Anybody else sick of the claims of "realistic" physics?

S

ScotteusMaximus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
415
is it just me, or have other people noticed that this term gets tossed around so much that it's lost all meaning? everybody's always raving about "realistic" physics in games, but i think that's a load of crap. shooting someone with a shotgun shouldn't make them do cartwheels through the air before they land 10 feet away. that's not "real" physics. i don't know about you, but the last time i tapped a steel drum, it didn't go tumbling end over end for 10 yards. it just made a nice "clang" sound and stood there, full of hundreds of pounds of water.

i don't particularly give a shit if the PhysX card can process 1000 drums instead of 10, but if it makes it so that when i toss one off a building, it accelerates properly and looks like it landed with some amount of force, sign me up for 2.
 
If it's a fantasy game, which the vast majority of video games are, some aspects of the world will be exaggerated. This is by design.
 
physics, or realistic physics can never be achieved, since so-called facts of physics are ever changing. they cant be facts, its just all metaphysics.. aka theories on how things operate, so therefore realistic physics can only just be the best perception of our interptations of what physics or in this case, realistics physics, can be in a game.
 
pr0pensity said:
If it's a fantasy game, which the vast majority of video games are, some aspects of the world will be exaggerated. This is by design.
Click to expand...
mmm, you have a point. i think some of it is just for the "fun factor" and some of it is because it's cool to see shit go flying after you blow something up, but i'm talking about games that are are supposed to have a realistic setting with physics based on reality, even if the situations and storyline are "fantasy."

everybody raved about HL2's physics puzzles, but i thought it was completely stupid that a physicist from MIT could toss cinder blocks like they were made of styrofoam or push around huge metal drums and wooden pallets like he was the hulk.
 
ScotteusMaximus said:
mmm, you have a point. i think some of it is just for the "fun factor" and some of it is because it's cool to see shit go flying after you blow something up, but i'm talking about games that are are supposed to have a realistic setting with physics based on reality, even if the situations and storyline are "fantasy."
Click to expand...

That's no games. Boring dynamics would detract from the exciting storyline. Gameplay comes first.

everybody raved about HL2's physics puzzles, but i thought it was completely stupid that a physicist from MIT could toss cinder blocks like they were made of styrofoam or push around huge metal drums and wooden pallets like he was the hulk.
Click to expand...

Wasn't he wearing a special suit?
 
ScotteusMaximus said:
mmm, you have a point. i think some of it is just for the "fun factor" and some of it is because it's cool to see shit go flying after you blow something up, but i'm talking about games that are are supposed to have a realistic setting with physics based on reality, even if the situations and storyline are "fantasy."

everybody raved about HL2's physics puzzles, but i thought it was completely stupid that a physicist from MIT could toss cinder blocks like they were made of styrofoam or push around huge metal drums and wooden pallets like he was the hulk.
Click to expand...

lol.. true though, i also hated the puzzles
 
Tetrahedron said:
physics, or realistic physics can never be achieved, since so-called facts of physics are ever changing. they cant be facts, its just all metaphysics.. aka theories on how things operate, so therefore realistic physics can only just be the best perception of our interptations of what physics or in this case, realistics physics, can be in a game.
Click to expand...
i wouldn't say "never" because that's a pretty strong word. it might not be possible today, but i'd like to think that at some point we'd be able to have accurate enough physics engines in games.

what i don't get is your statement that the facts of physics are changing. last i checked, things like newtonian physics haven't changed for almost 4 centuries. newtonian physics break down for things on the quantum level, but they're still a decent enough approximation for things like fluid dynamics, and certainly for something like tossing a barrel off of a roof.
 
pr0pensity said:
That's no games. Boring dynamics would detract from the exciting storyline. Gameplay comes first.
Click to expand...
true, gameplay does come first, but i don't think that good gameplay and realistic physics have to be mutually exclusive.

pr0pensity said:
Wasn't he wearing a special suit?
Click to expand...
i guess you could explain it that way. it would definitely help explain why gordon sinks like a stone in water, but at the beginning of the game, when you first get to the city, you can toss people's suitcases around like balsa wood.
 
ScotteusMaximus said:
i wouldn't say "never" because that's a pretty strong word. it might not be possible today, but i'd like to think that at some point we'd be able to have accurate enough physics engines in games.

what i don't get is your statement that the facts of physics are changing. last i checked, things like newtonian physics haven't changed for almost 4 centuries. newtonian physics break down for things on the quantum level, but they're still a decent enough approximation for things like fluid dynamics, and certainly for something like tossing a barrel off of a roof.
Click to expand...


did i say they were changing ever day? though advancements in science are proven to be just the best model to fit the current data we have. things change.. and 4 more centuries from now newtonian physics may just be laughed at as primitive.. and if this is so, then what we have knowledge of now is not a fact, facts dont change. look at all the modern day discoveries of how things actually work as opposed to what we thought before. Refinements, new discoveries, etc..
 
Tetrahedron said:
physics, or realistic physics can never be achieved, since so-called facts of physics are ever changing. they cant be facts, its just all metaphysics.. aka theories on how things operate, so therefore realistic physics can only just be the best perception of our interptations of what physics or in this case, realistics physics, can be in a game.
Click to expand...
You are wrong on so many levels.

1. Our basic understanding of physics correctly resembles what actually happens in real life. Processing power just hasn't brought it to realtime.

2. Metaphysics is NOT 'theories on how things operate.' I think you need to brush up on cognition 101 before you throw around a term like metaphysics.

3. You defeat your own thesis. You say realistic physics can never be achieved. Inherent in 'realistic' is perception. Then you claim that physics in game can on be what we perceive at the time. Well, my friend, for all intensive purposes, that is realistic.
 
Tetrahedron said:
physics, or realistic physics can never be achieved, since so-called facts of physics are ever changing. they cant be facts, its just all metaphysics.. aka theories on how things operate, so therefore realistic physics can only just be the best perception of our interptations of what physics or in this case, realistics physics, can be in a game.
Click to expand...

This really has nothing to do with the OP. Realistic physics is when something acts in the way you expect it to act in real life. If you were playing a baseball sim where the pitcher threw the ball and it did a loop on the way to home plate, that would not be realistic physics. A human arm cannot throw a ball with enough backspin, on earth, to make the ball do a loop. You can't argue that it could possibly be realistic because we don't have a full understanding of universal physics.

A person getting shot falls to the ground. They don't fly through the air. We are talking what's real, not what's 100% accurate. If an average, reasonable person thinks it looks real, then the physics are realistic.
 
Tetrahedron said:
did i say they were changing ever day? though advancements in science are proven to be just the best model to fit the current data we have. things change.. and 4 more centuries from now newtonian physics may just be laughed at as primitive.. and if this is so, then what we have knowledge of now is not a fact, facts dont change. look at all the modern day discoveries of how things actually work as opposed to what we thought before. Refinements, new discoveries, etc..
Click to expand...
is it possible that some discovery is going to come along and revolutionize the way we do physics? yes. is it likely? not very. even if it happened, it would change the underlying processes, not what happens to objects in the real world. it's not like this discovery would overturn the law of gravity or anything. if i toss a ball up in the air, i expect it to do certain things. it doesn't matter if the game engine simulates the processes correctly, as long as a regular joe off the street could look at it and say "yeah, that's what happens when you throw stuff in the air." as long as my game world reacts the way i would expect it to, i'm satisfied.
 
Very realistic physics can be done - the problem is the average PC gamer doesnt have a couple cray supercomputers for the calculations involved, to be able to do it at 60 frames per second.
 
Drexion said:
Very realistic physics can be done - the problem is the average PC gamer doesnt have a couple cray supercomputers for the calculations involved, to be able to do it at 60 frames per second.
Click to expand...
do you really need a supercomputer to calculate how much force a box will exert on impact? i'm not a very good programmer, but most of the physics we're talking about in games are pretty simple. if i can sit down with a pencil and paper and solve in a couple minutes how far a grenade will go if you toss it with a certain amount of force, i would think a modern CPU could do it almost instaneously.

in any case, if i'm wrong and something like that would be impossible for a desktop PC to do in real time, then it would at least be nice if developers and game journalists acknowledged the shortcomings of game physics and stopped claiming that they were ultra-realistic.
 
It's not a matter of processing power, they simply won't put in true physics for the sake of.. well... exaggerated physics just looks cooler.

I don't think it's even possible to have a unified physics in a game without complicating the gameplay. The rules of physics varies depending on the state of your character. e.g. When he's on the ground, shooting him with a shotgun just makes him go back 2 feet, yeah, that's realistic alright, but do the same when he's in the air jumping/falling towards you, and he'll be blown back atleast 20 feet. Granted, he doesn't have traction, but his mass is headed directly at you, and the force needed to deflect that is significantly more than if he was just standing on two legs.

The most noticeable physics variation is in Max Payne. When you're in slow motion, people are LIGHTER. In normal mode, they fall over, in slowmo, they cartwheel!

There's no processing power involved in that. They simply vary the rules.

Granted, these may be exaggerated, but until they atleast make the game physics consistent, you won't be seeing REAL realistic physics any time soon. And the games that DO implement it, are likely to be either slowpaced or boring.
 
Yeah, I have yet to see any realistic looking boob physics either. We haven't made any progress in the boob physics area since the original Tomb Raider :p
 
ScotteusMaximus said:
do you really need a supercomputer to calculate how much force a box will exert on impact? i'm not a very good programmer, but most of the physics we're talking about in games are pretty simple. if i can sit down with a pencil and paper and solve in a couple minutes how far a grenade will go if you toss it with a certain amount of force, i would think a modern CPU could do it almost instaneously.

in any case, if i'm wrong and something like that would be impossible for a desktop PC to do in real time, then it would at least be nice if developers and game journalists acknowledged the shortcomings of game physics and stopped claiming that they were ultra-realistic.
Click to expand...
Actually some of the driving games do well on some of the physics but, it is only in certain known behaviors.
Game develpoers will never drop the claim to have created the ultra-realistic physics engines. They like anyonelse that creates something has an air of arrogance, about their babies.
I dont think we will see any realistic physics in games. That isnt the point of them. They are just made for mindless fun. :D
 
Sly said:
I don't think it's even possible to have a unified physics in a game without complicating the gameplay. The rules of physics varies depending on the state of your character. e.g. When he's on the ground, shooting him with a shotgun just makes him go back 2 feet, yeah, that's realistic alright, but do the same when he's in the air jumping/falling towards you, and he'll be blown back atleast 20 feet. Granted, he doesn't have traction, but his mass is headed directly at you, and the force needed to deflect that is significantly more than if he was just standing on two legs.
Click to expand...
i think you're a little confused about how physics (momentum and force in particular) work. the laws of physics don't change if i'm jumping or if i'm standing, and someone who gets shot with a shotgun would absolutely not go flying back 20 feet, let alone 2, even at point blank range.

Joves said:
Actually some of the driving games do well on some of the physics but, it is only in certain known behaviors.
Click to expand...
exactly, and those behaviors are the ones that fps games are getting entirely wrong. i wonder if these physics are what make some sims so resource hungry...

Joves said:
I dont think we will see any realistic physics in games. That isnt the point of them. They are just made for mindless fun. :D
Click to expand...
that's really a shame. i enjoy seeing shit blow up, but it really takes me out of the immersion when i see a steel drum hit the ground and just sort of come to a gentle stop, like the videos of the astronauts dropping stuff on the moon.
 
ScotteusMaximus said:
i think you're a little confused about how physics (momentum and force in particular) work. the laws of physics don't change if i'm jumping or if i'm standing, and someone who gets shot with a shotgun would absolutely not go flying back 20 feet, let alone 2, even at point blank range.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Maybe i should have rephrased that better :p

The jumping example had momentum so it should actually take more force to send him back, yet somehow, the game physics makes it so that you actually weigh LESS when your feet are off the ground and momentum becomes insignificant. No consistency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top