Environment interaction

[WorstUsernameEver]

So, dear devs, and dear gentlemen of the jury,

will this game have some sort of environment interaction, like breaking columns to smash enemies, environmental puzzle, or anything?

 

Sincerely,

Mr.Worst Ever

[HoonDing]

Undoubtedly there's the mandatory breaking of countless barrels and chests for ph4t l00t.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Undoubtedly there's the mandatory breaking of countless barrels and chests for ph4t l00t.

 

I'm hoping for something a little bit more in depth but hey, I can live with barrels and chests.... and crates.

Don't you dare forgetting crates Obsidian!!!!

YOU HEAR ME?!!

[HoonDing]

Being able to push enemies in fires & impale them on spikes would be a bare minimum. Bloodrayne 2 & Legacy of Kain are good examples in this regard.

Edited July 30, 2010 by virumor

[Purkake]

Being able to push enemies in fires & impale them on spikes would be a bare minimum. Bloodrayne 2 & Legacy of Kain are good examples in this regard.

Dark Messiah is the only example, all others are merely pretenders. Fact.

[Wombat]

I see...Valve thing, I mean, environmental puzzles. Indeed, Diablo 3 seems to be going to implement some environmental puzzles and the engine seems to be quite capable of dealing with puzzles, considering the planned Tomb Raider spin-off. Now back to Dungeon Siege 3, E3 reviews reported the usage of PhysX but, outside of immersion factor such as rag dolls and the feel of distance both in terms of graphic and sound effects, only one reported merit to the game-play of it is the vista, which was replaced from mini-map.

 

It would be fun if it adds depths, being tactical factor, and/or, as puzzles independent from combat. However, to be honest, I wonder if Obsidian has related resources. Indeed, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, used source engine but I didn't see the merit of physics there. Also, even about traditional puzzles, outside of physics, I don't think Obsidian was good at implementing puzzles, compared with Bioware.

[HoonDing]

Being able to push enemies in fires & impale them on spikes would be a bare minimum. Bloodrayne 2 & Legacy of Kain are good examples in this regard.

Dark Messiah is the only example, all others are merely pretenders. Fact.

Dark Messiah is a lesson for every villain that if he or she wants to conquer the world, it's important never to place a spiked wall every 5 metres in every location.

[Purkake]

It's not like the enemies didn't kick you into the spikes as well...

 

Also, staircases were the real enemy there.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Dungeon Siege and no physics-based traps? Impossible, I say!

[LadyCrimson]

Always gotta have the crates & barrels.

 

I remember the game Nox...which was a cute/fun game...had this issue where they made almost everything 'interactive'. That is, everything was movable by running into it, from chairs to tables to fruit. It was annoying because you'd get 'stuck' on things all the time. So nothing like that, please. heh

 

But the 'bombers' that Nox had - little summons that simultaneously unleashed a few pre-loaded spells when they contacted an enemy - were cool. A bit like kamikaze pet-traps. A little over-powered, but one could tweak to fix that. I'd love to have something like those in another game. Floor/thief traps are ok but mobile ones are even more fun. Heh

Edited July 31, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Wombat]

It would be fun when puzzles are done well. From my point of view, the problem is that, although I'm not a great fan of Bioware, I cannot but admit the puzzles by Bioware much better than Obsidian/BIS's. If I take puzzles/traps in a broader meaning, indeed, In IWD series, the "traps" are mainly expressed in the context of combat game-plays in a form of ambushes/reinforcements, which was not bad at all. Another type of memorable "puzzles" by BIS/Obsidian is carefully woven to plots like in the case of Planescape: Torment (Some people called it one of the best adventure game). That said, I cannot remember good mini-game puzzles from Obsidian/BIS, which is one of the reasons why I was reluctant when Sawyer began to talk about mini-games. In fact, Obsidian mini-games don't seem to be so popular..., which may change, though, since, whether they admitted it or not, they hired a casino game designer for Fallout: New Vegas. I wonder if they have such resources for DSIII.

 

But the 'bombers' that Nox had - little summons that simultaneously unleashed a few pre-loaded spells when they contacted an enemy - were cool. A bit like kamikaze pet-traps. A little over-powered, but one could tweak to fix that. I'd love to have something like those in another game. Floor/thief traps are ok but mobile ones are even more fun. Heh

I read some of DS reviews. Trap spells, indeed, seem to exist and can be interesting...well, I have to repeat...if they are done properly.

 

Personally, I'd like to see puzzles which are nicely interwoven into environments, characterizing each map, rather than puzzles which are (feel) independent and abrupt, but they must require much craftmanship and time...

[Pop]

Given that Onyx was originally developed as an engine for a game with acid-blooded enemies, I would hope it has the capacity for at least some destructible environment stuff. What we've heard so far about DSIII seems to peg the action as being heavily physics-based, so that holds some promise. I'd hope for a powerful telekinesis spell, or something.

 

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, used source engine but I didn't see the merit of physics there.

Troika used an early alpha of the engine. Besides, if you look at promo videos they made early in development, the physics are curiously much more robust than they ended up being in the finished product. I'd imagine that had to do either with cut content for the sake of nonexistent QA, or the emphasis on stat-based gameplay.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Pop

[Wombat]

I'd hope for a powerful telekinesis spell, or something.

I liked messing around with the gravity gun in HL2 (Straight forward shooters are not my cup of tea.) but Bethesda was trying to implement it in Oblivion but they seem to have given it up since they couldn't make it work properly even for the sand-box style action game. Thought the details are yet to be revealed, since Dungeon Siege III is most likely to be focused on hack'n slash game-play, I think these sandbox playground aspects will be just mildly introduced.

 

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, used source engine but I didn't see the merit of physics there.

Troika used an early alpha of the engine. Besides, if you look at promo videos they made early in development, the physics are curiously much more robust than they ended up being in the finished product. I'd imagine that had to do either with cut content for the sake of nonexistent QA, or the emphasis on stat-based gameplay.

Yea...these things went through my mind while I was writing the part you quoted. In either case, it hugely depends on the final presentation of the game-play as I mentioned in the above case.

[Sannom]

We should have the bare minimum, according to the previews at the E3 : throwing monsters off cliffs to their death.

[WorstUsernameEver]

We should have the bare minimum, according to the previews at the E3 : throwing monsters off cliffs to their death.

 

But what about throwing cliffs to the enemies?

But seriously, I hope there is at least a little bit of tactical use of the environment, it was something I was hoping to see a lot more in Dragon Age : Origins and instead it turned to be a little bit of a gimmick.

[Wombat]

Bioware doesn't take too much risks. On the same format such as Infinity Engine and Aurora Engine, I find that BIS/Obsidian tend to differentiate maps by implementing unique elements while Bioware tend to stick to build a solid basic rules and differentiate maps basically focusing on unique opponents. For example, in IWD2, there were some implementations unique to a certain maps such as explosive barrels and alarming drums. Also, there was a plan which lets the party divide into sneak team and attack team, letting the sneak team deal with a system which opening the main gate while attack team is attracting attentions (With multi-player implementation, this may be quite interesting). Also, there were maps which required time attack and special purposes such as destroying a certain construct. Sounds in theory, doesn't it? The downer for this is that it is tough to standardize the qualities of each map and, in fact, IWD2 suffered from the inconsistent qualities of each map. So, you can easily see why Bioware won't even try to do such kind of implementations. The same can be said to Knight of the Old Republic II, where party members are separated and had to act on their own, for example.

 

Now going back on topic, basically, I admit that I miss the uniqueness of each map and feel sad when I see shooters have more unique maps which require a certain level of tactics with optional objectives than games on NWN 2 series. I'd like to seem some game-play related implementations unique to each map, which can be combined with physics or any other implementations to modern systems, too. That said, while I'd like to see unique maps with interesting implementations which increase tactical depth, I hope Obsidian will manage to keep the quality of each map to a certain standard. Realistically, it would be tough considering the current standard for both graphics and polished game-plays.

[Purkake]

Bioware doesn't take too much risks.

It's like you're trying to summon Volo.

[Wombat]

Well, I cannot help it but what I'm saying is just simple. BIS/Obsidian/Troika are risk-takers but these good-willed features tend to end up with "unpolished products" especially to the eyes of reviewers. As for Bioware, even Ray Muzyka admits that talented designers are not happy with giant projects. So, I think even Bioware is probably trying to develop smaller games to which ambitious designers are assigned in appropriate market. Now, if I haven't taken the info terribly wrong, Dungeon Siege III belong to a giant project which expect its sales mainly from consoles, where the both reviewers and players are unforgivable to "unfinished products". So, while I'd like to see good content such as interesting characters, dialogues, story-telling devices, and setting, which relatively doesn't require subsequent bug-fixing, I won't insist on other features which may not be important to the market.

 

Of course, the OP can be taken as just requiring universal physics which may become repetitive later in the game. However, I guess I just said it by myself: To avoid the feel of repetitions, Obsidian must need to build a system which is hard to be warn out and/or unique maps which add some aspects with reasonable learning curves for the players. It must be a tough job but they need to maximize the effects of their efforts so that they will be well presented in the final product. After all, some players may actually not buy games based on their idiosyncratic insistence to a certain features, the majority will probably be happy with just enjoyable experience as a whole. Well, in my case, too, I tend to ask about details but I understand "trade-offs." I won't buy Storm of Zehir but I'm going to buy Alpha Protocol eventually based on my personal priority.

[Purkake]

Whether it's true or not, it's another one of those statements that activates the little red phone in the Volocave.

 

Also, any multi-platform game game can expect the majority of the sales to come from the console side and it's a sad state when being forgiving to unfinished products is considered something positive.

[Wombat]

[Off Topic]

Also, any multi-platform game game can expect the majority of the sales to come from the console side and it's a sad state when being forgiving to unfinished products is considered something positive.

??? There must be some misunderstanding going on here. Nobody takes unfinished products as positive and, commercial wise, it would be rather dangerous for Obsidians to think the majority of gamers are forgiving to "unfinished" products. In fact, some forgiving PC gamers didn't save Obsidian about the sales of Alpha Protocol. I'm going to buy it but I know it won't help Obsidian, either.

 

[Edit]It's quite common sense that wishful thinking in business is not recommended. I know my preferences but I cannot ignore what my common sense tells me, where I'm prepared to some "trade-offs."

Edited July 31, 2010 by Wombat

[Purkake]

We agree then, releasing unfinished products should be discouraged.

[Vuguroth]

you talk about pushing and stuff, but don't bring up The Witcher?

..

 

I don't have any need at all to break stuff up in general. Ofc I try to break a lot of urns in DS2 because I want Bone Minion to crawl up so I can kill him

To me though, I'd most of all enjoy chosen scenes with breaking stuff. I tend to play games many times over, and that style of gaming encourages a bit slower pace and making events less in quantity and more so in quality. From reading this thread in my current mood and mindset I immediately thought that it would be awesome with a quest where you can break one of the trees from the forests outside Aman'lu. Faaalling over and crashing }:] curry curry curry (words of enjoyment)

Also I've more enjoyed certain areas with smashable stuff, than general inclusion plottering around. Like ruins of a city where there are tons of pottery and forgotten trinkets. Any heroic adventurer is well aware of how powerful gizmos end up in the hands of people who don't know how to appreciate it (not necessarily relating to LOTR)

 

Also autonumous environmental interaction has been much bigger to me, than supposed such. I don't want some stuff in my path that kind of tempts me to break it, am I supposed to break this or not? Then I suppose I shall and get disappointed at the value of it.

 

Autonumous is *very* interesting! When you by happenstance manage to break stuff or your vividly sparkling arrows get attached to stuff to make nice expressions. That is worth inclusion

[Siamese Cat]

Diablo III appears to go for breakable environment. Here are some traps/environment interactions/breakable environments/doors/flammable (electrifiable) objects shown in 19 minute play through. You may like to get a glimpse of wizard breaking pillars with disintegrate spell to make them crash on skeletons here, too. I'm wondering how these physics would work with other abilities of wizard such as slow time and teleport.

 

Then, here, we are talking of a game developed by a smaller team with shorter development period. So, like someone said, these physics element will be most likely to be only bare minimum.

[mkreku]

I remember the game Nox...which was a cute/fun game...had this issue where they made almost everything 'interactive'. That is, everything was movable by running into it, from chairs to tables to fruit. It was annoying because you'd get 'stuck' on things all the time. So nothing like that, please. heh

I remember that. Every time you entered an inn you'd be wading through furniture and after a few feet you'd be pushing this ginormous pile of chairs and tables in front of you, slowing you down and making progress nigh on impossible. Very annoying.

[Purkake]

All I remember is that Nox was fun