An F-22 Raptor will completely destroy any Auraxis ESF,Stop focusing on wut doest make sense!!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Rustler, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. Wobberjockey

    i'm just going to bring this up again:

    Real Life makes a crappy game designer


    and consider that 10 years ago consumers didn't have the computing power to solve the physics equations that are in games today.

    and you expect an ESF to be as competent as military jet? honestly if ESF's moved as fast as a military jet, they would cross indar in less than a second. it would be nowhere near fun. for ANY party.
  2. Rown

    Well, a civilization with wormholes is surely rotten. No surprise they make crappy equipment.
    • Up x 1
  3. Colt556

    Well then, we all know the solution. If modern jets would cross Indar in seconds, then we simply have to make Indar bigger. A game released in 2001 had the largest map ever created in video games (even today) with no zones, no loading times, all seamless. Surely PS2 can do the same, right?
  4. LectraWyraph

    I'm an average to poor Scythe pilot most of the time, and I go infiltrator when my ESF and lighting are on cooldown... And even though I enjoy bombarding ground targets while fleeing from other ESFs, I agree OP. It's already easy enough to kill ground targets specifically infantry and infantry on flashes, especially if they don't have flak armor, I don't see any reason ESFs need to do more damage. ESFs certed for ground bomding are supposed to counter infantry, and ground vehicles, but yes, one shotting them would be ridiculous.

    As for realism I think it can sometimes be nice, but some people honestly take it too far. I think while a lot of realism is nice, adding too much can ruin a video game.
  5. Zorro

    It does make sense, and is realistic. ESF's are ground-attack fighters, not air-superiority fighters or interceptors. If the latter two are ever added, then they would leave the Raptor in the dust.
  6. Mastachief

    Sorry.... what?
  7. Rustler

    Why in the hell will a civilization who has used wormholes use such slow moving/dumbfire rocket launching aircraft?


    They will use way better tech.
  8. Wobberjockey

    10 yearold hardware cannot handle the in game physics simulations that modern games use. there is a reason that if you go back 10 years, almost everything was hit scan and you didn't have collision physics. it was too comutationaly expensive at the time.


    even today, realistically simulating fluids such as water can eat as much processing and graphical power as you care to throw at it. asking for a global, accurately modeled, game with players in actual planes and vehicles, ballistic physics, and accurately modeled crashes with vehicle, aircraft, structure, and terrain deformation (i.e. a real battle) is well beyond the ken of even top tier hardware.


    um... no?


    http://gamingbolt.com/ten-largest-worlds-in-video-games
    Elder scrolls 2 was released in 96 and was 62,394 mi^2 (161,599 km^2) that's the size of the US state of georgia.
    Next there is the entire world of Lord of the Rings Online with (not including Moria, Lothlorien, the Riddermark and any future expansions) at about 30,000 mi^2 (77,699 km^2)

    you will notice that neither of these are shooters, or have to simulate anything past an arrow shot. in fact the largest such game is in the just cause 2 neighborhood of 400 mi^2 (1036 km^2)

    Indar weighs at a little more than 24 mi^2 (the devs have stated it is 64 km^2) plus it offers a MUCH smoother shooter experience than PS1 could ever hope to.

    now consider that the estimated top speed of the F-22 raptor is Mach 1.82, and in all likelihood is faster (educated guesses put it in the mach 2.2-2.5 range at altitude) that comes out to be about 624 m/s or 1397.25 MPH (2248 KPH) so that means that it could cover indar edge to edge in a little over 12 seconds. my bad on my first post.

    at that speed, the game would have to be immensely rebalanced because
    A) you will be shooting at targets you can't see, due to render distance averaging 300m means you will have a 1/2 a second from when it draws to when it is on top of you (for reference most humans have a 3/4 second reaction time, most NHL goalies are in the 1/2 second range. thats what is necessary to react to a slapshot from the blue line)
    B) such a fast plane wouldn't be fun to even fly, because you would spend more time positioning for your attack runs than you would actually doing anything.
    C) Nothing in the game goes that fast already. the closest things i can think of are the sniper prowlers we had back in GU03 when their shells were going 600m/s with anchor 4. (ap was working out to 750 IIRC) I think sniper rifle bullets are next with a 525m/s speed. Please elaborate how you plan to shoot down a 600m/s ESF with your 200m/s phoenix. (ProTip: You can't. This is how the SR-71 worked; you can't hit what you can't catch)

    not to mention the fact that every inch they increase the game world means that the hardware costs to RUN PS2 increase by a squared factor.

    so no, this is NOT just a simple case of "make it bigger already"
    • Up x 2
  9. Colt556

    You'll note that list of yours doesn't even include ww2ol. And last time I checked, half of Europe is a little larger than Georgia. WW2OL is never represented in these sort of things, but it still holds the largest map in gaming history. And it was an MMOFPS same as PS2. It was also released back in 2001, and then re-released in 2006 with some modernization. Planes and vehicles have realistic travel speeds in that game as well. So that WW2 fighter plane is traveling faster than an ESF. They managed to make it perfectly balanced and fun, over a decade ago.

    So I can't agree with any defense you can come up with.

    Edit: It would seem I had made a mistake. WW2OL isn't the largest, it would appear to be the fourth largest at 11,500 square miles. Putting it a little under Guild Wars. Even so, 11,500 square miles compared to 24 of PS2, still a HUGE difference.

    P.S. To the first part of your post. WW2OL, again, a game released in 2001 (although these aspects may be from the re-release in 2006 I do not know). Was an MMOFPS simulator. It simulated "a global, accurately modeled, game with players in actual planes and vehicles, ballistic physics, and accurately modeled crashes with vehicle, aircraft, structure, and terrain deformation"

    Aka, the stuff you said even modern hardware couldn't do, this game was doing back in 2006, maybe even in 2001. On a map that was 30k square kilometers with over ten thousand players on at a single time. So no, these things would not tax modern hardware. Because we've had the hardware to smoothly run this sort of stuff for a decade.
  10. Wobberjockey

    to my knowledge, only the red faction series of games has attempted to tackle true terrain deformation, and i cannot find any indication that WW2OL ever included it.

    and while there is a fairly accurate damage model of tanks and such, metal does not deform when impacting a solid, immovable surface, like say, a boulder. so no vehicle deformation

    also, i'm not seeing any mention anywhere of taking down an entire building by driving a tank through it, or any other means of players removing structures on the fly. so no structural deformation

    so, no, not real world. it's CLOSE, but as hardware has progressed, we are using more and more computationally intensive methods to simulate the real world in increasing accuracy.

    which is why we still don't have a game that accurately simulates real combat.
    and i doubt we will because as i said in my first post in my thread, reality makes a ****** game designer

    p.s. comparing ww2 hardware to modern military hardware is like comparing apples to oranges.
    the faster something is moving the more simulation cycles you need to run/second in order to check for collision, lest you have an issue with projectiles passing through their targets. that alone increases your hardware demands by quite a bit. i would be willing to bet that even WW2OL would have trouble handling jets capable of mach 2
    • Up x 1
  11. Colt556

    Nobody is asking for true terrain deformation or metal being warped or anything of that nature. Everyone is asking for things that WW2OL had.

    Structures would break if they took damage, they couldn't be completely leveled but destruction =/= leveling. The buildings broke, that's destruction. So yes, it had structural deformation, aka destruction.

    If you go to extremes that nobody even wants, then yes, you are right. But that's stupid and I, nor anyone else, cares. What we want is destructible environments, not super duper detailed impacts on tanks and completely 100% deformable terrain/buildings. Because that's not realistic, it's a pipe dream, and everybody knows it. Even the battlefield games can't/don't do it. What we DO want has been accessible since 2000. We want to shoot a building and have a hole appear. This is possible. We want to have simulated ballistics. This is possible. We want to have simulated damage models. This is possible. If I shoot a tank in the slit of it's engine radiator, I want to take out it's engine so that it's stuck there unable to move. If I shoot the window of a building I want a hole to appear so that those inside have to run for cover.

    All of that has been possible for over a decade and all of that was in the very first MMOFPS ever created. So yeah, again, if you go with extremes that nobody wants/cares about, your post is valid. But extremes are bad. PS2, if it was built on a decent engine and had decent optimization and a company who actually cared to put effort in, could easily have destructible environments. It could have fully simulated hitboxes. We could have things where a shot to the leg slowed you. Where shooting the connection between turret and chassis could jam your turret. We could have all of this if the devs and their publisher were willing to put in the effort. It is not even close to being beyond our hardware. As I said, our hardware has been capable of handling this since 2000.
    • Up x 1
  12. MiZrY

    Form over function does not get the job done
  13. MiZrY

    They work. It has issues sure... but it's just way to damn expensive to operate and maintain to justify further development to be combat ready and practical. The aircraft was more intended as, "hey! look what I can do!!", then an actual replacement to the US's current aircraft.

    The aircraft to worry about is whatever they are developing now that no one knows about.
  14. Wobberjockey

    1 nobody is a damn wide net. i know i care about it, and i know several others who do.

    2 my point was simply that there is ALWAYS more you can do. engineering (any sort, not just software) is all about performance tradeoffs. why do you think games start to look progressively better on consoles even though the root hardware doesn't change? because the coders have gotten better at taking shortcuts to get more out of the same system.

    3 compared to 10 years ago, today's hardware is light years ahead. a GTX 660 has about 1/8 the number of processors as the most powerful supercomputers of '01. and back then the fastest processor you could get your hands on was what? a Pentium 4? clocked at a blazing 1.4ghz? again physics simulations are more than capable of eating whatever power you throw at them. i don't care what engine you want to use, PS2 could not exist 10 years ago

    4 in the end it's all in the trade off of fun. i have no idea what you are talking about for battlefield, because i know dice has been pushing frostbite and blowing holes in buildings for quite a while now. some people find more realistic games fun. don't believe me? look at ARMA. that game sells, and it's a damn sight more realistic than anything else we have discussed in this thread.

    5 you keep saying SOE doesn't care as surely as one would claim the sun will rise. where's your proof that they don't? this isn't taking the unreal engine that has been tuned and tweaked over decades. this is building a car from scratch because the car you want doesn't exist. that means working out the bugs as you go. if you want to be overly pessimistic, then the door is over there, and you are free to leave. the rest of us realize that things are going to get better, and they HAVE gotten better in the 4 months since release.
    which is a damn sight better than the majority of game devs these days
    • Up x 1
  15. Colt556

    1: Nobody would realistically expect to get the extremes you mentioned. No game has them, and certainly never PS2.

    2: Your point really has nothing to do with my point, though. Sure there's always more you can do, but what's that have to do with them not doing what they SHOULD do?

    3: Nobody said it could exist 10 years ago, although it could. Since WW2OL existed more than ten years ago and managed to have all this stuff. So even ten years it was possible, although not optimal. Today it should certainly have all the bells and whistles, including destructible terrain and realistic damage models.

    4: No battlefield game allows for total destructibility, like you mentioned. Battlefield games don't have tanks get dented from impacts. Battlefield games do not allow you to completely level everything. It has it's limits. Even they can't give us the complete destruction we desire. So obviously PS2 never will.

    5: I was here for most of the beta, four months after release I can honestly say that in many ways, the beta was better. Performance is SLIGHTLY better, but then they often relapse on that. Balance is far worse now than it was in beta. In many ways they've been going backwards. Bugs that existed in beta still exist today, and every patch puts out an absurd amount of bugs. And exceptionally obvious bugs.

    On top of that we can look to see what their predecessors and competitors have managed to pull off and then see just how lackluster PS2 really is. As I've mentioned, WW2OL launched in 2001 with one of the largest maps ever created in video games. It allowed for thousands of players to play in that one, seamless world. No loading screens. No zones. One persistent world. It allowed for destructible terrain, you could blow up bridges, you could blow up houses. It had a realistic simulator for ballistics and damage models which was improved on it's re-release. All of this was done in ******* 2001.

    Let's take a more modern and closer to home example. Two years later another MMOFPS was released. It was called PS1. This game was released with continents of equal size to PS2 continents, however they released with ten of these and three sanctuaries. They released with nearly thirty vehicles. They released with a unique cert system that required specialization and didn't allow for super soldiers. They had a very team-oriented game with a lot of mechanics only being possible through team play. They had a diverse array of gameplay, from stealth saboteurs to supply truck drivers. They had a lot of social elements as well, such as tons of emotes and voice macros that allowed you to both just hang out and communicate effectively in the battlefield. They launched, day one, with ten times as much content as PS2.

    They also faced all the same problems PS2 has, and more. Back then computers were even worse, so they had to deal with weak hardware. They had to deal with their own, custom-made game engine that was made specifically for PS1. They had to deal with trying to squeeze the best graphics without making the game unplayable. They also had to deal with problems PS2 doesn't have. Like lag. Now you might go "PS2 has lag" but that's because of poor design choices. PS1 launched in an era where 56k was the dominant connection. Where higher internet speeds were only just beginning to come into play.

    So now I look back and I see these developers spend two or three years on a game and release it with overwhelming amounts of content. Then I look to PS2 and see it release with three continents the same size as PS1 continents. I see it release with lackluster graphics for it's day (something PS1 did as well) without the benefits that come with them, aka more content. I see the devs shoveling out the same ******* gun with minor stat changes (New NS-11 anyone?) I see them dumbing the game down so horrendously, removing all command elements, specialization, implants, team gameplay mechanics. I see them launching the game without even any metagame or endgame content, ensuring the game is literally just an upscaled BF3 TDM.

    I see them spend years on a game that doesn't have even a fraction of the content PS1 had, even four months after launch.

    So tell me, how can devs 10 years ago release a game with so much content after just a couple years of development. Yet devs of today, with all the advances in tools, can't? Why does it take them 8 months to make a continent when you could make a continent that looks just as good in a month using procedurally generated terrain? Why does it take them 6 months to release one ******* buggy? Why does it take them YEARS after release just to get the game to a "full" state?

    So yeah, I will say they don't care. Because if they did care PS2 would have launched as a complete game. Instead it launched as an Alpha build and then nickle and dime you with a new gun every week that costs 7 ******* dollars.
  16. JudgeDeath

    F22 would allso be forced to do a constant circle over the battlefield to prevent from going over the continent borders all the time ;)

    But I do generally believe in suspension of disbelief. In this game its paid sadly low attention on.
  17. Wobberjockey

    so it never once occurred to you that back in beta, performance may have been better due to an order of magnitude fewer clients on the server at the same time?

    -a fellow beta tester.




    As to the rest of what i said: you said no game does building deformation. i gave you a counterexample. your assertion was proven false. don't try to wriggle out of it and claim that your still right because of some other factor BF lacks.

    and I FULLY expect to play the game I described before I die. (i figure the next 5-6 decades baring an accident) given how far technology advances yearly, and Moore's law I see the issue a matter of will, not feasibility.

    and finally, you still haven't explained your way out of the following issue:
    how do we simulate something the size of WW2OL with the desired level of shooter and physics accuracy AND include a plane that travels approximately 4.2 times FASTER than your average ww2 fighter? (using a spitfire's 330mph speed as a baseline, and the officially released mach1.82 speed of the raptor)

    at the very least we are going need to increase the simulation tick rate by a factor of 4 in order to maintain the same level of accuracy. if we don't, it's possible that we could fly that plane through a building or under the earth given the right circumstances. (close enough to the ground and moving rapidly enough that one tick starts in the ok zone, and the next one has the plane flying through stuff) a more realistic effect would be that the plane would simply have shots that should have hit pass straight through it doing no damage.

    just because game X does Z does not mean that feature can be ported into game Y. i would not be surprised to learn that WW2OL uses a ton of infrastructure tricks in order to keep the game running at an acceptable level.

    i don't have any special knowledge of WW2OL's code, nor PS2's, but i do know enough that this is not a simple issue of lazy coders and execs saying "64 km^2 is big enough" and basing their design decisions around that. there are real world limitations at play that make PS2 the size it is, and everything else in the game, EVERYTHING is flowing from that...right down to the speed of ESF's and bullets.

    so again: THEY CAN NOT JUST MAKE IT BIGGER.

    p.s.

    so nobody is saying A, but i am saying A.

    stop making absolute statements. you don't speak for everyone on the forums(much less gamers the world over), and you do yourself no favors when you make an absolute statement and then contradict yourself before you hit the end of the sentence.
    • Up x 2
  18. Colt556

    Order of magnitude fewer players? Using terms you don't understand to sound smart doesn't work. They handed out THOUSANDS of beta keys. In the later stages of the beta the servers were just as populated as they are now. Also keep in mind beta only had one server per region, so only one US east server. That funneled all the players in them. Add on to that the fact that a continent can only support 2k players and there was only Indar for the longest time and you end up with having the same amount of players. Sure there may be more players overall, spread out over the three continents and fifteen servers (ok they merged some, I know). But the amount of players in a single battle. The amount of players on a single continent are pretty much the same, because while the beta had fewer players overall, all those players were forced together.

    I never once claimed no game does building deformation, you need to read more carefully. I said no game takes it to the extremes you mentioned. No game allows you to completely level entire buildings. No game simulates every little thing. No game allows dynamic dents to appear on vehicles from every impact. No game does the extremes you talked about. That is not the same as them not doing anything at all. Of course battlefield has destructible environments. That's their biggest selling point now days.

    Everyone fully expects to play games like that LONG before they die. We'll be playing games like that in ten years if the console market crashes, thirty or forty if it doesn't. But nobody expects to play games like that today. So you are, yet again, saying stuff that doesn't matter.

    And lastly, there is something I need to address. You don't have to allow the fighters to go faster than the speed of sound. That speed is a Raptor's cruise speed. That is -NOT- it's combat speed. Planes, in real life, have certain speeds at which they actually fight. And it is far, far below their cruise speed. So all you'd have to do is make them go a reasonable speed, which for modern fighter jets would be around 400-600mph. If you had a continent the size of WW2OL that isn't that big of a deal. It's not like modern fighter's go one speed and nothing else. They have a top speed but they can fly slower in order to actually shoot things. Kind of hard to shoot something going mach 1.

    Continuing off that, you really wouldn't have to change THAT much because the plane isn't going all that much faster. It's a few hundred KPH difference. Our computers and our connections can easily handle that sort of thing, seeing as how plenty of other games manage to have fighter planes going that fast. Now whether PS2's engine can support it is another matter entirely and one I don't care about. I am simply saying it is more than possible and the devs could have done it if they actually wanted to.

    And to finish it up. It is entirely lazy execs going "this is big enough" because to make it bigger would require more work which means more money. The entire game, from the engine to the balance was built around the size of these continents. EVERYTHING was built to facilitate the continent sizes. Everything. If the continents were bigger, you would have to create an engine that wasn't an unoptimized piece of **** and could actually utilize modern hardware instead of strangling even the strongest processors just to render 64 players at the same time. And if they had done that they could have also made larger continents.

    What you do not understand is that all the problems are entirely on their end. Modern computers, even the most common ones, can easily support the things I am talking about. They have been able to support them since 2000. But you need a game designed around the idea of utilizing these concepts and hardware advances. PS2 was designed, from the ground up, to be as close to Battlefield as possible. It simply was not created with the idea of having a 30,000 square kilometer continent. As such they didn't put any work into making such a thing a reality.

    From the start I have been saying that it is possible if they wanted to do it. ALL of our computers could handle it. Any player who plays PS2 now could play an MMOFPS with a single massive continent, fully simulated ballistics and damage models, destructible terrain, and realistically moving vehicles. Every. Single. Player. That plays PS2 today could handle such a game. But only if the developers of that game designed it and built it properly. If it was an unoptimized mess like PS2 is, then obviously no, we couldn't play it. But if it was built properly and was optimized, you can bet your pretty pink ******* that we could play that game with good fps.

    They, instead of pushing the envelope and really testing the bounds of what was possible, opted to copy BF3 and rushed their game out the door with virtually zero content and not even the ability to facilitate the large battles that constituted their on and only selling point. You can defend them all you want, but facts are facts.

    P.S. My statements don't speak for gamers, but for their hardware. Nobody in this thread except for me said such a game was possible ten years ago, and I say that not to speak for anyone else. But because such a game ALREADY EXISTED ten years ago.

    You just need to accept the fact that computer hardware is a lot beefier than you think, and you need to stop using PS2 as a benchmark because it is a horribly unoptimized garbage game when it comes to performance. A game is only as good as it's coders can make it.
  19. Wobberjockey

    ok a few things:

    1 battles are most certainly bigger by an order of magnitude. biggest battle i think i saw in beta was maybe 50 people on a side?
    and then i was in the UES on amerish at the bastion. there were thousands in the at fight. i never saw them, but i think that's a safe assumption. easily an order of magnitude. even then it's nowhere near the level of hyperbole you have been employing this entire conversation.

    2. your comment about flight speed and combat speed only would be applicable if planes only got shot at while engaging enemy forces. 10 minutes in planetside will tell you that every ESF has a huge target painted on it, and will get shot at whenever it is seen and in range of the enemy. which means that even if our new, future raptor has a similar combat speed to the current ESF, we still need to be able to simulate collisions between projectiles at it's maximum possible speed. it's not implausible that our raptor ESF would fly through a flak clout aimed at something else (or properly led)


    3. you keep claiming that no game allows you to completely level buildings... yet that was the entire point of Red Faction Armageddon, and the destruction in BF2:BC2 and BF3 is close enough to qualify...or did you never experience the tactic of killing an m-com by blowing out the building walls until the entire thing collapsed? the fact that you can't do it by driving a thank through the wall is a technicality.

    4. thank you for finally admitting that programmers need to take shortcuts inorder to get a high level simulation working.
    and that is why it's inapplicable to say that WW2OL can be ported to the planetside universe and everything will work hunky dory.
    because it won't.
    computer engineering, just like any engineering, is a smoke and mirrors to hide the cases where it doesn't work. to quote:
    in the case of software, it's using constraints and snippets of formulas that will in all likely hood break spectacularly once the designed limits are exceeded. a common example is giving the illusion of a ballistic round by applying a delay between when the trigger is pulled and when the hit is checked for. the player has to lead in a similar manner to a ballistic model, but it is computationally far less expensive.

    as we don't know exactly what was coded into ww2ol, we cannot assume that it could support planetside, nor should we assume so.
    that's like saying that because a game was coded in one engine it can be simply dragged and dropped into another.

    5. which brings with my next point. Take Tribes, Torque was capable of generating huge amounts of terrain, basicaly on the fly, leading to a 'soft' OOB grid that held the flag inside it, but players could pass through freely. Hi rez built Tribes ascend on the UT engine which requires bounded worlds.
    yes, perhaps we could build PS2 in the WW2OL engine, but if that means that it still looks like PS1 do you think anyone is going to play it now days?
    Yes graphics only mean so much compared to game play, but let's be honest, a game is NOT going to sell in todays environment if it looks like it was originally designed to run on a VooDoo card

    and one more point, how long do you think a shooter built on an engine that was fresh 10 years ago can continue to be maintained and updated to be current? replacing a game engine is not a simple affair, and certainly more complex than slapping a new CPU into a motherboard. there comes a time when rebuilding from scratch is better.

    6. You seem to think this entire issue flows from lack of will, but your argument is valid if, and only if, there are no other technological problems affecting development. which i assure you, you would be naive to assume there were not. If it was going to cost an extra 25% of the budget to get from 64km^2 to 100km^2. or perhaps, going back to point 4, things started to break at 81 km^2 (what? how should i know? i didn't code PS2.) or, again, we are back to that fact that we are dealing with squared terms. every time we increase the map size by X, the simulated area increases to X^2. At some point you are going to out class currently available server hardware. Something has to give somewhere. Soe is not going to build the next TITAN in order to run a game. It's not going to happen.

    But you seem to be incapable of admitting this and want to lay all the blame at Smed's feet. Why? did he kick your dog?
  20. Colt556

    Order of magnitude, people love using this phrase as if it makes them look smarter. Biggest battle I saw in beta was just as big as the largest battles I've seen at any period after launch. It was the same number of players. Also, thousands? Really? Thousands? Yeah, no. No server has ever been able to field the entire continent population into a single battle. Even the largest crown fights didn't have more than a couple hundred players total. And even then, as you said yourself, you can't ******* see them anyways. So from your perspective, what you can see, the battle's the same anyways. But even from a technical standpoint, I participated in multi-hundred player battles in beta, same as I have after launch.

    So, for gameplay purposes, it's maximum capable speed is it's combat speed. Why? Because it's a combat zone. Raptors don't go cruise speed when performing attacks. Modern hardware is MORE than capable of detecting collisions between two objects going far faster than 100 mph. It does depend on the game engine and netcode, which in turn depends on the developers. Certainly PS2 couldn't do it because it's a mess. But hardware wise it's easy, you just need devs to make use of that hardware properly. I truly do not understand why you are trying so hard to make this seem like some immensely difficult and impossible task that would eat up our processors when, in truth, it's a very simple thing that puts virtually no strain on the user whatsoever.


    No battlefield game allows you to completely reduce the level to a perfectly flat, barren wasteland. Really no FPS game does. Even Red Faction doesn't allow you to demolish entire levels to that degree. Sure they COULD, it's possible, our computers could easily handle it. But they don't. It all depends on the engine and the developer's willingness to put it in.



    Such things can't be ported to PS2 because PS2 is a very poorly designed game from a technical standpoint. It struggles to do things games were doing a decade ago. It is simply not a well put together engine and has a great deal of optimization left to become anything halfway decent. If a game was built around the concept of utilizing such things, then yeah it could do so quite easily. If I went out there today, had a couple million dollars and a few devs who knew what they were doing, I could deliver to you an MMOFPS with fully destructible terrain, simulated ballistics effected by simulated weather with simulated damage models that are all perfectly realistic that even simulate blood loss and broken bones. I could give you planes that fly at mach 5 while still having proper hit detection. Modern computers are more than capable of handling all of this. It's not something that requires a supercomputer.

    It just requires actual effort be put in. So while PS2 sure as hell couldn't do it, a game designed to have these features could. I have also said on numerous posts that PS2 can't support these sort of things because PS2 is a poorly designed game from a technical standpoint. My entire argument with you is because you claimed modern hardware couldn't handle these things. PS2 really has nothing to do with it.



    Building PS2 in the WW2OL engine would just be dumb. It's a decade old. A new engine built with new technologies should be used. But the same features can still be implemented. You could still have a decent looking game that has all the fancy things like destructible terrain, simulated ballistics, simulated damage models. Indeed I do not even know why you would even think to suggest we build a modern game on a decade old engine, that is just downright ********. Especially when I never even so much as hinted at doing such a thing. Truly this entire point should be ignored because it's just dumb. But I responded anyways, make a similarly idiotic point again and I'll just ignore it. I mean come on dude, re-using a decade old engine? Jeez.

    Everything comes down to lack of will. EVERYTHING. Why? Because other games have proven such things are possible. Yet PS2 doesn't do them. Maybe it's technical problems on PS2's end, but that as well stems from lack of will from the developers to fix these issues. They've had ******* years to do so. It comes down to lack of will from SOE to fork up the cash to fix these problems. It comes down to lack of will, period.

    It has been proven, for over a decade, that you can have your cake and eat it to. You are, again, making it seem like what I am talking about requires some super advanced hardware. You clearly do not know much about programming or computers in general. Truthfully I'm not some expert myself, luckily I'm friends with experts who work on these very issues. I can most certainly assure you, EVERYTHING I have mentioned can easily be handled by modern computers. Even computers from 5 years ago could handle it, although they would struggle.

    But I will spell it out for you, just what is possible. Easily possible.

    A massive, seamless continent with varying climates. We could have a 100,000 square kilometer continent, no load times, no zones, no instances, all seamless transition. You could fly, drive, run, swim from one side to the other if you so desired. It could have varying climates, the north has snow, the south is desert. It could have a dynamic weather system built into it so you had stormfronts moving realistically across the continent. The game could have fully simulated ballistics that are even effected by the wind, the rain. We could have fully simulated damage models so that a well placed shot through the radiator vents can take out a tank's engine. Or that a grenade can tear of someone's leg and force them to crawl around.

    We CAN have most of what players dream about, concessions would still need to be made because our imaginations are vast, but much of it can be accomplished. And no, you wouldn't need a supercomputer. You wouldn't need a Titan or some super processor. If you can play PS2, you could play that game. It all just comes down to whether or not the developers can capitalize on the power computers possess. If they can, then it's all possible. If they can't, you get PS2.

    So please, just.. please, stop acting like we're asking for some science fiction grade stuff that would require a nasa supercomputer to run. Because we're not. All of this stuff is things that would make the most out of modern hardware, not even really push it. So any problems PS2 has is not because of hardware limitations, but software limitations. AKA, the devs.