enviroment

I dont know why (since red faction), any first person shooter game have put destructible emviroment in the game play, it sounds a little dificult to be in doom3 cause the tech labs and all that, but it would be nice to shot a rocket to the wall and do a hole, see that more demons are getting out of it, or use it like an escape route.

i hope doom 3 (it apears that not) has more enviroment interaction, at least more than half life 2...

I wouldn't be suprised if the environment was less interactive than Half life 2. Though I hope it turns out to be the opposite.

Environmet destruction is really not the most elaborate form of interaction...
Doom3 will have the various kinds of machinery and computer terminal interaction, plus all the stuff they set up with the physics. There´s obviously a great potential for interactivity in Doom3, I hope they use it a lot.

Besides, the way the environment is set up in Half-life 2 to interact with the player is, from what I've seen so far, way too obvious. It's a little overrated too. I'd rather have good ambience and mood.

I think it would be cool to see a game in the future forsake graphic fidelity (say, going back to quake 1 graphics) for an entirely dynamic environment. Give me quake one with insane physics implementation. Ie, don't fire a rocket in a tunnel or you'll most likely die from the walls/ceiling collapsing in on you. Ie, big craters and debris being blown everywhere, bullets actually leaving little pockets in the walls, rather than just black decals. Bullets shooting through wood tables, being able to blow holes in walls with rockets, C4, grenades, etc. This would be great.

The problem with that is, there's way too much scope for greif. In Red Faction everyone complained because only certain areas were destructable (is that a word?). But what did people expect? If the entire world was able to be destroyed, there would be no gameplay. You would be able tos hot trhough locked doors at any time, there would be no way to create an obstacle that you needed a puzzle to get past, you'd just blast through it. Unless you seriously limited explosives ammunition. Which would ruin the point, really.

For destructive environments to be something that would be normal these days, it would have had to have been a normal implementation 5 years ago. Carmack said something along these lines.

Alientank said:

For destructive environments to be something that would be normal these days, it would have had to have been a normal implementation 5 years ago. Carmack said something along these lines.

I remember him saying that too. Still, I think if a game really did focus on providing great, totally interactive gameplay, it would easily compensate for non-state-of-the-art-graphics (as long as the graphics were still done attractively). In fact, Carmack said that making games with Quake level graphics might be a good idea for some developers, because it's a "no-brainer" and they can concentrate on content. It would be really nice to see a game that went out of there way to have simple graphics, with interactive gameplay being the big slogan on the box.

Crix said:

I think it would be cool to see a game in the future forsake graphic fidelity (say, going back to quake 1 graphics) for an entirely dynamic environment. Give me quake one with insane physics implementation. Ie, don't fire a rocket in a tunnel or you'll most likely die from the walls/ceiling collapsing in on you. Ie, big craters and debris being blown everywhere, bullets actually leaving little pockets in the walls, rather than just black decals. Bullets shooting through wood tables, being able to blow holes in walls with rockets, C4, grenades, etc. This would be great.

Well I live in hope. I long for the day when a game enviroment is FULLY destructable, despite what AirRaid says about this ruining the point.
As for Doom 3 I think the utterly intense atmosphere will overule any quarms about major enviroment damage physics.

I also dream of a fully interactive real-like world that has the potential to be completely destructable. It sounds nice in theory. However, there are serious issues to deal with. I mean, what makes a game a game is how it's NOT like the real world. You don't have to worry about blowing up the room you're in and getting caught in a cave-in when you're playing a game. In a destructable world, anyone could just run a cheat to get a rocket launcher and destroy the entire world. Then what? Not to mention of course that the current technology as it stands would require a LOT to make that work right. Sure it's easy to destroy objects, and that's a good first step (destructable vehicles, dead bodies, tables, items, etc), but to make entire walls and ceilings always have the potential for destruction would be a phenomenal feat.

I don't expect to see destructable environments as anything more than a scripted gimmick scattered throughout a game for quite some time.

Kinda like MaxPain2, everything that is worth interacting with you can. i.e. open drawers, turn on sinks and shit like that.

Goliath said:

Kinda like MaxPain2, everything that is worth interacting with you can. i.e. open drawers, turn on sinks and shit like that.

Yea, like in MaxPain1!

Well, I think there are a number of clever ways developers could make a fully destructable game world work. Real life is fully destructable and allows plenty of excitement... I think that's portable to computers. ^_^

I was just thinking though... I don't know that sacrificing graphics will really free up enough power for physics/AI. I mean, our GPUs do like 95% of the graphics stuff right? Maybe we'll need physics/AI specialized boards in the future. And a general physics/AI API. Hopefully this could be done with specialized chips, rather than needing an additional Athlon or P4.