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

[Alex2213]

I'm assuming they are because its next gen, but I'm worried it will have a watered down rage/euphoria engine like GTA V. GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption had the ragdoll physics at its peak I'm hoping its back like that or better. Any of the articles out mention that?

[Matrelith]

The gaming websites that got to play the 45-minute demo didn't mention anything about the physics, which is probably a good thing.

[HisMastersReview]

Well, when Arthur pulls someone off the Carriage in the trailer the body just slides, no rag doll extensively showing rolling or bouncing, little unsettling.

[Piggsy pls]

I don't remember any websites mentioning GTA V's gimped ragdoll physics pre-release, so unfortunately I think we will have to wait till the game comes out to see.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Piggsy pls

[philley]

Well, when Arthur pulls someone off the Carriage in the trailer the body just slides, no rag doll extensively showing rolling or bouncing, little unsettling.

 

Well, the grass was just slippery

 

Lets just wait for the first gameplay vids or video features. R* will not fail with physics in RDR.

[TheGeneralZarbin]

Yep i think we will only ever really find out for ourselves once the game has been released.

[Grizzy]

This is now my only concern at the moment.

[BootyWarrior]

i read in one of the previews that said the deaths from enemies were 'dramatic' and there will be a death cam for the last kill, this could be a clue of how the ragdoll physics will be, but we just have to wait and see when the next gameplay trailer comes out.

[Nutduster]

I have no info here but I suspect the physics will be good again. A game with features like Deadeye and slow-mo dueling practically requires the physics to be reactive to where you shoot, or it will look really lame.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Nutduster

[UAL]

Yeah I played it last night the physics are exactly the same just a bit more refined.

[Romakasi]

Yeah. Nothing was told about physics and bullet impacts (wounds, injuries) on NPC's. Either it's just OK for 2018 game so none of the journalists did mention that or R* made them silent on this aspect intentionally to keep some intrigue.

[Nutduster]

Yeah I played it last night the physics are exactly the same just a bit more refined.

 

You played RDR2 last night? Wha...?

[DexMacLeod]

With how much they seem to be focusing on realism, immersion, and details I'd imagine the physics will more closely resemble V's more weighted systems than the over the top Ragdoll's of IV and Redemption.

[Nutduster]

With how much they seem to be focusing on realism, immersion, and details I'd imagine the physics will more closely resemble V's more weighted systems than the over the top Ragdoll's of IV and Redemption.

 

This is still a Western though, and almost every Western film is all about guys falling in crazy, painful-looking ways after they're shot. Excessive ragdoll physics is entirely appropriate to the genre. V's physics are arguably a little more realistic in some respects, but also quite boring - NPC enemies just soak up bullets until they're dead, and then fall down in one of a few ways. (Videos comparing IV's physics to V's are really eye-opening.)

Edited May 4, 2018 by Nutduster

[DexMacLeod]

I think they can do over the top and cinematic deaths while maintaining realistic physics though. Like you said, movies do it. My problem with Redemption and to a much greater extent GTA IV is how weightless bodies can become. I imagine this is part of where that job listing for someone who can help seamlessly merge physics and animation will come into play.

 

Either way when I kill a guy in a game I'd much rather it felt like the guy is actually dying than have it feel like the guy's mimicking bad acting from an old movie.

 

Yeah, GTA V's bullet detection was pretty bad but it's been drastically improved upon in certain aspects of Online. Enemies will trip if you shoot out their legs while running, occasionally grab their shoulder when it's shot and if you headshot a guy he'll crumple to the ground while nearby buddies will stop in shock for a second.

 

When I think about physics though I'm usually more thinking about how it affects the main character. The way John and Niko go limp and weightless the second they're knocked off their feet and the way controlling them was such a chore are things I'm glad they were able to get rid of.

[Mach1bud]

Either way when I kill a guy in a game I'd much rather it felt like the guy is actually dying than have it feel like the guy's mimicking bad acting from an old movie.

 

I'm the opposite, that is exactly what I want it to be like. Bad acting in an old movie. Lol.

[Nutduster]

 

Either way when I kill a guy in a game I'd much rather it felt like the guy is actually dying than have it feel like the guy's mimicking bad acting from an old movie.

I'm the opposite, that is exactly what I want it to be like. Bad acting in an old movie. Lol.

 

 

Hell yeah, that's exactly what I want. Realism is not my main concern in a game like this. I want to feel the larger-than-life violence and atmosphere of a Western (preferably the kind that Sergio Leone made). They can stake out their own territory of course, but all of Rockstar's best games are strongly influenced by cinema, and I want them to feel explicitly cinematic, even down to some of the parts that aren't realistic.

When I think about physics though I'm usually more thinking about how it affects the main character. The way John and Niko go limp and weightless the second they're knocked off their feet and the way controlling them was such a chore are things I'm glad they were able to get rid of.

 

That's one of the things I think GTA V's physics did better than IV. (Also the driving, though certain people would slap me for saying that.)

[rtie]

I want to feel the larger-than-life violence and atmosphere of a Western (preferably the kind that Sergio Leone made).

 

I'll take overused Wilhelm screams for 500, Alex.

[DexMacLeod]

<snip>

That's one of the things I think GTA V's physics did better than IV. (Also the driving, though certain people would slap me for saying that.)

LOL, yeah, I'm surprised a thread about physics has remained civilised this long. It's usually one of the more polarizing aspects of the game and people tend to take a difference in preference very personally.

[Nutduster]

 

<snip>

That's one of the things I think GTA V's physics did better than IV. (Also the driving, though certain people would slap me for saying that.)

LOL, yeah, I'm surprised a thread about physics has remained civilised this long. It's usually one of the more polarizing aspects of the game and people tend to take a difference in preference very personally.

 

 

Very true, and it just goes to show you how subjective this all can be! Personally I tend to like less ragdollish, more arcade-style physics for anything I am controlling myself. My character on-foot or any car I drive, I like responsiveness and will prize it over realistic reactions to outside forces. I don't want it full-on arcade nonsense, but basically I want to feel like I'm in control and that my actions determine what happens to my avatar on screen more than anything else. But with NPCs and moveable objects, I tend to prefer highly reactive physics; they vary the game experience the most and are the most interesting to play around with. So NPCs ragdolling excessively, round things rolling around when you shoot them or run into them - that's all terrific. And damn sure when I unload a bunch of shots via Deadeye, I want the person I shoot to flail around like they're being pounded by Mike Tyson. It's not realistic but it's so much fun.

[Not Kmart]

If the physics aren't anything like RDR 's then something has gone wrong in the development process of this game..

Re dead redemptions euphoric effects were amazing a little much at some time but it made it fun.

I expect RDR2 to be like Red Dead redemption in that aspect.

And it needs to be violent.. like django unchained violent.

I mean in RDR you could shoot npc in both knees and then preform an execution animation.

Shoot them in the stomach/pelvic area they'd crawl until the bled out.

Walk up to them close and shoot them under the chin.

If you shot them in the head you could see a blow hole of an exit wound..

Shoot someone that is against a wall look at the blood splatter lol

RDR has the best physics so far and max Payne 3 has amazing physics as well. Combine those and then upgrade it with this generations hardware

And that's how I think the physics of RDR2 will be.

Hopefully

[Old_BenKenobi]

I think the physics are tuned to fit the mood of the game.

 

GTA V didn't have the most realistic physics, but it's apparent when playing it that the game is supposed to feel like a high gloss Hollywood action movie where real physics take a backseat.

 

Rockstar is insisting over and over that realism is the primary ethos of Red Dead 2, and that everything is designed to be as realistic as possible. So wouldn't it stand to reason that the physics are detailed as well?

[Johnny Spaz]

I like how in RDR Rockstar captured the ridiculous deaths from those old westerns, I hope they do the same here, anything better than V's sh*tty physics engine

[VolumeRX]

"The action is third-person pop-and-cover, although it’s worth picking one’s cover carefully – rock stops more bullets than some wooden structures, for example." some destructible environmental cover.

[Dr.Rosenthal]

I remember when I first entered North Yankton 5 years ago, I was so surprised by how unresponsive the shooting of GTAV felt, after having played RDR and MP3 extensively. Overall GTAV felt very arcady, also the driving - but then I guess I was more used to the heavier feel of the vehicles of GTA IV and LA Noire.

 

OnT, on the plus side; several of the previews and interviews mention RDR2's gunplay being an improved version of RDR.

On the down side; that guy falling off the stagecoach and sliding along the ground is a little unsettling.

[MARKUS.]

I remember when I first entered North Yankton 5 years ago, I was so surprised by how unresponsive the shooting of GTAV felt, after having played RDR and MP3 extensively. Overall GTAV felt very arcady, also the driving - but then I guess I was more used to the heavier feel of the vehicles of GTA IV and LA Noire.

 

You're so right. GTA V was a step back on R*'s engine

[Guest Guest176525326]

The gaming websites that got to play the 45-minute demo didn't mention anything about the physics, which is probably a good thing.

 

I have a feeling it is just the opposite.

 

It is most likely going to be watered down physics compared to the RDR, just like GTAV was. But you will get used to the more arcady feel of the physics eventually.

[Grizzy]

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

[Guest Guest176525326]

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.

[VolumeRX]

The gaming websites that got to play the 45-minute demo didn't mention anything about the physics, which is probably a good thing.

Quite the opposite, if something, they'd have commented about it and complimented it, like they did with the graphics, but they didn't.