Destructable Environments in DNF?

[Sir Robin]

Hey all, first post http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif been a bit of a shadow on this forum for a while.

Now I know that the meqon physics promise all sorts of breakable objects, but is there really going to be that much destruction in a similar fashion to Red Faction?

I know it wasnt that great a game, but will we be able to blow a hole in a wall with the rpg anywhere or at least in certain sections of a game, creating a new doorway? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Destructable environments have been done before but you have always been very limited in the amount of damage you can do. I'm guessing that proper destruction is a long way off but now I'm entering the realms of the physx card so ill keep quiet http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinyted.gif

What do you think?

P.s. Very sorry if this has been discussed before.

[Emultra]

Well, it's quite strange that destructible geometry hasn't been used to the same extent as in Red Faction, since that same game, since.

[Micki!]

This has been discussed before, but you couldn't know that so i'll tell you...

DNF will not feature dynamic destructable environments... However, every object can be broken in the game... If it can't, it can be used instead... So at least you'll get alot of interaction rather than total destruction... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I hope you're not dissapointed with that... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif

[Cerberus_e]

that isn't strange, it allows you to skip the whole levels (skipping intended routes of the developers in levels, allowing you to immediately finish a level http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mryuck.gif)

serious sam 2 has destructible environments, look into that

[Micki!]

Cerberus_e said:
that isn't strange, it allows you to skip the whole levels (skipping intended routes of the developers in levels, allowing you to immediately finish a level http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mryuck.gif)

serious sam 2 has destructible environments, look into that



Really..?! If that's true, i want this game MORE THAN EVER... (not more than DNF though http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif)

[FireFly]

Not fully destructible environments. You can just blow shit up.

[Micki!]

FireFly said:
Not fully destructible environments. You can just blow shit up.



SS2 or DNF..? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Cerberus_e]

ss2, you can destroy entire houses http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Micki!]

Cerberus_e said:
ss2, you can destroy entire houses http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



Can the surface, tree's and other geometric environments be destroyed too..?

[FireFly]

Micki! said:
SS2 or DNF..? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif


Both, but I was talking about SS2.


Cerberus_e said:
ss2, you can destroy entire houses http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


Yeah, but the houses are the equivalent of props. You're not going to get Red Faction style destruction for a while.


Micki! said:
Can the surface, tree's and other geometric environments be destroyed too..?


The core geometry cannot be destroyed. I think I remember you could destroy trees with the chainsaw in the Second Encounter.

[Simon Charles]

As long as there are a few bullet sparks and a bit of rubble after I've pumped an entire magazine into an alien that was standing in front of a concrete wall, I'll be happy.

It's so boring these days to see elaborate levels and constructions that feel completely flat when you shoot them. No bullet sparks on metal, no sand or dust kicked off when you shoot... hell, even the water barely reacts when you shoot in it.

[Emultra]

Bullet sparks are fictitious and unrealistic. It's pure Hollywood.

[FireFly]

I'm hoping that's the feel they're going for in DNF; movie realism, not true realism.

[Mr.Sociopath]

no destructable environnements in DNF http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I stopped living when I heard that for the first time http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

If anyone want ot make a petition for it to be in, I'm in(the petition of course http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif )

[FireFly]

A petition wouldn't do anything. It's a fundamental limitation of the tech.

[Mr.Sociopath]

FireFly said:
A petition wouldn't do anything. It's a fundamental limitation of the tech.


but still I wonder why.. the "tech" (mequon) allow to break glass.. what about modifying parameters for different elements?..

and on a general point of view..
a more actual and improved geo-mod engine couldn't work in todays game?.. why? I don,t get it..geo-mod had physics..kind of cheap but still it had some.. in the training/playing square map ..you could make a circular hole in the roof so a big fat block fall on the ground.. that was pretty cool to do..no other games allow that kind of thing..
i'm almost sure it,s conspiracy related http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif joking but..well.. I kind of really have some doubts about it actually.. since the american army said about the game america's army that it couldn't be used by another country to predict the ways of an attack by americans, and to train against it, mainly because it doesn't allow walls destruction .. funny ain't it? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Emultra]

FireFly, you mentioned something about static meshes and geomod before.

[FireFly]

Yeah, basically gaming worlds today are built out of static geometry - BSP. This has to be 'carved out' in the level editor beforehand and you can't modify it in-game. Geomod on the other hand doesn't have these limitations - it uses a portal based system, so geometry can be dynamically modified.

Now until games move completely away from static BSP, we're going to be stuck with static environments. Even Doom 3 uses BSP for collision detection, so you still couldn't incorporate a Geomod system without rewriting the engine. Now the good news is games are using less and less BSP, and more static meshes, which are essentially imported models used as gemoetry. These can be dynamically modified, so for example, where a pillar would have been BSP a few years ago, it's now likely to be a static mesh, and if the developer wants it can be destroyable - as some are in HL2.

In next generation games these static meshes will be augmented with the physics system, so a wall could be made out of hundreds of bricks which break apart when the wall is destroyed. As George says, things will get really spectacular, but under all the destruction they'll still be basic undestroyable geometry.

[Emultra]

Would it be possible to make the ground geometry itself with static meshes, even with several square miles of area?

[FireFly]

I think so, but BSP would still need to be used to bound the level.

[Emultra]

And it would make everything destructible?

[Otto von Keisinger]

BSP was entirely unnecessary with D3, and I was disappointed to find out it still had it. As I recall, GeoMod was simply a workaround for the static geometry that BSP cause; I don't think Red Faction entirely got rid of BSP. Otherwise, BSP would have been removed much sooner.

[Little Conqueror]

I long for the day when we'll have FULLY destructible environments... as in explosions destroying wooden doors, being able to tear down plaster walls, snap branches in half, etc.

I don't mind if DNF doesn't have that level of destructable environments, because I can just imagine the difficulties involved.

[Simon Charles]

Emultra said:
Bullet sparks are fictitious and unrealistic. It's pure Hollywood.



I don't give an airborne coitus about realism. Sparks are fun and add to a game.

[Mr.Sociopath]

FireFly said:
Yeah, basically gaming worlds today are built out of static geometry - BSP. This has to be 'carved out' in the level editor beforehand and you can't modify it in-game. Geomod on the other hand doesn't have these limitations - it uses a portal based system, so geometry can be dynamically modified.

Now until games move completely away from static BSP, we're going to be stuck with static environments. Even Doom 3 uses BSP for collision detection, so you still couldn't incorporate a Geomod system without rewriting the engine. Now the good news is games are using less and less BSP, and more static meshes, which are essentially imported models used as gemoetry. These can be dynamically modified, so for example, where a pillar would have been BSP a few years ago, it's now likely to be a static mesh, and if the developer wants it can be destroyable - as some are in HL2.





sorry..but I still don,t see why it makes it impossible to have at least partially destructable environment.. like you said in hl2 some stuff were destroyable..in painkiller too..but in painkiller they only used it in a precise area(boss level)
why can't they make walls the same way? only because it's called walls?
in bloodrayne 2..they did it at somepoint..wasn't realy usefull since the level was so linear, but it was kind of fun to destroy walls..(it wasn't greatly done..but it was done at least)



FireFly said:
In next generation games these static meshes will be augmented with the physics system, so a wall could be made out of hundreds of bricks which break apart when the wall is destroyed. As George says, things will get really spectacular, but under all the destruction they'll still be basic undestroyable geometry.





well.. I dunno why but I have an impression of virtual reality kind of thing coming if it really goes this way..

like the water in one of the mequon demo.. it's made of "molecule" (almost)..so I guess that after they make wall made out of bricks.. they'll make bricks made out of minerals.. and then minerals made out of molecule..and then molecule made out of atom.. and then we won,t know which world is the real one.. and suicide rate will increase because people will jump from the top of building thinking that they are not in a real world which could at this point be true since there would be no difference..
http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Boinky]

Duke3d had destructable walls. Im sure some areas in DNF will follow.. just not Dynamic blow up any wall I point my RPG at!

[Yatta]

I want to blow shit up like in this game: http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/sh...p;page=0#945459 (http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=945459&an=0&page=0#945459) (Watch its gameplay video)

[dark_angel]

You mean the game Black...

I guess this is the minimum DNF engine can do http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[hell-angel]

FireFly said:
Yeah, basically gaming worlds today are built out of static geometry - BSP. This has to be 'carved out' in the level editor beforehand and you can't modify it in-game. Geomod on the other hand doesn't have these limitations - it uses a portal based system, so geometry can be dynamically modified.

Now until games move completely away from static BSP, we're going to be stuck with static environments. Even Doom 3 uses BSP for collision detection, so you still couldn't incorporate a Geomod system without rewriting the engine. Now the good news is games are using less and less BSP, and more static meshes, which are essentially imported models used as gemoetry. These can be dynamically modified, so for example, where a pillar would have been BSP a few years ago, it's now likely to be a static mesh, and if the developer wants it can be destroyable - as some are in HL2.

In next generation games these static meshes will be augmented with the physics system, so a wall could be made out of hundreds of bricks which break apart when the wall is destroyed. As George says, things will get really spectacular, but under all the destruction they'll still be basic undestroyable geometry.



And with this a PPU will come in handy for the physics models. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif The future looks bright for gamers http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/love.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/love.gif

[motionblur]

Emultra said:
Bullet sparks are fictitious and unrealistic. It's pure Hollywood.


Who cares? Give me Hollywood! I demand over the top urealistic effects. I want coolness!
Devastation had realistic gun sounds and so forth and people complained because it sounded too weak. And I can understand it.
BTW - it is also unrealistic for one man to carry more than 8 guns at one time without becoming slower changeing between them in splitseconds and using it to kill hundereds of aliens all on his own.

[Micki!]

motionblur said:

Emultra said:
Bullet sparks are fictitious and unrealistic. It's pure Hollywood.


Who cares? Give me Hollywood! I demand over the top urealistic effects. I want coolness!
Devastation had realistic gun sounds and so forth and people complained because it sounded too weak. And I can understand it.
BTW - it is also unrealistic for one man to carry more than 8 guns at one time without becoming slower changeing between them in splitseconds and using it to kill hundereds of aliens all on his own.



I agree with this... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Suppressor]

Of course one man can´t carry all weapons at the same time... but we don´t want this kind of realism. I want a cool guy, mutilating aliens, levels full of interactivity (smashing enemies with a crane in HL2 was cool), destruction, vehicles etc... Well it is unrealistic, but it is so cool...

[hell-angel]

Micki! said:

motionblur said:

Emultra said:
Bullet sparks are fictitious and unrealistic. It's pure Hollywood.


Who cares? Give me Hollywood! I demand over the top urealistic effects. I want coolness!
Devastation had realistic gun sounds and so forth and people complained because it sounded too weak. And I can understand it.
BTW - it is also unrealistic for one man to carry more than 8 guns at one time without becoming slower changeing between them in splitseconds and using it to kill hundereds of aliens all on his own.



I agree with this... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif



As do I, if I want realism I go to iraq. Since I don't I play DNF (when is it finished that is. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif )

[Emultra]

I didn't say sparks shouldn't be in. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

As for the boss in Painkiller, the "destructible" pillars were simply solid objects stacked upon each other. But thanks to the physics engine (Havok 2.0 for Painkiller) they fell down quite nicely.

[dudetheman19]

In the "active environment" thread I posted a suggestion of how to make some nice destructable environments :-)


dudetheman19 said:
Some people have been talking about being able to blow everything up, even houses.... I just have an idea to that.

What if all walls were made in three layers?
1. Outer layer - This layer you can shoot holes in with machinguns and handguns
2. middle layer - When you shoot at walls with rocketlaunchers/simular weapons both the 1st layer and the 2nd layer will be blown off, so the holes in the walls appear larger
3. Last layer - This layer in unbreakeble

Then 3drealms can descide that houses are made of three layers, and things that you can blow up of two, and things you can shoot through is made of one layer http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Then we all can have fun writing our names with rockets and just shooting at everything while it doesnt ruin the game http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif What do you guys think??

[FireFly]

Emultra said:
And it would make everything destructible?


Yes, and you could always use deformable geometry topped with a destructable floor.


Mr.Sociopath said:
sorry..but I still don,t see why it makes it impossible to have at least partially destructable environment..


As I said, it is possible, and George never said we wouldn't see this in DNF (you can even see the player blow chunks off a wall in the E3 video). What we're talking about is being able to destroy everything.

[bobk]

I think this discussion shows how much progress is yet to be made in video games. Imagine a game galaxy where you fly to a planet, into the planet's atmosphere, land on the planet, walk up to a building, blow out a support structure, and the building falls down realistically, all this with no perceptable load times. Probably 7-10 years away. I believe it will require special hardware...

[Emultra]

dudetheman19, I like your suggestion.

[Cerberus_e]

FireFly said:
Yeah, basically gaming worlds today are built out of static geometry - BSP. This has to be 'carved out' in the level editor beforehand and you can't modify it in-game. Geomod on the other hand doesn't have these limitations - it uses a portal based system, so geometry can be dynamically modified.

Now until games move completely away from static BSP, we're going to be stuck with static environments. Even Doom 3 uses BSP for collision detection, so you still couldn't incorporate a Geomod system without rewriting the engine. Now the good news is games are using less and less BSP, and more static meshes, which are essentially imported models used as gemoetry. These can be dynamically modified, so for example, where a pillar would have been BSP a few years ago, it's now likely to be a static mesh, and if the developer wants it can be destroyable - as some are in HL2.

In next generation games these static meshes will be augmented with the physics system, so a wall could be made out of hundreds of bricks which break apart when the wall is destroyed. As George says, things will get really spectacular, but under all the destruction they'll still be basic undestroyable geometry.



I thought HL2 was the only game that "still" used the BSP tree, and that causes the abysmally long loading times (I heard that)
also, what's the fun of destructible environments? then it makes levels with cool layout impossible, since you can skip everything.
there was something else I wanted to ask you, but I forgot http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Otto von Keisinger]

bobk said:
I think this discussion shows how much progress is yet to be made in video games. Imagine a game galaxy where you fly to a planet, into the planet's atmosphere, land on the planet, walk up to a building, blow out a support structure, and the building falls down realistically, all this with no perceptable load times. Probably 7-10 years away. I believe it will require special hardware...


No. There's a little something called procedural generation. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[FireFly]

Cerberus_e said:
I thought HL2 was the only game that "still" used the BSP tree, and that causes the abysmally long loading times (I heard that)
also, what's the fun of destructible environments? then it makes levels with cool layout impossible, since you can skip everything.
there was something else I wanted to ask you, but I forgot http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


No, it's not. Even Doom 3 still uses BSP trees for collision detection, (but not visibility). With a fully destructible world all the collision detection has to be dynamic

From the person who wrote the Red Faction engine:

"All of out structures in the game are dynamic to handle this... the code to actually make the whole is only a minor part of the problem. For instance, our AI paths can update to reflect the hole, the rooms and portals update so a hole between two rooms is now a portal, and the collision detection structures for the world use recursive AABB, which get dynamically updated during the Geomod. Even things like slapping bullet decals on the new faces and making sure to remove decals on faces that get Geomoded away is a mess."

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=124869

[Cerberus_e]

well, how do games have moving platforms, and doom 3 all that cool moving machinery? to pick up plasma canisters, rotate them a bit, etc...?

that my question I forgot http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FireFly]

Those are static meshes - imported models made in a modelling program. Before that I believe movable brushes were used. These are called movers in the Unreal Engine.

A mover is a brush that can change position during play. They are used to make doors, elevators or any other feature in your map that is not static. Movers aren't very hard to make and once you get the basics you can try different things to come up with very cool stuff.

Movers are not strictly part of the BSP, although they block players and projectiles in the same way as the BSP world. Movers can't be subtractive, although it's possible to have glass or masked textures in a mover.

http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/Create_A_Mover_(UT)

[SyntaxN]

I never expected fully destructable environments in DNF, but parts of it should be destructable, like we´ve seen it in the black trailer http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Emultra]

Can someone change the title to "Destructible"? "Destructable" is not a word. It's like saying "unpossible". http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[colmtourque]

I would be glad to but changing a title is unpossible for me.

[FireFly]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unpossible

[Emultra]

OK, inusable, then.

[Simon Charles]

Come on guys, it's Duke... That's the game that made holes in walls when we shot fire extinguishers and barrels. Don't you remember going "wow!" the first time you caused wanton destruction in Hollywood Holocaust? And that was in the stoneage days of Build.

Whatever tech 3D Realms has in store, I'm sure we'll see some nice destruction.

[Micki!]

So, i changed the title...

Btw, Dudetheman, i was actually going to find that quote froms yours, and post it here... But you did it before me, so anyways... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

I really like that suggestion you came with there... But unfortunately, i guess 3DR are moving a completely different direction... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif

[Sir Robin]

bobk said:
I think this discussion shows how much progress is yet to be made in video games. Imagine a game galaxy where you fly to a planet, into the planet's atmosphere, land on the planet, walk up to a building, blow out a support structure, and the building falls down realistically, all this with no perceptable load times. Probably 7-10 years away. I believe it will require special hardware...



Bobk, why did you quote an AGEIA statement? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif (look on the ageia site - somewhere, I dunno http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif)

Oh, and sorry about the spelling mistake http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I wonder if any advancements have been made with explosions though? Usually explosions are very repetitive using the same effect over and over again, this can be seen in Duke 3d with the 'mini nuclear explosion' http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

More advanced particle effects to create such explosions would be very nice. (no static mesh explosions please! e.g. Quake 2 http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif)

[bobk]

Sir Robin said:

bobk said:
I think this discussion shows how much progress is yet to be made in video games. Imagine a game galaxy where you fly to a planet, into the planet's atmosphere, land on the planet, walk up to a building, blow out a support structure, and the building falls down realistically, all this with no perceptable load times. Probably 7-10 years away. I believe it will require special hardware...



Bobk, why did you quote an AGEIA statement? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif (look on the ageia site - somewhere, I dunno http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif)

Oh, and sorry about the spelling mistake http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I wonder if any advancements have been made with explosions though? Usually explosions are very repetitive using the same effect over and over again, this can be seen in Duke 3d with the 'mini nuclear explosion' http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

More advanced particle effects to create such explosions would be very nice. (no static mesh explosions please! e.g. Quake 2 http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif)



I don't believe I quoted AGEIA...

Trying to merge engines that work well for outer space, flight simulator, large terrain on earth, city exteriors, building interiors.... seemlessly. Seems like that is a long ways off.

[Otto von Keisinger]

Mostly because people rarely have undertaken such a task, but it has been done before.

[hell-angel]

Micki! said:
I really like that suggestion you came with there... But unfortunately, i guess 3DR are moving a completely different direction... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif



I don't think that is unfortunate, not since they can now focus on object interactivity with a simpler (I guess) and stable engine. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif I prefer that over geomod everyday, since the destructions of house and walls and such is not nearly as beautifull as it should be IMO because we have a lack in computer power for it. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Cerberus_e]

FireFly said:
Those are static meshes - imported models made in a modelling program. Before that I believe movable brushes were used. These are called movers in the Unreal Engine.

A mover is a brush that can change position during play. They are used to make doors, elevators or any other feature in your map that is not static. Movers aren't very hard to make and once you get the basics you can try different things to come up with very cool stuff.

Movers are not strictly part of the BSP, although they block players and projectiles in the same way as the BSP world. Movers can't be subtractive, although it's possible to have glass or masked textures in a mover.

http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/Create_A_Mover_(UT)



why don't they use movers for destructible environments, then?
if it's possible to deform surfaces (monsters bursting through walls, physics, ...)

[Little Conqueror]

I'd like to see somebody try to make a level entirely out of movers. I'm telling you, it'd be insane.

[FireFly]

You can't use movers for destructible geometry, because all they can do is move about on a set, predefined course. You can't modify them in-game.

As I said it's perfectly possible to have destructible geometry using static meshes, or just plain meshes (I imagine they used this in HL for the zombies that burst through the walls). However it's limited to specific, specially made sections.

[LiquiD]

In meqon you can blast through brick walls, so whats stopping 3drealms from doin that same thing from time to time? I can understand the CPU demands if every brick wall was destructable... That would be seriously demanding.

[hell-angel]

A brick wall has to be build brick by brick. Although one can batch something like that, it is still a lot of work and requires a serious amount of data.

As for the CPU load, that all depends on how big the wall is and how small the stones. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Haravikk]

I think the more important question is what precisely does total destruction add to a game? IMO being able to destroy everything is a gimmick that would wear off extremely quickly.

I like the "layered" suggestion which makes the destruction visible but not environment deforming, as the whole point of a level is that there are specific places you are supposed to go, and specific ways to get to them. It's no fun if you can bypass carefully designed parts of a level just by blowing through everything in your path.

Even Red Faction wasn't fully deformable, it just allowed you to dynamically deform specific parts of the levels. There were still indestructable walls and doors which made up the main level design.

Admittedly, Warlords was a sweet multiplayer map, but that kind of destruction doesn't really work so well for general gameplay.

[Cerberus_e]

FireFly said:
You can't use movers for destructible geometry, because all they can do is move about on a set, predefined course. You can't modify them in-game.



what are the bricks in Meqon then?
you can move them around with your mouse, so it's not a pre-defined course like for example the train ride from Quake 2.

[FireFly]

They're models, just like the enemies are models, and can move around and be affected by physics. Static meshes are merely models that are specially optimised for use as geometry.

[Cerberus_e]

so we just create a whole level out of models!
man, I should be game developer http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[hell-angel]

Haravikk said:
I think the more important question is what precisely does total destruction add to a game? IMO being able to destroy everything is a gimmick that would wear off extremely quickly.

I like the "layered" suggestion which makes the destruction visible but not environment deforming, as the whole point of a level is that there are specific places you are supposed to go, and specific ways to get to them. It's no fun if you can bypass carefully designed parts of a level just by blowing through everything in your path.

Even Red Faction wasn't fully deformable, it just allowed you to dynamically deform specific parts of the levels. There were still indestructable walls and doors which made up the main level design.

Admittedly, Warlords was a sweet multiplayer map, but that kind of destruction doesn't really work so well for general gameplay.



But most doors you could blow your way around in red faction.

But you have a point though, I would like to have it, but I prefer a good non-destructable level over a destructable level which you can almost completely bypass. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[LiquiD]

Yeah I guess they should save the destructable levels for Serious sam ha?

[Micki!]

hell-angel said:

Haravikk said:
I think the more important question is what precisely does total destruction add to a game? IMO being able to destroy everything is a gimmick that would wear off extremely quickly.

I like the "layered" suggestion which makes the destruction visible but not environment deforming, as the whole point of a level is that there are specific places you are supposed to go, and specific ways to get to them. It's no fun if you can bypass carefully designed parts of a level just by blowing through everything in your path.

Even Red Faction wasn't fully deformable, it just allowed you to dynamically deform specific parts of the levels. There were still indestructable walls and doors which made up the main level design.

Admittedly, Warlords was a sweet multiplayer map, but that kind of destruction doesn't really work so well for general gameplay.



But most doors you could blow your way around in red faction.

But you have a point though, I would like to have it, but I prefer a good non-destructable level over a destructable level which you can almost completely bypass. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



Hehe, i remember a part of the training level, where you could practice with explosives... You couldn't get to any further training rooms before completeing the explosives part first...
Except if you use the explosives to blow up a way besides the locked door... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[hell-angel]

^ hehe, to good old days. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Some stuff like this will be cool for DNF though. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Just not all the time. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Water12356]

Cerberus_e said:
that isn't strange, it allows you to skip the whole levels (skipping intended routes of the developers in levels, allowing you to immediately finish a level http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mryuck.gif)

serious sam 2 has destructible environments, look into that



Yea where the hell do u get that much ammo though? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Otto von Keisinger]

As I recall, Red Faction was very leninent with it's ammo supply. I never was for a want of ammo, unless I decided to mine unnecessarily.

[hell-angel]

Otto von Keisinger said:
As I recall, Red Faction was very leninent with it's ammo supply. I never was for a want of ammo, unless I decided to mine unnecessarily.



Correct. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Otto von Keisinger]

Addendum: when I did mine, I usually would hit the hardcoded limits of the game before I ran out of ammo, thus breaking the game.

[hell-angel]

Damn, I never hit them. You must have spend some time blasting then. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cerberus_e]

Water12356 said:

Cerberus_e said:
that isn't strange, it allows you to skip the whole levels (skipping intended routes of the developers in levels, allowing you to immediately finish a level http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mryuck.gif)

serious sam 2 has destructible environments, look into that



Yea where the hell do u get that much ammo though? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif



well, destroying one wall can lead to half the level skipped http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Otto von Keisinger]

hell-angel said:
Damn, I never hit them. You must have spend some time blasting then. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif


I got very deep indeed, and I usually would wind hitting the limits unintentionally just playing (I tend to make big doorways) right before a part where you have to take advantage of the destructability.

[hell-angel]

I see, nice. Some stuff like that would be fun in DNF, but only on places where it is required to use it or as a fun way around something difficult or maybe even to a secret place with lots of ammo to kill the guys more easily. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lemonfield]

Which I fully expect to see in DNF. Remember the cracks on the walls in DN3D, indicating a destructable wall? I think we may see something like that again.

Edit: woops, contradictory statement. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif Pick a place somewhere between 'fully' and 'may'. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[hell-angel]

I hope so. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Only, I do want it to look better then in D3D. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif