games don't have ANY code that randomises anything? The actions the AI does are all pre-programmed, but they depend on the player's actions. So what the player does is actually the random and deciding element for examples like your barrels.

Physics affecting the plot is also a great idea, hard to code, but a great idea.
*Making it look like an accident(Sweet idea)
Let's say you see someone about to walk down some stairs, you push a chair at them, they trip and break their neck. Then you get away with it scotch-free because of the lack of witnesses and the setup.

"scripted events! - go wash your mouth out"
All of DX1 was scripted, all of HL2 is scripted(and the physics puzzles planned), COD4 single-player...
Deus Ex 3 will be scripted, otherwise the AI would'nt do anything, ever...
Deus Ex 3 needs to just have multiple outcomes from the scripting, including if you use physics to do something.

->RedFeather1975
Intense combat was something neither IW or the original managed, ricocheting bullets, shooting through walls, taking cover. If you've played COD4 then you know exactly what I mean. Imagine 1 NPC laying down suppressing fire as another moves in on you etc.
Then mix that with mechanical augmentations, speed/strength, infa-red vision, cloaks, magnetic fields, wireless communication with your squad and even hacking in the battlefield and you have one of the most amazing combat models ever created.

But wait, we started with "Physics affecting plot" how about "combat effects plot"?
Imagine a room full of civilians like the buildings in hell's kitchen, and imagine having to hold out against an attack you block the doors, so they break in through the windows. Having a civilian factor in a combat situation always makes it more interesting(As long as you don't game over when you loose them) .
What happens if you unblock the doors, let them in and then help them massacre all of the civilians?

Every civilian, ally and enemy is no longer just a civilian, ally or enemy, they are a branch of the plot that goes somewhere!

Deus Ex 3 does not need:
-The most "Realistic physics ever"
-The best graphics ever
-The most original design


Deus Ex 3 needs:
-Incredible scripting that is prepared for anything
-To learn lessons from other great games, not try to be entirely new(COD4:Combat,HL2:Physics/Puzzles,DX1 choices actually affecting the player)
-Take some elements and re-invent them for the future:
*Character interactions
*Physics and combat(Gameplay) are one and the same with the Narrative and game path(Story) you can't do anything in one without affecting the other.
*Real Choices/Emotional choices


Sorry about the rant!
If there is anything I have forgotten, said wrong, or you plain just don't agree, pick it apart, destroy it, say exactly how you want this game and get excited!
You never know, Eidos might be watching...:rasp:

INSAN3
7th Feb 2008, 03:42
I had one of those moments watching the Teaser Trailer (http://www.deusex3.com/), when I suddenly went - "Oh my god its almost Ghost In the Shell: Innocence"... Afterwards I thought about how similar the concepts are and how how interesting it would be to have a prequel DX that could incorporate similar ideas (as in the problems accociated with developing and perfecting the whole artificial human technology seen in DX).

Tyrant Worm
8th Feb 2008, 17:34
I would like to see a Mass Effect dialouge system in place; that is by far the most intuitive and complete dialouge system ever.

And to whoever said that HL:2 had an okay physics system (paraphrasing here, don't remember the exact wording) - they had a GRAVITY GUN. If that isn't a fine example of physics manipulation in a game world, I don't know what is!

csmlouis
8th Feb 2008, 19:59
There are so many improvements to be done in terms of body/object/enviros physics.

I am an amatuer in terms of knowing what HAVOK could do or how Source performs. Nevertheless, I would mind to get my points across, in terms of physics that I could appreciate.

* I could wish for more and improved body collision physics (ala Assassin Creed...only with speed and strength augs on) that could knock down humans and objects like doors.

* I could hope for some form of improved GORE points (not those senseless dismembering) that featured human skeletal structures which can be fractured like from a hit of a baton or a dropping crate. Actually, I just want to see someone in the game dropping their weapons when i manipulate the physics... be it projectile or blunt force. Robotic dismembering is actually mind-blowing as it would feature a limping/creaking junk with parts hanging around.

* I would support the development of limited destructables (with the involvement of little scriptings...kinda like a limited ordnance in particular levels) that normally would affect anything wooden and also bend and twist metalic elements. Glass is...expected to shatter first but I would pay to see it hurts organic entities. Plasma heating and melting metals is also welcomed.

* Don't really know whether seismic vibration has to do with physics, but it is cool to shake things up (falling crates, shattering glasses, water...) with giant explotions or even giant mechs operating around.

* There will be the passive physics like wind/storm or even a down-drift. But then again for purely aesthetic reasons.

* Lastly, I would appreciate the differences between a polished and smooth surface where a gently lobbed grenade could slide, spin, and roll as opposed to a sandy or grassy surface where even rolling is made difficult.

Star Wars: Force Unleashed made a pretty decent example on how physical interactions should be defined.

minus0ne
9th Feb 2008, 00:17
scripted events! - go wash your mouth out :rasp:
What's wrong with scripted events? Do you want a computer-generated storyline, too?

pauldenton
9th Feb 2008, 04:01
There are so many improvements to be done in terms of body/object/enviros physics


*Robotic dismembering is actually mind-blowing as it would feature a limping/creaking junk with parts hanging around...

great suggestion - now that would be cool!



* There will be the passive physics like wind/storm or even a down-drift. But then again for purely aesthetic reasons..

Im glad you raised this. wind/storm does NOT have to be passive.

first image a game with a massive tornado! wouldnt that be cool?

next and back to DX -

imagine in DX when you get to the top of the crane thing, you are really high up, you can hear the wind really blowing, its intimidating! especially as you have to go accross some narrow girders and jump on to the top of the building.

but the problem was that the wind had NO effect,

now imaging the wind has a physical effect, that it could blow you off, that you have to be extra carful and now you are really scared and that you may need to actually change tactics. it may help to crouch or crawl to get accross safely? this could be more intensense if someone i chasing you where crouching or crawling may slow you down.

physics and atmosphere/immersion.
now also imagine in new york lets say on shutdown.
the place is deserted but soldiers, no street cleaners allowed.
there is trash blowing around in the street!
it adds to the atmosphere.

physics and tension.
now imaging trees and bushes blowing but also tin cans etc.
its dark you dont know where the enemy is, a tin can moves and falls of a table, a bush is shaking - is there someone there?

it can also bring a charature to life, moving hair, moving cloths.
off topic but while on the subject of bringing a charature to life id like to see shiny wet eyes with a glint - not the dull and dead eyes so commonally seen, its so simple yet adds so much.

then you have sailing, kites, the effect on projectiles, waves, water currents. currently many of these effects are done buy other methods but eventually i belive we will see physics based wind maps in common use.