Less Interactivity than before?

**Sakonosolo** · 09-05-2013, 08:24 PM

I don't mind no inventory because it could be easily done other ways but it does bother me that there will be less interactive things in the environment. That's one of the reasons I love Amnesia and Penumbra so much is that I can pick up small little things and rotate that and stuff, and I like it that a lot of other games are starting to have that ability in them. I realize it'll still be in there to a certain extent and maybe it'll even be fine for me but I feel like that's kind of going backwards and I hope it isn't as jarring as Portal to Portal 2, where everything seemed nailed down in Portal 2.

**Ghieri** · 09-05-2013, 11:15 PM

I'm hoping the atmosphere is enough so that a lack of physics is easily ignored.

**Lewk** · 09-05-2013, 11:21 PM

(09-05-2013, 11:15 PM)Ye Olde Aldi Wrote: I'm hoping the atmosphere is enough so that a lack of physics is easily ignored.

The lack of physical interaction with large objects increases the atmosphere. Throwing around crates and barrels made TDD look stupid as hell (at least looking back on it). I love TDD and I enjoyed playing around with what the engine could do, but the game would not be necessary to do that. All you need is to spawn a few objects in a test level and throw them around. It decreases the atmosphere and the seriousness of the game so I'm glad the interaction with the bigger objects was removed.

What I wish they would do with the chairs and similarly sized objects is make them unliftable, so that you could move them around on the floor but not throw them around, because that definitely makes the game look silly. The only thing you should be able to lift off the ground, and move around with, is small objects.

**emd** · 09-06-2013, 12:43 AM

(09-05-2013, 11:21 PM)Lewk Wrote: The lack of physical interaction with large objects increases the atmosphere. Throwing around crates and barrels made TDD look stupid as hell (at least looking back on it). I love TDD and I enjoyed playing around with what the engine could do, but the game would not be necessary to do that. All you need is to spawn a few objects in a test level and throw them around. It decreases the atmosphere and the seriousness of the game so I'm glad the interaction with the bigger objects was removed.

What I wish they would do with the chairs and similarly sized objects is make them unliftable, so that you could move them around on the floor but not throw them around, because that definitely makes the game look silly. The only thing you should be able to lift off the ground, and move around with, is small objects.

If I see a wooden chair in real life, I can easily pick it up and throw it. If the game engine wants realism in regards to physics (for TDD it did), then I better be able to pick up and toss a chair (I could). I have no problem with this, and I have no problem with it removed. There are very good reasons for both arguments but in the end, it doesn't change how I approach the game.

**Sakonosolo** · 09-06-2013, 12:58 AM

This is what I hate. Removing features because the players may use them in ways that don't fit the atmosphere? Might as well just remove most player input while you're at it. Hell, remove jumping like Thiaf is doing. Players using game mechanics in ways that MIGHT not fit the game isn't an excuse to remove said game mechanics.

**Potato** · 09-06-2013, 01:05 AM

(09-06-2013, 12:58 AM)Sakonosolo Wrote: This is what I hate. Removing features because the players may use them in ways that don't fit the atmosphere? Might as well just remove most player input while you're at it. Hell, remove jumping like Thiaf is doing. Players using game mechanics in ways that MIGHT not fit the game isn't an excuse to remove said game mechanics.

Sam just said on the other page they removed the extra physics interactions because it took a hit on the game performance, not sure if you didn't see that or something.

**Cuyir** · 09-06-2013, 01:09 AM

(09-03-2013, 08:32 AM)samueljustice00 Wrote: Let me explain the choice for what may be perceived as less object interaction. Early on in development, when we began building the worlds - everything was interactive, this in turn had a huge hit on performance as we were using a lot more props (and new higher detailed models) than TDD. The framerate would drop, memory usage was way more than it should have been.

Throughout development we back and forthed on whether we should cut down on props to enable more interactivity, or keep the props to allow the visual storytelling to shine - to create that believable world. As we began to build the core gameplay, it was very apparent that sometimes props got in the way, as the difference between key items and dressing was fairly mixed up. This was through a multitude of playtesting, and the new direction we took with no inventory meant that glowing blue objects looked really odd when being interacted with.

So in short, at first it was a performance choice - to enable us to create the richest environment that we possibly could. This decision passed on throughout development as the game itself was being built and tuned. There are still tonnes of object interactions and general interactions in the game, just the standard interactions player might've been used to in TDD (such as picking up a small hammer etc) will not be as prominent.

quote bumped cause relevant

edit: english mighty broken too

**Sakonosolo** · 09-06-2013, 01:50 AM

(09-06-2013, 01:05 AM)Potato Wrote: Sam just said on the other page they removed the extra physics interactions because it took a hit on the game performance, not sure if you didn't see that or something.

Sorry, I should learn to quote for my responses. I was replying to the post 2 posts above mine who said that throwing chairs around ruins the atmosphere of the game.

Performance is at least a decent reason although this is a PC game. Obviously the game should be scalable but taking things out so that it can be run on 5 year old laptops with integrated graphics seems kind of counter-intuitive. Of course I have no idea how much of a performance hit it was. And not sure if it's possible to put something to limit interactivity as a performance option. I know that Serious Sam 3 and FEAR both have options that deal with physics that you can turn down.

**Lewk** · 09-06-2013, 02:14 AM

(09-06-2013, 01:50 AM)Sakonosolo Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 01:05 AM)Potato Wrote: Sam just said on the other page they removed the extra physics interactions because it took a hit on the game performance, not sure if you didn't see that or something.
Sorry, I should learn to quote for my responses. I was replying to the post 2 posts above mine who said that throwing chairs around ruins the atmosphere of the game.

Performance is at least a decent reason although this is a PC game. Obviously the game should be scalable but taking things out so that it can be run on 5 year old laptops with integrated graphics seems kind of counter-intuitive. Of course I have no idea how much of a performance hit it was. And not sure if it's possible to put something to limit interactivity as a performance option. I know that Serious Sam 3 and FEAR both have options that deal with physics that you can turn down.

It was bogging down new high-grade computers. It's not counter-intuitive to make the game play at a frame rate above 15.

**Sakonosolo** · 09-06-2013, 02:20 AM

That sounds like an engine issue, like the engine isn't optimized well enough for that to handle it beyond a certain level. Hope Frictional fixes that in their new engine. I don't see why unless you have several thousand physics objects on screen at a time that it should slow high end computers down, or any decent specced computer really.