PDA

View Full Version : Realism


GlobalStrike
04-15-2004, 04:47 AM
Do you think that advanced ragdoll effects will be in the game? By this i mean like an AT-AT falling from being entangled by a snowspeeder's harpoon gun or do you think it would just blow up?

Craftsman
04-15-2004, 07:34 AM
real all the way

Eagle Warrior
04-15-2004, 12:08 PM
i think it will fall down then if you attack the down at-at it will blow up then

DarthMuffin
04-15-2004, 12:53 PM
I'd also go for realism. Though that won't make thing easy for the rebels or those against the Empire.

tFighterPilot
04-15-2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by GlobalStrike
Do you think that advanced ragdoll effects will be in the game? By this i mean like an AT-AT falling from being entangled by a snowspeeder's harpoon gun or do you think it would just blow up? It's called tow cable, and yes

StormHammer
04-15-2004, 02:20 PM
Well, according to an article at IGN, the dev team have watched the battles from the movies hundreds of times to try and get the best sense of what players would like to see.

Therefore, if it features in the movies, then I don't see why it should not feature in the game. It makes sense for the AT-AT to stumble and fall once the tow cable is in place.

That can be achieved without rag doll physics. The only thing ragdoll would give you is a slightly different fall each time.

dark jedi 8
04-15-2004, 06:10 PM
hence more realism. but should it be an animation or should the fall be in real time? cus the only current game that shows the walkers fall is the rogue squadron series but they use animations and it cuts from the pace of the game, it especially would in a game like this. IMO.:cool: but its a whole new engine so only time will tell.

Gukkjo
04-15-2004, 06:25 PM
I would think it'd only make sense for it to be in real time. I hope they do put it in real time anyway, it'd be a lot better.

StormHammer
04-15-2004, 08:41 PM
It should definitely be in real time, but I don't think it matters whether it is a set 'death' animation, or a variation via ragdoll. AS long as it looks good, I'll be happy.

To be honest, I think ragdoll can be overused. If you play Unreal Tournament 2003, ragdoll looks cool, but not very realistic.

So do you want something that looks cool, or looks realistic? It's sometimes hard to achieve both.

Eagle Warrior
04-16-2004, 08:29 PM
i think this game will be real realistic. the burning debris if you touch it you will be on fire and falling stuff will hurt you. if you fall of a high place you will get hurt and ships if they dont get blown up fully in air and come down and you are near it you will get hurt

(if it doesnt have that:mad: i will be mad:mad: i like REALISTIC BATTLES:mob: :explode: :crybaby: :snipe1: :snip2: :rddance:

slapshot16
04-16-2004, 09:07 PM
If you shoot it in the head with a rocket launcher, it should just blow up, or at least it's head. If you use the tow cable, then yeah it should definitly fall

Mountainforest
04-18-2004, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by StormHammer
It should definitely be in real time, but I don't think it matters whether it is a set 'death' animation, or a variation via ragdoll. AS long as it looks good, I'll be happy.

To be honest, I think ragdoll can be overused. If you play Unreal Tournament 2003, ragdoll looks cool, but not very realistic.

So do you want something that looks cool, or looks realistic? It's sometimes hard to achieve both.

Why do you think it's called unreal tournament? :D

Taran'atar
04-19-2004, 05:43 AM
It's been a while since I've played it, but as I recall, the AT-AT's in the old N64 game Shadows of the Empire fell over when they were tangled up. They didn't just explode. I don't see any reason why Battlefront would be a step backwards from a nearly 10 year old game.

tFighterPilot
04-19-2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Taran'atar
It's been a while since I've played it, but as I recall, the AT-AT's in the old N64 game Shadows of the Empire fell over when they were tangled up. They didn't just explode. I don't see any reason why Battlefront would be a step backwards from a nearly 10 year old game. I think the author of this thread doesn't know what realistic phisics are...

GlobalStrike
04-22-2004, 08:36 AM
quote posted by tfighterpilot
__________________________________________________ ___
Tfighterpilot, i know exactly what realistic phyisics are. :jawa :jawa

Creek
04-22-2004, 02:07 PM
hm ... :)
lets wait 4 the game and we'll know it!:bdroid2: i like these smyilys :)

joesdomain
04-23-2004, 02:57 AM
I have be an advocate of Star Wars Realism for many years now. I hope Battlefront has more realistic gameplay than previous star wars games.

joesdomain
04-23-2004, 03:04 AM
I have seen some bad realism in games like Galactic Battlegrounds where a solider, bounty hunter, etc. can shoot a pistol at a AT-ST Walker or AT-AT Walker and they are destroyed. That is fake and doesn't happen in the movies. Or a AT-ST or AT-AT shooting a trooper and he stands there still alive after one shot. I think it took 3-4 shots from a at-st to kill a trooper. that is just nonsense.

eastcoast2895
04-23-2004, 03:48 AM
i wouldn't mind the one animation from shadows of the empire of the at-at falling, but i'd prefer to see different animations of the at-at and other walkers falling that depend on which way the tow cable is being pulled, which direction the shot came from, etc. it would add an extra bonus to see a neat animation to keep it fresh, like the games with good ragdoll physics.

Darth_Ak4t7
04-24-2004, 02:15 AM
Rag Doll would be nice, watching people fly through the air via explosion then come down to the planet nose first and crumple up in a little ball.:jawa :jawa :jawa :jawa :bdroid1: :bdroid1: :bdroid1: :

slapshot16
04-24-2004, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by joesdomain
I have seen some bad realism in games like Galactic Battlegrounds where a solider, bounty hunter, etc. can shoot a pistol at a AT-ST Walker or AT-AT Walker and they are destroyed. That is fake and doesn't happen in the movies. Or a AT-ST or AT-AT shooting a trooper and he stands there still alive after one shot. I think it took 3-4 shots from a at-st to kill a trooper. that is just nonsense.

Don't go trashing that game, it was awesome. And the game would be totally unblanced if a whole army of troopers couldn't take down an at-st or if an at-st would kill everything in one shot. (+the at-st was good against other mechs, it sucked against troopers anyway.)

joesdomain
04-24-2004, 04:03 AM
Thatis why it is important to have realism in the game. In the star wars movies, AT-ST walkers could easily take down troopers. IT should be the same for this game. Galactic Battlegrounds is my favorite game and I am not trashing it. I was only referring to that games problem of realism. To counter another mech in a game you should have another mech in the first place or man a turrent.

Darth_Ak4t7
04-24-2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by StormHammer
Well, according to an article at IGN, the dev team have watched the battles from the movies hundreds of times to try and get the best sense of what players would like to see.

Therefore, if it features in the movies, then I don't see why it should not feature in the game. It makes sense for the AT-AT to stumble and fall once the tow cable is in place.

That can be achieved without rag doll physics. The only thing ragdoll would give you is a slightly different fall each time.

adding on to that, AT-STs should be able to take out rebel troops with one shot, and AT-STs should be taken down by ewok traps and such. See it all part of this chain thing where everything is connected together:rolleyes: