[iDC] game culture (?) (!) (%#@)

[Corrado Morgana]

As an aside to this...

Have you considered the way that some flight simulators operate?

Many have been berated for using look-up tables for aircraft behaviour when
certain conditions are in effect..whereas others the IL2 series and X-plane
have been highly praised for their modelling of aerodynamics such as laminar
flow and other things way over my head..ie some games have predictable
scripted charachteristics whilst other actually model airflow over surfaces
etc..

Hard core sims, if they have a goal (racing, dogfighting) are still
incredible fun and there have been many technology demonstrators of highly
sophisticated 'physics' engines which you may be aware of..but for most
gamers (and not simulation fans) if it doesn't add anything to the
experience..who cares? This may not be a very inventive approach. More
innovative gametypes are needed, which the indie guys and gals are pretty
good at

Frontier, in the 90's modelled Newtonian physics and space flight..most
gamers found it an absolute chore, I thought it was great but a bit
irritating. That's why space games are definitely movie physics nowadays

A colleague of mine recently presented a paper on the use of sound in a
Bresson movie that I can't remember the name of. The sound design is
absolutely minimal..only the essential bits are there, it's a bit like this
with games design

My tuppence worth

Best

Corrado

-----Original Message-----
From: idc-bounces at mailman.thing.net [mailto:idc-bounces at mailman.thing.net]
On Behalf Of Andreas Schiffler
Sent: 21 June 2007 02:02 PM
To: IDC list
Subject: Re: [iDC] game culture (?) (!) (%#@)

Julian Kücklich wrote:
> > So in some sense, the question extends the common "does it matter that
> > movies have pseudo physics?" discussed extensively on site like
> > http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ to "does it matter when video
> > games have pseudo physics?" (and believe me they do!). Why don't game
> > developers try harder and game players expect more?
>
> Simple. Pseudo-physics are fun. Take racing games. Games that do try 
> hard to implement the laws of physics into gameplay - e.g. Gran 
> Turismo or Colin McRae - are only fun for highly competent players, 
> whereas games with "movie physics" like Project Gotham Racing or 
> Burnout are lots of fun even for 4-year-olds.
>

Agreed. But 'how much fun can it generate' should not be the only 
element a game is judged by. Unfortunately entertainment is only about 
fun - if one is pessimistic, one could compare it to Huxley's Soma for 
the masses.  Go to a store and try to find a game that provides a real 
intellectual challenge (these are fun too, are they not?).

Also keep in mind, that you can turn the argument around. Proper Physics 
implementation may contribute to new interesting game interactions which 
players actually want. The game industry and player alike currently 
lament the lack of innovation in modern games. While new releases such 
as  the upcoming Crysis as next-generation games, but a quick glance at 
its trailer shows a relatively traditional FPS with the added benefit of 
being able to convert trees into chopsticks with your railgun.

For some physics fun, check out Gish: 
http://www.chroniclogic.com/index.htm?gish.htm

> If you are interested in using games as a playground for physics 
> experiments, though, you should take a look at Garry's mod for 
> Half-Life 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry's_Mod
>
Yes, I am aware of this Mod.

But you fell into a 'trap': calling physics what really isn't the 
Wikipedia definition of Physics. Half Life 2 has some impressive 'game 
physics' but also tons of pseudo stuff. For example a frame-by-frame 
analysis reveals a linear object acceleration due to gravity (it should 
be quadratic, but was probably done like this for optimization 
purposes). Trying to pick up a box with bottles in them makes them fly 
around (a crude approximation of momentum transfer).

The thing to keep in mind, is that the Physics of HL2 is just a dynamics 
simulation engine, not 'Physics'. You could call this nitpicking - but I 
take a fundamental position in that the labeling of a couple of 
real-time Newtonian dynamics solvers and collision detectors (which is 
really a mathematical problem and not physics at all) is called 
'Physics'. Just like e=mc2 is not relativity theory. One implication of 
this, is that scientists - in particular Phycists - outright reject 
games and game physics completely as a valid source for inquiry. 
Example: I was trying to survey Physicists about video games, out of 530 
personalized email requests, I got just 20 answers and a bunch of "don't 
ask me about games" rejections. A similar survey posted on a gamer 
forums drew 200 participants in a weekend. Go figure.

--AS