Octopus Overlords

Clearly, in a "reality" based game such as contemporary or military shooters, physics are important. You don't want to see bodies poking their arms through walls, or lie at 45 degree angle against nothing, or have half of the body over the ledge and will not fall over, and such.

But how much physics are important in fantasy or strategy games, if at all? Or RPG? Or some other genres?

As long as they don't disrupt my sense of immersion, in my humble opinion, the developers can do as much or as little as they like.

If there were an RPG where throwing weapons or shooting a bow were in 1st person I would want correct physics, but overall the genre doesn't implement a fighting system where they are overly important though.

Now in sports games and others I think they are very important.

Not very important. But that doesn't mean I don't love it when they have an awesome physics engine in the game.

I'm in the "don't distract me with lousy physics" camp. If it doesn't get in my way, I'm generally more concerned with things like whether or not I have choices about how to play the game (ie. can I proceed through stealth OR firepower, or am I forced to use one or the other?) or even the game's plot.

Sith

If a game is targetted as being a simulation, then it better have the best possible physics.
Or why bother?

If the game is being made 'just for fun' then it's not that important to me.

Examples would be 18 WoS Pedal to the Medal, and Ford Racing 3...

-18WoS is designed to be a truck driving sim, and it does a pretty good job with physics.

-FR3 is designed to be just a fun racing game, and it is IMO

3 years ago, it wouldn't have mattered at all. Today, if you are making an RPG that is played through the first person perspective, I'll notice if it's missing.

HL2 screwed everyone.

In a game like the Infinity engine games from Bioware/Black Isle though - who cares? Physics plays no role. In a game like Morrowind? It's now necessary.

Lucky for everyone else, Valve bought their physics engine, so others can buy it too.

Either good physics or no physics. I very much prefer physics, especially in first/third person games where you are seeing what is going on. A first person RPG with good physics would be a treat - seeing enemies spin around and tumble over a table after you whack 'em with a mace would be great.

On the other hand, I am more than a little tired of exagerated physics. A human body weighs ~180+ pounds. If it is dead and lying on the ground and you step on it or shoot it, it should not fly across the room, arms flailing. 50-gallon steel drum weighs ~60 pounds. If you walk into it, it may nudge an inch or two, but it isn't going to tip over, and it certainly isn't going to bounce down the hall. A full one weighs around 480 pounds, and shouldn't move at all. I'd rather have no physics than physics that make the world feel like styrofoam.

If it were a question of resources spent in development I'd say to put physics lower than AI on the priority list. You could have all the nice physics in the world but nothing takes me out of the game faster than watching a squad of enemies take no notice that their buddies are being sniped to death.

Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even anthropology...it's all good. You can keep your psychology and sociology, though.

For me it depends on the game. One of the most distracting things for me in Thief 3 was the way npcs would bend over backwards or flop around when you ko'd them. On the other hand, I don't mind at all that in (xbox) Crimson Skies, you can carom off things and still fly (not very likely with real physics). I guess for the most part, though, I agree with Blackhawk.

Ironrod wrote:Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even anthropology...it's all good. You can keep your psychology and sociology, though.

Please, tell us why you feel that way...

good physics implementation yes, poor or exaggerated physics no. one of the things that really set me off with deus ex 2 was the lightness that bodies had. you could fling those things up in the air like 30 feet! very unrealistic, even though some fun could be had with it.

i'm still waiting for that perfect blend of a fps. one that has believable physics, great ai, realistic lighting that actually affects visibility, deformable terrain and destructible objects, and my pipe dream of technology, water that acts naturally outside of the layer we see in all current games. i want water to roll down hills, pick up speed as it does, and have force when it hits something. i want water to wash up on the shore after a large explosion and collect in shallow areas. i want heavy rain that's not just a visual effect. hell, a whole weather system would be nice, especially in rpgs.

raydude wrote:If it were a question of resources spent in development I'd say to put physics lower than AI on the priority list.

OMFG Yes!

It's obvious that physics modelling has come a long way in gaming. It's been nice to see it blossom and improve through a steady progression of various games. Now, it would be great to see the other frontier of game realism come to fruition, that being A.I.. As BH said, there are parameters of physics that have been steadily improved, weight and velocity and all that are being dealt with. Hopefully programmers will take the analogs to these aspects in A.I., such as expected (and possibly unexpected) behavior modelling and emotional response, and further increase realism in our games.

It's a subjective thing I know, and a much deeper well to delve into programming-wise than just sharpening textures and creating more fluid character animations, but one I think can yield amazing results in gameplay.

Ironrod wrote:Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even anthropology...it's all good. You can keep your psychology and sociology, though.

Hehe. I have a chemical engineering degree which required a certain amount of "humanities" classes. I loaded up on psychology because I figured it was almost a science.

Montag wrote: I loaded up on psychology because I figured it was almost a science.

It would like to be a science when it grows up. If I had a point, it was that games generally model the physical sciences well enough. The soft sciences, being more elusive by nature and especially to computer nerds, seldom make it into games in any form, and then only in ham-handed approximations. Integrating some of the more subtle principles of sociology and psychology into game design could take some genres to a new level.

Well, folks... in military shooters, having ragdoll physics definitely helps with the immersion factor, as the bodies falls this way and that, and maybe fall and rattle down staircases, and such. I think we are all tired of seeing bodies "hung" up on walls and arms poking through walls and such.

On the other hand, wouldn't ragdoll physics enhance a sword-fighting game? Or a martial arts fighting game? Or even those Monster Fighting games?

Although I have an appreciation of seeing well done ragdoll physics in a game I'm always entertained when bodies end up in strange contortions or the occasional floating corpse. I rely more on dialogue and sound for my immersion.

Now if you can pin your enemies to the wall with a sword, spear, or other pointy stick-like impliment then that would be cool!

$iljanus wrote:Now if you can pin your enemies to the wall with a sword, spear, or other pointy stick-like impliment then that would be cool!

I believe you can already do that with AvP games, at least as Predator. That harpoon thingie is nasty.

Didn't Kate Archer do the same thing in NOLF2?

$iljanus wrote: Now if you can pin your enemies to the wall with a sword, spear, or other pointy stick-like impliment then that would be cool!

Recent games that allow you to pin your enemies to the wall are HL2 (crossbow) and Painkiller (stake gun). With a bit of luck you can sometimes pin stuff to the ceiling too.

Like Kasey Chang mentioned, in AvP you could spear dismembered body parts to the wall, and yeah I seem to remember being able to do the same in NOLF as well.

As for regular physics, I love 'em. Right now they're a MUST in FPS (especially ragdolls IMO), but I welcome any game that implements good physics. It added a lot to Silent Storm, for example.

Anyone remember that simple shareware game where you had to make block towers in order to increase your sphere of influence to cover a bunch of victory points? That game was pretty fun and was based on nothing but physics, although they were a little dodgy sometimes.

Lord Percy wrote:

Anyone remember that simple shareware game where you had to make block towers in order to increase your sphere of influence to cover a bunch of victory points? That game was pretty fun and was based on nothing but physics, although they were a little dodgy sometimes.

Bontago!

I can be happy either way. My favorite types of games are sims (flight or space sims, not THE sims, dammit), and I've enjoyed sims with very realistic physics (Terminus, Elite, Steel Beasts, Falcon 4.0), semi-realistic physics (Jumpgate, Hardwar, M1 Tank Platoon II) or no realism at all (Freespace 2, Wing Commander, Crimson Skies).

In strategy games, physics can be cool or unnecessary, so again, I'm fine either way, as long as if physics are included, they're executed properly.

I do enjoy good physics in a game. But as said before, if it gets in the way of AI, then it needs to be axed or put on the back burner. As far as science goes, I absolutely loved the references to it in Half Life 2. For once a game maker had characters talk physics and it made sense! It was even quantum physics! I love Half Life 2.

Only if the game is hyped because of its physics. I remember what happened to Dues Ex:IW. The physics were supposed to be a big part in the game, and they were a joke. That is the only time I care about physics.

Depends on the game, but I only really notice if they're either very poorly done or very well done like in HL2.

HL2 makes things die with ragdoll physics as if they actually have a skeleton; UT2003, for lack of a better example, makes people look like they were just gelatinous stickmen flailing in the wind upon death.

A first person RPG with good physics would be a big plus like Blackhawk mentioned, especially with hit detection like the next Elder Scrolls game has planned.

It's also important to me in flying games, but sports games take the cake for sure. I want a hockey puck to react like a real puck, with weight and the appropriate amount of drag, etc... baseball and basketball games in particular need it to be spot on to feel right to me.

I didn't even open this thread (based on its title) for a few days as I figured it had to do with a genre I didn't care about (shooters). Imagine my surprise when I finally...

I'm all about "is the game fun?" Very very little of my concern is about whether the game is realistic. I like Tactics: Ogre style of RPGs. I like BG2 RPGs. I rather enjoyed the ruleset of Wizardry 8 (to touch on a first-person perspective RPG). To me, physics is very unlikely to affect how much fun I'm going to have with the game.

That said, a game like Morrowind, which is a shooter wrapped around a RPG style development system, does need some amount of adequate physics to even be considered playable. If the physics of a game in that vein were wonky, then they'd distract (a la Daggerfall) from the feeling of immersion that the game's going for. As long as the physics are "too far off" in a pseudo-realistic open-ended game, then I'd probably be fine, although better simulating reality would go a decent ways towards making the game achieve its goals. But for the most part, I enjoy the *strategy* of my RPGs, and rarely does a proper implementation of physics come into play, strategically for my style of RPGs. I'd much prefer an interesting, but ultimately unrealistic, ruleset for my gaming goodness.

~Neal