[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/games/ - Games

Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


 No.21171

I can’t be the only one to notice this and it doesn’t even make sense
Game devs don’t have to code anything they can just reuse assets or libraries built into modules like havoc or if their companies like EA, Ubisoft or valve they can just reuse libraries their devs have already programmed. Was it like a technical limitation imposed due to graphics, was it design choice so gameplay wouldn’t be affected as much by unpredictable physics like what valve did with source, is it just for stability reasons due to the fact that physics in games requires a lot of precise numbers that don’t work well with floating point numbers? If so aren’t their already techniques and fixes just for that?

What gives?

 No.21180

>>21171
Nah, it is because simulating physics is difficult and sometimes it worsens gameplay. Remember, gameplay should feel good, not be phisically accurate. And our common sense doen't align with what happens in real life when you move fast and spin and shit. Physics should be simulated in limited instances and with a clear purpose (Teardown, Kerbal Space Program, etc).

 No.21182

>>21180
Okay but what about minor details that don’t affect gameplay like how far cry’s physics for things like explosions and destruction got worse for seemingly no reason or how cyberpunk launched with almost no physics despite using a lot of the same modules as games like half life

 No.21185

>>21182
Because it's cheaper and the suits are in charge of gaming now

Can you see it in the e3 demo footage? No? then it doesn't matter

 No.21186

>>21185
Wait it costs more money to delete a recycleable feature than it does to keep it with the benefit of less chances of bugs emerging due to that feature being old enough to have already recieved fixes?

 No.21191

>>21186
yes,because it's not recyclable at all,you have to rebuild the physics in the new and 5x times bigger map with collision on everything,and 95% of the devs are working on assets and content to put in this gargatuan pile of shit so it's not totally empty and they have to do it in two years top.

 No.21192

>>21191
>you have to rebuild the entire physics system
Tell me the problems related to actual technical limitations and not possibly in any conceivable way does this have anything to do with management fucking up completely midway through development

Applying physics for minor objects in a game is like apply logarithmic depth buffers and cascaded shadow maps for LOD terrain. It’s really not a hard feature to implement on any scale to the point where a single douche could pull it off. You can’t possibly fuck up a feature with has gotten so many updates from the programming community as a whole purely due to technical or monetary limitations
It shouldn’t be possible

 No.21193

Physics isn't something you can just plug and play. You have to spend time properly implementing it. Each object needs its own collision mesh and physical properties, and it's easier to put in minimal effort on that stuff. When game physics was new, devs were more likely to put a bunch of effort into it to show off how their physics was better. Before long, though, they realized having good physics doesn't really boost sales, so it got put a lot lower on the priorities list.

 No.21194

>>21171
I wish they would spend less computation on making the visuals better, and more on stuff like this.

I wish games used fully destructible environment voxel engines that not only do physics but also a little bit of chemistry and electricity simulation and perhaps some rudimentary biological simulation,

Video games look nice, but they lack world-feel because most of the things in them feel like props.

 No.21195

>>21194
I mean war thunder also exists
That game has stuff for land air sea and deep sea shit like submarine physics along with enlisted also being limited to air and land based physics in gameplay

 No.21196

>>21195
yeah and it's F2P shit

 No.21197

>>21196
What about new games like Noita?

 No.21205

>>21197
Well that's 2d, it's like 1000x less complex than 3d physics, plus it's an indie game so doesn't really have the same issue as AAA empty suits

 No.21206

>>21194
TearDown

 No.21409

Not every game should include super realistic physics.
If I want to play a game to go full sanic midair 360° spin quad jumps I don't want to trip on some can dropped on the ground for example.


Unique IPs: 7

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]