A New Way of Looking at Damage

[Adrir]

Originally Posted by Kodiak

Of course, this can be convinvingly substituted by further subdividing existing hit zones, and probably for less effort...

Personally, this would be the way I would model it since most collision detection systems already use hierarchical systems for culling purposes.

I am going to attempt something similar in a game I'm developing at the moment, where a projectile is modelled physically such that when a concrete collision bound (non-concrete being larger bounds used for culling) is intersected by the projectile, then that collision bound takes damage in addition to nearby surrounding bounds. However, the projectile will continue until either it runs out of energy so it can hit other components or in some cases penetrate the vehicle.

I also think it would be easier to implement model changes this way, when a certain threshold of damage is reached.

[Kodiak]

Interesting idea. You are essentially proposing modifying the mesh on the fly?

How would you deal with multiple instances of the same model in play? Would you make a separate copy of the mesh for each? Or could you simply keep track of changes in separate file/field and apply it to each instance?

[ronnoc10]

I've been avoiding this topic, waiting for someone to point out that nothing mentioned in it is new and amazing.

Off the top of my head: The last-gen game Gun featured the ability to shoot off limbs, heads, and when shot with a low-caliber round, brain matter came out of heads. Dead Space has combat completely built around the fact that shooting things tends to rip or cut stuff off. It's enemies are designed to require different strategies of what to rip or cut off to defeat. Rise of the Argonauts:

Originally Posted by GameSpot

These finishing moves play into the concept of lethality being pushed by developer Liquid Entertainment. Lead designer Charlie Price kindly pointed out that games are the only medium in which you can attack an enemy with a sword over and over and he won't die. Usually when you attack someone with a sword, he loses at least a limb or a vital organ. To address this issue in Rise of the Argonauts, almost every enemy can be killed with one hit. Figuring out how to do so will take some experimentation, usually with a bevy of X,X,Y combos, but knocking away an enemy's shield will almost always result in a split second where his torso is exposed. At that point, you can slice it in half. Sweet.

What's nice about the combat in Rise of the Argonauts is that it isn't based on back-end dice rolls or hit points. If you slice an enemy in the neck, he'll lose his head. It's that simple, and it's a refreshing change of pace in the hack-and-slash action RPG genre.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Molecular_Matter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAQ_j...eature=related
The full version of the video demonstrates that they can make any object in the game world any pre-defined material. They don't show it, but I'm willing to beat they could do flesh and bone.

[Kodiak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAQ_j...eature=related

Holy <deleted expletive>!!!

That's a big part of what I was thinking about.

Guess there's no accounting for what a little research can do for you.

In my defense, yer 'onour', the game's not out yet!

Very cool!

[simonwest80]

The problem with Damage systems has been a big talking point with me and my colleges and in often comes down to what has been said before, people aren't always interested in 100% realism, don't get me wrong I like "thinking" games(i prefer CS1.6 to CS:S because its slower and imo more realistic, where as source is a lot quicker and more like quake in CS clothing), i used to love Delta Force that was one of the only games to introduce realistic ballistics, but in the end people preferred games where the bullets went "straight" rather than needing to take range, wind and angle into consideration.

With what you are saying a lot has already been done in some form since like another member point out probably since the late 90s. There are a few mech games which use alot of what you talk about, the Mech Commander games from the turn of the century and a more recent example is Steel Hounds on the Xbox.

To be honest if you want to look at realistic damage models, look at ways of implementing a fully changeable destructible environment in the scale of the cities from GTA then you might be onto something.

[Adrir]

Originally Posted by ronnoc10

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Molecular_Matter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAQ_j...eature=related
The full version of the video demonstrates that they can make any object in the game world any pre-defined material. They don't show it, but I'm willing to beat they could do flesh and bone.

I liked the jelly and ice videos better than this wood one, but the effect is just the same. They're using some really complicated middleware to achieve that effect though, and to be honest, I'd personally do the swap-break-model approach simply because it is cheaper (in time and processing resources) to implement. Especially for student games!

Originally Posted by Kodiak

How would you deal with multiple instances of the same model in play? Would you make a separate copy of the mesh for each? Or could you simply keep track of changes in separate file/field and apply it to each instance?

The way the ships are modelled at the moment, they are modular in such a way that each component is a different model. Hence, each instance contains pointers to the models it wants to render. When a component becomes damaged, a method is called which points to a new model from the resource pool. This also makes it easy to implement a transition animation.

Furthermore, I am attempting to use geometry shaders to manipulate certain components based on the ammount of damage they have taken, but so far there hasn't been much success.

[ronnoc10]

Er, there was a point to the last post besides sounding mean, I just forgot it when I was busy sounding mean.
The issue that is being avoided here is 'why?' What such a health system does is it turns a game into a strategic shooter. Shooters have gone through a rapid evolution in the past few years, and it appears that few people have asked why. 3rd person shooters have become by-and-large strategic shooters, with the popularity of cover systems. Just compare the old-school run-and-gun of Lost Planet to GTA IV, or just about every 3rd person shooter on the market. First Person Shooters have changed even more. First it was the Halo/COD-style health re-charge, which completely changes the flow of gameplay (and which I'm not a big fan of, although it has been used effectively.) Then there was the 'iron-sights' mechanic that COD popularised (although it likely didn't invent it), which has me hitting the left trigger before I shoot in any and every FPS I play (often times throwing a grenade or some other useless action.) Now we have the truly hideous FPS with 3rd-person cover system games, such as Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 and Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway. The first-person genre has always been one for rapid, copy-cated, changes, but I get the feeling that many developers are simply adding features, without thinking through what it does to gameplay.
I love run-and-gun, and I also love strategic shooters. I'm a bit disappointed to see run-and-gun-style games rendered 'obsolete' in the minds of many gamers.
Why should developers remove health bars? Because they are old and lame? They work. They've been used for years because they work, and they'll be used for years to come because they work, for certain gameplay styles. The lack of health-bars, realism, or what-ever you are sticking in your (hypothetical or not) game should be intended to bring about the gameplay you want, not simply because you feel like it.
Many people seem to think of features as something separate from gameplay. A game can be great, but if it doesn't have as many shinny, new features as another game, it's 'not as good.' Are we playing games, or rating them based on the bullet-points on the back of the box? (Which might be rendered obsolete themselves, with the advert of digital-distribution :P )

(That turned out more rant-y than having anything to do with the topic.)

[Adrir]

Originally Posted by ronnoc10

Er, there was a point to the last post besides sounding mean, I just forgot it when I was busy sounding mean.

Are you referring to my post?

Originally Posted by ronnoc10

I love run-and-gun, and I also love strategic shooters. I'm a bit disappointed to see run-and-gun-style games rendered 'obsolete' in the minds of many gamers.

In what sense are run-and-gun games obselete?

Originally Posted by ronnoc10

Why should developers remove health bars? Because they are old and lame? They work. They've been used for years because they work, and they'll be used for years to come because they work, for certain gameplay styles. The lack of health-bars, realism, or what-ever you are sticking in your (hypothetical or not) game should be intended to bring about the gameplay you want, not simply because you feel like it.

Not forgetting that health bars are incredibly intuitive and immediately recognizable. They are an effective representation to use, in my opinion, even if the method for calculating damage is different.

Originally Posted by ronnoc10

Many people seem to think of features as something separate from gameplay. A game can be great, but if it doesn't have as many shinny, new features as another game, it's 'not as good.' Are we playing games, or rating them based on the bullet-points on the back of the box?

It's a marketing thing. The business guys need stuff that sounds cool to get the first batch of games off the shelve, then word of mouth can do the rest for you. Most people do read the back of the box in shops, since most people only blindly buy when a game is talked about alot or has a presence in the media.

[Kodiak]

My idea is for purely theoretical purposes at this time. What a shame!

I do think there's plenty of potential for this sort of feature in terms of game play. As I originally stated, it made all of the difference in the world when I played Renegade Legion Interceptor (1990...ahhh...so long ago!) and lent itself well to creating a richer, more interesting experience.

Although I think this discussion is getting focused on character damage, this sort of feature would be interesting to watch play out in terms of equipment, infrastructure, vehicle and terrain damage as well.

For example, you could have a bad guy standing on the other side of a wall you are trying to get to. You have a couple grenades. You chuck one at the wall and it carves a small crater out, but does not completely breach it. You throw your second one at it and the wall comes crumbling down...dynamically and not based upon pre-designated break points.

In another example, you are trying to take out a heavily-armoured mecha. You have a rocket launcher and an automatic rifle. You fire the rocket, but only manage to open a small breach in the mecha's hull, without seriously damaging internal components. Swearing as the mecha turns to face you, you transition to your rifle. Mere heartbeats from being turned into brightly-burning ashes, you empty your rifle's magazine into the mecha's now exposed internal structure. Several rounds bounce off the surrounding armour, but a few find their way in, sever hydraulic lines, jam ammunition feeds and knock the gyro out of whack. Destabilized, the mecha comes crashing to the ground.

If anything, this helps add to immersion and suspension of disbelief.