Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Martinus on July 26, 2005, 07:58:55 am
-
[color=66ff00]I managed to fix the 'steam' problem the other day and so reinstalled HL2. I'd heard about a few mods that had been well recieved and whilst hunting them down stumbled upon 'Garry's mod'.
For those of you unfamiliar with it, it's a sandbox for playing with the physics engine basically. You can create all sorts of stuff and manipulate it via ropes and pulleys, balloons (make things float), thrusters (self explainatory), etc.
I took great delight in spawning Barney, placing him in a wheelbarrow and attaching some thrusters to the back of it. I think you can picture the results. Attaching a thruster to a NPC is hilarious in it's own right.
Check it out if you're so inclined. :nod:
[/color]
-
I've been trying to make a comic using Garry's Mod, problem is that I really suck at the final editing in photoshop, which will make the end result horrid.
Making stupid stuff, like attaching a few crates together to make some sort of "cockpit" and adding a few strong thrusters is always fun (just remember to put god mode on).
-
Tried this one already; great mod. :yes:
By the way, you know at the beginning of the ravenholm level, where there is the pair of legs hanging from a tree? If you shoot those legs from a certain angle with the magnum, they can get stuck in the branches and go completely haywire, vibrating and swinging all over the place at an extreme speed. For some reason, I used to be able to do this every single time on my old computer configuration but find it very hard to do it on my new one, even though the game version is the same.
Speaking of physics effects, why does just about every modern game use the Havok physics engine even though it sucks so bad? I mean, I'm glad they do since I love messing around with these things, but this engine seriously goofs up more often than it actually works. Vibrating dead bodies have become a standard feature these days. :D
Deus Ex: Invisible War has some nice physics effects possible as well. I'll post some screenshots I have when I get home.
-
Another thing I've noticed about most Havok "powered" games is that bodies seem to be very light. One thing that they really got right in Doom 3 was that bodies weren't as light and bouncy as they are in HL2 for example.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Tried this one already; great mod. :yes:
By the way, you know at the beginning of the ravenholm level, where there is the pair of legs hanging from a tree? If you shoot those legs from a certain angle with the magnum, they can get stuck in the branches and go completely haywire, vibrating and swinging all over the place at an extreme speed. For some reason, I used to be able to do this every single time on my old computer configuration but find it very hard to do it on my new one, even though the game version is the same.
Speaking of physics effects, why does just about every modern game use the Havok physics engine even though it sucks so bad? I mean, I'm glad they do since I love messing around with these things, but this engine seriously goofs up more often than it actually works. Vibrating dead bodies have become a standard feature these days. :D
Deus Ex: Invisible War has some nice physics effects possible as well. I'll post some screenshots I have when I get home.
Havok is used by Deus Ex:IW as well, in case you didn't know. Um... computers don't really have the power AFAIK to do a proper physics simulation yet; I guess that, combined with mistakes implementing them (i.e. weight assignments to characters), leads to unconvincing results.
-
Originally posted by Tieowbeijas
Another thing I've noticed about most Havok "powered" games is that bodies seem to be very light. One thing that they really got right in Doom 3 was that bodies weren't as light and bouncy as they are in HL2 for example.
Doom 3 has really rocketed in my estimation lately. Since I got a decent sound card / RAM I've been able to run it in Ultra High mode with all the settings tweaked and the high detail mods at about 50fps consistently.
Fact is that that engine seems to work really really nicely. Things can be a little shiny but generally the whole world seems to be well put together and far better polished than HL2s. Everything quite simply seems to work.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Um... computers don't really have the power AFAIK to do a proper physics simulation yet; I guess that, combined with mistakes implementing them (i.e. weight assignments to characters), leads to unconvincing results.
That may be (kindof atleast) solved with the AGEIA PhysX chip (http://www.ageia.com/). Seems like Epic is implementing support for it in some future game (UT2K7 I'd guess). So all that is needed is that game developers start giving the bodies realistic weight properties if they also chose to support the PhysX chip.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Doom 3 has really rocketed in my estimation lately. Since I got a decent sound card / RAM I've been able to run it in Ultra High mode with all the settings tweaked and the high detail mods at about 50fps consistently.
Fact is that that engine seems to work really really nicely. Things can be a little shiny but generally the whole world seems to be well put together and far better polished than HL2s. Everything quite simply seems to work.
Pity that still doesn't make the game any less of a generic, cookie-cutter run and gun FPS...
-
Does Doom 3 use Havok or its own thing? I didn't notice quite as many physics screwups there as in most other games. Although there was one instance when a zombie died inside a doorway and once the door closed up, the body vibrated as violently as anything I've seen in DXIW.
Fact is that that engine seems to work really really nicely. Things can be a little shiny but generally the whole world seems to be well put together and far better polished than HL2s. Everything quite simply seems to work.
D3 was generally a much better game than the vastly overhyped HL2, both graphically and gameplay wise, atlhough still wasn't anything really special (the story was nice and detailed though). I thought Far Cry and SCCT were considerably better than either of these as far as gameplay went.
Havok is used by Deus Ex:IW as well, in case you didn't know. Um... computers don't really have the power AFAIK to do a proper physics simulation yet; I guess that, combined with mistakes implementing them (i.e. weight assignments to characters), leads to unconvincing results.
I know, and in fact the DXIW implementation is more prone to glitches than even the others. :D But aren't there any competitors to Havok? Some of the Unreal Warfare games use something called Karma, which doesn't have ragdolls but also has a lot less weirdness. While accurate physical simulations are extremely intensive and basically require supercomputers, I think these bugs and glitches can still be avoided. When dead bodies in games shake and vibrate so often that you expect them to do that, it's safe to say that there is something wrong. :D
-
Yes, there are other physics middlewares out there. Karma is actually used by quite a few games, I think. Aegeia also are developing/have their own middleware, and DNF will use another middleware (which I think is OS) if it ever is released.
Doom3 uses proprietary physics. I think, though, it does have less mobile objects than HL2, which may allow more precise simulation across a reduced scope.
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
Pity that still doesn't make the game any less of a generic, cookie-cutter run and gun FPS...
Because HL2 was so much more innovative? :)
Edit: As for Doom 3s physics.. there was quite a nice moment in the Alpha Labs section where you find yoursef in a room with no way to proceed, then then the lights dim / turn red as you go near a window at the far end and a whole load of boxes / science stuff float up off the floor and rocket at you, smashing the window.
It's true that individual objects in Doom 3 (such as boxes and such) seem a lot less detailed than in HL2 for instance, but everything seems much better placed. HL2s execution just feels... messy.
-
It doesn't take an awful lot to be more innovative than iD...
-
Like what?
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
Pity that still doesn't make the game any less of a generic, cookie-cutter run and gun FPS...
WHy would you want it otherwise? It's Doom, not Microsoft Encarta :rolleyes:
-
It doesn't take an awful lot to be more innovative than iD...
True, but HL2 didn't even manage that. It was the first game I've played in years that I considered giving up halfway through because of how dull and repetitive it was becoming, not just in terms of the gameplay but also the level design and plot. My brother in fact did so, although I eventually decided to play it through to the end since I had already spent a lot of time with it. The last couple of levels weren't bad actually, but you had to sit through the terribly monotonous first nine or so levels to get to that point. D3 got rather repetitive later on as well, but there at least the story gave an incentive to keep playing.
I don't think a game necessarily needs to be innovative in order to be considered good though, as long as it has well balanced and fun gameplay and an overall polished feel. FS1 was like this actually, putting the best parts of the space sims that had come before it into an excellent overall package.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
DNF will use another middleware (which I think is OS) if it ever is released.
It's gonna use Meqon, which hopefully will have better precision and speed than Havok, atleast it looks like it from the demos (found at http://www.meqon.com/)
Some of the Unreal Warfare games use something called Karma, which doesn't have ragdolls but also has a lot less weirdness.
UT2k3/2k4 has ragdolls, although the effect is not as overpronounced as in HL2, corpses also fall quite nicely although they have a tendency to slide down hills (like the corpses in Far Cry).
As for Doom 3, I've never had any bad experiences with the physics, sure, they aren't as massively used as in HL2, but they never mess up on me, what I like the most though is that the corpses of zombies fall down in a "realistic" way, instead of slowly falling down (with a backflip, like in HL2 when you shoot some Combine CP in the head with the revolver).
-
i have noticed that havok causes bodies to go almost weightless and it bugs me, Doom 3 had great physics. did anyone notice that some of the creature's flesh kind of 'sunk' down because of weight?
-
Seems to be a general Rule of thumb that any HL2/Doom3 thread evolves (devolves) into a HL2 vs. D3 thread.
Oh, how I missed ye, HLP.
-
This time that'd be my bad - sorry ;)
Honest to god, I wouldn't have bought D3 up if I hadn't just uninstalled HL2 and Steam in favour of installing Doom 3 instead.
-
No I didn't notice that, but I will say that HL2's physics really aren't that great, and it's graphics have almost no dynamic lighting (if any).
I've been saying it since it came out - Doom 3 is a better game. It's way more fun, imo, and I like the cookie cutter formula, mostly because I've gotten tired of the next "ULTRA SUPER REAL" shooter.
But UT2k3/2k4 definately has better phyics than HL2, even if the bodies don't seem very heavy when they hit the ground.
-
Originally posted by MicroPsycho
i have noticed that havok causes bodies to go almost weightless and it bugs me, Doom 3 had great physics. did anyone notice that some of the creature's flesh kind of 'sunk' down because of weight?
I think that (body weight) is something being miss-set in programming rather than down to the engine, though. I'm sure if you can do proper physics simulation for tin cans, etc, you can do the same for a body.
Same for the floppy body syndrome you get, where the skeleton turns to jelly when they die.
-
I shouldn't think it's too long before all this stuff is genuinely realistically modelled though. It just depends how much detail you want to go into... whether a models arm goes floppy, or has the correct bone structure (including hand?).. or even if this stretches to include broken bones from falls and so forth.
Then one has to think about everything else in a world (from a tin can to a crate made of wood, or metal, or plastic...) and how it reacts. Does all wood catch fire? Does all wood splinter? If it does splinter, does it splinter in accordance with the world - or does it just fragment randomly?
So far I've not seen any game get this all truly right.
-
I think fire dynamics will probably be the 'next big thing' once physics (or rather, solid object interaction) is considered done; that and fluid water dynamics.
Worth noting that wood splintering, etc, is being done now by-engine (i.e. in response to area of impact, not predefined points). I remember hiding behind a metal sheet from the chopper in HL2, and having the sheet be realistically torn apart from gunfire.
-
To bring some balance to the thread, I thought HL2 was infinitely better than Doom 3.
-
Ack, no! HL2-good-or-bad debates have been gone through with nearly as much fervor as religion debates. :p
-
I was absent during those debates though, so I might as well join in the fun now. :D
-
Well...
I like both games, they have their ups and downs but I really don't prefer either overall.
Discussions about "Game X is better than Game Y" usually makes about as much sense as "My dad can beat up your dad", since it's usually just two sides saying that the other side/other game sucks. There are of course exceptions, but that is usually when just about everyone can agree on that Game Z really sucks.
-
FPSes are starting to suck in general (not that they were *really* good in the first place but there were a few standout examples). Pretty much everything that can be done with them has been and so their expanding into the only real indefinite area: graphics. Unfortunately, since they're one of only the handful of genres the PC can do *really* well, we're doomed to seeing endless cookie-cutter clones ad infinitum :rolleyes:
-
The problem is that no company is really wanting to risk everything on a really innovative game, so they just go for a standard FPS game with a few things special so that it sells well.
-
I dunno, I kinda liked the Half Life story. I don't know why so many people had problems with HL2; I recently finished it for the first time(we were slow to getting it on the main computer) and my only complain is that the G-man is a *****.
-
Doom II had the ultimate of everything1!!1!1!!!11oneone
-
Originally posted by Tieowbeijas
The problem is that no company is really wanting to risk everything on a really innovative game, so they just go for a standard FPS game with a few things special so that it sells well.
Well, at least, we know pretty well what Doom has always meant to be. They experience more on Quake, imho, Doom has to be resumed in two words: gloomy and violent. If you change it, it's not Doom anymore.
You wouldn't like FS2 being turned into a realistic space sim, I believe, you'd want prettier graphics and some cool effects, and basically no gameplay change. That's what they did for Doom3.
-
What I mean is, you don't see many new franchises, and the new ones don't really try to be something unique and different, they try to be like everyone else just so that the company is guaranteed to get som money.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Doom 3 has really rocketed in my estimation lately. Since I got a decent sound card / RAM I've been able to run it in Ultra High mode with all the settings tweaked and the high detail mods at about 50fps consistently.
Fact is that that engine seems to work really really nicely. Things can be a little shiny but generally the whole world seems to be well put together and far better polished than HL2s. Everything quite simply seems to work.
Then I guess it's pretty subjective since I found HL2 a lot better than Doom 3 in all respects.
to me allmost everything in D3 looks like it's made of plastic.. But it does have the horror feel done right.
on another note, in case you haven't heard, there is a physix processor (actualyl a whole card) coming out soon, and many games in development have allready annaunced that they will support it.
So basicly PhysiX is ANOTHER carg that you will put next to your graphics/sounbd card who's only job is physics. It can calculate and simulate over 100000 objects hyper-realisticly.
Some say they might put the processors on the graphics card together with the normal one. Needles to say, the power consumption of the average PC will allso increase, but at least we will have REAL physics without sacrificing fps.
-
Originally posted by Tieowbeijas
That may be (kindof atleast) solved with the AGEIA PhysX chip (http://www.ageia.com/). Seems like Epic is implementing support for it in some future game (UT2K7 I'd guess). So all that is needed is that game developers start giving the bodies realistic weight properties if they also chose to support the PhysX chip.
:p
But yeah, the card will help alot, I've noticed in HL2 (and CSS) that the FPS goes down the drain when lots of objects are moving and colliding, once me and a friend managed to "crash" the physics in HL2 : DM by simply taking most of the stuff in a map and laying it in a big pile.
But I can see two problems with physics processors:
1) Games must have specific support for them, hopefully it will catch on like 3d-accelerator cards. It seems likely that it will be used since atleast Epic will support it.
2) No support for older games unless they become patched, and there's a large chance of that since I'd guess some companies wouldn't want to fork out money so that they could incorporate support for a physics card in a patch for their game.
-
Originally posted by Nico
You wouldn't like FS2 being turned into a realistic space sim, I believe, you'd want prettier graphics and some cool effects, and basically no gameplay change. That's what they did for Doom3.
You're either a liar, or terminally unobservant. Doom 3 plays quite differently than the originals.
-
Followup to ZylonBane's post: or really, really stupid. 2D != 3D
EDIT: yes, people, I know that DooM 1 and 2 aren't really 2D. I should hope you have enough sense to understand what I said.
-
Actually that's not at all what I meant, but whatever.
-
Halo 2 is much better than either! :p
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
Halo 2 is much better than either! :p
Gameplay, story, and multi-play wise, yes.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Gameplay, story, and multi-play wise, yes.
and, albiet on console, graphically, best post-prod effects ever seen, and used.. *nods*
-
Shame it's not out on the PC then ;)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Shame it's not out on the PC then ;)
point well made :p
oh, i gave garry's mod a go.. tried to recreate the mythbusters "ming dynasty astronaut" using Breen and a thruster laden chair... ;)
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
You're either a liar, or terminally unobservant. Doom 3 plays quite differently than the originals.
:blah: Do I need to reply to that? Yes, I guess ~~
How so? If you mean you have to go slower and ****, it's the same, just try the original doom in the higher difficulties, w/o the god mode (heh), and come tell me if you're going for mass, instant frag... And since there's twice the amount of difficulty levels in doom2 than doom3, I assume they just got rid of the easier ones.
And if you were referring to the fact they added jump and stuff, I'll just ignore you, or reply "yeah and they should have kept it 2D".
-
Halo2 is cool, but I got much more of a kick with Return to Castle Wolfeinstein :p Now this one was a good FPS.
-
The difference between classic Doom and Doom 3 is that the original games are about running around large, well-lit areas blasting dozens of monsters at a time, while D3 is about creeping through tight, poorly-lit areas blasting usually two or three monsters at a time.
Thank god for Serious Sam. Now that's a true spiritual sequel to Doom.
-
To Duke Nukem.
-
Zylon, did it ever occur to you that the games were about more than the basic gameplay forumla.. they were about style as well? Back in the days of Doom it would've been much much harder to create a game with Doom 3 style gameplay. Now it seems ID wanted to go with something that was technologically sound enough to put over a truly dark, claustrophobic experience that would be much more effective at transporting a player to "hell" than the nice bright colours and lush green fields of Serious Sam.
Fact is, you don't like the playing style. But that doesn't mean that Doom 3 failed to deliver entirely. It just didn't deliver to you.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
The difference between classic Doom and Doom 3 is that the original games are about running around large, well-lit areas blasting dozens of monsters at a time, while D3 is about creeping through tight, poorly-lit areas blasting usually two or three monsters at a time.
Thank god for Serious Sam. Now that's a true spiritual sequel to Doom.
I give you the large open areas (tho, to be honest, I believe it's because of Doom3 engine, as good as they want us to think it is, I'm sure it'd be crappy for that kind of playgrounds), but Doom had its share of cramped, very dark levels (I especially remember one, where you go in front of a door, you expect it to open, but no, the ground lowers under your feet and you end up in a maze w/o any lightning save for blinking lights, full of invisible pinkies, flying skulls and other damn mobs... mmh, I think it was Doom2, not Doom).
-
Yeah, the gameplay for the first two Dooms was completely different than the third game; as ZB said, the Serious Sam games are much closer to Doom 1 and 2 than Doom 3 is. I don't necessarily prefer one type over the other as they are both fun in their own ways, but most modern games are closer to the Doom 3 variety.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Now it seems ID wanted to go with something that was technologically sound enough to put over a truly dark, claustrophobic experience that would be much more effective at transporting a player to "hell" than the nice bright colours and lush green fields of Serious Sam.
I really don't see what point you're trying to make here. I'm saying that Doom 3 doesn't play like its predecessors, and you appear to be agreeing with me. Whether or not I like this style is irrelevent. I'm simply squashing another wave of the stupid "But it plays just like the originals!!!!!" defense.
Originally posted by Nico
..Doom had its share of cramped, very dark levels...
Yes, it did. But they were the exception, not the rule.
-
w00ps, quote instead of edit.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
I really don't see what point you're trying to make here. I'm saying that Doom 3 doesn't play like its predecessors, and you appear to be agreeing with me. Whether or not I like this style is irrelevent. I'm simply squashing another wave of the stupid "But it plays just like the originals!!!!!" defense.
Which is exactly what I didn't say originally, but since you jumped on that argument right away, I was stupid enough to follow that point :doubt:
So ok, let's forget about the tiny evolutions of gameplay, or you'll **** around with the player being able to talk to a couple NPC, or spiderbots following you, and read my original post again: Doom= gloomy and violent.
It is not about puzzles, it is not crazy vehicle action over a whole level, it is not about funky gameplay innovations, it is about going forward in gloomy complex fighting creatures out of hell (and it has to be on Mars, according to purists) by finding the equivalents of the greebn, blue and red keys. Sure the gameplay is different, you have less monsters, it's 100% closed space etc, but that's merely an evolution - at the same time allowed by advancements in technology (prettyness) and limited by technology (prettyness= no large waves of monsters in stadium-sized open areas) - I really don't see that as betraying the original.
But why are we arguing about that anyway (save for you calling me a liar and me prefering to argument rather than telling you to **** off right away)? It's not like any of us even care :doubt:
-
The first two Dooms weren't really dark or "gloomy" though. I thought they were actually quite hilarious with the monsters constantly attacking each other, the comments at the end of each episode and those legendary exit game messages. :D
-
Originally posted by Nico
Which is exactly what I didn't say originally
Originally posted by Nico
You wouldn't like FS2 being turned into a realistic space sim, I believe, you'd want prettier graphics and some cool effects, and basically no gameplay change. That's what they did for Doom3.
Ahem.
PS-- "purists" would insist that the action take place on Phobos and Deimos, not Mars.
-
Originally posted by Nico
It is not about puzzles, it is not crazy vehicle action over a whole level, it is not about funky gameplay innovations, it is about going forward in gloomy complex fighting creatures out of hell (and it has to be on Mars, according to purists) by finding the equivalents of the greebn, blue and red keys. Sure the gameplay is different, you have less monsters, it's 100% closed space etc, but that's merely an evolution - at the same time allowed by advancements in technology (prettyness) and limited by technology (prettyness= no large waves of monsters in stadium-sized open areas) - I really don't see that as betraying the original.
B
I hated the way D3 played. The areas were so confined you were almost always stuck with literally no room to manouver. Plus, you could almost gurantee a bad guy would teleport in directly behind you for a cheap scare.
Also, bad guys being able to appear literally anywhere, in a given location, meant the combat was completley boring. Things like position and tactics were meaningless when a bad guy would appear just behind you, or a locked door would open to allow a bad guy to ambush you.
It just becames a case of tripping each "trap" and slugging it out.
Quake 2 was better than Doom 3.
Originally posted by CP5670
The first two Dooms weren't really dark or "gloomy" though. I thought they were actually quite hilarious with the monsters constantly attacking each other, the comments at the end of each episode and those legendary exit game messages.
The original Quake was especially good for getting hostiles to fight each other :yes:
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
Ahem.
OOOOOK. So I'll be dumb and I'll insist that there was basically no gameplay change. You run, you shoot, you dodge, and that's all there is to Doom3, as much as it's all that there was to Doom.
And since you're boring me with little details and you avoid my main arguments, I'll conclude: screw you, I've had enough, ***** by yourself.
CP: IMHO, the musics, the textures, the design of the monsters, the sounds, about everything was made so it was not funny, but I guess I'm wrong, heh, because there was funny comments when you finished a level (like 50% of the shareware games back then). Doom was an hilarious moment of comedy, obviously, how could I've been so blind :p
Ah, I almost forgot how arguments on HLP were... How I missed them... not :doubt: