So I'm looking for a destructible environment game for Linux on Steam. I mean things with the stuff Battlefield has, not Terraria. I want to be. Simple looking platform game with no objective. Licensee is permitted to use the Licensed Content in unlimited free. Video of Destructible Environment Physics. I don't know anything about developing games but I assume that it must be something that it's very challenging from a programming standpoint? In most games the world is just there for 'scenery', you can't really interact with it in meaningful ways, I remember my surprise when in Crysis I crashed my jeep. Battlefield: Bad Company's destructible environments were pretty lame since they were very clearly pre-determined break points. Crysis's were okay. Destruction didn't really go beyond huts being broken apart. Far Cry 2 was just vegetation with branches that could be shot off. I liked Mercenaries 2's destruction. The destruction wasn't really pretty, but at least things like buildings fell down if shot at enough. Stranglehold, judging from the demo, had decent destruction. I liked how the fountain broke apart. I haven't played Crysis, but I think the parts of its destroyed buildings are physics enabled, so I'd probably give it that. But I've played lots of Bad Company, and it's impressive. If you need to make an entrance/exit/shortcut in a wall, you can 9 times out of 10, so that is an accomplishment, especially on the huge multiplayer maps. In Gold Rush, if the defending team can hold onto their first base against a determined enemy for most of their (the attacker's) lives limit, the base is going to be completely unrecognizable. The walls will all be torn down, the very ground is going to be nothing but craters, so you can't run evenly, and vehicles bounce all over the place. It was also nice to have the warfare mentality rewarded, like when I would destroy a patch of rocks and bushes on top of a hill with a mortor strike, at the beginning of the match, to deprive any attacking snipers of a good concealed spot. [QUOTE='Skittles_McGee'][QUOTE='ANeuralPathway']I would say Red Faction 2, just because its better than Red Faction. RacoonusDoodus I disagree. I hated that they downgraded the geo-mod engine to the point it might as well have not existed. Not to mention how they lamed up the storyline. True, but the multiplayer in RF2 was a majow improvment over the first game's. Yeah, but Red Faction was always about the single player for me and the first RF had a much more interesting single player with a better Geo-mod engine. Bad Company: You can destroy the outer walls of buildings (and enter these buildings), and smaller objects - works well with the gameplay, and encourages a destructive edge. This gives the game a gameplay edge as far as choices and tactics go. Crysis: You can destroy entire small houses, that are entirley physics driven in their destruction. The destruction of objects encourages a destructive edge, and the freedom and tactics players get to try when approaching. Trees and plants also break very realistically, and every object is interactable, and has its own physics properties. Probably the most dynamic and complex environments in terms of destruction in all of these games. Mercenaries 2: You can demolish entire cities, however buildings cannot be entered, and are more or less enemy strongholds or setpieces. You do have the complete freedom of destruction, which enhances the gameplay, but alot of it is purley cosmetic to a degree. Red Faction: Started the destructible environments trend, and sold itself on the idea. Unfortunately the tunneling and destructible surfaces didnt shine as much as it should have in the gameplay, aside from a bit of flanking, and fun moments enhanced by scripted a.i. Stranglehold: While its not really gameplay bending, it sure as hell looks awesome, having loads of objects get thrown around and blasted during crazy gunfights. Just like John Woo's films. X-Com (and Silent Storm): Probably the biggest gameplay bending destruction in all of the games. Objectives can be approached and levels can be changed completely due to the highly destructible environments. You can make your own cover, destroy the enemies, make your own path etc. Far Cry 2: There are destructible environments?. Aside from small plants i cant really think of anything that shines. Oh i guess the grass and vegetation burns very well. And enhances the gameplay. [QUOTE='Skittles_McGee'][QUOTE='ANeuralPathway']I would say Red Faction 2, just because its better than Red Faction. RacoonusDoodus I disagree. I hated that they downgraded the geo-mod engine to the point it might as well have not existed. Not to mention how they lamed up the storyline. True, but the multiplayer in RF2 was a majow improvment over the first game's. Exactly, RF2 is one of the last games which having splitcreen mattered to me. And really, what is the point of SP FPS-incredibly easy gameplay? [QUOTE='PSdual_wielder']Shame that with quite a variety of choices for destructible environments, its still not very good in any of them. Devs really need to mature this a bit more. Skrat_01Its a major problem. Having destructible enviroments opens up a pandoras box of game design issues and technical issues. Indeed KZ2 devs said that the game will feature fully destructible environments with that they meant that you can blow out the complete environment but it didn't happen,geow2 tech demo showed us something similar as well but it ended up being only cover and some other objects from the environment. [QUOTE='skrat_01'][QUOTE='PSdual_wielder']Shame that with quite a variety of choices for destructible environments, its still not very good in any of them. Devs really need to mature this a bit more. McdonaIdsGuyIts a major problem. Having destructible enviroments opens up a pandoras box of game design issues and technical issues. Indeed KZ2 devs said that the game will feature fully destructible environments with that they meant that you can blow out the complete environment but it didn't happen,geow2 tech demo showed us something similar as well but it ended up being only cover and some other objects from the environment.Hmm I strongly doubt KZ2 will have fully destructible enviroments. In most 'corridoor' styled shooters this is an impossiblity, as the geometry needs to be unbreakable in order to push the player down a linear path. What I do think is certain cover will be destroyable, like in the GeOW2 tech video for instance - wheras in GeOW destruction is purley cosmetic, as adding destructible cover objects can totally mess up and compramise level design, if you are so dependant on it for the core gameplay. On the Kickstarter page, it's written that the world of CoE will be fully destructible. So by fully destructible I guess that they mean the ground too. Does anyone know what is the difference between the fully destructible world promised for $900,000, and the $1,750,000 tunneling stretch goal? If the world is fully destructible, shouldn't players be able to dig underground and create tunnels anyway? Now that is a very good question, well spotted I didnt notice that in the goals myself, what on earth would be the difference, apart from tunnels maybe lasting longer, a build feature if you will. On the Kickstarter page, it's written that the world of CoE will be fully destructible. So by fully destructible I guess that they mean the ground too. Does anyone know what is the difference between the fully destructible world promised for $900,000, and the $1,750,000 tunneling stretch goal? If the world is fully destructible, shouldn't players be able to dig underground and create tunnels anyway? Now that is a very good question, well spotted I didnt notice that in the goals myself, what on earth would be the difference, apart from tunnels maybe lasting longer, a build feature if you will. Yea, as you say I guess it has something to do with underground buildings and being able to solidify/reinforce the tunnel so it doesn't collapse after a while. I just checked the about stretch goals: 'Tunneling This is our system for creating underground grottoes, caverns, mining shafts, etc. It's one of our favorite systems and we're looking forward to adding it to the world. However, it was deemed a painful but possible cut as it's non-essential to have underground lairs, etc. *On Poll* Terraforming is different from tunneling as it involves the change in actual terrain, rather than the addition of tunnels. Honestly, we think tunneling is cooler than straight terraforming. This was cut to keep us under $900k and as we favor tunneling over terraforming it's um. (Not considered for voting)' With a fully destructible world (promised for $900,000), I guess players should already be able to create grottoes, caverns and change the terrain, since that's pretty much what 'fully destructible environment' is about I guess. I think that was the initial hope that it was be 100% destructable. Maybe they should change thst part of their marketing if it's not the case Well it was not only the initial hope, it's a feature that was promised less than a month ago for the Kickstarter campaign, and a feature that people pledged money for. Fully destructible world/environment would mean that the game allows players to destroy the ground too. Otherwise it's just the normal destruction of buildings we get in many MMOs. At this point I think they can't really change the marketing, there's only 1 day left to the KS campaign. I think that was the initial hope that it was be 100% destructable. Maybe they should change thst part of their marketing if it's not the case Well it was not only the initial hope, it's a feature that was promised less than a month ago for the Kickstarter campaign, and a feature that people pledged money for. Fully destructible world/environment would mean that the game allows players to destroy the ground too. Otherwise it's just the normal destruction of buildings we get in many MMOs. At this point I think they can't really change the marketing, there's only 1 day left to the KS campaign. I dont agree. Unless the developer explicitly stated what 'destructible environment' means exactly then donators are just being emos who are not taking personal responsibility. Do you always watch a show when the add said 'best this season'. I think that was the initial hope that it was be 100% destructable. Maybe they should change thst part of their marketing if it's not the case Well it was not only the initial hope, it's a feature that was promised less than a month ago for the Kickstarter campaign, and a feature that people pledged money for. Fully destructible world/environment would mean that the game allows players to destroy the ground too. Otherwise it's just the normal destruction of buildings we get in many MMOs. At this point I think they can't really change the marketing, there's only 1 day left to the KS campaign. I dont agree. Unless the developer explicitly stated what 'destructible environment' means exactly then donators are just being emos who are not taking personal responsibility. Do you always watch a show when the add said 'best this season' Pretty sure that 'fully destructible world' and 'fully destructible environment', both used in the first lines of the Kickstarter page, are not open to interpretation. If the terrain is not destructible, the world therefore isn't fully destructible. Do you really want a 100% fully destructible world? I know folks who would do their utmost to destroy it. The thread is more about what is promised for $900,000 (fully destructible world/environment) vs. What the studio then picked as $1,750,000 stretch goal (tunnels, digging) and the apparent contradiction between the 2. (if the fully destructible environment is already in the game at $900,000, why create a $1,750,000 stretch goal to get digging / tunnels, which is the expected consequence of a 'fully destructible environment' in the first place). I think that was the initial hope that it was be 100% destructable. Maybe they should change thst part of their marketing if it's not the case Well it was not only the initial hope, it's a feature that was promised less than a month ago for the Kickstarter campaign, and a feature that people pledged money for. Fully destructible world/environment would mean that the game allows players to destroy the ground too. Otherwise it's just the normal destruction of buildings we get in many MMOs. At this point I think they can't really change the marketing, there's only 1 day left to the KS campaign. I dont agree. Unless the developer explicitly stated what 'destructible environment' means exactly then donators are just being emos who are not taking personal responsibility. Do you always watch a show when the add said 'best this season' Pretty sure that 'fully destructible world' and 'fully destructible environment', both used in the first lines of the Kickstarter page, are not open to interpretation. If the terrain is not destructible, the world therefore isn't fully destructible. Unless you can find an independent (and widely accepted) definition of 'fully destructible world', then it remains open to interpretation. In my experience, the scope of 'fully destructible' is usually determined by the developer, who is the one that has to implement it. I'll bet in the case of CoE that definition applies to 'above ground objects', as it does in most MMO's that have destructible environments. It may stretch to include shallow craters at the most. Terrain deformation is not a big feature in most MMO's, because it has all sorts of negative performance impacts. But the tunneling system described in CoE is actually a creative feature, not destructive. It creates game space where there wasn't any before, and would allow for a variety of emergent game play. It also includes mechanics such as 'supporting the ceiling with buttresses', which implies that there's a degree of simulation of RL systems included. I think that was the initial hope that it was be 100% destructable. Maybe they should change thst part of their marketing if it's not the case Well it was not only the initial hope, it's a feature that was promised less than a month ago for the Kickstarter campaign, and a feature that people pledged money for. Fully destructible world/environment would mean that the game allows players to destroy the ground too. Otherwise it's just the normal destruction of buildings we get in many MMOs. At this point I think they can't really change the marketing, there's only 1 day left to the KS campaign. I dont agree. Unless the developer explicitly stated what 'destructible environment' means exactly then donators are just being emos who are not taking personal responsibility. Do you always watch a show when the add said 'best this season' Pretty sure that 'fully destructible world' and 'fully destructible environment', both used in the first lines of the Kickstarter page, are not open to interpretation. If the terrain is not destructible, the world therefore isn't fully destructible. Unless you can find an independent (and widely accepted) definition of 'fully destructible world', then it remains open to interpretation. In my experience, the scope of 'fully destructible' is usually determined by the developer, who is the one that has to implement it. Fully: completely or entirely destructible: able to be destroyed world: the fictional universe associated with a game environment: the air, water and land in or on which people/animals/plants live Example of game with fully destructible environment: Minecraft. With a fully destructible world (promised for $900,000), I guess players should already be able to create grottoes, caverns and change the terrain, since that's pretty much what 'fully destructible environment' is about I guess. Why not just accept their definition of what 'fully destructible environment' is and what tunneling is? I see no definition of 'fully destructible environment' on the Kickstarter page. Only promises that the game will feature 'fully destructible environment' and 'fully destructible world'. On the Kickstarter page, it's written that the world of CoE will be fully destructible. So by fully destructible I guess that they mean the ground too. Does anyone know what is the difference between the fully destructible world promised for $900,000, and the $1,750,000 tunneling stretch goal? If the world is fully destructible, shouldn't players be able to dig underground and create tunnels anyway? Destructible world is not teraforming. You cant change the land mass, Destructible meaning anything that is created can be destroyed, theres not 'starter' towns, so any city, town, keep, castle, can be destroyed. Tunneling will give you access to change the ground some what, but still isnt tera forming. I don't believe they mean the terrain I think the fully destructable is more like the trees, buildings etc. I understand this seems confusing and not exactly what most people would consider fully destructable. Btw this is my thoughts and no way confirmed. Well if they advertise it as a fully destructible environment (e.g. Minecraft, Landmark, Life is Feudal, etc.) and it's just the trees, objects and buildings that can be destroyed, imo it's pretty misleading. It is just a matter of terminology. They mean THIS. Others mean something else. Some games have done it one way. IF YOU ASSUMED, that is your baggage. Epic Music: Kyleran: 'Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer.' John Henry Newman: 'A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault.' FreddyNoNose: 'A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense.' 'Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten.' LacedOpium: 'So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?' On the Kickstarter page, it's written that the world of CoE will be fully destructible. So by fully destructible I guess that they mean the ground too. Does anyone know what is the difference between the fully destructible world promised for $900,000, and the $1,750,000 tunneling stretch goal? If the world is fully destructible, shouldn't players be able to dig underground and create tunnels anyway? Destructible world is not teraforming. You cant change the land mass, Destructible meaning anything that is created can be destroyed, theres not 'starter' towns, so any city, town, keep, castle, can be destroyed. Tunneling will give you access to change the ground some what, but still isnt tera forming. Fully destructible world / environment is different from 'anything created by players can be destroyed'. I think that was the initial hope that it was be 100% destructable. Maybe they should change thst part of their marketing if it's not the case Well it was not only the initial hope, it's a feature that was promised less than a month ago for the Kickstarter campaign, and a feature that people pledged money for. Fully destructible world/environment would mean that the game allows players to destroy the ground too. Otherwise it's just the normal destruction of buildings we get in many MMOs. At this point I think they can't really change the marketing, there's only 1 day left to the KS campaign. I dont agree. Unless the developer explicitly stated what 'destructible environment' means exactly then donators are just being emos who are not taking personal responsibility. Do you always watch a show when the add said 'best this season' Pretty sure that 'fully destructible world' and 'fully destructible environment', both used in the first lines of the Kickstarter page, are not open to interpretation. If the terrain is not destructible, the world therefore isn't fully destructible. No you are wrong and sorry to say but an example of a naive purchaser. Its not clear, its not specific, it is very open although not vague its not clear and it needs to be and I might add this is a good example of why i do not donate to kickstarters but I play the hell out of early access games. I don't believe they mean the terrain I think the fully destructable is more like the trees, buildings etc. I understand this seems confusing and not exactly what most people would consider fully destructable. Btw this is my thoughts and no way confirmed. Well if they advertise it as a fully destructible environment (e.g. Minecraft, Landmark, Life is Feudal, etc.) and it's just the trees, objects and buildings that can be destroyed, imo it's pretty misleading. It is just a matter of terminology. They mean THIS. Others mean something else. Some games have done it one way. IF YOU ASSUMED, that is your baggage. It's not an assumption and there's no ambiguity in the terminology. They promise a fully destructible world / environment on their Kickstarter page. Not a partially destructible world where only objects created by players can be destroyed. There would be no reason to use the adverb 'fully' and it would be misleading I guess. I think that was the initial hope that it was be 100% destructable. Maybe they should change thst part of their marketing if it's not the case Well it was not only the initial hope, it's a feature that was promised less than a month ago for the Kickstarter campaign, and a feature that people pledged money for. Fully destructible world/environment would mean that the game allows players to destroy the ground too. Otherwise it's just the normal destruction of buildings we get in many MMOs. At this point I think they can't really change the marketing, there's only 1 day left to the KS campaign. I dont agree. Unless the developer explicitly stated what 'destructible environment' means exactly then donators are just being emos who are not taking personal responsibility. Do you always watch a show when the add said 'best this season' Pretty sure that 'fully destructible world' and 'fully destructible environment', both used in the first lines of the Kickstarter page, are not open to interpretation. If the terrain is not destructible, the world therefore isn't fully destructible. No you are wrong and sorry to say but an example of a naive purchaser. Its not clear, its not specific, it is very open although not vague its not clear and it needs to be. UE4 does not have destructible terrain. And they have not in any way hinted at destructible terrain. In order to make fully destructible terrain with the unreal engine you would have to completely remove all the terrain code and replace it with some home made solution. That within itself is a massive undertaking and many teams of people have already attempted this (even teams that spec in this) and have nothing to show for it after almost 2 years of work. So if you are expecting COE to have fully destructible terrain then you are in for a very sad reality check. I am more inclined to think they mean destructible objects like trees, bushes, stuff like that. That stuff is super easy to pull off in UE4 as it does that out of the box with no work needed. On the Kickstarter page, it's written that the world of CoE will be fully destructible. So by fully destructible I guess that they mean the ground too. Does anyone know what is the difference between the fully destructible world promised for $900,000, and the $1,750,000 tunneling stretch goal? If the world is fully destructible, shouldn't players be able to dig underground and create tunnels anyway? Destructible world is not teraforming. You cant change the land mass, Destructible meaning anything that is created can be destroyed, theres not 'starter' towns, so any city, town, keep, castle, can be destroyed. Tunneling will give you access to change the ground some what, but still isnt tera forming. And this is why I say its not clear enough on a kickstarter page if all they say is 'destructible world' because its already debatable never mind a judges face of disbelief that their years in law school relegated them to listening to a lawyer explain the difference. Whoever reads past the first line would find out what the game is about, if you backed the game from reading only that line of kickstarter im sorry for you and you should get your money back. I've never understood destructible world as able to tera form the land. Ark is a destructible world to me, and obviously to the creators of this game Ark is not what I personally would consider a 'fully destructible world' you cant even dig down or into a cliff to build a base. This is why the term is rather non-specific. Having said that those who are unhappy should.ask for a refund.before complaining about it. Or rather to the degree that its a terrible offense.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2018
Categories |