E3: Red Faction 3: Destruction

Commented on 2008-07-14 19:24:06

That looks pretty awesome indeed!

I'm a little concerned by the open sandbox nature of this game though, history has proven that the environmental diversation/creativeness will suffer badly from this and the footage shown so far confirms this.

I know this takes place on Mars and by default is a little (understatement) barren...but in games, where virtually anything is possible and the imagination has a free pass, it's not a valid excuse. Here's for hoping!

In reply to

NeoNemesis

Commented on 2008-07-14 19:29:57

Very nice.

In reply to

Acert93

Commented on 2008-07-14 19:31:24

The tech looks cool. I hope they have some modern and post modern building designs ala Mirror's Edge. The current art design is meh to me (I don't care why it looks that way... change the art direct folks!). But I am watching this one!

In reply to

Larry

Commented on 2008-07-14 19:55:40

Stunning physics, very nice pressure and destruction mechanics. Now show some terrain destruction/deformation and Im preordering :)

In reply to

This message and account have been deleted at the user's request

BooMMooB

Commented on 2008-07-14 20:14:50

Now we are talking. Who would have thought that Volition would strike back in such a manner. Color me impressed!

2 years from now most new major games will have learned from this tech and it will be awesome. THIS is what I've been craving for so long. Epic (and others), I hope you take notes!

In reply to

bramski

Commented on 2008-07-14 21:08:50 In reply to BooMMooB

Posted by BooMMooB

2 years from now most new major games will have learned from this tech and it will be awesome.

Exactly! even if this game is a pile of poo, which I doubt, what I have seen alone in that short trailer left me impressed and excited for the future of gaming.

In reply to

KORNdog

Commented on 2008-07-14 21:27:03 In reply to BooMMooB

Posted by BooMMooB

Now we are talking. Who would have thought that Volition would strike back in such a manner. Color me impressed!

2 years from now most new major games will have learned from this tech and it will be awesome. THIS is what I've been craving for so long. Epic (and others), I hope you take notes!

its highly doubtfull this will have any influence on any devs...geo mod was awesome tech back in the day and not a single dev used it...hell, still to this day, not a single dev has come close to it. the closest thing is bad company, and even that is pre-defined destruction. some games just dont need this level of destruction and so most will never even consider using it in their games...and thats a good thing imo. it makes red faction unique.

In reply to

Baleur

Commented on 2008-07-14 21:45:28

Wow lol Lori reminds me alot of my irl metalhead friend =D
The game with the BEST terrain deformation by far, and still so, is Treadmarks.
http://www.ldagames.com/treadmarks/

Its the only game ive ever seen where the terrain deformation actually makes a noticable difference. Drop a nuke and Bam, a real big crater. Drop a dirt bomb and Bam, a huge hill is formed launching any tanks there into the air.
Even just driving along normally forms small grooves. Which gets me thinking about the underrated new Sega Rally, also amazing deformations there.
Its so boring that in most games with terrain deformation, its so daaarn subtle that its hardly noticeable, World in Conflict is a good example of this.

If i drop a nuke on a mountain, i expect a large part of it to dissapear, not just have a 5m crater and a black decal applied.

In reply to

This message and account have been deleted at the user's request

statix

Commented on 2008-07-14 23:09:16

Stunning. But let's hope the gameplay and story are up to par with the graphics and physics.

In reply to

BooMMooB

Commented on 2008-07-14 23:52:44 In reply to KORNdog

Posted by KORNdog

its highly doubtfull this will have any influence on any devs...geo mod was awesome tech back in the day and not a single dev used it...hell, still to this day, not a single dev has come close to it. the closest thing is bad company, and even that is pre-defined destruction. some games just dont need this level of destruction and so most will never even consider using it in their games...and thats a good thing imo. it makes red faction unique.

you are right in a way. Not all will have destruction, and certainly not in the same degree as shown here in RF3, but even on a smaller level most games could benefit from tech like this. And my Epic reference was a clear and deliberate shout. The Gears/unreal tech (however goodlooking) doesn't touch this in many ways, and that game is just screaming for some great destruction. (I know that gears2 will be better than gears1 in this department, but not by lot).

I'm just hoping this could have better technology impact than what the first geomod games had. And from the look of it I think it will! (even considering the timeframe between the games)

In reply to

[quote=KORNdog]

its highly doubtfull this will have any influence on any devs...geo mod was awesome tech back in the day and not a single dev used it...hell, still to this day, not a single dev has come close to it. the closest thing is bad company, and even that is pre-defined destruction. some games just dont need this level of destruction and so most will never even consider using it in their games...and thats a good thing imo. it makes red faction unique.[/quote]

you are right in a way. Not all will have destruction, and certainly not in the same degree as shown here in RF3, but even on a smaller level most games could benefit from tech like this. And my Epic reference was a clear and deliberate shout. The Gears/unreal tech (however goodlooking) doesn't touch this in many ways, and that game is just screaming for some great destruction. (I know that gears2 will be better than gears1 in this department, but not by lot).

I'm just hoping this could have better technology impact than what the first geomod games had. And from the look of it I think it will! (even considering the timeframe between the games)

Inflatable

Commented on 2008-07-15 02:55:37

About time videogames started to use more realistic physics for destruction etc, the hardware power is available now so use it! I think Valve was the 1st one to implement proper physics in their Source engine with Half-Life 2, but since then things have not really moved forward imho.. Just look at a popular recent game like Call of Duty 4, despite it looking very nice it's environment is still pretty much undestructable, hardly any physics in that game.. But like other here said before, I agree it despends on the game.. I just hope there will be more games that will use it, because it's so cool..

A RTS game I played called Company of Heroes also uses physics that even affect gameplay.. For expample, if you have a squad of soldiers in a building, but they cannot cover a side of that building because it doesn't have any windows there you simply shoot a hole in the wall with anything you have that can do it (bazooka or tank etc), and then the soldiers inside will use that hole to shoot out of.. Very cool!

In reply to

About time videogames started to use more realistic physics for destruction etc, the hardware power is available now so use it! I think Valve was the 1st one to implement proper physics in their Source engine with Half-Life 2, but since then things have not really moved forward imho.. Just look at a popular recent game like Call of Duty 4, despite it looking very nice it's environment is still pretty much undestructable, hardly any physics in that game.. But like other here said before, I agree it despends on the game.. I just hope there will be more games that will use it, because it's so cool..

A RTS game I played called Company of Heroes also uses physics that even affect gameplay.. For expample, if you have a squad of soldiers in a building, but they cannot cover a side of that building because it doesn't have any windows there you simply shoot a hole in the wall with anything you have that can do it (bazooka or tank etc), and then the soldiers inside will use that hole to shoot out of.. Very cool!

This message and account have been deleted at the user's request

LHL2500

Commented on 2008-07-17 08:23:48

What's with the 1280x720 mp4? Kinda small don't ya think Blim? ;o)

In reply to

pythxvii

Commented on 2008-07-21 23:28:35 In reply to LHL2500

why do people feel the need to show off tech in low resolutions?

Posted by LHL2500

What's with the 1280x720 mp4? Kinda small don't ya think Blim? ;o)

lulz.
wait.. different titles for the same thing? o.O
I'm confused...

In reply to

pythxvii

Commented on 2008-07-21 23:42:54

Posted by droezelke

I agree with what you say that most games aren't about destruction. It's also a lot of work and time to develop your own physics-engine, so most games use a third party engine to calculate the physics (Havoc and physx ageia) that are ready for use. The best dynamic physics to date in a game that is not about destruction, is used in Crysis. But they also used Havoc as a start point. Red faction has always been about destruction, so their game-engine is based on a physics-engine. Other games don't need that kind of engine or can't use it because it doesn't fit the game. For example: Call of duty 4 doesn't use any dynamic physics because it would change what they want to achieve: run from 1 scripted linear event to another.
So in conclusion: it's the game that decides what engine the developpers will use.

CoD 4 could stand to have some destructable enviroments. C4 blasting holes in a wall for example, or when you lay a trap on those metal road barriers with c4 they get torn apart. You can still have linear gameplay with some sensible physics. A lot of what was in CoD4 wouldn't be easily destructable anyway, a noob tube can't blast through thick concrete, but sheet metal is no problem.

In reply to

[quote=droezelke]

I agree with what you say that most games aren't about destruction. It's also a lot of work and time to develop your own physics-engine, so most games use a third party engine to calculate the physics (Havoc and physx ageia) that are ready for use. The best dynamic physics to date in a game that is not about destruction, is used in Crysis. But they also used Havoc as a start point. Red faction has always been about destruction, so their game-engine is based on a physics-engine. Other games don't need that kind of engine or can't use it because it doesn't fit the game. For example: Call of duty 4 doesn't use any dynamic physics because it would change what they want to achieve: run from 1 scripted linear event to another.  
So in conclusion: it's the game that decides what engine the developpers will use.[/quote]CoD 4 could stand to have some destructable enviroments. C4 blasting holes in a wall for example, or when you lay a trap on those metal road barriers with c4 they get torn apart. You can still have linear gameplay with some sensible physics. A lot of what was in CoD4 wouldn't be easily destructable anyway, a noob tube can't blast through thick concrete, but sheet metal is no problem.