Physixs?

[sociosqu]

Being the new kid in the forum I am very fascinated by amount of great ideas here. I searched for 'physixs' but that didn't reveal any post.

So, if physixs-effects had already been discussed, please give me the link.

I just remember the fun I had with Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. You had loads of non standard solutions for a fight. Now imagine this kind of freedom in a game like BG, even if I don't know how close Eternity will be to that style, just imagine.

You could let topple things on top of your enemies by breaking the roof of the building they are in, or set the haystack on fire behind which they are hiding etc. pp.

It might become very hard for the KI developer so that the games stays fair between the human creativity and a computer algorithm, but nevertheless I think that would open the door for many new options, not only for a fight.

 

What do you think?

Edited November 26, 2012 by sociosqu

[Aldereth]

Physics probably fit better with a 3D real time game but I love to see a turn base or RT with pause with some interactive and destructible environment to add some depth to combat. It would be challenging in terms of expending resource to develope and balance such a system as well as getting the AI to take advantage of them.

[rjshae]

Given the nature of this game, I suspect that most structures will not have destruction mechanics. Maybe barrels. The only physics we might see would be from rag-doll physics, knockdowns, and perhaps trajectories from projectiles and explosions.

[AGX-17]

First, it's Physics, not Physixs.

 

Second, this is an isometric realtime w/ pause game. Set in a fantasy world full of magic. When Cadegund fires her musket at an enemy, the accuracy and damage will be determined by simulated dice rolls, not physics calculations.

 

It's not going to be a first-person action RPG like Dark Messiah. Whose physics were not accurate in the first place. Kicking a man toward a wall covered thickly in spikes will not result in his guaranteed impalement. It will not result in impalement at all, if real world physics are applied.

 

Given the nature of this game, I suspect that most structures will not have destruction mechanics. Maybe barrels. The only physics we might see would be from rag-doll physics, knockdowns, and perhaps trajectories from projectiles and explosions.

 

That is itself highly unlikely. Why license a physics modeling engine when you can simply have an animator animate a barrel breaking animation? It's a given that almost zero of the game's backers are looking for realtime physics modelling in this, they're looking for an IE-inspired RPG with strong writing and story. Practically nobody is going to be upset if explosions don't accurately send dirt, rocks and branches flying in accurately modeled trajectories. And human bodies don't even go flying when exploded, so that's right out. What use is there for ragdoll physics in an isometric game in the first place? They don't even accurately model the physical motions of a human body gone limp/unconscious/dead.

Edited November 26, 2012 by AGX-17

[Klice]

Practically nobody is going to be upset [...].

 

You mean, you wouldn't; because I would ! It'd be nice to have some nice believable explosion and dismemberment. Even if it's isometric, some features like this wouldn't hurt.

[Osvir]

First, it's Physics, not Physixs.

 

That bothered you as well? Then I realized "Oh right!" it's PhysX by the way, to be nit-picky. It's a graphics thingmabob.

 

Mafia, Highest PhysX settings versus Lowest PhysX settings.

 

I think this topic touches destructible environment and/or interactive environment and I say yes to that. I hope that Obsidian defines Material they use in their development early on (Wood is Wood, Stone is Stone), this way they could possibly make flammable houses and/or trees

 

I thought I replied to this thread but oh well shrug.. thought of an alternate ending to Baldur's Gate that would've been cool thanks to this thread. Imagine being able to enter Baldur's Gate, lob a molotov coaktail* at the Thieves Guild, enter the Labyrinth but be chased down by every guard in Baldur's Gate through it (in and out) and take out Sarevok. It could be an excellent ending for an evil character, as you have to escape out of Baldur's Gate doing this, and escaping the city gets you to Jon Irenicus (ambushed in the wilds and captured). Just something to think about.

 

I think that a risk of throwing around Fireballs wherever you go could be an interesting feature, with an On/Off switch in difficulty options (Flammable objects "Yes/No"?).

 

If I am inside a wooden house and the Bandits come and attack, or the villagers are on a lynch mob with torches to destroy the main character (because they think he/she is an abomination or whatever). Regardless, they burn down the house my party is in and rising from the ashes of it is my character, though I might loose 1 or 2 characters if I can't escape from it. Likewise I could use the same tactic against my enemies hiding inside houses. The consequences would of course be that people wouldn't like you as much if you burn down their villages and huts.

 

It'd be a more rewarding experience for an evil character if you can play a chaotic destructive force character.

 

Workload:

- Making everything flammable isn't difficult (I think), using a fire animation that spreads depending on triggers and such and where it hits (I mean, Fire and Wood is both going to be "material" in the game, so this is a question of organizing the models and such to act accordingly, which is a bit of a workload). There'd be some workload to making the "destroyed" model too I think.

- The real workload I believe is to make story elements and consequences, making NPC's react in a way and such. Druids in a Forest, Villagers, Guards, Factions etc. etc.

 

*coaktail because the other one is, you know, filtered.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Osvir

[rjshae]

From a purely schedule- and cost-driven perspective, I don't think that adding destructable environments will make sense. The latter is more suitable for action RPGs. It would make more sense to focus on more widely-applicable elements, such as getting the spell effects and character animation looking good.

[jivex5k]

Eh...Physics don't matter much to me in a top down game like this.

Just get the animations right.

[Osvir]

From a purely schedule- and cost-driven perspective, I don't think that adding destructable environments will make sense. The latter is more suitable for action RPGs. It would make more sense to focus on more widely-applicable elements, such as getting the spell effects and character animation looking good.

 

I don't know why but for some reason I believe that many people think "Oh destructible environment" and think of Diablo action RPG-esque "smashing crates" type of thing. I think I believe that because that's kind of what I think myself.. why does it have to be treated like smashing crates and toppling down walls though? What if that house actually catches fire when you throw a Fireball and the world reacts to it?

 

How does it not make sense? I just threw a Fireball inside a wooden barn with lots of hay and nothing started burning. Or in the forest, yeah, I unleashed my spell arsenal (fire) on those Druids because I wanted to watch them burn (evil character) but nothing happened. The spell's fizzled against the bark of the tree or something, oh well I did take down the entire Druid encampment population. Likewise, if I play a good character I might be more careful with where I place my spells, so I don't burn down the entire forest (Instead I might choose some friendlier spells in my Grimoire to cast).

 

A destructible/interactive environment is definitely adding immersion in whichever way you look at it, just want to argue that (whether or not it in the game or not, and to what extent). Probably will cost more resources, unless there's some time or cost effective way to do it.

 

Unrelated but related: I just watched a review of SimCity for SNES, fun stuff.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Osvir

[Nerei]

From a time/cost vs result I really do not think this is worth it. In an ideal world sure, but this is a project with limited time and resources.

 

First off given that backgrounds are going to be pre-rendered 2D images if the art posted so far is any kind of reference it would make it hard to do anything worthwhile with a physics engine.

Pictures like those from mafia requires collision boxes to work well be it from the ground or world objects.

An image does not have this naturally, it is flat and dynamic calculations on a flat plane is fairly boring and in most cases not very accurate. Characters or objects would just fall down and not tumble down stairs etc.

It would be possible to define the collision boxes sure, however that is extra work and we still got the problem of the game-world being 2D images. Damage also require additional renderings (and post rendering touchups). Just making a house in a pristine and burnt down condition is pretty much twice the work for the art department. Less damage could require less work by reusing large parts of a model, problem however is that 2D images are not really a dynamic media and could make it labour intensive (consider being able to dynamically burning down part of a house).

 

That is not to say that having minor pieces of the environment destructible is impossible. Such a thing can be done by having chairs/tables/barrels etc. as 3D models witha a "death" animation as have already been suggested.

Having major parts of the environment dynamic on the other hand would be a quite big task with fairly limited payoff. After all should the limited resources be diverted towards making it possible to torch a village or collapse a bridge? Maybe burning a random patch of trees or grass? Remember that even with reused 3D models there is still post rendering touchups (and likely adapting the model to the scene). I would so much rather see those resources go towards a better core game.

 

This does not mean that major parts of the world cannot be destroyed, but it would likely a) be required by the plot and b) be done offscreen. A bit like Saradush in ToB

 

Ragdoll physics to me also seems like a bit of a waste, the chance that we can do much more than predefined attacks are slim making predefined animations just as good, especially in a "flat" world.

 

That is not to say that I would not like to see a completely dynamic game environment, but I just do not see it as important enough that this amount of resources being diverted towards it and setting fire to the village with a fireball due it being wood only to come back later and find it in pristine condition would bother me more than the game ignoring the fire in the first place.

[Pipyui]

I think Nerei mostly covered everything, however, I'd like to elaborate that I think that including physics goes beyond being cost-ineffective and approaches the realm of impossiblity. 3D physics in games are almost exclusively implemented by 3rd party applications like Havok or PhysX, which need to be licensed. This could account for all 3D objects in the game, but couldn't interface the 2D image environment. To solve this would be a massive and expensive undertaking, and Obsidian would need design their own physics engine in-house. Now, a basic invisible 3D collision map could be concieved, such that 3D effects and placeables could collide with static environment objects like trees and rocks, but those environment objects would not be able to move in 3D space (accept maybe some very basic 2D displacement).

 

Both 3D and 2D placeables could be scripted (no physics here) to burn, crush, or collapse, but this would need to be done on a case-by-case basis lest Obsidian make a big expensive project out of it, as Nerei details above.

 

This said, I would love to see some dynamic environments like collapsable walls and such, but they would need to be individually crafted into PE.