41 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

This is the kind of "environmental interaction" I'd like to see in future titles. I can hardly count the number of times I've incinerated an area and then read a number of codex entries from books or scrolls in that area. Properly accounting for environmental item destruction would create a whole new angel to tactical combat applications.

[TEWR]

I imagine it's a bit too difficult to implement.

There are limits to what you can do with a game's mechanics. Though the God of War series has often had destructible parts of the environment.

[the_one_54321]

You designate the specific objects of note to be destructible or not, by certain kinds of AoE abilities.

I don't know that this would be incredibly difficult or not.

[Sejborg]

Magic I guess.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think it would be. Having a set "bookcase" as an object is not that hard. Its basically a rectangular block with a drawn skin of being full of books. The player can't lift it up, they can't move it - its basically the exact same type of block as a stone wall with a different skin.

Having a bookcase, that is the actual shape of a bookcase, that could have shelves that could support weight, that is full of more objects called "books" which could fall off or be moved or catch fire or be caught in a gust of wind, introduces gravity elements, weight issues and combustibility settings (since you don't want the walls catching fire if you walk by it with a torch), the whole lot.

If it wasn't incredibly hard to do, game reviewers wouldn't go gaga over such things as "water effects" and "realistic lighting." If water and lights are hard to do, imagine how hard it would be to keep track of a million interactive objects in a library, just so the developer could say "man, if a mage cast a fireball in here, things would go CRAZY."

Not to say it isn't a totally cool idea... but we won't see that level of details until Artificial Intelligence is being used to create video games.

[the_one_54321]

No-friendly-fire also applies to relevant objects in the area? I don't like this. Preferably, I'd like to see a room hit by a devastating AoE spell be devastated. I know that maybe this would be just asking for too much, so the idea is rather that some objects that are known to be important or useful in some way can be destructible.

[TEWR]

Sejborg wrote...

Magic I guess.

I lol'd. Magic is the reason why magic doesn't destroy the environment, when magic is reputed to be able to destroy the environment very easily.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 10:41 .

[the_one_54321]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
...

I don't mean physical/particle destruction modeling, like what you see when shooting up a room in an FPS. I mean just that the object disappears.

(although, blasting a room to charred splinters would be really cool)

Modifié par the_one_54321, 30 avril 2012 - 10:42 .

[DarkDragon777]

Because this game doesn't run Frostbite 2.

[BioFan (Official)]

i've thought this so many times

[Maria Caliban]

Rain would be nice. So would puddles. I don't need to swim, just let me walk through a puddle.

Tangentially, a rainstorm in STALKER.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 01 mai 2012 - 12:43 .

[BigBad]

Kirkwall went through an entire decade and a Qunari invasion/elf uprising without suffering so much as a scorch mark or broken window. I think we can safely say that their books are no less indestructible.

[TEWR]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Rain would be nice. So would puddles. I don't need to swim, just let me walk through a puddle.

Tangentially, a rainstorm in STALKER.

This.

[Sith Grey Warden]

Aside from the waste of resources, once bookcases are destroyed by fire, it becomes far more jarring why big swords or fireballs can't destroy doors, specifically doors that are locked and need a specific quest-relevant key. Or why a character like Shale can't actually be a "battering ram" and knock walls down.

[Kail Ashton]

bioware only just recently figured out how to make hair & cloth move, you're expecting this leval of compitance from them? you're mad sir!

Sure Hideo Kojima had fully interactive objects all the way back in metal gear solid 2 where in if you shot an ice bucket the ice would gradualy melt and these same interactive envirements were used in creative relevant ways in game like distracting a guard by shooting a books case sending papers scattering that he'd notice on his passing patrol causing an in game 2nd screen pov noticing it or anything else suspicious adding another leval of tension as the guards more guards were called in and searched the area all the while the 2nd minni screen showed their pov, did i mention mgs2 came out in 2001?

But hey this is 2012, you can't expect THAT kind of envirmental interactivity from bioware! c'mon guy! that's practicly like magic and stuff!

[the_one_54321]

Filament wrote...
If the books burn I'd wonder why the whole building doesn't start burning down. And if they just disappear rather than leaving their charred/broken remains I'd rather they not burn at all, cuz that's lame.

I like to keep my dreams small. Disappearing books is all I'm asking for. Oh, and maybe NPCs that aren't immune to damage.

[brushyourteeth]

Avejajed wrote...

Because burning books goes against all that is good and holy and wonderful in the world. JS.

THIS.

Also, you might just be kind of a fail mage. JS.

[Rorschachinstein]

Even Skyrim didn't burn books. Seriously, just drop a book on a fire and you can pick it up all over again.

[the_one_54321]

The specifics of a book burning was just an example. The issue is items that can be destroyed by environmental actions. This extends to smashing doors, or chests, etc.

[the_one_54321]

I would happily advocate book burning if meant more detailed object interaction in the game that was also no entirely frivolous. (and this is the only context under which I would advocate book burning)

[AkiKishi]

Some more combat interaction with the enviroment would go some way to making the combat more interesting.

I don't see the point of doing it just for the sake of it though. Take weather effects, so you can do rain, who cares ? Does it add anything significant to the game ? In Xenoblade, weather and day/night cycle changes what monsters show up (some don't like rain etc.). Just doing rain so you can say "look at how great our rain effect is" is very shallow and the novelty will wear off .

[nightscrawl]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You designate the specific objects of note to be destructible or not, by certain kinds of AoE abilities.

I don't know that this would be incredibly difficult or not.

So why is a book on the table OK to be destroyed, but the table or bookcase itself is not? If you have a raging inferno engulfing the entire room (like with DAO's insane Inferno spell) why wouldn't everything be destroyed? IMO with those types of mechanics it should be all or nothing.