Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An Early Look At Next-Gen Shooter Bodycount

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the piece-by-piece dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 238

If you ask fans of first-person shooters what feature they'd like to see in a new game, their answers — now and for the past 15 years — probably involve destructible environments. Game developers have tried to satisfy this demand with scripted events, breakable objects, and more crates than you can shake a rocket launcher at. However, Bodycount, an upcoming game from Codemasters Guildford, is aiming to deliver what gamers have wanted for so long: the ability to blast apart whatever you please. Quoting the Guardian's games blog from their hands-on with the game: "... it's not just about effect, it's about access. In Bodycount, you can blow chunks out of thinner interior walls, allowing you to burst through and catch enemies by surprise. You can also brilliantly modify cover objects – if you're hiding behind a crate and want to take out enemies without popping up from behind it, shoot a hole in it. Bingo, you've got a comparatively safe firing vantage. The difference between this and say, Red Faction or Bad Company, is that the destruction isn't limited to pre-set building sections. It's everywhere. This should, of course, grind the processor to a halt, but the team has come up with a simple compromise to facilitate its vision. 'The trick is that we're not running full physics on everything,' explains lead coder, Jon Creighton. ... This is tied in with one of the best cover systems I've ever seen. While in a crouching position (gained by holding the left trigger down), you can use the left analogue stick to subtly look and aim around your cover object, ducking and peeking to gain that perfect view of the war zone. It's natural, it's comfortable and it's adaptive, and it will surely consign the whole 'locking on' mechanic to the graveyard of cover system history."

cancel ×

238 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The only question that counts: (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907324)

Will this also be available on a system with an input controller suitable for shooters? Like, say, a mouse?

Else, pass. No matter how good the effects, if I can't control my character, I don't need it.

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907342)

If it ends up on a system with a mouse and keyboard then it will have some sort of brainlessly crippling DRM, like an active internet connection to play single player, and thus you still won't be able to control your character.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907384)

The less lawful person inside me would say that this problem is easy to fix, compared to the problem of having to use a controller that's not suited for this type of game.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907404)

My question is, with all these accelerometers appearing in console controllers, why don't they implement an input system based on them for an FPS?

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907444)

Because they suck for it, not accurate enough or fast enough for them.

Its the same thing as when people think "oh a touch screen would be awesome for FPS", no, no it isn't.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907758)

The touchscreen works fine for FPS on the DS, not the iPhone though. The DS has the touchscreen separate from the main view and buttons in addition to the screen, on the iPhone you can only use your thumbs for movement and button pressing so aiming and firing tends to be very clunky.

Accelerometers aren't the right approach for aiming but the Wii's IR pointer function works perfectly. Doesn't allow turning as fast as the mouse but a properly designed game accounts for that.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908114)

Was talking touch screen on pc, but point taken, the game definitely needs to be customised to the input for it to work.

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907452)

The Wii already has several FPS games that use the IR pointer for aiming, and I believe the Playstation Move will be usable for shooting games as well. I don't think the accelerometer alone would be very effective.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907600)

Yeah, well, I have that in my PSOne. But those are not for FPSes, those are for rail shooters. I think an accelerometer could be used for things like leaning or so. Not that I would prefer it over normal buttons.

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907632)

The Wii's IR sensor is used for FPS games and rail shooters alike. Point to edge of screen to turn, use external analog stick to move around. When done right, it works really well.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907812)

Oh, I didn't know about those schemes. I'm still attached to the whole concept that the game only knows where you shoot, not where the gun is at all times. Lots of images of arcade Time Crisis still in my head :)

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907936)

A mouse is better in an FPS when all you need is to look around, strafe and run forward. Game pads have their own advantages. For instance, the cover system they are describing will probably work better when using two analogue sticks.

Re:The only question that counts: (2, Insightful)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908662)

nah, you just bind q and e to that function, or some of the dozens of extra buttons on your mouse. thats the thing about PC games, you can make the controls fit your play-style. If something is awkward to do on a console game, chances are, you just have to live with it.

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907620)

try the FragFX controller.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907748)

Of course a system with a Wii Remote would be a good compromise that gives both good controls and no nasty DRM but developers seem to be all about graphics now so they never make Wii games unless they're worthless shovelware.

Re:The only question that counts: (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908270)

you still won't be able to control your character.

Nonsense. The reason we can't control our characters in PC gaming is because game manufacturers have figured out that they can cut a corner and port their crappy console games for PC.

Companies that don't develop specifically for the PC platform are leaving a lot of money on the table, DRM or not. The ones that figure that out are going to make a lot of dough.

The Half-Life games were not crappy console ports, and they made Valve enough money to start Steam. And Gordon Freeman was not some 2nd-person wooden puppet that I had to use combination techniques to fight with or run with. When I said "jump" he said "how high?". When I said "duck" he ducked. With a crowbar in one hand and his dick in the other he crossed friggin' dimensions to put shit right...

Sorry, I got carried away there. Anyway as I was saying, somebody's going to figure out that people on PC's want to play games and we've got the hardware to do it. We'll pay for games, too, but you can't fuck us around with console ports and if you treat us like criminals with the always-on DRM, we're going to act like criminals.

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31908474)

I can't imagine these companies haven't run the figures to see if spending X more on the PC version than the console in order to get the controls spot on is worth the return it would generate. Considering it's almost zero effort for them at the moment, and their time and effort is almost certainly better spent developing for consoles which are a much bigger market, I can't see it ever being worth their time to put more than a passing effort into a PC port. The fact that they haven't just dropped PC support completely should be seen as a boon.

Re:The only question that counts: (2, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907368)

I agree, but I'd also like to point out that the technology is ready to give players the separation of vision and aim.

I want to be able to watch in a direction, run in another and shoot in another one. As running is going to be linked to a hand (as foot controls are cumbersome) and shooting to the other, vision should be linked to head movement.

What I'm suggesting is: Don't "evolve" to mouse control if you can truly evolve.

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907442)

Multiple monitors. It's already been done.

Aside from that, I can't ever see a situation where I would need to be looking in one direction while firing blindly in another.

Re:The only question that counts: (1, Insightful)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907450)

Wait, uh, how do you line up a target your not looking at?

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907520)

Wait, uh, how do you line up a target your not looking at?

If you mean "line up a target while you're not looking at it", I guess that's possible if the target is big enough or your weapon powerful enough for you take shots at the enemy without looking at it.

Originally Quake 3 was going to have this control style ... "this" meaning a control scheme where you can simultaneously run, shoot and look at different directions.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907962)

Originally Quake 3 was going to have this control style ... "this" meaning a control scheme where you can simultaneously run, shoot and look at different directions.

[citation needed]

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908528)

It sounds horrible - even picturing doing that in real life sounds like a recipe for disaster, without having to have a further input device separating your thoughts and actions.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Hatman39 (1759474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908648)

I believe MechWarrior (at least 3 and 4) had this control scheme, you could pivot the arms on your mech separately from the torso.
This was advantageous because sometimes you'd hit another mech and this would prevent your torso from turning. Also, mindlessly blowing pulse lasers in some direction was occasionally useful (basically to prevent someone from standing still and lining up a shot).
In short, I can see uses for it, especially in tactical shooters with one-shot-one-kill dynamics where getting shot at is a very good reason to immediately seek cover. If we're talking UT here, yeah, the point becomes a bit moot.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907630)

Pay at arma 2, with a head tracking tecnology system. You will know.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907846)

You direct your aiming controller that way. Not that anyone hits anything this way, but people can easily point a gun to their left while running forward and looking right in real life, so why are "realistic" video games set to where you can never shoot anywhere you aren't looking?

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907956)

People can probably physically do it but I've never seen someone run, look behind them and fire on their left when I was in the army... there must be a reason... Oh I got it! it's useless, realistic, but nevertheless useless

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908134)

Yeah, my thoughts, the only 2 times in a game when this would work would be:

1. Lock on targeting, like MMOG, oh wait, people already do this with pan camera, select a target and run in another direction.

2. When using a weapon as a suppressive tool, but then, you are generally not wanting to look away in case you are not hitting near your target and they are lining you up for a shot.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

AGMW (594303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907850)

Aside from that, I can't ever see a situation where I would need to be looking in one direction while firing blindly in another.

and

Wait, uh, how do you line up a target your not looking at?

Years ago I played a state-of-the-art full immersion shooter with headset for visuals and gloves for pointing, etc. The graphics were pretty lame (compared with the current crop) but it was awesome to be able to run through a room whilst focusing on the door I was running towards and be able to shoot the bad guys on either side by aiming just using my peripheral vision.

So, I wasn't (directly) looking at the target(s), or indeed firing blindly (as I hit most with the first shot!) and with good (binocular) vision you just "know" where the targets are and can 'point' at them with yer gun(s). Sure, you're not going to get so many H E A D S H O Ts, but it was really good fun, even with the crappy old graphics!

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908124)

In the same vein, I can run at a door and track and shoot targets perfectly well with my mouse and keyboard without losing my bearing about my heading or target and what would you rather focus on, the door or what will be shooting back at you?

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908252)

If your plan is to get to cover rather than kill the enemies, probably the door.. in this situation, mouse = good, keyboard = not quite so good (as an analog stick). I basically vowed years ago that I'd never play FPSes on a console, but it isn't so bad when you get used to it, and as long as you know everybody else is limited in the same way. Still, I'd like to be able to play most games with a mouse for aiming and a pad for other controls - and in fact you could do this with Quake 2 on the PS1. I wonder if any of my current PS3 FPSes support mouse aiming...

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

daranz (914716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907556)

Off the top of my head, ArmA with TrackIR already implements a control scheme like this.

Operation Flashpoint already featured a control scheme that allowed the player to detach look control from gun-pointing and walking-direction control, and that carried over to ArmA. Of course, without an additional input device, it's somewhat useless, as you have to give up control of your gun to gain control of your character's head. So that's where a bunch of markers attached to the player's head come in. Even without that, it's still useful to be able to quickly glance around while in full sprint - something possible in real life, but impossible in most FPSes, where your camera/character's head is fixed rigidly to his body at all times.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907910)

All nice and fine, I'm not religiously attached to the mouse/keyboard style of controls. I'm all game for better input controls.

I'm not complaining about an input method other than my prefered one. I'm complaining about one that is, at least in my opinion, not suited for the game at hand. I find trying to aim with a game pad highly frustrating. You push that thumbstick ... ok, a bit more to the right... no, not that much, a bit back ... sigh, again too far, let's take a step to the left maybe we can even it out that ... whoops, someone noticed and shot me...

Sorry, but when I play FPS, I want to fight my adversaries, not the controller.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908204)

I want to be able to watch in a direction, run in another and shoot in another one.

Never before has the string "your doing it wrong" been more apt.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908334)

I agree, but I'd also like to point out that the technology is ready to give players the separation of vision and aim.

Mechwarrior 2 had this control scheme. You controlled the direction your legs were moving in, the direction your torso was aiming, and the direction that your guns were aiming, all independently. Most people just locked the targeting to the center of their torso.

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907408)

coming out for 360 and ps3 only. why don't the companies just build in the support for the mouse/keyboard.
there is a third party project called 'XIM 2' working on this for the the 360.

Re:The only question that counts: (0, Offtopic)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907678)

Will this also be available on a system with an input controller suitable for shooters? Like, say, a mouse?

I was somewhat baffled by the reference to "left triggers" and "left analogue stick" until it finally dawned on me that they were talking about some kind of console controller (since my monitor is larger than my TV, I never bothered with consoles).

An FPS ported from a console likely will end up having some or all of approximate weapon aiming, textures designed for a ten year old PC, an awkward interface, poor networking support, etc.

So maybe they came up with something somewhat clever but I'll still pass.

Re:The only question that counts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31908722)

(since my monitor is larger than my TV, I never bothered with consoles).

While I can't disagree with your other comments on console ports, this seems a weird reason for never owning a console - you realise you can use them with your monitor, right? As for the reasons to own one when you already have a powerful gaming PC, well, to play console exclusive titles, to avoid the misery of incompatible drivers or DRM that refuses to let you play a game you've bought with cold, hard cash, avoiding the PC upgrade arms race, being able to just throw a game directly from the case into the system and play without an hour of installing, being able to rent or resell games (okay, for some PC games this isn't an issue, but for the majority online activation makes it practically impossible). For me, I'd rather play a marathon gaming session at the desk using the PC, while a quick blast to pass some time feels much more natural at a console.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907730)

640p* and small world sizes should be enough for anybody.
*HD ready.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908094)

Never saw a resolution iwth 640 vertical lines but in 2000 I was using a trinitron that did 1200P @85hz. If I'd had a little more $$$ I could've gotten the widescreen version that did 1500P.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot mentioning that makes the "Chyeah 1080P brah" crowd froth at the mouth a bit.

Re:The only question that counts: (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907746)

Console games: Sports, driving games, fighting, button-mashers.
PC games: RPGs, first person shooters.

If it ain't on PC, you can take one lost sale away from the "OMG TEH PIEWATS!" statistics, and add it onto "Don't know which platform a game should be developed for" chart.

I've played FPS games on a PC and a console. If I have to wait 2+ seconds to spin 180 degrees, or the same amount of time lining up the crosshair / ironsight to get a headshot, you've failed in creating a good FPS.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Garth Smith (1720052) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907754)

I grew up gaming on PCs. It started with Wolf 3D (the original) and continued until I burned myself out on five years of Counterstrike (Beta 0.52? to 1.5).

As an adult with no time I've come to appreciate the convenience and cheapness of consoles. At first I hated joysticks. After GT4, Uncharted 2, and a shitload of Modern Warfare 2, I can now top the scoreboard with three people sitting next to me, and I can do it far more often than I could have LAN parties. While a mouse still gives better control than a joystick, many of the same skills do transfer. Strategy does change slightly, many a lot more running because you can't check your six, but pwning my friends is fun no matter the method, and with a PS3 I can do it waaaaaaay more often.

Re:The only question that counts: (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907808)

I used to play FPS games way, way back before the RSI and sore shoulders got the better of me. I was never that good at them but still spent all evening playing and then some.

These days I play FPSs solely on the 360. I'm forever getting the most kills, the most headshots, leading the pack - why? Either I've gotten better, or everyone else has gotten worse.

I can flick the thumb stick and the crosshair lands pretty close to the target. No different than using a mouse. A little step left or right with the left stick and there's the headshot. No different than an adjustment using "A" or "D". The controller feels as natural as a keyboard and mouse.

I understand that diehards fine the controller hard to use because I did too. It doesn't take long to get used to it though.

Re:The only question that counts: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907982)

I can flick the thumb stick and the crosshair lands pretty close to the target. No different than using a mouse. A little step left or right with the left stick and there's the headshot. No different than an adjustment using "A" or "D". The controller feels as natural as a keyboard and mouse.

Mostly, the reason for this is that the game is developed with the expectation that users are playing on a joypad. All number of compromises extend from that. Along with frame rate and display limitation issues, this serves to limit the scope of the game.

There is a reason that 99% of console fps can only be played online against other console users. If you mixed PC and console clients the experience would not be enjoyable for either party. Hands up who played Quake 3 online against Dreamcast players.

I've been playing multiplayer fps since ~1996 and after a long hiatus from games, moved to a console for convenience reasons (time, practicality). Within a few months I found myself with my first new PC in 7 years and back to hopping PC servers. Console fps are a different breed to their PC cousins and while I understand that many enjoy them, I don't like what the console is doing to my favourite genre.

Re:The only question that counts: (2, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908100)

Your eyes have apparently gotten worse as well if you haven't noticed that most modern console shooters are that easy because they're basically doing half the aiming for you.

Random fact (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907334)

Today is the 11th year anniversary of Columbine School Massacre.

Two thoughts (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907336)

They're quite right that the physics doesn't actually need to be physically accurate - during a firefight, it just has to look vaguely right. I worry that they might have one of those systems that very occasionally does something obviously weird, but we will see.

And the feeling of destructible environments is fun. It would be fun even if it didn't serve a purpose in the game - seeing a firefight in a confined space cause decent-looking bullet holes in walls and "more crates than you can shake a rocket launcher at" falling over (and chairs, etc.) is pretty fun, and I'd like to see a game make destructible environments ubiquitous enough that they feel like an extension of that, even when they aren't being used a gimmick.

Space Invaders (5, Funny)

xiang shui (762964) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907338)

"You can also brilliantly modify cover objects - if you're hiding behind a crate and want to take out enemies without popping up from behind it, shoot a hole in it."

Space Invaders has had this feature for a while now.

Re:Space Invaders (2, Interesting)

Leonard Fedorov (1139357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907370)

Also, reading the sales brief for a previous game (also named Bodycount, funnily enough) one notices a few.. marked similarities:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/operation-body-count [mobygames.com]

Quoting:
"OBC also features a near fully destructible environment; the Flame Thrower can set bad guys, scenery and the level itself on fire, which could make movement extremely hazardous for the player, especially as the fire randomly spreads. The Grenade launcher meanwhile can destroy any wall (with some hard coded exceptions)."

Which sounds just like what we have here. Except this game was released in 1994...
"Next Gen" huh?

Re:Space Invaders (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907392)

Yeah, I have the dreadful feeling that I've heard all of this before... with just about every shooter that's come out with anything destructible in the environment. Strangely enough, by the time it gets to release the destruction always seems to be limited to specific objects in the environment. "Yes, you can shoot that light successfully, but no you can't shoot that cupboard."

Re:Space Invaders (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908206)

And, naturally, any door for which you must collect the keycard will be utterly indestructible, no matter how flimsy it appears compared to the gigantic armored monstrosities that you can destruct just fine...

Re:Space Invaders (2)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907458)

"OBC also features a near fully destructible environment; the Flame Thrower can set bad guys, scenery and the level itself on fire, which could make movement extremely hazardous for the player, especially as the fire randomly spreads."

Fire doesn't randomly spread. It spreads fairly predictably, in fact.

Also, wouldn't a crate that you can blow a hole through make for a pretty useless piece of cover? Given that your adversaries can blow holes right back...

Re:Space Invaders (2, Funny)

radone (1491913) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907546)

I suppose your enemies shoot rubber bullets. Or paintballs. They're the peaceful kind.

Re:Space Invaders (1)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907582)

Fire doesn't randomly spread. It spreads fairly predictably, in fact.

I am just imagining how fun random fire would be. Although it is not truly random if there is no possibility that you face can light you a$$ on fire.

Also, wouldn't a crate that you can blow a hole through make for a pretty useless piece of cover? Given that your adversaries can blow holes right back...

We will of course implement the same mildly retarded AI that is currently used. So if they cannot see you then you are not there. Even if the box you are crouching behind is shooting them.

-matt

Re:Space Invaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31908002)

'Cause as we all know irl when there's a sniper shooting everybody immediately knowns where the bullet comes from so he's not hidden anymore...

Re:Space Invaders (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907616)

Fire doesn't randomly spread. It spreads fairly predictably, in fact.

It depends. Fire spreads differently if exposed to wind. Since wind can be random and you can't "feel" it in a game, fire can also be quite random for the player.

Re:Space Invaders (5, Funny)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907644)

I guess so. That reminds me, actually, of a beta-tester 'war story' that I read about Far Cry, where the guy shot a couple of oil drums (setting them on fire) then went off to do something else. About half an hour later he had a big message pop up telling him he'd won the game. It turns out that the burning oil drums had set fire to some grassland, which in turn caused a forest fire that just happened to incinerate the end boss. I don't know if it's true, but it's a brilliant demonstration of how simulation-based games can have unexpected outcomes which might not be particularly beneficial from the designers' point of view.

Re:Space Invaders (1)

crotherm (160925) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907410)

True Combat, Quake 3 mod, had the ability to shoot through object for some time. Too bad enough players for critical mass was not included.

Re:Space Invaders (4, Insightful)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907460)

Not to mention that if a shot from your gun makes a nice hole in an object for you to see through, how many holes in the object can the enemies make? And how many of those holes will proceed with their holiness into you?

Re:Space Invaders (3, Insightful)

mdf-flynn (1684038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907568)

Fry: I still have a trick or two up my sleeve. Watch as I fire upwards through our own shield!
Bender: [panicked] He's a mad man! A mad man!

Bad Company 2 (1)

nedwidek (98930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908108)

"You can also brilliantly modify cover objects - if you're hiding behind a crate and want to take out enemies without popping up from behind it, shoot a hole in it."

Sounds suspiciously like what I did in BC2 last night. Noob tubed a hole in a cement barrier and blew out the wall on the side of the building so I could cover the MCOM station. Took the attackers (squad rush) a few minutes to figure out where I was at since the kill cam was turned off.

Re:Space Invaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31908230)

Epic.

Wasn't this done before (5, Informative)

i ate my neighbour (1756816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907386)

I thought Red Faction featured fully destructible environment and even cave digging?

Re:Wasn't this done before (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907562)

Beat me to it.

Red Faction has/had Geo-mod fully destructible environments. If you wanted to, you can take a boatload of charges and make a cave 6 miles deep. Good luck getting back out again though!

Re:Wasn't this done before (2, Interesting)

Bugamn (1769722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907598)

Well, from the summary I infer that it wasn't fully:

The difference between this and say, Red Faction or Bad Company, is that the destruction isn't limited to pre-set building sections.

But Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says different:

GeoMod allows the player to alter (and destroy) the environment so significantly because of the way it designates altered (or "GeoModded") areas. Whereas other game engines would have to modify the shape of the altered object to create a similar effect, GeoMod creates special objects which represent empty space.

Re:Wasn't this done before (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907648)

There were internal environments (most irritatingly, cubicles) which were immune to geomodding.

Re:Wasn't this done before (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907788)

Yeah but that wasn't an engine limitation so much as a design limitation, destroying anything sounds fine until you try leading the player through your predefined set of corridors and realize he can just blow a hole into any of your carefully designed setpieces.

Re:Wasn't this done before (1)

anarche (1525323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907814)

Actually, there are parts of this game they don't want you destroying

In effect, you're probably not going to get buildings collapsing, a la Bad Company, because the engine relies on the structural integrity of larger objects. What you do get however, is hundreds of smaller props being blown to pieces, drastically re-shaping the immediate world around you.

So completely destructible? maybe not...

otherwise, everyone would just get the biggest weapon and collapse a guard tower on the enemies...

Re:Wasn't this done before (5, Funny)

peterpi (585134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907686)

No, that was Boulder Dash [wikipedia.org] ;)

Re:Wasn't this done before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907732)

It was limited. Inside buildings you could only destroy specific areas. You couldn't destroy things like doors.

Cave digging had a set limit. Once you had carved out a certain amount of tunnels, the engine would not allow you to carve out any more.

Re:Wasn't this done before (2, Insightful)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908664)

so did Nethack :P

Brilliant! (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907456)

You hide behind a crate, through which you can easily shoot a hole. This happens without anyone hearing the shot, the splintering wood and no one notices the exit hole in a random crate through which muzzle shots flash. _Then_ you shoot through said hole, not seeing anything. Your Magical Box Of Holding will then just eat all bullets which want to go the other way.

Moral? If you say you make realistic environments, make realistic examples.

Also, I probably care more than I should ;)

Re:Brilliant! (1)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907752)

Your typical shipping crate is fashioned from two kinds of woods - a hard, dense kind (beech, oak, etc) for the edges and a softer, ligher, cheaper kind (fir, spruce) for the rest of the panels. FMJ rounds may cause some (little) splintering in the former, but should pierce right through the latter, leaving very small holes (5-6 mm for a typical 5.56 mm round).
A silencer can take care of a lot of the noise, with the usual goal of moving the emission spectrum into a zone that's more difficult to pin down aurally.
Muzzle flashes like you know 'em from the movies and typical ego shooters are way exaggerated. In anything but darkness you won't typically see a flash even looking right at the weapon being fired. In the darkness, throw in a silencer; they work to suppress the little remaining flash, too.

Word of advice, though: Don't use incendiary (including tracers) or hollow point ammunition to shoot through crates containing potentially flammable stuff. A tracer may be enough to set off the wood shavings inside a crate. Keep a couple of inches between the muzzle and the crate to give the bullet some little time to stabilize in it's flight before it pierces through the first obstacle (this also helps against burn marks on the crate). And a hollow point may start to deform on the first impact, which would then leave quite a hole in your cover.

Finally about the "cover" aspects of non-bulletproof materials: they still work. A mobile target with, say, 0.5 sq m of vulnerable surface behind 4 sq m of target can increase your chances of not getting hit five- to eightfold. Throw in a vest and helmet, kneel down and a crate or two will increase your chance of survival by an order of magnitude.

Now that's caring more than one should. :p

Hey, wait a minute. Aren't you... (0, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907474)

*POP*POP*POP*POP*

Yup.

COPKILLER!

- Ice T (Republican)

FULLY destructible? (2, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907502)

Are we actually talking fully destructible this time? Or the "fully destructible" environments of say Crysis? I don't care if I can chop down a tree with a machine gun. If bits of rock don't start getting chipped away as I'm hitting them with a bazooka then it's not a fully destructible environment, and if absolutely everything isn't destructible, then you're stuck with the same mundane limits as all former games regardless of what fancyness has been done with the game engine.

Re:FULLY destructible? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907766)

Yes, this pisses me off too. Until I can literally destroy *anything* in the game, without limitation at all, even if the game slowed to an absolute crawl when I do so... it's not a "true" destructible environment. I should be able to knock down every building, chop every door into small pieces, blast a tunnel through a hill or mountain, drain a lake by building a canal system etc... anything else is just "another" clever way of making it look like I can do that but actually just changing the limits of what I can do (i.e. stopping me doing some things and letting me do new things).

I'm looking forward to the day that I can tunnel up underneath the main zombie/alien/terrorist hideout.

Re:FULLY destructible? (1)

MSojka (83577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907996)

> I'm looking forward to the day that I can tunnel up underneath the main zombie/alien/terrorist hideout.

So you want DwarfFortress, FPS version?

Re:FULLY destructible? (1)

RobDollar (1137885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907972)

Exactly. The article even states that "In effect, you're probably not going to get buildings collapsing, a la Bad Company, because the engine relies on the structural integrity of larger objects.".

So not only not as much destrction as Crysis, but "structural integrity of larger objects" means indestructable, so really nothing new here.

To me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907590)

IT'S ALL ABOUT.... The legs. Valve did it right in Left 4 Dead, where looking down, you saw your legs and you instantly felt more like you were playing that character.

Then they f**ked up and removed the legs in Left 4 Dead 2.

Come on Valve! Give Gordon Freeman his legs!

Paradox? (4, Insightful)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907594)

...fans of first-person shooters... ...can use the left analogue stick...

Your implication is quite ludicrous, sir.

Re:Paradox? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31908554)

Oh hah hah hah!1!

You're so clever! You made a joke about consoles not being any good for fps!

And it's only 2010! That's so smart of you! I've never heard anything so witty before - it's not like people have said the exact same thing for over a decade now.

Boy, when you've got it, you've got it. Look out Conan O'Brien, because B1oodAnge1 is on his way up!

PS. I looooovvvve the way you used '1's for 'l's in your name - that's so leet!1!

More British terminology (3, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907642)

Ah, but then there's Black. Released at the fag end of the PlayStation 2 era and developed by Guildford-based studio Criterion, this 2006 cult classic, was a stylised, hyper-kinetic deconstruction of the FPS concept.

I take it that's what non-British speakers would call "the tail end"? Otherwise, that's a pretty gay piece of tail they're smoking.

Re:More British terminology (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907722)

They're clearly talking about the period towards the end of the PS2's life when it gained a huge gay following...

No, it's one of those idioms that confuses Americans in the UK and gets Britons in the US into a lot of trouble; a fag is a cigarette, thus a fag end is a cigarette end, thus they are indeed referring to the tail end of the PS2's life.

Re:More British terminology (4, Funny)

The Rizz (1319) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907872)

a fag is a cigarette

You're a cigarette.

Re:More British terminology (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908116)

Woah grampa. Did you think that up yourself?

Re:More British terminology (2, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908378)

It must get really confusing when you start talking about the fag end of a fanny pack.

Re:More British terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31908686)

UM..actually....no.

it refers to the end of a rope......the "fag" end. The end of a hemp rope that is all kinda tied up with smaller string to stop it unravelling.

It's from the old sailing days........ I dunno...google it.

Next Gen, huh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907684)

Next gen for a console, that was developed 5-6.... uh, quite a while ago. Same ol' tricks huh, what to look forward too, a F.O.V of 75 for added difficulty that cant be changed, an AI that stands while your hiding behind a box before returning to original position. 2 graphic settings, translated A B C D control that still appear in pop ups with a description down below and bad/lazy work covered up by bloom with an that Orange tinge these games seam to have. Yet marketed as next generation and ported incomplete to a PC where it gets even worse. So when is the next gen FPS coming where you can shoot yourself in the foot.

Next next gen. (5, Insightful)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907866)

For me a next gen shooter would be any FPS without... crates.

Re:Next next gen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907918)

Amen brother, amen.

Remember kids (developers), crowbars are for headcrabs, not for crates.

Admittedly some of the crate stacking "puzzles" were somewhat neat, but it's a very good thing that they were few and far between. This kind of crap belongs in a FPS like a jumping puzzle belongs in a FPS, as in, it doesn't.

Out of curiosity though, what ever happened to the Quake style FPS where "duck for cover" is never even a consideration? Running and gunning can be very therapeutic, but in any game released in the past 5 years if you run and gun you'll spend most of your time waiting to respawn. Not so much fun.

Re:Next next gen. (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908000)

Quake-like FPS games aren't suitable for consoles, therefore they are not being made anymore.

codemasters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907874)

i thought that codemasters had given up on making decent games a long time ago.

nowadays they seem to spend most of their time suing people for pirating their pinball simulators.

this little fps gem outta Guildford will be a dud of course, like their other offerings.

cheers for the slash-verstisment tho.

don't like pressure to " Create an Account"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31907974)

Freedom Force

I always thought that was cool for distructiveness.....

Re:don't like pressure to " Create an Account"... (1)

Jainith (153344) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908456)

Silent Storm!

Lame (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908030)

Getting hyperbolic language from the game's lead programmer is...unconvincing.

"Everything being destructible" isn't much of a goal, particularly in their example. Shooting through a box to give yourself cover? Um, if I can shoot through it and destroy it, how much value does it provide as COVER?

No, as a longtime shooter fan what I'd like is more along the developmental lines: I'd like a 3d world engine in which you actually BUILD things from their pieces, like in the real world. If I build a wall of 3d-model planks using 3d-model nails, then each plank would have it's own destructiblity, however, the attachment points would also (for example) have their own strength, so if a grenade goes off or a character kicks the wall, that plank would respond appropriately. This would also make the world more intuitive to build, getting more people to mod.

Re:Lame (1)

Mantrid (250133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908178)

That sounds like Red Faction:Guerilla, though you can't assemble things - but it does have all the structural stuff you're referring to.

Ummmm ... (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908326)

"if you're hiding behind a crate and want to take out enemies without popping up from behind it, shoot a hole in it."

If we're looking for realism, I'm pretty sure in the real world a crate you can shoot a hole through is one the guy on the other side can shoot a hole through.

Probably not good cover.

Not being seen (2, Interesting)

bareman (60518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31908544)

Cover can serve multiple purposes such as armor or camouflage. Cover that you can shoot a hole through is not going to make for effective armor, however it may serve effectively as camouflage.

And for those who've forgotten the importance of not being seen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idXgVLpB6bY [youtube.com]

Fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31908344)

Epic Fail.

This article starts off with the premise that everything is destructible.

Then you learn thats a lie, its almost everything.

Only props will be destructible, walls (and no doubt the ground too) will remain the same.

So no one's done it yet, still.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>