Physics the future of gaming?

Everybody seems to want better graphics, but now in the age that 3D games are maturing I think it's time for developers to start putting more time into the game physics. We all know crysis and arma2 are out there and I frankly think their graphics are quite fine for a few years to come.

Physics engines have been around for quite a while now (Carmageddon 1 had really good physics for 1997 if you ask me/Red Faction 1 had breath taking physics when it came out... well actually its still pretty cool with the geomod (which I've yet to see replicated well)), but I've still yet to see many really good ones. Havok isn't bad, but its really outdated and is not optimized very well (Check Garry's Mod 10 out).

I think the best physics engine I've seen so far is the PhysX addon for GRAW2, that demo mission is really really cool. I've yet to play RF:G so I cannot comment on it.

I personally think physics is the future because physics engines rely on processors and since we're in the age of multiple cores then developers need to work on multithreading the physics engines.

What are your comments on this?

Accurate recreation of reality requires physics more than graphics.

A lot of games these days use physics so I am sure that they will use it later on...

A lot of games these days use physics so I am sure that they will use it later on...

Delphanius

Red Faction: Guerrilla is amazing...

The physics arguably make the game.

i want to see DM that you can get your power fist of ultimate doom and watch a barrel crush "in slow motion" as you punch it...

id like to see real time combat suit damage.. so like in crysis when yuo get shot you can see where the damage is and *idk i havnt played it*.. see nano bots going over the damaged areas and fixing them.. think that would look pretty ****ing :)

Between graphics and physics, at this point in time I would say I'd rather see more improvement (optimization?) of physics.

However if I were to have it my way I would rather see more innovation and improvement in the actual gameplay with the games these days, instead of another new graphics/physics engine every so often.

Decent physics in more games certainly couldn't hurt. Better physics and better character animations (and better AI) would help to bring game worlds more to life, whether the artistic style is cel-shaded or more photo-realistic.

Meh, just more requirements in order to see stuff breaking down... i prefer better graphics that dont break than physics.dakan45

Physics and AI could really use an overhaul. Most games have the stupid ragdolls and stupid AI.

Meh, just more requirements in order to see stuff breaking down... i prefer better graphics that dont break than physics.dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Meh, just more requirements in order to see stuff breaking down... i prefer better graphics that dont break than physics.rmfd341

im a graphics whore

I don't understand the fascination with graphics and physics. Sure, more is better, but will it really be that much of an improvement of actual gameplay if we compare that with the current technology. Nah, what gaming needs is better artificial intelligence, an area that the companies try to avoid because it's so much cheaper to throw in a multi-player. Seriously, when have you ever seen world shocking AI in any game?

At one point gaming will be more competitive than ever with film making, that's when there is no way around AI.

Multi-player however is focussed on players, everything around it still lifeless junk whether it's traffic, animals, weather patterns, pedestrians, etc. Companies need to start thinking "HoloDeck", Rockstar is one of the few that is slowly moving into that direction.

The other problem is man power. Designing gamesis getting so demanding, that you really need to find ways as a gaming company to automate the design process, so also in the design department AI can be a great help.

Personally I believe that the ultimate goal to make graphics and physics look better, will eventually make actual gameplay better, because that's often lacking; great graphics, but poor gameplay. Why will it improve gameplay?Well, it's easy to make GTA 1 look better, but how are you going to make graphics in a GTA 6 or 7 look better so that it's a major selling point? You can't sell games on better "radiosity" or reflection in your 3D models and neither can they continue with the way they're heading with multi-player, it all starts to look the same. And let's face it, players in online games can be extremely annoying, not to mention that it's difficult tostart on online game in which skill levels are similar. You're also limited to certain times of the week, unless you belong to some nnerdy group that has time to play COD4 4 hours a day, 7 days a week with 8 guys....sigh

[QUOTE="rmfd341"][QUOTE="dakan45"]Meh, just more requirements in order to see stuff breaking down... i prefer better graphics that dont break than physics.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Meh, just more requirements in order to see stuff breaking down... i prefer better graphics that dont break than physics.rmfd341

Physics has been at the focus for quite some long before the success of Half Life 2. The issue really to be had is relevance here, either of important or unnecessary for development reasons. Particle systems and Ragdoll physics just to name a few are quite complex, making game worlds just miraculous to experience.

[QUOTE="rmfd341"][QUOTE="dakan45"]Meh, just more requirements in order to see stuff breaking down... i prefer better graphics that dont break than physics.dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="rmfd341"] Graphics won't be going much further in technology in the years to come, we'll have to wait for the next gen consoles. So physics is really the way to go, I would like to see fully interactive enviroments, everything can be destroyed, etc.OoSuperMarioO

I wished they would you know... Focus on gameplay and story instead of just doing the game flashy O.o but hey that might just be me.

I wished they would you know... Focus on gameplay and story instead of just doing the game flashy O.o but hey that might just be me.

KalDurenik

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] Consoles need to fisrt start to use dynamic lighting and then we will see about texture quality....dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]This suppose to be a joke?

OoSuperMarioO

Source was the best i have ever played, but what do i know, it was revolutionary in the original hl2. So i wish valve would do some work on a source 2 engine with better physics.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] Not at all, most games are unreal engine, eg: assasins creed, Unreal engine didnt have full dynamic lighting, when gears of war 2 came out Cliffy added full dynamic lighting. As for texture quality? Well if thats a joke then, you dont see the diffirence in graphics between pc and console version.dakan45

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] Not at all, most games are unreal engine, eg: assasins creed, Unreal engine didnt have full dynamic lighting, when gears of war 2 came out Cliffy added full dynamic lighting. As for texture quality? Well if thats a joke then, you dont see the diffirence in graphics between pc and console version.dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Bud, there was dynamic lighting in console games since the Sega Dreamcast. Assassin's creed is powered by the Anvil engine by the way.

OoSuperMarioO

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Bud, there was dynamic lighting in console games since the Sega Dreamcast. Assassin's creed is powered by the Anvil engine by the way.

OoSuperMarioO

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Bud, there was dynamic lighting in console games since the Sega Dreamcast. Assassin's creed is powered by the Anvil engine by the way.

OoSuperMarioO

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] I know but not on gears of war and assasin creed, atleast not full dynamc lighting, and assasin creed uses scimitar engine, which is just unreal engine 3.0Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Please share your sources.

dakan45

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] I know but not on gears of war and assasin creed, atleast not full dynamc lighting, and assasin creed uses scimitar engine, which is just unreal engine 3.0dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] the Scimitar engine is the same as the anvil, scimitar was unfinished and then recreated as anvil.Nibroc420

I am very confused now.... so, scimitar/anvil whatever has nothing to do with unreal engine, i mean nothing at all?

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Please share your sources.

OoSuperMarioO

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] Then we are all wrong...dakan45

I am very confused now.... so, scimitar/anvil whatever has nothing to do with unreal engine, i mean nothing at all?

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

How are we wrong? the finished product is anvil, and therefor it is anvil, not scimitar.

OoSuperMarioO

I am very confused now.... so, scimitar/anvil whatever has nothing to do with unreal engine, i mean nothing at all?

Anvil was builded from scimitar not from scratch, they simply rename it... anyway i dont know if it is or not unreal engine but it looks like it a lot, atleast it reminds me alot of ut3 and gears of war.

Anvil or Scimitar, it's just a name, at the core of it the tools are very similar.

We are already heading there. See, red faction. You can blow up the whole building.zaibutzu

I think that CryEngine 2 showed a perfect example of how physics are indeed the future of gaming with the destructable environment in Crysis.

art - storyline, character, artistic direction - is the future of gaming. because, unlike the imitation of reality, which is what physics and graphics essentially are, art has no boundary.

unlike the raw visuals (texture size, resolution) physics wont always have the same effect on every game. i mean, what would physics do if you were playing monkey island? or civilization?Kh1ndjal