[mrprice33]

Quote: Originally Posted by half-fast

I can agree with most of the post, but it's almost as if you're saying that physics-based is not the way to go because it looks bad, as if they've "completed" improving it. It will get better every year. EA FIFA(soccer wasnt mentioned, erroneously) went through an odd year or two when they were developing their new contact engine. I mean, its far from perfect still, ridiculous animations happen, but it looks pretty good in the overall, so much so that I, a regular soccer fan can enjoy the tackles. Ive been wanting companies to get rid of animations for years. Theyre holding graphical fidelity up, but hold down the realism of the game. Eventually, everything all contact in any sports game needs to be fully dynamic and physics based - its the only way of the future. Id be willing to keep graphics the way they are now, and have EA, 2K, SCEA and the like only work on physics and AI. I'm so done with canned animations and limited outcomes. As for leaving out the dangerous plays? I think if it's in the game, we should see it in the simulation representation. There's only a matter of time before games get so good, that youll be playing a "safe" version of your game, that has all kinds of dynamic, realistic, surprising and regular outcomes that you could ask for, but you'll be watching hockey one day and think, "Why wasnt that high-stick and injury I saw in the the real game in the video game?". Sadly, fewer injuries and dangerous plays = few outcomes, and is not realistic.

I don't see how you can get rid of animations completely in any game. Even Backbreaker limited its physics implementation to collisions. Players still have to run, throw, attempt to catch, swat, etc. You need animations for all that stuff.