Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

An Early Look At Next-Gen Shooter Bodycount

Posted by Soulskill on from the piece-by-piece dept.

If you ask fans of first-person shooters what feature they'd like to see in a new game, their answers — now and for the past 15 years — probably involve destructible environments. Game developers have tried to satisfy this demand with scripted events, breakable objects, and more crates than you can shake a rocket launcher at. However, Bodycount, an upcoming game from Codemasters Guildford, is aiming to deliver what gamers have wanted for so long: the ability to blast apart whatever you please. Quoting the Guardian's games blog from their hands-on with the game: "... it's not just about effect, it's about access. In Bodycount, you can blow chunks out of thinner interior walls, allowing you to burst through and catch enemies by surprise. You can also brilliantly modify cover objects – if you're hiding behind a crate and want to take out enemies without popping up from behind it, shoot a hole in it. Bingo, you've got a comparatively safe firing vantage. The difference between this and say, Red Faction or Bad Company, is that the destruction isn't limited to pre-set building sections. It's everywhere. This should, of course, grind the processor to a halt, but the team has come up with a simple compromise to facilitate its vision. 'The trick is that we're not running full physics on everything,' explains lead coder, Jon Creighton. ... This is tied in with one of the best cover systems I've ever seen. While in a crouching position (gained by holding the left trigger down), you can use the left analogue stick to subtly look and aim around your cover object, ducking and peeking to gain that perfect view of the war zone. It's natural, it's comfortable and it's adaptive, and it will surely consign the whole 'locking on' mechanic to the graveyard of cover system history."

32 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. The only question that counts: by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will this also be available on a system with an input controller suitable for shooters? Like, say, a mouse?

    Else, pass. No matter how good the effects, if I can't control my character, I don't need it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:The only question that counts: by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, but I'd also like to point out that the technology is ready to give players the separation of vision and aim.

      I want to be able to watch in a direction, run in another and shoot in another one. As running is going to be linked to a hand (as foot controls are cumbersome) and shooting to the other, vision should be linked to head movement.

      What I'm suggesting is: Don't "evolve" to mouse control if you can truly evolve.

    2. Re:The only question that counts: by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Console games: Sports, driving games, fighting, button-mashers.
      PC games: RPGs, first person shooters.

      If it ain't on PC, you can take one lost sale away from the "OMG TEH PIEWATS!" statistics, and add it onto "Don't know which platform a game should be developed for" chart.

      I've played FPS games on a PC and a console. If I have to wait 2+ seconds to spin 180 degrees, or the same amount of time lining up the crosshair / ironsight to get a headshot, you've failed in creating a good FPS.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:The only question that counts: by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your eyes have apparently gotten worse as well if you haven't noticed that most modern console shooters are that easy because they're basically doing half the aiming for you.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    4. Re:The only question that counts: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you still won't be able to control your character.

      Nonsense. The reason we can't control our characters in PC gaming is because game manufacturers have figured out that they can cut a corner and port their crappy console games for PC.

      Companies that don't develop specifically for the PC platform are leaving a lot of money on the table, DRM or not. The ones that figure that out are going to make a lot of dough.

      The Half-Life games were not crappy console ports, and they made Valve enough money to start Steam. And Gordon Freeman was not some 2nd-person wooden puppet that I had to use combination techniques to fight with or run with. When I said "jump" he said "how high?". When I said "duck" he ducked. With a crowbar in one hand and his dick in the other he crossed friggin' dimensions to put shit right...

      Sorry, I got carried away there. Anyway as I was saying, somebody's going to figure out that people on PC's want to play games and we've got the hardware to do it. We'll pay for games, too, but you can't fuck us around with console ports and if you treat us like criminals with the always-on DRM, we're going to act like criminals.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:The only question that counts: by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nah, you just bind q and e to that function, or some of the dozens of extra buttons on your mouse. thats the thing about PC games, you can make the controls fit your play-style. If something is awkward to do on a console game, chances are, you just have to live with it.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  2. Space Invaders by xiang+shui · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You can also brilliantly modify cover objects - if you're hiding behind a crate and want to take out enemies without popping up from behind it, shoot a hole in it."

    Space Invaders has had this feature for a while now.

    1. Re:Space Invaders by Leonard+Fedorov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, reading the sales brief for a previous game (also named Bodycount, funnily enough) one notices a few.. marked similarities:
      http://www.mobygames.com/game/operation-body-count

      Quoting:
      "OBC also features a near fully destructible environment; the Flame Thrower can set bad guys, scenery and the level itself on fire, which could make movement extremely hazardous for the player, especially as the fire randomly spreads. The Grenade launcher meanwhile can destroy any wall (with some hard coded exceptions)."

      Which sounds just like what we have here. Except this game was released in 1994...
      "Next Gen" huh?

    2. Re:Space Invaders by fractoid · · Score: 2

      "OBC also features a near fully destructible environment; the Flame Thrower can set bad guys, scenery and the level itself on fire, which could make movement extremely hazardous for the player, especially as the fire randomly spreads."

      Fire doesn't randomly spread. It spreads fairly predictably, in fact.

      Also, wouldn't a crate that you can blow a hole through make for a pretty useless piece of cover? Given that your adversaries can blow holes right back...

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    3. Re:Space Invaders by Barny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention that if a shot from your gun makes a nice hole in an object for you to see through, how many holes in the object can the enemies make? And how many of those holes will proceed with their holiness into you?

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    4. Re:Space Invaders by radone · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suppose your enemies shoot rubber bullets. Or paintballs. They're the peaceful kind.

    5. Re:Space Invaders by mdf-flynn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fry: I still have a trick or two up my sleeve. Watch as I fire upwards through our own shield!
      Bender: [panicked] He's a mad man! A mad man!

    6. Re:Space Invaders by fractoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess so. That reminds me, actually, of a beta-tester 'war story' that I read about Far Cry, where the guy shot a couple of oil drums (setting them on fire) then went off to do something else. About half an hour later he had a big message pop up telling him he'd won the game. It turns out that the burning oil drums had set fire to some grassland, which in turn caused a forest fire that just happened to incinerate the end boss. I don't know if it's true, but it's a brilliant demonstration of how simulation-based games can have unexpected outcomes which might not be particularly beneficial from the designers' point of view.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    7. Re:Space Invaders by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a good point, and shouldn't enemy fire have the same capacity to eventually blast through your cover?? the advantage then becomes who knows where the other guy is, which could go to you or them. Sounds like fun to me :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:Space Invaders by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does it stop? Probably because some guy set a couple of oil drums on fire, which lit the grassland and started a forest fire.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  3. Wasn't this done before by i+ate+my+neighbour · · Score: 5, Informative

    I thought Red Faction featured fully destructible environment and even cave digging?

    1. Re:Wasn't this done before by Bugamn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, from the summary I infer that it wasn't fully:

      The difference between this and say, Red Faction or Bad Company, is that the destruction isn't limited to pre-set building sections.

      But Wikipedia says different:

      GeoMod allows the player to alter (and destroy) the environment so significantly because of the way it designates altered (or "GeoModded") areas. Whereas other game engines would have to modify the shape of the altered object to create a similar effect, GeoMod creates special objects which represent empty space.

    2. Re:Wasn't this done before by peterpi · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, that was Boulder Dash ;)

    3. Re:Wasn't this done before by Rennt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so did Nethack :P

    4. Re:Wasn't this done before by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why this kind of aim, while great in theory, usually falls down in practice - the second you run into something you want to destroy and they won't let you, the whole experience feels forced. It's still neat that you can shoot some stuff, but it just feels even more jarring when you find the bits you can't shoot. Fully destructible environments would probably work best in a pure multiplayer game, where you don't need to zone off specific areas and force the player through some predefined tunnel run.

  4. FULLY destructible? by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are we actually talking fully destructible this time? Or the "fully destructible" environments of say Crysis? I don't care if I can chop down a tree with a machine gun. If bits of rock don't start getting chipped away as I'm hitting them with a bazooka then it's not a fully destructible environment, and if absolutely everything isn't destructible, then you're stuck with the same mundane limits as all former games regardless of what fancyness has been done with the game engine.

  5. Paradox? by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...fans of first-person shooters... ...can use the left analogue stick...

    Your implication is quite ludicrous, sir.

    --
    RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    1. Re:Paradox? by dskzero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *shrug* call them whatever you want, I guess. There's shooting, it's from a first person perspective, and it's fun. But I wouldn't want that to stop you from trying to shit all over someone else's enjoyment with your pointless sass and trash talk.

      Which is exactly what you're throwing up on the keyboard?

      Console is good for platforms, sports, driving, adventure.

      PC is good for strategy, MMORPG, and FPS.

      Plain and simple.

      If you're feel so insulted by pointing that out, well, I think you would do well to the world hiding under that fucking rock.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
  6. More British terminology by nacturation · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ah, but then there's Black. Released at the fag end of the PlayStation 2 era and developed by Guildford-based studio Criterion, this 2006 cult classic, was a stylised, hyper-kinetic deconstruction of the FPS concept.

    I take it that's what non-British speakers would call "the tail end"? Otherwise, that's a pretty gay piece of tail they're smoking.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:More British terminology by The+Rizz · · Score: 4, Funny

      a fag is a cigarette

      You're a cigarette.

    2. Re:More British terminology by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

      It must get really confusing when you start talking about the fag end of a fanny pack.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:More British terminology by Reziac · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fanny packs have a different end we should know about??!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  7. Next next gen. by w0mprat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For me a next gen shooter would be any FPS without... crates.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Next next gen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you're a barrel man?

  8. Not being seen by bareman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cover can serve multiple purposes such as armor or camouflage. Cover that you can shoot a hole through is not going to make for effective armor, however it may serve effectively as camouflage.

    And for those who've forgotten the importance of not being seen...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idXgVLpB6bY

  9. Left Analog Stick? by djdevon3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry I seem to be missing a left analog stick ON MY PC. I have a much better input device called a MOUSE. Consoles can suck it.

    1. Re:Left Analog Stick? by Fwipp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A mouse? No, you have a mouse instead of a right analog stick. Instead of the left analog stick that allows you to walk or run at different speeds in more than eight directions, you have WASD, and maybe a sprint or crouch key.

      I'll take being able to walk where I want regardless of where I am facing over being able to play "click on their heads" any day.