• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

can games bring back advanced physics systems (NOT pertaining to graphics)

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Why the hell is it that since the PS4 and Xbox One launched, games have completely gone down the fucking gutter when it comes to physics? Destructible environments were a thing in 2001, with red faction which allowed you to blow up whatever the fuck you wanted and it looked cool as hell. Far Cry 2 had dunia, which was an extremely advanced engine in all areas- graphics, physics, gameplay, etc. Crysis (not counting how mindblowing the game was visually when it came out) had fully destructible environments, not to the same extent of red faction, but still to a greater extent than whatever the fuck most modern games have. GTA4 had the most realistic ragdoll engine ever made, Versions of windows before vista had EAX which is the most realistic 3d audio sound engine to date, warping sound, adding reverb and echo depending on the terrain and areas you were in. Soldier of Fortune 2 has the most realistic gore system in a game, with extremely detailed, realistic dismemberment that put literally every other COD killing simulator to shame. All of these are games from the fucking 2000s. In the year of our lord 2022, why is it that despite having way more powerful hardware than what we had in 2001, is it that no games have destructible environments, well made physics engines, and good 3d audio??? (PS5 3d audio frankly doesn't compare to how realistic EAX got)
It's like we go 15 quadrillion steps forward in graphics but take a massive step back in literally everything else. What the fuck??? I want my advanced, revolutionary immersive physics back! Stop scripting everything and making a cutscene for the tiniest shit!!
 

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
Very good question. It’s crazy that destructible environments peaked in the 360 era.

BOTW has the most interesting physics of any modern game to me and that was like 5 years ago now.

Teardown has really good destruction too but it’s basically the entire game


 
Last edited:

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Physics is like that one class in high school that you struggle at and watch the day go by, who knows where the “physics” is on developers priorities list, naughty dog multiple game of the year awards do you hear anyone talk about Nathan Drake’s “physics”? Physics contribute but gaming is trying to get back to its glory days.
 

Rocco Schiavone

I am terrified of Microsoft and am always concerned about them.
Why the hell is it that since the PS4 and Xbox One launched, games have completely gone down the fucking gutter when it comes to physics? Destructible environments were a thing in 2001, with red faction which allowed you to blow up whatever the fuck you wanted and it looked cool as hell. Far Cry 2 had dunia, which was an extremely advanced engine in all areas- graphics, physics, gameplay, etc. Crysis (not counting how mindblowing the game was visually when it came out) had fully destructible environments, not to the same extent of red faction, but still to a greater extent than whatever the fuck most modern games have. GTA4 had the most realistic ragdoll engine ever made, Versions of windows before vista had EAX which is the most realistic 3d audio sound engine to date, warping sound, adding reverb and echo depending on the terrain and areas you were in. Soldier of Fortune 2 has the most realistic gore system in a game, with extremely detailed, realistic dismemberment that put literally every other COD killing simulator to shame. All of these are games from the fucking 2000s. In the year of our lord 2022, why is it that despite having way more powerful hardware than what we had in 2001, is it that no games have destructible environments, well made physics engines, and good 3d audio??? (PS5 3d audio frankly doesn't compare to how realistic EAX got)
It's like we go 15 quadrillion steps forward in graphics but take a massive step back in literally everything else. What the fuck??? I want my advanced, revolutionary immersive physics back! Stop scripting everything and making a cutscene for the tiniest shit!!
They used the shitty Jaguar CPU in PS4/Xbox One you know??

Now most players don't care about physics anymore. Game like Crapplefield 2042 sucks when It comes in terms of physics and destruction.
 

Xeaker

Member
It is a shame they only focus on best graphics.


 

Drew1440

Member
They used the shitty Jaguar CPU in PS4/Xbox One you know??

Now most players don't care about physics anymore. Game like Crapplefield 2042 sucks when It comes in terms of physics and destruction.
Didn't Havok support physics calculations on the GPU? I remember there was a lot of GPGPU talk when these consoles launched.
 

The Stig

Member
My guess is that some bean counters decided it wasn't worth the money. I doubt it was worth it for far cry 2.

Those same programmers are busy designing cosmetic DLC now.
 
It seems like physics based gameplay is just too troublesome or difficult for the mainstream audience to handle. So, devs just water it down instead. That, and probably like The Stig The Stig mentioned, investment related. Why bother when it doesn't have an upwards impact on the bottomline.

Some games during the 7th gen even caught major flak for having gameplay that heavily relied on physics 85~95% of the times. That might be another reason why its gotten so toned down in the recent 10 years.
 

Valt7786

Member
Yep, would rather dev's this gen focus on stuff like physics and interactivity with the world rather than just graffix
 
With the release of Half-Life 2 I think a good majority of the industry was expecting physics to be front and center as the new "thing" that people like. What the industry took from HL2 was essentially how to tell a cool and mysterious story as an fps...and that's about it. Shame.

Physics and A.I. have essentially been put to the side as most of you guys say you want advanced physics and A.I. until the physics don't do what you want or the A.I. outsmarts you and with the attention span of the average gamer, games with more advanced physics and a.i. get the "trash" or "unbalanced" label and then people move on.
 
Last edited:

mortal

Gold Member
More than anything in this gen, I want to see more developers (especially in the AAA space) push the bar with physics-driven game mechanics and more sophisticated AI.
Great visuals will always make game worlds look appealing in screenshots, but the illusion and immersion are broken once you play and see it in motion, and the lack of legitimate interactivity becomes apparent. Even more so for games that have photo-realistic visuals.

I think VR will be the catalyst for better physics simulations and granular detail in game worlds, as the market grows and more developers and publishers continue to pour into the space over the course of this deacde.
 

ParaSeoul

Member
Why the hell is it that since the PS4 and Xbox One launched, games have completely gone down the fucking gutter when it comes to physics?
Because they were designed to be as cheap as possible because everyone at that time thought console gaming was dying because of sales slowly down when it was actually because the last gen lasted so long people were ready to move on. And then gaming became as popular as its ever been.
 

wvnative

Member
More than anything in this gen, I want to see more developers (especially in the AAA space) push the bar with physics-driven game mechanics and more sophisticated AI.
Great visuals will always make game worlds look appealing in screenshots, but the illusion and immersion are broken once you play and see it in motion, and the lack of legitimate interactivity becomes apparent. Even more so for games that have photo-realistic visuals.

I think VR will be the catalyst for better physics simulations and granular detail in game worlds, as the market grows and more developers and publishers continue to pour into the space over the course of this deacde.
Just think what a proper battlefield game could have been
 

ZywyPL

Banned
Maybe. Technically PS5/XSX are sooo much superior on the CPU side than past two previous generations were, and should allow fir some really crazy physics going from on, but the question is if the devs will want to put an extra effort when they can just make a pretty static worlds like they have been in the pas 10 years, as not many gamers seemed to care. They'llook at all the UE5 demos' impressions and will come to conclusion why even bother.

Ambient occlusion seems to be another feature that might be missing on consoles this gen again as well, this is why so many games have the so-called "flat lightning" and objects seem to be floating just above the ground, it's 2022 and many games still do this and yet people are very impressed how great the games look.

As always, I hope for the best and that I'm completely wrong, but knowing the industry I prefer to prepare for the worst.
 
Everyone keeps talking about Red Faction but it was one single fucking game series lol, it was the exception not the norm. I don't think there are any more or less destructible games today than there were in the past.

Besides, the Red Faction games were average at best, and I would always take a good game with no physics over a bad game with good physics. I would also probably make the argument that fully destructible environments are detrimental to good level and game design, because if everything is destructible then you don't actually have level design and it doesn't really matter what you have on the map, it can all just be removed anyway.

And frankly, stupid video game logic stuff like a wooden door surviving rocket blasts makes for more interesting gameplay. Elden Ring would have been a significantly worse game if enemies could break through every object they get stuck on. It is a core part of the gameplay experience for a Souls game and removing it would not make the game better.
 

Bartski

Gold Member
Because pretty pictures are easier to sell? It's the single worst most detrimental trend in all gaming for at least a gen, and I still can't fathom how some people downplay it in favor of raytraced light or higher-res textures...

"Physics" = intractability = gameplay.
 

DukeNukem00

Banned
Everyone keeps talking about Red Faction but it was one single fucking game series lol, it was the exception not the norm. I don't think there are any more or less destructible games today than there were in the past.

Forget about Red Faction. There were more games in the early 00's that pushed for physics. Havok was huge in PC games then. But devs need to have this as a focus, which they dont today. Same with AI.



You had ragdoll as early as the first Hitman in 2000. Unreal Engine 2 had Karma Engine to handle physics. Max Payne 2 was the king of Havok. Then Far Cry, Doom 3, Painkiller, Half Life 2 - all came with Havok or their proprietary engine for physics. FEAR was demonstrating in trailers how the destruction and physics work.

Dark Messiah in 2006 had Havok as a central gameplay piece:


Crysis again was proud of how you could destroy huts, vehicles, trees. Just something happened along the way. Probably the switch in focus to consoles going into the 2010's, with ps360 which were abject trash hardware wise.
 
Teardown wholeheartedly disagrees.
No idea what this game is but from Wiki:

"Each mission features a set of objectives to be completed within one minute."

Ok, when you design an entire game around a concept that does not require any amount of world persistence then yes, it can work great. It also works great for the Earth Defense Force games for the same reason.
 

mortal

Gold Member
Just think what a proper battlefield game could have been
Honestly, had DICE pursued to further those aspects and kept them at the core of their design philosophy, Battefleid's releases would still be of high quality and still be commercially successful.
Rather than the franchise going through this identity crisis. They can turn things around, but we'll just have to see if they learned anything at all after BF 2042.
 
Everyone keeps talking about Red Faction but it was one single fucking game series lol, it was the exception not the norm. I don't think there are any more or less destructible games today than there were in the past.

Besides, the Red Faction games were average at best, and I would always take a good game with no physics over a bad game with good physics. I would also probably make the argument that fully destructible environments are detrimental to good level and game design, because if everything is destructible then you don't actually have level design and it doesn't really matter what you have on the map, it can all just be removed anyway.

And frankly, stupid video game logic stuff like a wooden door surviving rocket blasts makes for more interesting gameplay. Elden Ring would have been a significantly worse game if enemies could break through every object they get stuck on. It is a core part of the gameplay experience for a Souls game and removing it would not make the game better.
You. Me. Outside.

Fisticuffs showdown.

Because pretty pictures are easier to sell? It's the single worst most detrimental trend in all gaming for at least a gen, and I still can't fathom how some people downplay it in favor of raytraced light or higher-res textures...

"Physics" = intractability = gameplay.
Probably because some people can't stand it if their new shit isn't shinier than the older shit before it. If it isn't all "sparkly" and "pretty" then it obviously doesn't meet their lofty h4rdc0re gamer standards.
 
Last edited:
Why the hell is it that since the PS4 and Xbox One launched, games have completely gone down the fucking gutter when it comes to physics? Destructible environments were a thing in 2001, with red faction which allowed you to blow up whatever the fuck you wanted and it looked cool as hell. Far Cry 2 had dunia, which was an extremely advanced engine in all areas- graphics, physics, gameplay, etc. Crysis (not counting how mindblowing the game was visually when it came out) had fully destructible environments, not to the same extent of red faction, but still to a greater extent than whatever the fuck most modern games have. GTA4 had the most realistic ragdoll engine ever made, Versions of windows before vista had EAX which is the most realistic 3d audio sound engine to date, warping sound, adding reverb and echo depending on the terrain and areas you were in. Soldier of Fortune 2 has the most realistic gore system in a game, with extremely detailed, realistic dismemberment that put literally every other COD killing simulator to shame. All of these are games from the fucking 2000s. In the year of our lord 2022, why is it that despite having way more powerful hardware than what we had in 2001, is it that no games have destructible environments, well made physics engines, and good 3d audio??? (PS5 3d audio frankly doesn't compare to how realistic EAX got)
It's like we go 15 quadrillion steps forward in graphics but take a massive step back in literally everything else. What the fuck??? I want my advanced, revolutionary immersive physics back! Stop scripting everything and making a cutscene for the tiniest shit!!


Look at the advancement in GPU performance from 2001 to today... then look at how pitiful CPU advancement has come since 2001.

Yes, GPUs can help out with non-interactive physics computation, but broadly speaking, when it comes to the types of interactive physics you're talking about, the CPU is still the bottleneck and the reason things have barely changed over the last two decades.

I'd also argue that the popularity of online MP has had a huge impact too. Ridiculously complex interactive physics in an online game has a multiplicative impact on overall game complexity and CPU performance demand. Keeping all the various player's game simulations synchronised is extremely difficult and taxing on the local hardware.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
No idea what this game is but from Wiki:

"Each mission features a set of objectives to be completed within one minute."

Ok, when you design an entire game around a concept that does not require any amount of world persistence then yes, it can work great. It also works great for the Earth Defense Force games for the same reason.
Its not the only type of mission there is. Besides, it doesn't tell the whole story.
Two very simple things present in the game that can completely tear down (lol) the notion that you can't design levels with highly destructible enviroments are:
-Scarcity of tools. Aka you don't have enough ammo/equipment to destroy the entire map, forcing you to be more cautious/strategic about using them. Perfect for those survival/crafting games the industry loves so much
-Verticality, or in other words, you really don't want to destroy that building that can help you progress in the game.
 
Last edited:
Its not the only type of mission there is. Besides, it doesn't tell the whole story.
Two very simple things present in the game that can completely tear down (lol) the notion that you can't design levels with highly destructible enviroments are:
-Scarcity of tools. Aka you don't have enough ammo/equipment to destroy the entire map, forcing you to be more cautious/strategic about using them. Perfect for those survival/crafting games the industry loves so much
-Verticality, or in other words, you really don't want to destroy that building that can help you progress in the game.
Honestly, accidentally blowing up the bridge you are standing on in Just Cause or the parking garage you are inside in EDF is absolutely hilarious, but to your points those restrictions inherently limit the type of game drastically. It actually is a wonder why a lot of survival games don't incorporate destructibility, because not only does it actually fit thematically, but a good number if not most of them are PC only in the first place.
 
It depends. If you mean physics interacting with gameplay, then the game kind of has to be built around those physics like Red Faction, and Half-Life 2. Otherwise you'd have some of the same issues the Just Cause series has, where the weapons, cover, and upgrade systems are less fun(to being almost useless) than just messing around with physics and wires.

If you mean physics just existing in the game but not having an impact on gameplay, then yes that's too easily overlooked.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Honestly, accidentally blowing up the bridge you are standing on in Just Cause or the parking garage you are inside in EDF is absolutely hilarious, but to your points those restrictions inherently limit the type of game drastically. It actually is a wonder why a lot of survival games don't incorporate destructibility, because not only does it actually fit thematically, but a good number if not most of them are PC only in the first place.
Its not really all that limiting though.
An arena shooter for example would go along really well with destructible enviroments, it also fits thematically with military sims. Honestly even open world games could go well with it if done properly, all you have to do is really just think outside the box a little bit.
Though many big devs still only design games around cutscene-driven linear/semi-linear storytelling, which does indeed limit options a lot.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
The power is there.

But game studios focus on other things like 4k res, RT and 3D sound with 40 man orchestras.

Easier to hype a game that way with the usual "kill anything that moves" mantra, than make a game with physics.

Even for something as basic for endless RPGs with caves. You'd think one of them would allow you to blast rocks and create cave ins or block tunnels with smashed boulders. Never heard of one that does that.

BF games get laughed at in recent years, but at least franchise has scope and stuff being blown up. The games have had physics for ages.
 

Amiga

Member
They used the shitty Jaguar CPU in PS4/Xbox One you know??

Now most players don't care about physics anymore. Game like Crapplefield 2042 sucks when It comes in terms of physics and destruction.
Remember Sony were showcasing the destructibility in The Order 1886 and InfamousSS. Maybe it's to much of hassle for development.

Bad Company 2 on the PS3 had the best application. We used to clear the whole woods and blast the walls on almost anything.
 

TonyK

Member
It's shocking than Luigi's Mansion 3 has better physics than almost all AAA next gen games. I can't understand why companys don't invest on this. The other day I was playing Cyberpunk and my car crashed with a trash bag that was solid like a fucking skyscraper.
 

rofif

Member
Forget about Red Faction. There were more games in the early 00's that pushed for physics. Havok was huge in PC games then. But devs need to have this as a focus, which they dont today. Same with AI.



You had ragdoll as early as the first Hitman in 2000. Unreal Engine 2 had Karma Engine to handle physics. Max Payne 2 was the king of Havok. Then Far Cry, Doom 3, Painkiller, Half Life 2 - all came with Havok or their proprietary engine for physics. FEAR was demonstrating in trailers how the destruction and physics work.

Dark Messiah in 2006 had Havok as a central gameplay piece:


Crysis again was proud of how you could destroy huts, vehicles, trees. Just something happened along the way. Probably the switch in focus to consoles going into the 2010's, with ps360 which were abject trash hardware wise.
I spent hours with these 2 games doing just that haha.
I remember playing MAX PAYNE 2 and then getting my hands on hl2 alpha and painkiller alpha. so good
 
Top Bottom