Destructible Environments

[SaltySnail]

My Idea is to make all objects that would break under-fire in real life such as upturned tables, boxes, crates and the like actually break in-game. Now I don't mean these objects would get totally destroyed so the spy who is hiding is exposed, but for example if i took a shotgun and at a fairly close distance shot it at an upturned table, you expect there to be a head-sized hole in it. I think small tweaks like this could add a lot to PS game play-wise. People would have to improvise more, allowing for more interesting games, and not the same tactics for every level. I think adding good physics to objects like stacked boxes would do the game a lot of good as well. For example if a spy rolls into 3 crates stacked on top of each other, the crates should fall, but if the spy carefully climbs on top of the crates they should stay upright. Now I know both of these ideas could lead to major balance issues, but I think if they were implemented properly they could do the game a lot of good. It would Make players think and improvise more, and would sure as hell make the game more realistic. I know this sounds very Conviction-esque, but I just thought I'd put it out there and see what you all think.

SaltySnail.

[Tidenburg]

--edit: come on, a bit nicer to new people--

[frvge]

We're aiming for more interaction with the enviroment as long as it doesn't make the balancing a really hard job. And we also need to have enough resources for it. Bullet holes are ok, and maybe even crates with physics, but I doubt we'll have more than that. Of course, pre-made 'physics' like walls being destroyed by various machinery after hacking an objective are possible (since it's not dynamic).

[Overstatement]

He may sound retarted (don't edit yet, I'm about to give a complement), but this idea...

for example if i took a shotgun and at a fairly close distance shot it at an upturned table, you expect there to be a head-sized hole in it.

would be pretty interesting from a programmer's perspective. It's like decals but cooler and if we were using a more flexible engine, I would definitely want to develop this technology.

[Tidenburg]

You did not just delete that picture! O-M-G! *walks out in huff*

[LennardF1989]

He may sound retarted (don't edit yet, I'm about to give a complement), but this idea...

for example if i took a shotgun and at a fairly close distance shot it at an upturned table, you expect there to be a head-sized hole in it.

would be pretty interesting from a programmer's perspective. It's like decals but cooler and if we were using a more flexible engine, I would definitely want to develop this technology.

Agreed, would be a very statisfying thing to develop :)

[Zedblade]

Of course, pre-made 'physics' like walls being destroyed by various machinery after hacking an objective are possible (since it's not dynamic).

lol 'pre-made' physics, that's called a scripted sequence/event. Noob.

Also, our first map, Lakehouse will have destructible elements in it. Not much, but more then all the CT maps put together (which isn't hard to do, but still.)

People must realize that destructible environments can and do screw up a lot in terms of balanced and designer intent. Also, realistic destruction like what SaltySnail said about the table and shotgun just isn't practical and will take way too much time and resources to accomplish. Hell, the only game that is even close to pulling realistic physics like that off is the upcoming Star Wars game. I mean, it's fucking Star Wars they have enough money to do wtf ever they want.

So yeah, expect some basic destructible elements that are cool and fun, but don't expect everything to break in a realistic manner. That's insanity.

[Tidenburg]

Eh-hem, Battlefield.

[SaltySnail]

Ok, well some is better than none  :P.

[SaltySnail]

Eh-hem, Battlefield.

Battlefield Bad Company has similar destructible environments to the ones i was thinking of.

[Tidenburg]

Ya, well Battlefield uses the Frostbite engine which has features such as desctructable environments pre-catered for whereas in the engine Project Stealth will use (Unreal) it would have to be hand-done for alot of it. You obviously don't realise exactly how much work this would mean, but trust me, its alot more than its worth.

[Overstatement]

I would think of bullet holes as advance decals than destructable enviroments. It doesn't take too much resources despite what Zed, the non-programmer, says.

[Zedblade]

I would think of bullet holes as advance decals than destructable enviroments. It doesn't take too much resources despite what Zed, the non-programmer, says.

Bullets holes can  just be decals... ART that an ARTIST does. Just like destructible environments. It's ART that an ARTIST has to setup, for unreal it has nothing to do with programmer. Like Tidenburg says, to make everything destruction isn't worth the effort. We can't change Unreal's code enough to implement some sort of procedural destruction.

Unless Epic upgrades the UT3 to use the latest updates to the Unreal Engine, we will have to use to slow method where everything is made before hand BY ARTISTS.

You obviously have no idea how complicated and time consuming destructables can be.

I don't even know why we are having this conversation, PS isn't a game that would benefit that much from destructables.

[SaltySnail]

Ok, and yeh i had no idea how much time it would take to do something like this.

[Overstatement]

Who's talking about destructables? I'm talking about decals that show the other side of the object rather than an image the artist makes. Nothing to do with spliting vertices, all done in a pixel shader. It's much easier to implement than destructible enviroments.

I don't think we should have this conversation either because Unreal3 is too damn inflexible to do anything cool.