Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Alex2213

Anyone know if the physics are back to how they were?

Recommended Posts

DexMacLeod

Please note: NPCs getting injured and reacting to wounds in various ways other than falling over is NOT physics. We are talking about two different things here, and that one is a facet of AI, not the physics system.

It's both. The Euphoria Engine is considered Biomechanical A.I. It doesn't just simulate how a model moves but how it reacts to everything in its environment. Characters holding wounds when they're shot, pushing open doors, and grabbing onto their car door as you try to speed off in it is built into the Euphoria Physics engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutduster

But by definition it's not physics. AI wrapped up in Euphoria is still AI. Don't want to get too wrapped up in splitting hairs though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DexMacLeod

I mean, yeah, it's not really physics, it's the simulation of physics, and it's using A.I. to simulate those physics but how NPC's react to being shot is directly tied to the physics engine. So it makes sense to refer to that as physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Synthetic_Soul
Posted (edited)

I think I need to clarify my last post:

 

I think for me personally it was more about the "punch" or impact you felt as the player when shooting someone in RDR. It's Not really the physics or the ai and how they react, but the actual feeling you got when pulling the trigger.

 

GTAV had no feeling. It just felt like you were shooting sacks of sand or some other inanimate object.

 

It's a hard thing to explain but there was no "punch"in GTAV

 

All the guns felt like water pistols.

Edited by Synthetic_Soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pjw
Posted (edited)

I feel that what made the combat of RDR superior to that of GTA V, more so than the over the top ragdoll physics, was the brutality of it and some of the particular ways in which NPCs reacted to being shot.

 

In RDR gunshots resulted in huge blood splats and gory exits wounds, whereas in GTAV there was little more than a small red patch where the target had been shot. In RDR, shooting an NPC's hand caused them to drop their weapon, shooting them in the gut without killing them would cause them to crawl while bleeding out, shooting their knees would incapacitate them but they'd still make an effort to shoot back at you - none of this was present in GTAV.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking the aforementioned aspects of RDR's combat are separate from the physics engine, but I feel it was those kind of details, not the exaggerated ragdoll effects (e.g someone doing a back flip after being shot in the chest) that made RDR's gunplay truly fantastic and a lack of which neutered GTAV's gunplay.

 

If I'm incorrect in my assumption that these things aren't intrinsically linked to the euphoria physics engine, please correct me. It's not like I have the faintest clue of how any of this technical stuff really works, lol.

Edited by pjw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xayah

Physics will be different than GTA 5's. RDR2 is a different game with different weapons, where fully automatic are basically non existent (i think atleast), so the feel HAS to be the same as RDR, with a punch. I dont think it will look good if you shoot a guy with a revolver and he dies with 1 shot like in gta 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catskill

I hope the physics are more in tone with RDR than GTA V.

 

RDR by far had the most satisfying gunplay/shooting physics of all Rockstar titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~INDIO~

 

I ​think the simple fact of having a slow-mo killcam similar to Max Payne 3 is telltale sign that the physics will be great. There'd be no point in it if the physics were sh*t, at least imo

The physics won't be sh*t, that is for certain, but they won't be very sophisticated in order to reel in more casual/mainstream players, who prefer GTAV's arcady physics over the more realistic GTAIV's world.

That makes no sense. How does having sh*tty physics get them more players? They'll have less people playing the game, if anything😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutduster
Posted (edited)

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of casual players don't give much of a f*ck about physics one way or the other, especially stuff like ragdolling. Now, the driving physics of V might appeal to them more than IV (they sure did to me), but whether bodies react much to being shot in their extremities - casual players probably don't even notice, much less care or make buying decisions based on that. So having simplified or less ragdollish physics in RDR2 isn't going to have one iota of impact on their sales.

 

The one bit of on-foot physics that casual players would sort of notice is the weight and responsiveness of the player avatar. But that should be something Rockstar can tweak independent of the physics for NPCs.

Edited by Nutduster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash_735

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of casual players don't give much of a f*ck about physics one way or the other, especially stuff like ragdolling. Now, the driving physics of V might appeal to them more than IV (they sure did to me), but whether bodies react much to being shot in their extremities - casual players probably don't even notice, much less care or make buying decisions based on that. So having simplified or less ragdollish physics in RDR2 isn't going to have one iota of impact on their sales.

 

The one bit of on-foot physics that casual players would sort of notice is the weight and responsiveness of the player avatar. But that should be something Rockstar can tweak independent of the physics for NPCs.

Considering on gaming websites and forums I'm seeing more and more people say they want RDR/Max Payne 3 style of physics over the "basic" let down of GTAV's, I think more have noticed as time has gone by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutduster

 

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of casual players don't give much of a f*ck about physics one way or the other, especially stuff like ragdolling. Now, the driving physics of V might appeal to them more than IV (they sure did to me), but whether bodies react much to being shot in their extremities - casual players probably don't even notice, much less care or make buying decisions based on that. So having simplified or less ragdollish physics in RDR2 isn't going to have one iota of impact on their sales.

 

The one bit of on-foot physics that casual players would sort of notice is the weight and responsiveness of the player avatar. But that should be something Rockstar can tweak independent of the physics for NPCs.

Considering on gaming websites and forums I'm seeing more and more people say they want RDR/Max Payne 3 style of physics over the "basic" let down of GTAV's, I think more have noticed as time has gone by.

 

 

People who post on gaming web sites do not accurately represent the majority of players. They certainly aren't people I would describe as "casual" gamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash_735

People who post on gaming web sites do not accurately represent the majority of players. They certainly aren't people I would describe as "casual" gamers.

Yes of course, the ONLY demographic that matters is the "casual" 10 - 15 year old market who have access to credit cards or bank cards. Who cares what gaming fans or actual series fans think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz

GTA V's problem is not really the reaction physics, they are a bit stripped back but they so the job enough. The issue with V is the lack of a sense of weight. Simply walking around unarmed is OK, since the character does have weight to him but in combat this goes out the window. The character suddenly feels weightless and the the guns do not feel threatening due to a combination of bad sound design and lack of recoil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~INDIO~
Posted (edited)

 

 

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of casual players don't give much of a f*ck about physics one way or the other, especially stuff like ragdolling. Now, the driving physics of V might appeal to them more than IV (they sure did to me), but whether bodies react much to being shot in their extremities - casual players probably don't even notice, much less care or make buying decisions based on that. So having simplified or less ragdollish physics in RDR2 isn't going to have one iota of impact on their sales.

 

The one bit of on-foot physics that casual players would sort of notice is the weight and responsiveness of the player avatar. But that should be something Rockstar can tweak independent of the physics for NPCs.

Considering on gaming websites and forums I'm seeing more and more people say they want RDR/Max Payne 3 style of physics over the "basic" let down of GTAV's, I think more have noticed as time has gone by.

 

People who post on gaming web sites do not accurately represent the majority of players. They certainly aren't people I would describe as "casual" gamers.

Oh but YOU accurately represent the "majority players'" feelings.. Gotcha! Edited by ~INDIO~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutduster
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of casual players don't give much of a f*ck about physics one way or the other, especially stuff like ragdolling. Now, the driving physics of V might appeal to them more than IV (they sure did to me), but whether bodies react much to being shot in their extremities - casual players probably don't even notice, much less care or make buying decisions based on that. So having simplified or less ragdollish physics in RDR2 isn't going to have one iota of impact on their sales.

 

The one bit of on-foot physics that casual players would sort of notice is the weight and responsiveness of the player avatar. But that should be something Rockstar can tweak independent of the physics for NPCs.

Considering on gaming websites and forums I'm seeing more and more people say they want RDR/Max Payne 3 style of physics over the "basic" let down of GTAV's, I think more have noticed as time has gone by.

 

People who post on gaming web sites do not accurately represent the majority of players. They certainly aren't people I would describe as "casual" gamers.

Oh but YOU accurately represent the "majority players'" feelings.. Gotcha!

 

 

You misunderstand my point pretty much completely. I'm not speaking on anyone's behalf or making an argument about how the game should or shouldn't be. I'm also not making any kind of point about what I personally want out of the game - I am on record on this forum as preferring RDR's NPC physics over GTA V's, actually. But someone made an argument that the NPC physics in GTA V were "dumbed down" to somehow make the game sell better; the point of my reply was only that the majority of purchasers are casual gamers and most of those players probably wouldn't even notice the difference. Whatever the reasons were for the physics being different in V, I very much doubt that it was to sell more copies. Or that Rockstar would even think that somehow having simplified, less ragdollish physics would sell more copies of their game. That wasn't the reason for it, and whatever the physics end up being like in RDR2, that probably won't be sales-driven either.

 

Hopefully we are clear now and you can jump out of my ass. I would like to see more exaggerated and reactive physics in RDR2, just like we had in RDR. I think bringing back those physics would not hurt their sales or be a negative factor for the majority of players who buy the game. OK?

 

EDIT - If you look at where I first posted about this up above, it's right after a post by you and we're saying almost the exact same thing.

Edited by Nutduster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutduster

 

People who post on gaming web sites do not accurately represent the majority of players. They certainly aren't people I would describe as "casual" gamers.

Yes of course, the ONLY demographic that matters is the "casual" 10 - 15 year old market who have access to credit cards or bank cards. Who cares what gaming fans or actual series fans think.

 

 

This is a classic example of someone reading a comment in isolation rather than in the context of the whole conversation and then replying to it with no idea what point was being made or why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lock n' Stock

GTA V's problem is not really the reaction physics, they are a bit stripped back but they so the job enough. The issue with V is the lack of a sense of weight. Simply walking around unarmed is OK, since the character does have weight to him but in combat this goes out the window. The character suddenly feels weightless and the the guns do not feel threatening due to a combination of bad sound design and lack of recoil.

I've never been able to put my finger on it, but I always felt like shooting in GTA V lacked impact. Maybe it was a combination of things, from the stripped down Euphoria and lack of weight to the sh*tty gun sounds and poor blood effects (which were midly improved in the re-release though).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catskill

 

GTA V's problem is not really the reaction physics, they are a bit stripped back but they so the job enough. The issue with V is the lack of a sense of weight. Simply walking around unarmed is OK, since the character does have weight to him but in combat this goes out the window. The character suddenly feels weightless and the the guns do not feel threatening due to a combination of bad sound design and lack of recoil.

I've never been able to put my finger on it, but I always felt like shooting in GTA V lacked impact. Maybe it was a combination of things, from the stripped down Euphoria and lack of weight to the sh*tty gun sounds and poor blood effects (which were midly improved in the re-release though).

 

 

 

 

The player animations while shooting are a whole lot better in IV. In GTA V they just look mechanical and only the arms move. Where as in IV Niko's whole body would move when shooting. Also I think the bulllet lines in V have a negative effect on the 'feel' of shooting as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevilDaRebel

 

 

People who post on gaming web sites do not accurately represent the majority of players. They certainly aren't people I would describe as "casual" gamers.

Yes of course, the ONLY demographic that matters is the "casual" 10 - 15 year old market who have access to credit cards or bank cards. Who cares what gaming fans or actual series fans think.

 

 

This is a classic example of someone reading a comment in isolation rather than in the context of the whole conversation and then replying to it with no idea what point was being made or why.

 

 

Yeah... people in the internet seem to do that a lot.... Especially white knights mods. Oh yeah, I'm not letting that sh*t go bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz

The player animations while shooting are a whole lot better in IV. In GTA V they just look mechanical and only the arms move. Where as in IV Niko's whole body would move when shooting. Also I think the bulllet lines in V have a negative effect on the 'feel' of shooting as well.

100%. The way characters animate when using weapons is just as important as having good gun sounds. Visual feedback like this is needed to create the weighty illusion that GTA IV and Max Payne 3 do so well. Combined with their loud gun shots make gunfights intense and realistic.

 

I agree about the bullet lines, they seem too stylistic and lessen the realism of the shooting. My guess is that they were to make blind-firing and run and gun easy (which is another point, blind-fire is way too precise). V's shooting in general seems especially designed to make it easy; no recoil or bullet spread, stupidly high ammo cap and the ability to carry everything at once. Unbalanced is the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tsto

I really loved the overly dramatic deaths from bullet impact in RDR. However, I feel confident that whatever Rockstar does with RDR2 will be a more polished product in the end. Let's not forget how much more advanced this iteration of the engine is going to be. I'm sure we will all be pleasantly surprised regardless of how the gun physics play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash_735

 

 

People who post on gaming web sites do not accurately represent the majority of players. They certainly aren't people I would describe as "casual" gamers.

Yes of course, the ONLY demographic that matters is the "casual" 10 - 15 year old market who have access to credit cards or bank cards. Who cares what gaming fans or actual series fans think.

 

This is a classic example of someone reading a comment in isolation rather than in the context of the whole conversation and then replying to it with no idea what point was being made or why.

Because it feels like the goal posts keep getting moved to defend Rockstar's sh*tty tactics. If it's just people in this community "oh GTAF is only a tiny fraction" if it's other GTA sites "oh GTA communities are only a small percentage", if it's major gaming websites and those communities "oh but that's just a small number".

 

Where do we draw the line? How many people need to point something out before it gets taken seriously or deemed legit? Just because GTAO is popular (by the way it was targeted to YouTubers and Twitch back in the day to promote it as much as they could to their audience) and GTAV is still selling (maybe because it's the ONLY GTA game in half a decade!) does that mean communities and gaming websites pointing out what it lacked should be dismissed as "just a small percentage"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~INDIO~

 

The player animations while shooting are a whole lot better in IV. In GTA V they just look mechanical and only the arms move. Where as in IV Niko's whole body would move when shooting. Also I think the bulllet lines in V have a negative effect on the 'feel' of shooting as well.

100%. The way characters animate when using weapons is just as important as having good gun sounds. Visual feedback like this is needed to create the weighty illusion that GTA IV and Max Payne 3 do so well. Combined with their loud gun shots make gunfights intense and realistic.

 

I agree about the bullet lines, they seem too stylistic and lessen the realism of the shooting. My guess is that they were to make blind-firing and run and gun easy (which is another point, blind-fire is way too precise). V's shooting in general seems especially designed to make it easy; no recoil or bullet spread, stupidly high ammo cap and the ability to carry everything at once. Unbalanced is the word.

I think in one of the previews they mentioned how loud the guns are in RDR2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUT THE BENZ

well I certainly demand a BANG for my buck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catskill

 

The player animations while shooting are a whole lot better in IV. In GTA V they just look mechanical and only the arms move. Where as in IV Niko's whole body would move when shooting. Also I think the bulllet lines in V have a negative effect on the 'feel' of shooting as well.

100%. The way characters animate when using weapons is just as important as having good gun sounds. Visual feedback like this is needed to create the weighty illusion that GTA IV and Max Payne 3 do so well. Combined with their loud gun shots make gunfights intense and realistic.

 

I agree about the bullet lines, they seem too stylistic and lessen the realism of the shooting. My guess is that they were to make blind-firing and run and gun easy (which is another point, blind-fire is way too precise). V's shooting in general seems especially designed to make it easy; no recoil or bullet spread, stupidly high ammo cap and the ability to carry everything at once. Unbalanced is the word.

 

 

Glad you brought up the blind firing part. I've always felt it completely defeats the purpose of blind firing if you can aim as accurately as you can if you was shooting normally. Tbf I'm pretty sure it was like this in IV as well but hopefully going forward Rockstar amends this for future titles incl. RDR2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz
Posted (edited)

Glad you brought up the blind firing part. I've always felt it completely defeats the purpose of blind firing if you can aim as accurately as you can if you was shooting normally. Tbf I'm pretty sure it was like this in IV as well but hopefully going forward Rockstar amends this for future titles incl. RDR2.

It does, the game clearly programs the blindfire to hit targets even when they aren't in the line of fire, they dumbed it down that much. This is obvious because EVERY SINGLE TIME I blindfire the first enemy that is in the general direction of the firing is hit. In IV it was not like this, you do have a blindfire aiming reticle but the bullets are far from accurate.

Edited by Cheatz/Trickz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutduster

 

 

 

People who post on gaming web sites do not accurately represent the majority of players. They certainly aren't people I would describe as "casual" gamers.

Yes of course, the ONLY demographic that matters is the "casual" 10 - 15 year old market who have access to credit cards or bank cards. Who cares what gaming fans or actual series fans think.

 

This is a classic example of someone reading a comment in isolation rather than in the context of the whole conversation and then replying to it with no idea what point was being made or why.

Because it feels like the goal posts keep getting moved to defend Rockstar's sh*tty tactics. If it's just people in this community "oh GTAF is only a tiny fraction" if it's other GTA sites "oh GTA communities are only a small percentage", if it's major gaming websites and those communities "oh but that's just a small number".

 

Where do we draw the line? How many people need to point something out before it gets taken seriously or deemed legit? Just because GTAO is popular (by the way it was targeted to YouTubers and Twitch back in the day to promote it as much as they could to their audience) and GTAV is still selling (maybe because it's the ONLY GTA game in half a decade!) does that mean communities and gaming websites pointing out what it lacked should be dismissed as "just a small percentage"?

Yet again you've misunderstood the point. Maybe you're just using my post to launch into a completely tangential rant, but I am not defending V's physics and that should be obvious from context if you just read all my posts here. This was all in reply to O.Z saying that V's physics were intentionally simplified to appeal to casual players. I said that apart from the driving, that doesn't make sense, because most casual players wouldn't really notice the difference and none of them would be put off by more ragdolling to the point that they'd not buy the game. You said that more players on forums are complaining, and I replied that pepple on forums aren't casual gamers (which is true basically by definition).

 

In other words, this entire tragic conversational dead end has only happened because I was trying to encourage someone to take off his tin foil hat and consider what he was saying. As I've already said elsewhere here, I personally want more RDR-style physics, and if we get them, I think casual players will either like them or not even notice the difference. But I disagree that anyone posting here is a good representative sample of casual GTA players. Just the fact that we care enough to register for this forum indicates that we aren't casual at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SherifWayne

Only good thing we have to go off of is the IGN beta male who said he saw people get caught in the reigns and flop around. Still worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~INDIO~

 

 

 

 

People who post on gaming web sites do not accurately represent the majority of players. They certainly aren't people I would describe as "casual" gamers.

Yes of course, the ONLY demographic that matters is the "casual" 10 - 15 year old market who have access to credit cards or bank cards. Who cares what gaming fans or actual series fans think.

 

This is a classic example of someone reading a comment in isolation rather than in the context of the whole conversation and then replying to it with no idea what point was being made or why.

Because it feels like the goal posts keep getting moved to defend Rockstar's sh*tty tactics. If it's just people in this community "oh GTAF is only a tiny fraction" if it's other GTA sites "oh GTA communities are only a small percentage", if it's major gaming websites and those communities "oh but that's just a small number".

 

Where do we draw the line? How many people need to point something out before it gets taken seriously or deemed legit? Just because GTAO is popular (by the way it was targeted to YouTubers and Twitch back in the day to promote it as much as they could to their audience) and GTAV is still selling (maybe because it's the ONLY GTA game in half a decade!) does that mean communities and gaming websites pointing out what it lacked should be dismissed as "just a small percentage"?

Yet again you've misunderstood the point. Maybe you're just using my post to launch into a completely tangential rant, but I am not defending V's physics and that should be obvious from context if you just read all my posts here. This was all in reply to O.Z saying that V's physics were intentionally simplified to appeal to casual players. I said that apart from the driving, that doesn't make sense, because most casual players wouldn't really notice the difference and none of them would be put off by more ragdolling to the point that they'd not buy the game. You said that more players on forums are complaining, and I replied that pepple on forums aren't casual gamers (which is true basically by definition).

 

In other words, this entire tragic conversational dead end has only happened because I was trying to encourage someone to take off his tin foil hat and consider what he was saying. As I've already said elsewhere here, I personally want more RDR-style physics, and if we get them, I think casual players will either like them or not even notice the difference. But I disagree that anyone posting here is a good representative sample of casual GTA players. Just the fact that we care enough to register for this forum indicates that we aren't casual at all.

You have way too much time on your hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUT THE BENZ

lel....'most casual players won't notice they're playing a game casually, and that it has been watered down to fit their "casual" style....but no worries, they don't know they're casual, expecting casual physics, so just move onto online and buy shark cards please'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.