Time

OK, whatever you say. Anways, I wanted to say that the world you play in must be more detailed even with details which might not have a direct effect on the game but to give the player the feeling he's really there. For more detailed explanation click the link which RalphWiggum above posted.

You're right, they better stick with realism. But this includes women too, doesn't it, vietnamese also, not to mention killing or even uglier things... Welcome to Nam, boy!

Now look what you've done I was taking you seriously and started a topic about that! If Valve did this physics engine then anyone can.

On the previous thread I posted (the radiator thing) and made a few people go angry I will try to explain what I was trying to say. Firstly, when I said that I want to rip the radiator off the wall and throw it on the enemy like in HL2, I just wanted to say to BI to make a system that will make this kind of details possible (if Valve could do it, why not BI too?). The world would become much more useful to the player. And since BI is making as real as possible simulation, why fight only with weapons? If you're trying to make the virtual world real, you have to copy the ideas from the real world. The player will like the virtual world more if he can interact with it as in real world. That's why I said that about radiator. I'd like to chop down some trees and block the road to ambush a convoy. It is very frustrating, because I cannot dig in the groud, thus I'm just a sitting duck. If my tank gets hit and immobile in the urban aerea, I'd like to turn the houses around me into rubble to protect the sides of my vehicle from the RPGs. I'd like to make barricades on the street, fortify some houses with sandbags, furniture, etc. The best details are those which you don't notice. You probably never admired your real shadow, but the shadow in OFP was weird and you noticed. And now (hypothetically) BI will make fantastic shadowing better than in DOOM3  and every will   and   be astonished, wow, it looks so real. But the AI will not be as good and people will get disappointed. And that's why OFP was so good. All the elements of the game were as balanced on the weakest element in the game so they could work together as one. If you could drive only vehicles but not aeroplanes, wouldn't this be disappointing? That's why I said in my previous thread that CQB isn't just a good collision detection (although it is very important), but also AI which can adept to CQB, interactive enviroment, etc. So, there must be levels of detailed world. If you can rip the radiators off the wall, but you can't move the furniture around, the whole thing seems stupid and it would be better to make the radiators also static then. The big picture consists of details. The more details, the better resolution of the big picture. Or else, look at the better picture from distance so that the missing parts won't spoil the joy (and the truth ). In simulations the big picture means (the way I see it) the feeling of presence of yourself in the real world (which is actually the virtual one). Feeling of presence is information you receive from the world but you are not concentrated on. When you are trying to shoot a soldier 200m away you are concentrated on the aiming and not on the enviroment around you. But it is the enviroment that gives the feeling of presence. Unrealistic graphics, physics, sound and also AI spoil the feeling of presence in the virtual world, because they will disturb your senses which are used to real world. It's like when a BMP gets blown by a satchel charge and flys up 100m high in the air. It is disturbing. If I conclude this, making a realistic game means you must cheat your senses in order to convince them that they are receiving the information from the real world (The Matrix?!  - I'm afraid yes ) That's why details are important.

OK, I'll start more serious thread.

Every "big picture" consists of smaller elements as you look deeper in the structure. When I said I wan't to rip the radiator off the wall, I wanted to say "make things less static" and to show what makes the virtual enviroment belivable and realistic. You may never really need to rip off the radiator of the wall, but what about fortifying in the house by using the furniture, or chopping down the trees to barricade the road? This is what I call realism. War isn't just shooting, it's about how to save your life in a combat situation. The best soldiers don't use only their guns, they use their brains first. And thus, better interactivity with the world in the game would encourage people to ponder the possibilities they have and to choose the best possible. I'm tired of playing games where most of the things spreaded over a map have no participation to the game but to look nice. The world isn't static and made of sprites. Collision detection isn't all about CQB and it's just a bug.

I remember the Trespasser and I remember the physics. But it was buggy, pushing your hardware to the limit with some stupid dinosaurs running at you. But it didn't have the AI that Half-Life 2 has and it didn't have the facial expressions and emotions that HL2 has. And don't tell me that OFP was quite good at CQB, because my friend massacred a whole platoon on 30 metres and those soldiers were just standing there and did nothing! If Half-Life 1 soldiers met OFP soldiers they would have massacared them too. Do you remember them? This AI was introduced in december 1998 and I think that the AI in HL is still one of the best today at CQB. In OFP there couldn't be no real urban fighting because there were only villages but this is what I would really like to see in OFP2. Half-Life 2 will make my dreams come true even sooner (the SDK is going to be released before the game comes out!)

True. The big picture is much more significant in OFP. But what I wanted to say that physics I saw there and radiator was just one of the many thing you can do (not to mention how the guy barricaded himself in the house by pushing the table in front of the door and then the enemy went to do suppression fire through the window while another one was trying to open the door). And the feeling of street combat is very real or at least is very close. Any OFP fan should take a look at this years E3 winner to see what I'm talking about. I don't want to promote another game and say OFP2 will suck, but show where should OFP2 learn from.

The people who have seen the "best game on E3 show" video know what I'm talking about. If OFP2 doesn't reach this level of realism like in that game, it will lose war in close quarters battles missions. I think that BI will have to reconsider a few things after this autumn or maybe even sooner.

If you got stunned and you passed out for some time the time would accelerate while you see nothing but dark. After a time you'd wake up and the time would go normal again. If you got incapacitated you would just lie there (the time would fasten again) and blackout. Your AI buddys would of course pick you up and send you in a field hospital. Then you would skip a few missions or even maybe end the game. What do you think (this already could be done by scripting you'll say, I know )

OFP seems quite realistic in the overall picture, but in details it is a short-track runner (when the vehicles start to bounce and aeroplanes can't fly very high, when you find out that tanks have only coaxial machinegun and much less ammo than in real world and other similar stuff)

But the question is how much of this suggestions is actually being seriously taken by the BI. I think there are too many things that BI could include in time (but there's still hope)

Realism in games would be fun only if you pressed escape and you'd be glad that this is really happening. But now, if I get killed I just get angry because I did some stupid mistake. A game should frighten the player, that he would be saying "it only a game, calm down, this isn't happening" Than we could say it is really realistic.

There were the unfortunate who started to enjoy the killing. Â I don't think there were an incredible amount though. I've read an article about training the marines You get brainwashed in first three days. Then you are ready to do everything what you are told. Â And this is the best way to keep the fighting machine working.

I might be too enthusiastic, I admit it. What is the real war like? Can you tell me? I was in war for 10 days when I was 6 years old. Luckily the war ended without any big damage or losses. But there was the anxiety present. I've played OFP enough to understand the principles it is based on. I don't care about the details, we all know that there will be more detailed world in OFP2. I'm interested in the principles of the games, AI mostly. And I would just like to point out some things that I don't see in the simulations, but these missing things are playing some key roles in real worls (AI, for example). I think that the game developers are dumping the importance of social reality, which is sometimes more important than physical reality.