Location based death animations/real time rendered injuries
- Thread starter fallout_expert105
- Start date
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I could of sworn that before I took an afternoon nap you said you'd prefer a little more depth not other details?
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Pity I'd of agreed with you about more depth over flashy animations, details aren't always a good thing depending on what other details you mean.
On the other hand anyone remember Severance Blade of Darkness? How much fun would that of been if you couldn't chop someone's arm off and then pick it up and beat them to death with it? So flashy animations can add some depth to a game, but not as much as good design and balance.
On the other hand anyone remember Severance Blade of Darkness? How much fun would that of been if you couldn't chop someone's arm off and then pick it up and beat them to death with it? So flashy animations can add some depth to a game, but not as much as good design and balance.
Cannabis is your friend
First time out of the vault
Well, death animations are of huge importance in Fallout. The best trait of course was bloody mess, it just added that post-apocalyptic hell feel to the game, which is essential. A decent amount of effort should be put into death animations, it would be nice to see little sprays of blood from a targeted area shot. Physics is time consuming and even though I know nothing about game programming, Im sure is very difficult so maybe leave that out or only work on it minimally, but deaths should be fairly detailed
I agree deaths should be detailed. But location based damage/deaths is maybe going to far, since it is really time consuming.
Allthough, suppose we had the differant armour slots, I think it then would be necasery to includelocation based damage/deaths, in that case the question would be how far do you go? There could be for example head, torso, left/right arm, groin, left/right foot like in the aimed shots display in the original fallout's. Say you have a well-placed shot in the head, insted of loosing half torso, you get a smashed head.
just my two cents...
Allthough, suppose we had the differant armour slots, I think it then would be necasery to includelocation based damage/deaths, in that case the question would be how far do you go? There could be for example head, torso, left/right arm, groin, left/right foot like in the aimed shots display in the original fallout's. Say you have a well-placed shot in the head, insted of loosing half torso, you get a smashed head.
just my two cents...
Well ok people what about the Physx PPU, from what I can gather it seem to be easy to implement into an engine, this could be used to recreate the death effects in fallout
hmz, this thread smells of corpserot...
as for "zomg, imba ragdoll in FO3!!!": it would suggest first person, since a few standard dead animations are more than enough in isometric (single shot, automatic, bloody mess, explosive, laser & plasma for instance). 'advanced' physics calculations on death animations of an isometric game wouldn't be much of a plus.
yes, i dont even want to consider a first person FO3 (although it looks like it'll be that way).
you do realise that such a thing is widely unpopular & that up til now it has shown us nothing a nice CPU+GPU combo can't handle? sure, it takes some of the load off, but at what price? we don't need it.Serifan said:
as for "zomg, imba ragdoll in FO3!!!": it would suggest first person, since a few standard dead animations are more than enough in isometric (single shot, automatic, bloody mess, explosive, laser & plasma for instance). 'advanced' physics calculations on death animations of an isometric game wouldn't be much of a plus.
yes, i dont even want to consider a first person FO3 (although it looks like it'll be that way).
zioburosky13
Vault Senior Citizen
SuAside said:
I would rather have death animation over ragdoll. The only proper ragdoll effect I seen is Doom3. Havok's ragdoll always has this 'leg twisting' effect...
Fallout 3 will be turn based. If not it won't be Fallout 3.
Anyway... turn based combat doesn't NEED ragdolls. It would be a huge shame if they cock it up.
If the enemy is close to a wall, the head/limbs could explode and the body could be pushed against the wall and slowly slide down. (remeber Fallout 1+2 and the bodies hiding in the wall)
They should just use physic engine to correctly pose the dead bodies. Like if the terrain is 3 D, and the deathanimation is finished, the body should adjust itself to the ground. No floating limbs and stuff if your enemy is lieing on stairs for example.
Too much physics would make the whole thing ultimatly ridiculous.
Anyway... turn based combat doesn't NEED ragdolls. It would be a huge shame if they cock it up.
If the enemy is close to a wall, the head/limbs could explode and the body could be pushed against the wall and slowly slide down. (remeber Fallout 1+2 and the bodies hiding in the wall)
They should just use physic engine to correctly pose the dead bodies. Like if the terrain is 3 D, and the deathanimation is finished, the body should adjust itself to the ground. No floating limbs and stuff if your enemy is lieing on stairs for example.
Too much physics would make the whole thing ultimatly ridiculous.
Just a quick note, one thing I HATE about 3D games, dead bodies DISAPEAR? why? In Fallout they stayed long enough to make it possible to explain the disapearing by for example scavenger animals, burial, rotting, etc.
edit: I kind of know why, but I still hate it.
edit: I kind of know why, but I still hate it.
Yes it may be unpopular now because only a few games support it so it makes no sense at this time to buy one. have you seen the videos of what the physx PPU can do and also the before and after videos, it makes a huge diffrence. I still think the PPU is the next big thing in gaming.
It will only become the next big thing with support from games, lower prices and less of a hassle. I'd think that it would need to be integrated into either the CPU or the GPU to become 'the next big thing' in the near future.Serifan said:
Hell, it could very well become irrelevant in the near future now that dual-core processors are becoming mainstream. You just let the Physics stream run on the secondary core.
Sander said:
Hell, once developers learn how to program around a second CPU, they will likely find that you don't have to play the nVidia/ATI compliance bullshit...
Vox said:
Nah, I'm in favor of a Uwe Boll-style boxing match. I was really hoping to introduce Herr Bowel to a 32" arm reach (HBO standard of measuring from pit to clenched fist, much more accurate than the 80" in conventional boxing reach measurements from fingertip to fingertip), but he had to maintain weenie weight standards so he wouldn't get killed.
More like the next big flop in gaming. We've had this discussion before. Conclusions were unfavorable.Serifan said:
I still think that a stand alone PPU will be much more effective. Plus there are many games coming out in the future with support and once Nvidia and ATI release there options, The Phsyx PPU will drop in price making more affordable.
http://www.ageia.com/physx_in_action/tech_demos.html
Check the site out and watch the videos and tell me what games do that now without the PPU.
Serifan said:
Please stop scrubbing your ignorant shit onto this forum. Being able to utilize a secondary core CPU has much more potential than a one-trick PPU that will become obsolete when both CPUs can share game load and physics, with graphical rendering inherent to the coding using the secondary CPU, allowing for far better integration between the two than this cost-sink of a PPU, which is useless as hell in other applications and therefore a waste of money. Which will only require a graphics pipe, which could be achieved by using a USB monitor and an OS capable of doing this.
It's funny when Windows kiddies try to match wits with the *nix crowd. We actually know how the shit works, and unlike many Windows developers (including Microsoft itself), *nix folks have been developing for multiple processors for years.