Features to remain missing from future/"nextgen" titles

[Pulstar]

It's been almost 20 years since the original Red Faction came out with its destructible walls and structures, yet most games nowadays lack such features altogether; even those demanding war games built on the Unreal 4 engine. I reckon Teardown is a step in the right direction, despite its simplistic graphics.

And when was the last time AI gave you an "Ah!" moment? For me it probably was in FEAR. Even the xenomorph in Alien Isolation didn't impress me all that much. Unlike interactive environments however coding AI is probably the hardest challenge, especially when MP games are persistently the most popular.

On the flipside however, clipping seems to have improved dramatically in the last ten years, not to mention mounting ladders and stairs looking far more believable.

[Neon Ignition]

Destructability in Battlefield games has been a complete disappointment this gen. BF4 was fine but I figured the entries for specifically designed with this gens hardware would take it to the next level, instead it became increasingly redundant and without that element the series has become a bad COD clone

[charlesr]

Rainbow Six Seige has really cool destruction. Structure remains but walls and ceilings can be removed

[Neon Ignition]

Actually yes, that's exactly how Battlefield should have gone. Interior shootouts becoming highly tactical with maps have very few and limited powerful vehicles capable of much higher damage

[QualityChimp]

destructible walls and structures, yet most games nowadays lack such features altogether

*ahem*

->Open Spoiler<-

[nonny]

Rainbow Six Siege is amazing for this to be fair...

[Pulstar]

*ahem*

->Open Spoiler<-

Is this a scripted event? I wish EDF offered something other than giant bugs to shoot at I want to get into it.



Sega Rally Revo introduced deformable terrain but sadly this feature never evolved into other genres. You can shell the same spot of earth in Arma 3 for hundreds of times and you'd only get a flat crater to show for it. Wouldn't it be nice to have games where you can cause a landslide to take over an opposing army for example.

[wakka]

Honestly, I think the problem with destructibility isn't necessarily technological, it's design-based.

Once you give players the ability to knock down walls and destroy buildings, how do you deal with that in your design? I'm not sure this is a question most triple A directors want to necessarily face, when they've got a massive open world to build, 42,000 side missions to develop, and the publisher breathing down their neck about milestones.

I think the technology is probably there but we need someone a little bit iconoclastic to show other developers how it's done. I think it's a good time for it. The standard open world AAA structure has been refined to the point of sterility, I'm keen to see how it might be shaken up this gen, and perhaps this could be part of that.

[nonny]

Yeah it needs some careful thought as to how it affects gameplay rules and balance.

I guess Crackdown 3 overstepped this but later dialled it back. The same can be said with battlefield as a series and now they're more about ray tracing and a realistic look more that deformation.

[QualityChimp]

Is this a scripted event? I wish EDF offered something other than giant bugs to shoot at I want to get into it.

It's not scripted, mate.

Sometimes a Mothership will blast a city with massive lasers and level it, sometimes the Air Raider can get a bit careless with his bombing runs and sometimes, there's one ant left on the other side of a map to finish the level and it's easiest just blowing up every building inbetween you.

Pretty much every building is destructible and some missions see you start in a city and by the end, it's nothing but rubble.

Every time a new gen comes up, a lot of people just look at how nice the graphics are, but I always look at the ways they can handle multiple things happening at once, like Dead Rising's sea of zombies around Frank West.

[Asura]

And when was the last time AI gave you an "Ah!" moment?

The thing is, the vast majority of games which have "good AI" actually have nothing of the sort. Three-quarters of AI is actually in other game features, like speech/audio or animation.

Like, people today still say "why isn't modern AI as good as in the original Half-Life" but that's because people don't appreciate the challenges. In nearly all games where people rave about "good AI", really that's just adaptable scripting and a lot of playtesting. The scenario has a few ways to play out and will play out in the same ways every time, but most people only do it once.

The difference between an enemy soldier cowering in fear and just standing around doing nothing is all in the optics.

Once you give players the ability to knock down walls and destroy buildings, how do you deal with that in your design? I'm not sure this is a question most triple A directors want to necessarily face, when they've got a massive open world to build, 42,000 side missions to develop, and the publisher breathing down their neck about milestones.

That's part of the problem.

Some AAA developers want to create games that are open-world, but also struggle to give them super-cinematic scenarios and situations, and that's kinda the nexus of the issue. 42,000 scripted side missions just aren't needed.

Breath of the Wild, arguably, works because it's one of the open-world games which really benefits from that approach. Pretty much every situation in-game practically begs you to break it. To kill enemies, do you walk up to them and square off? Or do you toss bombs from a mountainside, set fire to the grass, or wait until they sleep, then sneak in and dispatch them? But most importantly, as well as having this open sandbox with all the possibilities, it considers all options as equal solutions (some can be a problem, e.g. burning might destroy the enemy's items too), rather than there being an obvious "right way" then everything else feeling like cheating. Notably, BotW starts off like this from pretty much the first minute of gameplay.

Now as a developer, you have to take into account that you don't have strong control over the players' actions. You have to embrace the chaos and let the player do what they want.

Yet despite all this, I felt more invested in the world of Hyrule in BotW than in the world of so many games. Not having loads of highly scripted scenarios or tons of cutscenes; just a really cool landscape with fun things to do and fight and quirky characters to meet, with a few more scripted elements sprinkled around the game.

[wakka]

[MENTION=5941]Asura[/MENTION]

Yep, I totally agree. And that's kind of what I meant when I said the game needs to be developed by leadership who have the vision and the motivation to be iconoclastic - which is exactly what BOTW was in my opinion (although it's by no means a perfect game).

Most major games are rigidly formulaic, and I get that that's for a whole bunch of reasons, mostly related to the required investment. But there will always be those interesting games that push gaming forward. IMO that's what we're really waiting on to see a lot of the potential of current technology realised, beyond resolution boosts, increased frame rates, and all the rest of it.

[Team Andromeda]

I'm still amazing at the lack of dynamic weather in most modern games. It's amazing to think that in 1999 Shenmue had dynamic weather and where you could see the puddles of water or see the snow mount-up before your very eyes in the game, all in real time.

[QualityChimp]

Yeah, it's been really nice dipping into Red Dead again.
The snow effects were amazing and you feel colder in the mountainous regions.
Riding along in a rain storm and your coat becomes slick and reflective.

The whole game really is a monumental achievement.

[Asura]

I'm still amazing at the lack of dynamic weather in most modern games. It's amazing to think that in 1999 Shenmue had dynamic weather and where you could see the puddles of water or see the snow mount-up before your very eyes in the game, all in real time.

Sometimes it's to do with why, of course.

I think for Shenmue it really worked because the passage of time wasn't just a nice effect; it had an impact on the game. Seeing the seasons change was cool because it reminded you of how frustrated Ryo is getting because he just can't find any sailors make headway in tracking down Lan Di.