Support NeoGAF

[RCU005]

With graphics improving every day and games looking better than ever, I've noticed one thing that is shared in most of them. They are all static!

I'm currently playing FF7 Rebirth, and this game is the prime example of this. Its world is static, not even the grass moves. You get used to fast, but still.

I first noticed it in Uncharted 4 on PS4. When you are at the house, you can see how beautiful everything looks, but nothing moves. If you touch a curtain it doesn't move, or the sofa, or anything really. It's like a diorama. It's something very common in every game now. Remember that Gran Turismo didn't have collision detection but Forza did? Collisions made the game feel better, even if people argued that GT was the better game (IDK, just want to focus on the collision), or how Driveclub had much realistic weather and rain effects.

I remember PS3 games having a lot more dynamism than today. I am not tech savvy, but I think it was because of the SPUs which could handle CPU-heavy workloads or something like that, and physics, destruction and all that stuff was handled by the CPU and not the GPU.

I don't know if that's completely right, but the point is that we need more of that. Games are getting much more expensive to make, and not just a pretty world impress, but also a "live" world does. I remember playing Killzone 2 on PS3 and being so impressed about how bullets penetrated doors, and stuff like that. Also, GTA 4 had amazing physics when breaking cars, windows, etc.

Developers should make smaller but more lively games that you can interact with. They should focus on the CPU side and put the GPU as secondary.

 

[Danjin44]

I dont care about any of grass moving or not, I dont pay attention to it when i'm playing the game.....only thing game needs to deliver from is aesthetics....Elden Ring is not high tech at all but its visual style it just sooooo memorable, same with Rebirth.

 

[bbeach123]

Yea I hate it , I refuse to play any (new)game that the trees dont move nowaday. Grass and bushes I gave it a pass ...Sometime .

I once buy a new gpu for skyrim because when its under 30fps the tree leaves just ...stop moving .

 

[lh032]

A

With graphics improving every day and games looking better than ever, I've noticed one thing that is shared in most of them. They are all static!

I'm currently playing FF7 Rebirth, and this game is the prime example of this. Its world is static, not even the grass moves. You get used to fast, but still.

I first noticed it in Uncharted 4 on PS4. When you are at the house, you can see how beautiful everything looks, but nothing moves. If you touch a curtain it doesn't move, or the sofa, or anything really. It's like a diorama. It's something very common in every game now. Remember that Gran Turismo didn't have collision detection but Forza did? Collisions made the game feel better, even if people argued that GT was the better game (IDK, just want to focus on the collision), or how Driveclub had much realistic weather and rain effects.

I remember PS3 games having a lot more dynamism than today. I am not tech savvy, but I think it was because of the SPUs which could handle CPU-heavy workloads or something like that, and physics, destruction and all that stuff was handled by the CPU and not the GPU.

I don't know if that's completely right, but the point is that we need more of that. Games are getting much more expensive to make, and not just a pretty world impress, but also a "live" world does. I remember playing Killzone 2 on PS3 and being so impressed about how bullets penetrated doors, and stuff like that. Also, GTA 4 had amazing physics when breaking cars, windows, etc.

Developers should make smaller but more lively games that you can interact with. They should focus on the CPU side and put the GPU as secondary.

Agree 100 %

The more beautiful the visual , the more static object you find in the game


But at least u can break an amount of items in rebirth though , I notice there's basic object physics in the game

 

[Kilau]

I dunno, I kinda wish Cloud would stop knocking over every fucking chair I try to walk past.

 

[R6Rider]

It's definitely something I notice in many games.

 

[LectureMaster]

"The winds howling."
One of the most memorable lines in the game. The vibe is dope.

 

[sigmaZ]

I've noticed this too but real nature can be quite static too. I do think having motion in the imagine is important though because it adda a sense of life. A lot of JRPG's have this issues in non rendered cutscenes. It's subtle but once you notice it it's hard to unsee.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Not really the same subject but I consider this type of complaints more of a "why this game don't have this feature that other game have?"
And for me the other game is MGS2. So many crazy details back then that even now sometimes games don't have them, like people walking the stairs. I don't mind it too much because if I do then too many games would become a lot less attractive to me. For example how many games would play very differently if you had the parkour abilities of any Assassins's Creed? Of course having more interactivity would be great, but if the game is not about it I try to not think about it too much.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Not sure i agree about games being less static today than during ps3 era

 

[Killjoy-NL]

"The winds howling."
One of the most memorable lines in the game. The vibe is dope.

Animations are mediocre though.

Something's always gotta give.

 

[Lethal01]

With graphics improving every day and games looking better than ever, I've noticed one thing that is shared in most of them. They are all static!

I'm currently playing FF7 Rebirth, and this game is the prime example of this. Its world is static, not even the grass moves. You get used to fast, but still.

I first noticed it in Uncharted 4 on PS4. When you are at the house, you can see how beautiful everything looks, but nothing moves. If you touch a curtain it doesn't move, or the sofa, or anything really. It's like a diorama. It's something very common in every game now. Remember that Gran Turismo didn't have collision detection but Forza did? Collisions made the game feel better, even if people argued that GT was the better game (IDK, just want to focus on the collision), or how Driveclub had much realistic weather and rain effects.

I remember PS3 games having a lot more dynamism than today. I am not tech savvy, but I think it was because of the SPUs which could handle CPU-heavy workloads or something like that, and physics, destruction and all that stuff was handled by the CPU and not the GPU.

I don't know if that's completely right, but the point is that we need more of that. Games are getting much more expensive to make, and not just a pretty world impress, but also a "live" world does. I remember playing Killzone 2 on PS3 and being so impressed about how bullets penetrated doors, and stuff like that. Also, GTA 4 had amazing physics when breaking cars, windows, etc.

Developers should make smaller but more lively games that you can interact with. They should focus on the CPU side and put the GPU as secondary.

IMO more than making the world move more, they need to make the world more interactive and then the world will naturally have more reasons to move,
Who cares if the grass moves if the grass serves no gameplay function.

Which is why Zelda is still the goat with its many interlinked gameplay and exploration systems, and before anyone could catch up to BoTW, Nintendo went and dunked on themselves with ToTK.

 

[CGNoire]

I cant wait till 3D gaming reaches Noita levels of interactivity. I wont be holding my breath though :/

 

[Diddy X]

Animations are mediocre though.

Something's always gotta give.

Just wait for The witcher 4, it's gonna be perfect.

 

[Dacvak]

Video games have, frankly, never gotten this right. Either most/no objects have any physical properties and just sit static no matter what, or a ton of objects have super unrealistic physics (usually due to player interaction), like accidentally bumping into a chair and having it launch across the floor.

I’d love to have some kind of middle ground, where all objects have calculated physics, but based off of player threshold. If my character bumps into a chair because I didn’t precisely circumnavigate around its hitbox, I don’t want that chair to go wilin’ around. But if I lunge at it in a full sprint, yeah, explode away.

The bummer of all of this is that since the PS2 era, I feel like most games have become apathetic to physics-based objects altogether. It’d be nice if we treated physics-based environments with the same reverence that we do with complex geometry and lighting.

 

[NanaMiku]

This thread reminded me of this:

 

[LavitzSlambert]

OP needs to play some Mercenaries and get their fix.

 

[IAmRei]

IMO more than making the world move more, they need to make the world more interactive and then the world will naturally have more reasons to move,
Who cares if the grass moves if the grass serves no gameplay function.

Which is why Zelda is still the goat with its many interlinked gameplay and exploration systems, and before anyone could catch up to BoTW, Nintendo went and dunked on themselves with ToTK.

I agree with totk botw, both is amazingly lively. Weather, cold and hot system, how weather affect your food, your arms as well. Also how physic is injected in game design and puzzles. Not fan of crazy creation in totk but still fine with the option. Also how environment is also your ally or enemy, can affect your feeling.

Unfortunately link doesnt have manual animation for sitting or sleeping. But regardless, the game is 100% alive

I am immersified within the game currently. Barely finished playing few minutes ago. I think i will spend few weeks more before dragon dogma arrives.

As for other games, i am fine with limited environment. I even wishing for there is big franchise return to embrace fixed camera just like old ff9 or resident evil 1-3 style.

 

[N0S]

"The winds howling."
One of the most memorable lines in the game. The vibe is dope.

I always found the wind blowing that hard ridiculous. Trees get bend but characters stay upright like they are made frome stone.

 

[Kenneth Haight]

"The winds howling."
One of the most memorable lines in the game. The vibe is dope.

“fogs thick as curdled milk”

A true wordsmith our Geralt

I love the weather effects in Witcher 3. Adds to the atmosphere a lot. What a game.

 

[GymWolf]

The remilk is a terrible example, it looks worse than hfw that has way more interaction with the scenery (while being bigger and crossgen).

 

[calistan]

This thread reminded me of this:

Red Dead 2 has that. Shoot a barrel and the liquid will drain to the level of the bullet hole.

One thing that really bugs me in countless games is when you get moving water textures on puddles. It should be static but they paste the same rippling, flowing water everywhere.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Not many games feel “alive”, those that pop in my mind with at least being coherent with their physic systems are BOTW/TOTK, Red Dead Redemption 2 & Half Life Alyx

There was a big rush of advancements in physics early 2000’s

Crysis destruction of those shacks and trees
Red Faction’s destruction
F.E.A.R particles, physics and AI.
Half Life 2 (do I need to explain)
GTA 4 (better physics than GTA5)

And so many others

Feels like a downgrade almost

But dem pretty graphics

Plebs made a choice and marketing followed.

 

[crackajack]

Also reminded me of that Splinter Cell video from above.

Nature in Crysis looked liked it has Parkinson or whatever, with everything moving way too forced, and repetitive. That's also distracting, when it just feels like you are in a Truman Show like world, with everything designed to move around you without actual sense and natural inconsistencies.
Capes and clothes in general seem to be hard to do still, with clipping still happening, even though some tech demos seem to suggest that the tech exists. Too costly, eve more than the pushed RT stuff? Mirrors Edge and other PhysX stuff had some promising developments. The whole push seem to have paused or ended?
Imho these areas should be tackeld this gen. PS4 had a barely different CPU as PS360 era, so understandably that not much was changed, but if not now, when? On what is the extra power wasted if not on physics making again some progress.
Also animation with the main character interacting with objects needs a serious upgrade. No idea how, but allowing animations to not be so stiff, with one animation having to go back to some neutral state before the next can even start, which makes controlling the figure and gameplay too just robotic. I guess Ignite from EA and some fighter games, or whatever remains of Euphoria or Bullet are still in use, are a bit more advanced in that, while other otherwise modern stuff feels archaic in that regard by now.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

IMO more than making the world move more, they need to make the world more interactive and then the world will naturally have more reasons to move,
Who cares if the grass moves if the grass serves no gameplay function.

Which is why Zelda is still the goat with its many interlinked gameplay and exploration systems, and before anyone could catch up to BoTW, Nintendo went and dunked on themselves with ToTK.

Considering there are two generations between the graphics of those games, this video is some bullshit.

Zelda's CORE gameplay revolves around exploration and physics.

Horizon is narrative and combat-driven. Only the particles and destruction effects on machines are lightyears ahead of Zelda's.

Zelda should be compared to Death Stranding or RDR 2, the closest games to its mechanics and game loop.

 

[alucard0712_rus]

Playing Asgards Wreath 2 on Quest 3 now and even clouds are not moving. It absolutely kills me. Nothing against devs because it's Quest native game and first game was on PC and have everything dynamic. I can't stand this staticness - its almost frightening.

 

[Little Chicken]

I'm much more impressed with the 16 year old Farcry 2 here.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I dont care about any of grass moving or not, I dont pay attention to it when i'm playing the game.....only thing game needs to deliver from is aesthetics....Elden Ring is not high tech at all but its visual style it just sooooo memorable, same with Rebirth.

Yes you do. Tree leaves swaying, birds flying, particles like rain droplets and snowflakes, destructible props, insects buzzing among the vegetation, clouds moving... all contribute to make the world feeling like an actual world rather than a 3D art project straight out of blender. Its the kind of thing people don't pay attention to but notice when its gone.

The not-high-tech Elden Ring you mentioned actually does all the things i said, so do the not-high-tech BotW and TotK, the not-high-tech Xenoblade C3 also does plenty in that regard.

Just try turning any of these games on and paying attention, you'll never unsee it again.

 

[Embearded]

Check Ghost Of Tsushima.
It has big fields of flowers and pampas grass moving. Trees are also moving with the wind and you don't have a mini map or compass, you swipe the touch pad up and a wind blows, showing you the direction to your map pin.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Aside from graphics, this sense of the world being alive is also made with sound. I noticed that in Genshin Impact. If you don't use headphones (let alone good ones) you are missing out. The wind, footsteps, the grass moving, everything has a distinguishable sound. That does a better job in immersion than ultra-realistic but "dead" graphics.

 

[KXVXII9X]

One of my biggest issues with the modern games today. They look real, but don't feel real. I would rather more work goes into physics, more interactivity, and believable AI behavior than raytracing and big, lifeless open worlds.

 

[KXVXII9X]

Aside from graphics, this sense of the world being alive is also made with sound. I noticed that in Genshin Impact. If you don't use headphones (let alone good ones) you are missing out. The wind, footsteps, the grass moving, everything has a distinguishable sound. That does a better job in immersion than ultra-realistic but "dead" graphics.

Sound direction is a severely overlooked component of making a video game lively and immersive.

 

[SHA]

With graphics improving every day and games looking better than ever, I've noticed one thing that is shared in most of them. They are all static!

I'm currently playing FF7 Rebirth, and this game is the prime example of this. Its world is static, not even the grass moves. You get used to fast, but still.

I first noticed it in Uncharted 4 on PS4. When you are at the house, you can see how beautiful everything looks, but nothing moves. If you touch a curtain it doesn't move, or the sofa, or anything really. It's like a diorama. It's something very common in every game now. Remember that Gran Turismo didn't have collision detection but Forza did? Collisions made the game feel better, even if people argued that GT was the better game (IDK, just want to focus on the collision), or how Driveclub had much realistic weather and rain effects.

I remember PS3 games having a lot more dynamism than today. I am not tech savvy, but I think it was because of the SPUs which could handle CPU-heavy workloads or something like that, and physics, destruction and all that stuff was handled by the CPU and not the GPU.

I don't know if that's completely right, but the point is that we need more of that. Games are getting much more expensive to make, and not just a pretty world impress, but also a "live" world does. I remember playing Killzone 2 on PS3 and being so impressed about how bullets penetrated doors, and stuff like that. Also, GTA 4 had amazing physics when breaking cars, windows, etc.

Developers should make smaller but more lively games that you can interact with. They should focus on the CPU side and put the GPU as secondary.

I'm afraid of individual devs who have the money for AI to make big games from their perspective %110 without cutting corners, that's really scary, cause the consumers don't give a shit anyway about how things being done.

 

[calistan]

The not-high-tech Elden Ring you mentioned actually does all the things i said

I'd say the world of Elden Ring feels kind of static and lifeless for other reasons.

The way the enemies patrol back and forth on fixed paths, only activating when you cross some invisible boundary, and then returning to the exact same routines when you retreat. It reminded me of old 8-bit games. Very minimal enemy AI, with no variation.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I'd say the world of Elden Ring feels kind of static and lifeless for other reasons.

The way the enemies patrol back and forth on fixed paths, only activating when you cross some invisible boundary, and then returning to the exact same routines when you retreat. It reminded me of old 8-bit games. Very minimal enemy AI, with no variation.

That's more a game design thing. I'm talking about looks and visuals.

 

[calistan]

That's more a game design thing. I'm talking about looks and visuals.

To tie it in with what the OP said about making a "live" world, you need randomness in both the visuals and the game's systems. Beautifully rendered characters can be let down by uninteractive environments, but also the dynamic backgrounds in Elden Ring are spoiled by having clockwork enemies.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Order 1886 comes to mind. Sure it looks beautiful but that’s because it doesn’t have any depth whatsoever.

 

[Guilty_AI]

To tie it in with what the OP said about making a "live" world, you need randomness in both the visuals and the game's systems. Beautifully rendered characters can be let down by uninteractive environments, but also the dynamic backgrounds in Elden Ring are spoiled by having clockwork enemies.

No because that actively affects how the game is played.

Elden Ring isn't a tactical game, having ultra complex routines for enemies wouldn't just make little difference but could actively spoil the experience for the average souls player, who usually wants a more straightforward loop of "fight enemies, die, fight enemies, win, get stronger".

A common misconception i see a lot in these game forums is that [complex mechanics] == [better mechanics]. That is not true at all and depends on the kind of game you're making.

 

[IAmRei]

I'm much more impressed with the 16 year old Farcry 2 here.

The 2nd is my fave, its pretty immersive and pretty focused on the things like how they handle the combat and exploration. I still sometimes replay it again. Still one of GoAT for me. Although malaria is limiting, we have mod to turn it off. And the pyshic at the time is mind blowing me much. And the jammed guns... Dang, i like it much...

 

[Fess]

Interactivity is super important imo. 4K resolutions is a complete waste compared to being able to touch everything and everything having physics. Some devs aim to get great looking screen shots, not great looking and moving game worlds. Like a puddle of water that is static. Why is it even there? If I step in it I fully expect to see a splash at the very least but preferrably ripples of water physics.

 

[llLeonhart]

"The winds howling."
One of the most memorable lines in the game. The vibe is dope.

Can’t agree more. I remember at launch I would just stop and watch the trees moving frantically.

Interactivity makes the environments just so much better, dude

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

I'm much more impressed with the 16 year old Farcry 2 here.

2 is by “far” my favorite one. I played the shit out of this game on release….. yeah the enemies respawn, the weapons jammed, broke and all that jazz.
But man that game had this certain feeling of really being a mercenary not exactly sure where to start and some kind of feeling of desolation.

I’ve never played 3….

 

[rabbity-thing]

I'm much more impressed with the 16 year old Farcry 2 here.

I love this comparison. It's a perfect example of why world interactivity, while awesome, is not the end all be all of game development and should not be something that is strived for unless there is a purpose behind it. Farcry 2 is an absolute masterpiece. It really is. Playing it is different than playing most any first person shooter today. It's also just kind of a mess to play. All of the world interactivity, while cool, is not without it's faults. It can often times make the game a slog and highlights how bleak its world is (intentionally, obviously). Farcry 5, however, is a fun breazy adventure. Farcry 5 doesn't strive to be Farcry 2.

Farcry 2 is an amazing game. Farcry 5 is an amazing game. Both games target completely different experiences. Interactivity with the environment is, honestly, a huge waste of time if a game doesn't do anything interesting with it. I can see why devs skip out on it. I'm not going to lie. I'm a big fan of stuff like that, but if it's going to be largely cosmetic and take time away from other aspects of the game design, then I'm fine with it being left out.

I don't think games being beautiful is what's resulting in the lack of interactivity. I think it's just a design choice early on where the devs decide what the focus of the game should be and heavy environmental interactivity, for most games, doesn't add much to the overall experience, so it is left out.

 

[mortal]

It’s one of my biggest pet peeves with games focusing on graphic fidelity. The game world becomes glorified window dressing at the cost of the player's ability to interact.

The entire point and advantage of games over other media lie in their interactivity. A game can be visually stunning, but if it's boring to play, that's what will leave the most lasting impression.

Besides, I believe that very strong and inspired art design can elevate the visual presentation of a game even if it's not technically the most advanced. These types of games also tend to age more gracefully.

 

[Lokaum D+]

I always found the wind blowing that hard ridiculous. Trees get bend but characters stay upright like they are made frome stone.

do you guys even go out or just live inside ur rooms ? there is nothing ridiculous about that, in the gameis is just wind blowing through tall threes, its not a hurricane.

here, a way stronger wind on real life and a guy filming it.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I'm much more impressed with the 16 year old Farcry 2 here.

I miss when Far Cry was competing with Crysis, it was cool watching them trying to 1-up each other.

 

[Danjin44]

Yes you do. Tree leaves swaying, birds flying, particles like rain droplets and snowflakes, destructible props, insects buzzing among the vegetation, clouds moving... all contribute to make the world feeling like an actual world rather than a 3D art project straight out of blender. Its the kind of thing people don't pay attention to but notice when its gone.

The not-high-tech Elden Ring you mentioned actually does all the things i said, so do the not-high-tech BotW and TotK, the not-high-tech Xenoblade C3 also does plenty in that regard.

Just try turning any of these games on and paying attention, you'll never unsee it again.

I was mostly talking about grass moving or not, majority of games have trees moving with birds flying and everything…even in Nier Automata you can shoot down those birds on the sky.

 

[Astral Dog]

Yeah,but i think it depends on the project, do they prioritize combat, or environment physics? Its expensive and time consuming

I thought the reason backdrops used to be so static was to save resources(,on CPU) and make the game as pretty as possible.

I value quality animations on the backdrop for example, but again it depends on the game, sometimes the player character and enemies take priority

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Cyberpunk suffers from this- still love the game.

 

[Audiophile]

This is primarily a case of dev choices, but I do wish the CPUs would get spec'd a little higher to give them an extra push, especially given that the CPU is a relatively small part of the die and a small gain on that will be more "felt" than a few extra CUs on the GPU. That said, a lot of stuff can be done on the GPU now too.

I think a big part is also sound design too. Surprising how many big games there are where you stand still outside and there's nary a whisper of wind.

Ghost Of Tsushima -- at least for the grass -- is one of my faves still.