Do you think HL2 will be...

[Peleus]

As interactive as the E3 demo indicated? The one very very very attractive part of HL2 for me would be the fact the entire world is interative and the same real life characteristics apply to EVERYTHING. As they said in the demo if its made of wood it will act like wood, but do you think this will hold true?


My very biggest fear is that I am going to have the bits of wood that act like wood, but then I'm going to have a random wooden box that no matter how much ammo you pump into it or how many grenades or RPG's you launch at it, it won't break, killing the whole realisitic physics thing.

Ditto with the manipulator, being able to pick up a few barrels here and there, and the radiator, but then you find a medium sized rock on the ground, nope no can do, or any other random object that by common sense at least you should be able to pick up.


After all that rant, the final question and point is, do you believe that HL2 will be as interative throughout the ENTIRE game as they have led us to believe?

 

[Spacemonkey]

no. the physics won be omnipresent. they will be the slave of gameplay. if it doesnt make sense from a gameplay point of view for you to break that box, you wont be able to.

The gameplay makes it fun. The physics will just support this.

 

[Peleus]

Ok assuming the box isn't a critical factor in the mission (e.g. you HAVE to climb up THAT box to get up a cliff), just a random box somewhere with no gameplay significance.

 

[Spacemonkey]

then yes, have fun with the very expensive and detailed physics engine.

knock yourself out.

when your done breaking boxes, I hear the game is pretty good too.

 

[Peleus]

Meh the point isn't whats going to be the most fun etc, I agree the game is the main part. The question is do you think it will be like they said it would be however.

 

[Spacemonkey]

Yes I do, the physics engine is insanely detailed. Everything is physically simulated. That because all motion can be described by the physics engine. You can spend hours playing with it, and if your into that stuff it will be fun. If you want to stack barrels you can, if you want to break boxes, you can. If you want to make a leaning tower of piza out of corpses you can. It is that good (well I hope so, the code certainly is tight).

However all the physics does is try to make the game less linear. They want to let you throw barrels around and crush people with containers. Its meant to break up normal style gameplay.

If your looking just to mess around with physics, Havok released a demo of a room with lots of object that you can manipulate and stack. Its pretty fun.

 

[SupaKoopa]

Originally posted by Spacemonkey
no. the physics won be omnipresent. they will be the slave of gameplay. if it doesnt make sense from a gameplay point of view for you to break that box, you wont be able to.

The gameplay makes it fun. The physics will just support this.

so in other words, teh physics are omnipresent. when they're not,
"it's a design decision, not a technical limitation."
:cheese:

 

[Peleus]

Originally posted by Spacemonkey
It is that good (well I hope so, the code certainly is tight).

LOL, the entire question

 

[Necro]

well from what i've tested and seen, it depends on actually WHERE you hit it and of course it's scripted, i mean like, if player does this, this may happen.

 

[Gunner]

The E3 demo was only the icing on the cake. They were only facades, illusions, hell they didn't even bother to build walls around most corners... But who knows they've got the time to finish the game right? so let's just wait and see : )

 

[Spacemonkey]

I actually want some scripting in my physics engine.

Basically physics is boring. Its a set of very very tight laws. When I said I hope so the code is tight. I meant the havok stuff is very physically accurate if you have done first year physic its quite a walk down memories lane. But anyway physics is a very very unbendable set of rules.

If you set something up a certain way. It will always have the same outcome. Its infinately repeatable. If I roll a barrel down the same flight of stairs at the same starting conditions, it will always roll the same way. If i hit a box in the same place it will always splinter the same way.

What i am wondering if whether they add some randomness to the physics, so bodies whilst not falling completely realistically, have some variation.

The physics needs to be exciting not analy accurate.

 

[0 morgan 0]

actually all of your "speculations" are completely wrong. Valve lied...

Theres good examples on almost everymap...

One map (coast) has wooden tidal barries... some of these can be broken... others cant. It really pisses's me off to because theres no reason why some of them cant be broken , its just pure lack of programming it in.:flame:

 

[Spacemonkey]

Ohh before you go off on valve lied to me. I need to pray to jesus rants.

Where there is no point it adding the physics to an object they wont. All it would do it chew up cpu cycles.

POINTLESS PHYSICS PROBABLY WONT BE IMPLIMENTED.

However physics that makes the game more fun will be. And this will be the majority of the stuff you use. Unless you run round trying to find places where they skimped on implementing the code cause it costs cpu cycles, YOU WONT NOTICE IT. There will be more than enough, anally realisitc bullshit for you to play with.

 

[0 morgan 0]

Originally posted by Spacemonkey
Ohh before you go off on valve lied to me. I need to pray to jesus rants.

Where there is no point it adding the physics to an object they wont. All it would do it chew up cpu cycles.

POINTLESS PHYSICS PROBABLY WONT BE IMPLIMENTED.

However physics that makes the game more fun will be. And this will be the majority of the stuff you use. Unless you run round trying to find places where they skimped on implementing the code cause it costs cpu cycles, YOU WONT NOTICE IT. There will be more than enough, anally realisitc bullshit for you to play with.

Actually your wrong... physics only use up the CPU when there being moved (when they have to be calculated..) o it wouldnt hurt valve to give all wood etc... a physical value so we can blow the crap out of it.)

Even worse is the fact that most of the wood which can be destroyed is only allowed to be destroyed for scripted purposes... e.g if that big flying thing shoots at you when your next to a wooden building. It knows that its wooden and does this blue plasma beam (not at you....) but at the building... Yeah it looks cool... but its dam pointless and i'd rather all the pointless wooden shacks could be blown up... rather than only the ones which "might" end up being used in scripted sequences depending on where you stand.

On some of the beach maps there are sign posts, warning you not to enter the water. There very thin pieces of wood... yet they cant be knocked over and bring your vehicle to a complete hault... even worse is the fact that these pieces of wood can pass through the vehicle and get wedged. WHY? because valve didnt add physical properties.... hopefully HOPEFULLY this could be addressed and i only pray it will be.

 

[Athlon7]

Morgan, those maps aren't finished buddy.

 

[Kadayi]

Originally posted by Spacemonkey
then yes, have fun with the very expensive and detailed physics engine.

knock yourself out.

when your done breaking boxes, I hear the game is pretty good too.

Damn you mean I have to play through a bunch of levels, solve some puzzles, kill some baddies and interact with some NPCs just to break all the boxes? God that sucks.......guess I'll hold out for Box Breaker 4: Boxes of evil instead :hmph:

 

[Saltpeter]

Remember in the original Half-Life when you were curious what to find in the next stack of boxes? Some of them were empty, but the other part contained valuable resources (such as health/ammo) and they eventually led to you smashing most of those boxes to see if they contained anything. And just because 1 didn't contain anything that didn't mean the next one neither contained anything, did it?

So why wouldn't that be so in its sequel? If they'd use the same principle as mentioned above they would have to make most of the boxes breakable. Just to add something to the realism factor.

 

[ferd]

its gonna bee fun...good enough for me

 

[Someone]

Originally posted by Peleus
After all that rant, the final question and point is, do you believe that HL2 will be as interative throughout the ENTIRE game as they have led us to believe?

I tend to doubt it will be THAT interactive simply because Valve wants to show it's high points during demonstrations. I think it's unrealistic to think everything will break and/or can be moved and will act and react perfectly every single time with every single object/npc.

I DO think it will still be quite awesome and very fun and that's all that matters to me. Ithink it will be incredibly close to what valve/gabe has said though.

 

[ferd]

word someone

 

[MiG]

The physics, as far as I can tell will make the game pretty immersive, looking at the "traptown" video, everything reacts, even the coke cans!
I think it will add alot to the game. Doug Lombardi said in an interveiw that in "terms of technology, the physics has added the most to the gameplay."

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Originally posted by Spacemonkey
I actually want some scripting in my physics engine.

Basically physics is boring. Its a set of very very tight laws. When I said I hope so the code is tight. I meant the havok stuff is very physically accurate if you have done first year physic its quite a walk down memories lane. But anyway physics is a very very unbendable set of rules.

If you set something up a certain way. It will always have the same outcome. Its infinately repeatable. If I roll a barrel down the same flight of stairs at the same starting conditions, it will always roll the same way. If i hit a box in the same place it will always splinter the same way.

What i am wondering if whether they add some randomness to the physics, so bodies whilst not falling completely realistically, have some variation.

The physics needs to be exciting not analy accurate.

Uhh...yeah. But it would take severe calculations to completely simulate the first. It would be hard to have the exact condtions defined once again. You would have to measure velocity, wind current, texture, weight, mass. I doubt rolling two relatively similar barrels down a flight of stairs counts as a valid physics test. And I doubt that they would end up the same, unless they were same barrel, and with the same above conditions.
I think shooting two different soldiers would have the same reaction when falling from a building. There's abosolutely no way your bullets will impact in the same exact spots as before, and you'd have quick save and run through that same area with the same soldier to even come close to that effect. I think them reacting to you will be more of the "analy accurate" you're complaing about. But that, again, is only if you do the same exact thing as you did previously. VALVe also spoke of the anamorphic technology they're using, depending on the physics collision, this may actually effect the physics in some way. We also have to consider the collision modules for materials as well, metal, wood, etc.
When Reagan was shot, it wasn't dead on. The bullet hit the car and ricocheted, follwing the line of the car itself. Everything in the real world is victim to physics. If you shoot through glass, the bullet will not go straight through, the direction can change by a significant margin, meaning a hit or miss. I think this game will have some physics errors of course. Because if you had to stand there and calculate the wind pressure, versus the air speed velocity of a 357. Magnum slug, it wouldn't be fun. So your calculations of "analy accurate" are wrong. It's you that would have to be "analy accurate" in order to get the same reaction each time.

Whew, sorry for the big read guys.

-Ghost.