Comments on: Indie Game Developers Can Compete With Big Studios On Game Physics

By: Chuck

Chuck — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:28:06 +0000

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!

By: Erwin Coumans

Erwin Coumans — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:55:35 +0000

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

By: Indies Have Opportunity with Physics Games » Fun-Motion Physics Games

Indies Have Opportunity with Physics Games » Fun-Motion Physics Games — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:35:48 +0000

[...] 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). [...]

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:51:09 +0000

Because of course shooters are the only games which can implement a physics engine…

By: visitor

visitor — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:01:15 +0000

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

By: Gregg

Gregg — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:03:57 +0000

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.

By: ErikH2000

ErikH2000 — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 22:56:46 +0000

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

By: Ahelus

Ahelus — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 22:26:22 +0000

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.

By: Kim

Kim — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:03:54 +0000

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.

By: Ahelus

Ahelus — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 12:59:32 +0000

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 .