Xavier's Blog

Yes making games to be realistic is cool, I do not disagree with that. But sacrificing the story and key gameplay elements, just so you can have
buildings supports break. That I do disagree with. I have noticed this more and more recently that games are focusing less on the story and more on
the graphics and realism.

I remember the days of good games like Monkey Island.

 

Now this was -wait is- one of the best games I have played. It
doesn't have the best graphics -Heck it runs in dos- but it has a unique and intriguing storyline which carries on into 3 sequels. Yes 3.  And all
of those sequels like the original are great. and the physics engine there is none, this is originally a point and click story.

 

 

 

Now we have games like Fracture

  which is based on a new Physics system. Yes the whole games is based on the new Terra-deformation.
When I first saw this game I thought No Way. You can tell a game will lack a good storyline when they either: Include the Physics engine in
Advertising the game or Include it on the Box or as in Fracture keep it as a core gameplay element which the story is based around.

Including a new Physics system in the game but still keeping a good storyline is very rare, Take a look at The Force Unleashed. Yes it had 2
excellent new Physics systems, And look at the storyline. I would say it nearly had it. If they had spent just that little more attention to detail
they would have had a great game.

The two Physics systems that were introduced are

Pixelux Entertainment's "Digital Molecular Matter" (DMM) for dynamically destructible objects, and NaturalMotion's Euphoria for realistic non-player character artificial intelligence.

 

Happy Gaming