Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread: why DX3 could be far better than DX1

why DX3 could be far better than DX1

  1. #1

    why DX3 could be far better than DX1

    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?

  2. #2
    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!

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    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.

  6. #6
    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.

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by RedFeather1975
    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.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by pauldenton

    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.

  10. #10
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 1999


    Originally Posted by jd10013
    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.

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

    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.

  12. #12
    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.

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by RedFeather1975
    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.

  15. #15
    fun real life simmulation leading to choices - gimmicks

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    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...

  17. #17
    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.

  18. #18
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    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 for example) will become the most important parts of future developments by the game industry.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Graphics mean nothing in DX. Nothing.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 1999

    Big Grin

    Originally Posted by GlobalNode
    Graphics mean nothing in DX. Nothing.
    So you wouldn't mind if DX looked like this:

  22. #22
    I wouldn't. As long as those sticks have a good story.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    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.

  24. #24
    Originally Posted by Xcom
    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.

  25. #25
    Originally Posted by tanonx
    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?

Page 1 of 2 12 Last