Indie Game Developers Can Compete With Big Studios On Game Physics
It’s a great time to be a game player – games look more and more realistic as graphics technology improves, and shader-capable graphics cards have become a necessity. We’re at the beginning of another game technology cycle – Microsoft’s XBox 360 is already out, and the buzz about Nintendo’s Wii and Sony’s PS3 paints a very exciting gaming future for all of us.
For indie developers, this new cycle brings with it good and bad news. The good news is, console manufacturers have recognized the importance of the indie game development community, and have provided opportunities to allow indie games to appear on the next-gen consoles, resulting in a very wide audience for the indie developer. Garagegames, through the Torque Shader Engine, provides a solution for aspiring XBox 360 developers. There has been buzz going on about Nintendo offering a low-cost Wii development kit. The next generation brings with it more opportunities for indie game developers.
However, powerful hardware demands powerful software. Gamers’ expectations are higher than ever. Although assuming risk has always been inherent to being an indie game developer, game production budgets have ballooned to the millions of dollars, which is something that the average indie game developer cannot afford. The great ideas are there, but the barrier to entry has risen so high, and continues to rise even more.
Bottom line is, game production has become more expensive because of increasing gamers’ expectations, which are basically game content expectations. And bringing in high quality content into games has become possible because of the increasing capabilities, in particular, graphics capabilities, of the video card. Gamers demand an immersive experience. And this is made possible through realism – the games look real.
But do the games feel real?
I think that the next generation of video games will compete not on visuals, but on physics. And I’m definitely not the first, or even among the first thousand people, to figure this out. Ageia produces PhysX, a dedicated physics processing unit, that will facilitate physics computations for games, which is the basically the same idea behind the introduction of the mass-market graphics processing unit about a decade ago. Even ATI and NVIDIA, today’s leading graphics card manufacturers, acknowledge this trend, and have made efforts to offer physics processing on their graphics cards. Dedicated hardware for 3D graphics has resulted in a big leap for game visuals – many of the things that we take for granted now were unimaginable ten years ago – suddenly, graphics cards have become musts in computers.
For the past years, many games have competed mostly on the basis of visuals alone, offering better graphics, but essentially the same gameplay, and this has been the complaint of many gamers. However, with physics, many possibilities still remain unexplored, providing a fresh source of game innovation, which this industry badly needs.
Indies Can Do Physics
Primarily, making games look great has been a common problem for indie game developers because of the cost involved in generating content. Yes, the graphics technology is there, but a good 3D engine will only be able to showcase itself well if it is paired up with good art. I even agree that it is ultimately the game art, by the game artist, which will make a 3D engine succeed.
The bottom line is, graphically great games are ultimately made possible by artists, not by programmers. A programmer may have the best 3D engine code, but without the artist, the 3D engine will not be able to demonstrate what it’s really capable of.
This is not the case with physics. Doing physics is very much related to doing math, which is in turn very close to coding. To demonstrate physics, there’s no need to load up a 3D modeling app – the physics demos are mainly implemented in the code. A distinction can be made between artist’s art and programmer’s art, but it is the programmer who mainly implements the physics – game physics is programmer’s physics.
At the same time, having physics in games opens up the possibility for emergent gameplay, where possible game events do not come from a predetermined set of outcomes. With a physics engine, the game player is given an infinite number of options, limited only by the constraints of physics, which allows for a more complete, more immersive experience. Objects in the game can all be interactive, and the gamer can feel free to experiment.
Of course, this added interactivity comes at a very small cost. Instead of having to code individual game entity behaviors, you can let the physics engine handle the behavior of game objects. And as a bonus, all these individual entities will interact in the correct way when needed, for instance, if they collide with one another. The physics engine should figure these all out.
The bottom line is, the power to implement physics in games is in the programmer’s hands. And programming is something which the indie is very, very good at.
Physics Options for the Indie
I will make more posts in the future about the specific options indie game developers have for adding physics to their games.
One way of integrating physics in games is by utilizing a physics library, such as the freely-available Open Dynamics Engine. Another option is to work on your game using a game engine which already supports physics, such as Unity, which has Ageia’s PhysX Technology integrated into it. Some of the ideas contained in this article come from the websites of these two pieces of software, and I would like to thank them for this.
A lot of indie game developers have already explored the possibility of adding physics to their games. Matthew Wegner covers this extensively in his website, Fun-Motion, which primarily covers physics-based games. On this site, you will see that physics allows for many possibilities, and I’m sure that you’ll be able to come up with your own innovations.
The bottom line is, physics has already been identified as one of the key technologies for next generation’s games, and indies already have the capability to make physics-based games. This is a great opportunity which I hope will result in great and innovative games from the indie game development community, for the next-generation gamer.


July 2nd, 2006 at 5:59 am
Don’t forget that the best game ever invented and most popular (ie chess for example). Don’t even use any shaders or special effects. Any game you could invent are just advanced classic game… I mean that WoW is just a sort of Real Time Chess Game.
Which is interresting is not how beautiful it is, but how this game is stimulating my neurons. Is this game a new game ? Need I to learn some new way of thinking, new skills. Thing that append when you learn algebra. Personnaly, that’s what i’m waiting from a game… a new way of thinking…
A game shouldn’t just mimic things that could append in the real world.
Whatever it is wonderful but not groundbreaking… It’s like XGL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xgl, it is beautiful but will this change the way I use my computer ? Is it more efficent ? don’t think so.
What is the difference between American football and Rugby ? Rules which made the game different and most important the strategies different (it’s not only about show
.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Agreed that physics can help make a game feel less ‘scripted’ or more natural (not necesarily realistic – depends what you try and model). This can help breathe new life into tired genres.
N, Gish, Marble Blast Ultra, are just a few examples.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
I didn’t knew about this games. They looks fine maybe try it later. Do you know rRootage ? http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~cs8k-cyu/windows/rr_e.html
Love this game ! It’s always the same thing but it is simply beautiful, simple but beautiful
.
Did you about this guy http://www.eyezmaze.com/ ? Interresting game, because of original ideas. Simple and efficient, whatever he can’t make a complete game but could make an RPG and add this little games in it.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I agree that physics in games can be really cool and it’s an area that hasn’t been fully exploited. But… it’s really just one area where games could innovate. And to be honest, any idea where you say “here is a general way that games can be innovative” is going to be less than useful. Did Alexei Pajhitnov read an article suggesting that falling shapes and pattern-matching were going to be big and then go on to invent Tetris? No, he came up with the *specific* design of Tetris which was innovative.
The other thing is I don’t think indie developers should fetishize reality-simulating games. It’s probably the area that indies are least likely to succeed in over the long run due to big studios outgunning them with resources. There’s probably more room for novelty in abstract game designs (i.e. chess–right on, Athelus) because you are not limited to mimicing reality.
-An Indie Developer
July 14th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Where would Half-Life 2′s gravity gun be without the physics engine? Half-Life 2 is a fine example of this argument – emergent play (through physics)I believe is vital to a game which encourages true playing and exploration of interaction.
I’ve been playing UFO:Enemy Unknown lately and I’ve come to understand that some of its gameplay systems, however simple, open up many different variations on play that surpass many modern game efforts – allowing different approaches to any single situation.
Great article.
July 18th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
wow, this is one big bucket of crap, physics and graphics can both kiss my ass. Has anyone here noticed that there are other games than shooters? I’m sick of doing the same thing over and over, just with new graphics, new physics, new enemies, new levels… it’s even more bornig than a game of Super mario…
shoot yourself guys
July 20th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Because of course shooters are the only games which can implement a physics engine…
July 20th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
[...] Chuck Arellano over at scriptedfun has posted a great piece about the competitive qualities of designing physics-based games from the perspective of an indie developer. He makes the case that physics represents an unexplored terrain of game ideas, and physics are within reach of the indie developer. I definitely agree that physics games are unique in the sense that clever ideas have a lot of legs without requiring massive amounts of content (Armadillo Run is a perfect example). [...]
July 21st, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Physics simulation provides ways of using the computer to automate content creating, rather then pre-animate everything. Homebrew/indy/enthousiast are exploring this area, and it will be fun to see what people come up with.
I’m currently giving away a PSP for some physics-based games using Blender + Bullet Physics Engine, and it’s cool to see what people come up with.
http://www.continuousphysics.com/mediawiki-1.5.8/index.php?title=Entries
October 20th, 2006 at 6:28 am
I haven’t replied to people in a very long time, and for this I apologize. Thank you so much to everyone for visiting the site and leaving valuable feedback.
Thank you to everyone who read and commented on this physics article! It’s great to hear everyone’s opinion on the aspect of games which I think has a lot of potential for growth.
In particular, I agree with Matthew’s opinion (Fun-Motion) that the issue at hand is a content issue, not a programmer/artist one. And at the same time, it’s not only the programmers who can be independent-minded in the game development world – there also are independent-minded artists out there, contributing to game innovation.
Thank you so much to everyone!