Implications of destructable environments

AJ · 2004-04-27T17:53:19

Imagine that you can have a firefight aboard a starship. You can destroy walls, bulkheads, equipment and vital machinery. Or imagine you can dig through walls, blow up bridges or create openings in the sides of buildings. What are the gameplay implications for this kind of behavior, and what do you need to ensure the player has a good time doing all of this. (I'm not speaking about the hardware implications... that's for another forum). A couple of things occur to me right off the bat: Getting Trapped The player could dig themselves into a hole, or blow up enough machinery onboard their ship that they're dead in the water, unable to even call for help. Should the game prevent this from happening? Should it automatically detect this situation and end the game? Should it always offer an "instant teleport" that allows them to recall to a safe location (an indestructable lifepod for ships, and an "emergency transporter" for getting stuck on the ground). If the game offers you a way to always repair, should the repair be free, kind of like the default weapon provided in most FPS games incase you run out of ammo? Also, should the AI ever play dirty and trap the player? It would be intelligent behavior to blow up a bridge the player needs to escape some catastrophe, or to sabotage their air filtration systems. Even if players can repair the damage, there's no way to determine in advance that they can still survive the situation (engine repair, for instance, when you're near an impending supernova). Level Limits Objects in space naturally have a level limit (their hull). But what about things on the ground? Should there be, as in Red Faction, walls you can dig through and walls you can't? Even if you could provide the player with endless terrain to dig through, as a game designer aren't you obligated to stop them from doing that which is pointless (given that they don't know in advance)? I'd say you are, and that impassible areas, as much as those of us who love open-ended games hate them, are a necessity. They stop players from getting into areas they're not ready for, and they keep the player roughly on track. Is there a more elegant way of handing such limits as being able to dig through or penetrate walls? Do you see any more gameplay issues implicit in destructable environments? Have any solutions or comments to what I raised above? Again, this is just theoretical. Even when we have the technology to do all of this with ease, we may not have the game design know how. -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership... [edited by - wavinator on April 22, 2004 5:24:28 PM]

Game Design and Theory Game Design

Started by Wavinator April 22, 2004 03:36 PM

22 comments, last by Wavinator 20 years, 9 months ago

cmptrgear

306

April 25, 2004 11:07 PM

quote:

If it's any consolation, by the time you see all of this, you're cruising toward godliness. Keep in mind that you can load up on the complexity if and only if it's in managable phases. X-Com on the drawing board looked like squad combat, destructable terrain, fighter interdiction versus UFOs, item management, stat management, multiple base building, multiple base defense, national popularity management, financial management, research, trade in black market goods, item creation, story development, and management of an invisible supercharacter named Harvey. And don't even get me started on Master of Magic...

Did I miss something in that game, I dont remember any Harvey. Or is that suppose to be a joke?

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, drown a man in the water and the fish will eat for a week!

[edited by - cmptrgear on April 25, 2004 12:07:51 AM]

"Pfft, Facts! Facts can be used to prove anything!" -- Homer J. Simpson

Wavinator

Author

2,020

April 25, 2004 11:45 PM

quote:
Original post by cmptrgear
Did I miss something in that game, I dont remember any Harvey. Or is that suppose to be a joke?

Dude! You never saw Harvey?! He was standing right there!!!! I think he also made an appearance in Fallout, and I could swear I saw him in Halo, hiding under the Warthog. He''s everywhere!

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...

Iron Chef Carnage

1,845

April 26, 2004 11:26 AM

If buildings work out well, I think that straight-up demolition missions would be sweet. Blast in, plant fission charges at key structural points, and get the crap out of there before the timer ticks down. Good way to strike a blow against Rogue AIs, and I think the Xinxau would be just the semi-animate planetoids for the job.

Wavinator

Author

2,020

April 27, 2004 05:53 PM

quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
If buildings work out well, I think that straight-up demolition missions would be sweet. Blast in, plant fission charges at key structural points, and get the crap out of there before the timer ticks down. Good way to strike a blow against Rogue AIs, and I think the Xinxau would be just the semi-animate planetoids for the job.

Yeah, and let''s not forget the possibility of calling down a strike from orbit! Just a comms call away, assuming that you have orbital superiority, of course. (Now, if the enemy has it, it just gets ugly).

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...

Implications of destructable environments

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Implications of destructable environments

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines