[geeks] [rescue] Video card request

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

der Mouse wrote:
>>Also, how come the graphics still have not shown what everyone really
>>wants to see:
> 
> 
>>    DESTRUCTABLE ENVIRONMENT
> 
> 
> Most briefly, because it's *hard*.

Right, and so was all the layering and other less useful but pretty 
effects put into Q4 and D3.

This isn't a matter of difficulty, but choice.

Carmack and others were going to do destructable terrain, but he freely 
admited that he has a thing for pretty pictures, and focused on that 
instead.

He and others have said over and over that we have long had the power to 
do destructable terrain, but the engines continue to focus on the art
side of things instead of physics.

They also said that a lot of the new 1 pixel shader code and layering is 
*HARDER* than what I am talking about.

They had a choice of spending the cycles on layered graphics and new 
pixel shaders, or deformable environments, and chose the former.

Also take a look at game budgets: they are huge, and they could spend 
the money on game play instead of short-term thrills which give you no 
replay value.

> If you can blow a hole in that wall, that means you can get to the
> other side.  And that means someone has to design and build what's on
> the other side.

That's old hat, and has been done for years.

The engines already support what I'm talking about, and we are starting 
to see it slowly show up in games.

My point was that Q4 and D3 didn't do it at all, focusing instead of 
graphics that I feel added little to the game.

>>The hell with pretty graphics, I want to see things that look *REAL*
>>for a change.

> That's even harder.  It means creating things on the fly for stuff like
> pieces of glass ('cause real glass doesn't break exactly the same way
> as the last glass you broke).  It means keeping objects around for
> bodies and rubble and such.

You need to get out more.

What I am talking about has *ALREADY BEEN DONE*, past tense.  I'm saying 
that Q4 and D3 were steps *BACKWARD* from current titles.

It's damned cool to be in a firefight in CoD2 where about 50 guys die, 
and their bodies are laying around where they fell.

It's not just for looks either: I'm frequently out of ammo, so stealing 
nazi guns and ammo is a major game play issue as well.

If you turn down the body count, it actually makes the game harder to play.

> It also means spending weeks or months in the hospital healing after
> you've been injured (no more just running over a health pack).  It also
> means no more fighting at full effectiveness when one more splinter in
> your toe will kill you.

All games make compromises to keep them playable.  I didn't think that 
needed to be stated.

Most strategic wargames, for example, have an unavoidable god's eye view 
for the player.