Jump to navigation

Table of contents

Page Previous 1 2 Next

Advertisement

Red Faction: Guerrilla's Big Bang Theory Article

PC Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Article by Richard Leadbetter

27 June, 2009

Page 1 of 2. Page 2 ->

Impressive gaming tech is one thing, but the application of it in providing an innovative gameplay experience is quite another. This generation we've seen quite an extraordinary technological "arms race" take place, particularly in the first person shooter genre, where the boundaries have been pushed in different directions, from the precision 60FPS gameplay of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to the sheer visual allure of Killzone 2. But despite the truly impressive technical leap witnessed in both games, in gameplay terms they are still clearly cut from the same cloth in terms of what we – as players – have come to expect from the genre.

The release of Volition's Red Faction: Guerrilla is perhaps an exception to the rule, and that's the reason why Digital Foundry was determined to get the developers on the record in an in-depth tech interview. The core of what this game achieves is designed to do more than just one-up its competitors in terms of its sheer destructive power – the engine itself opens up a whole new host of gaming opportunities and surprise moments that in many ways revolutionises the genre.

"Honestly my favourite moments are when things go wrong and I die in spectacular ways," senior programmer Eric Arnold says. "The enemy could shoot a carefully laid remote charge setting off my own trap while I'm in it, or I could see a shadow sweep across my screen and turn around just in time to see the nearby smoke stack crush my face. What really makes it special is that we don't script big set pieces that the player watches, we allow the player to create their own wow moments and take ownership of the destruction."

But how does it work? What makes it different? Eric Arnold gave me detailed primer I'll be publishing unabridged on the Digital Foundry blog next week, but the key difference is that the new GeoMod 2.0 engine works on the basis of stress points. It evaluates the structural stability of every object in the scene on a continual basis as they take damage. Every kind of object from a knee-high section of retaining wall to a bridge the size of a football field undergoes the same analysis.

Number crunching then kicks in – objects being supported by the structure under stress are factored in, the stress code scans from top to bottom adding up the force generated by the mass above and compares this to the strength of the material. If that force is too much, the material breaks, which can bring the whole house down if it is the final connection. As the stresses increase and the material weakens, suitably ominous groaning and creaking sound effects kick in.

As Eric sums up: "The end result is a world that physically reacts to the player in the same way that real objects would – snap off two support legs of a tower and it will tip over sideways, if there happens to be building next to it the tower will crush the roof and tear a hole in the wall, if there happens to be enemy troops inside that building they will wake up with a splitting headache if they get up at all. And the best part of it all is that the engine is entirely player driven, they are given a set of tools, a list of goals to accomplish, and the freedom to solve them in any way they see fit."

It's fair to say that gaming's biggest bangs in the PS360 era have mostly been contained to cut-scenes, engine-driven if we're lucky. In fact, it can be argued that we've not seen apocalyptic levels of in-game destruction that aspires to this level since Criterion's Black on previous generation platforms.

"I would bet that many developers have tried, only to shy away in horror," says another of RFG's senior programmers, Dave Baranec. "The problem with a system like this is that it touches absolutely everything else in the game. It makes rendering tremendously more difficult. It makes level design extremely hard. It causes memory usage for what appear to be simple structures to be staggeringly high. So if you want a whole-hog destruction system like we have, you had better be prepared to pay for it with a ton of effort and sacrifice."

"It is freaking hard!" Eric Arnold adds. "Not only do you have to spend a whole lot of time to create the technology... but it also creates problems for every discipline on the game. Rendering guys have to deal with way more stuff to put on the screen and make it look pretty, AI guys and designers have to deal with the level constantly changing, sound people have to create assets for exponentially more interactions, then if you want online play you have to come up with a way to synchronise all of it. That's not to mention the memory and processing time that large scale destruction chews up. It is not a feature that can be dropped in to an existing game, it has to be planned for up front."

And that planning first begun back in 2004, before Xbox 360 devkits were in the hands of the developers and when PlayStation 3 hardware was still in its formative stages. Coupled with this is the fact that Red Faction: Guerrilla's core tech was actually based on foundations provided by the third party Havok physics library – a piece of code that must surely have been tortured to breaking point in its implementation in this new game.

"It really started out as an educated guess," remembers Arnold. "Even after we got the kits we weren't sure that our idea would work (we were told by the guys at Havok early on that it, in fact, would NOT work because it would put too much of a strain on their system). It wasn't until about two years in to development that we were able to prove that we could pull it off and make it look good, up to that point there was a lot of finger crossing that we would pull some magic out of our hats."

However, much of the pre-production work actually seemed to be based on feasibility studies on just how Volition would actually achieve its ambitions for the stunning destruction model.

"We knew that the focus was going to be an entirely new and very challenging engine," adds Baranec. "Before we could figure out the horsepower necessary, we had to develop the techniques for the destruction system in the first place. I'd say we spent the first ten months with just one programmer working at that level, along with one artist and one designer."

And as for Havok, let's just say that the team became very intimately involved with the creators of the physics technology that has become the de facto standard on PC and current generation consoles.

"The best way to think about it is: Havok is to Geo Mod 2.0, as DirectX is to the Unreal Engine or Crysis," explains Baranec. "It provides some core functionality, but the engine itself where all the fun stuff happens."

"We used Havok mainly for rigid body collisions, vehicle simulation, and ray casts," adds Arnold. "The entire destruction engine was custom built to sit on top of Havok, and we did have to customise a good bit of their internals (especially for the PS3 to get it all running fast on the SPUs). The guys at Havok were great to work with and joked that they all groaned when I sent them an email because we were stressing their code in ways no one else was coming close to, so the bugs I uncovered were particularly nasty."

To Page 2 ->

Advertisement

Are you excited about Red Faction: Guerrilla on Xbox 360/PlayStation 3/PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-27 of 27 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
Metalfish
27/06/09 @ 11:03
#1
+8
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The tech is extremely impressive, and does what it needs to very well. I guess the next step, if you want it to look a little more real, is to working some structural properties such as bending rather than the pure collapsing here that's a little like wet sand rather than concrete.
Chufty
27/06/09 @ 11:28
#2
+7
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Great article, very interesting. Shame there was no PC angle though, but I expect that from EG :)

I guess we have BitTorrent to thank for the delayed PC version.
Wastelander
27/06/09 @ 11:32
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'm not convinced with the tech TBH. I completed RFG and enjoyed it loads, but most of the time I found the physics doesn't actually work as it should (floating floors, whole buildings held up with a couple of sticks, ladders in mid-air etc)
Looks great when everything's exploding, but the whole ''take out the structural supports and watch the building collapse realistically' doesn't really work in practice.

Almost seems like a step back from the original geomod by being limited to just structures as well.

Edited 1 times, most recently on 27/06/09 @ 12:33
Wastelander
27/06/09 @ 11:34
#5
+2
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Oh, and where the hell is our New Game+?

Way to give us all the nice toys at the end of the game then leave us bugger all to do with them because we've levelled the planet already.
schachmatt
27/06/09 @ 11:40
#6
+1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I would find it more interesting if RF would be compared to similar advances in games like Alone in the Dark 5 or the tech demo LucasArts showed off before Force Unleashed or Crysis. Biggest difference probably being others didn't focus gameplay around it and not having massive structures built with it.
Only looking at RF is too one-sided and doesn't show how far the general technology in gaming really is, contemporary gimmick or future.
Nonetheless I always enjoy Richard's articles.
miiiguel
27/06/09 @ 12:07
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
advantage of these resources as the engine was built around the limitations of the consoles it was designed for.
Or it is designed to match the limitations my PC (and milions of others) have ?
zakrocz
27/06/09 @ 12:15
#9
+2
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Good read. Good fun game thanks to the destruction tech and multiplayer is a real blast with the powerup backpacks
frostcircus
27/06/09 @ 12:29
#10
-2
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Volition's last PC port was fucking atrocious, so I refuse to raise my hopes over this one
N@
27/06/09 @ 13:08
#11
-9
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
what
basalarmageddon
27/06/09 @ 13:15
#12
+7
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I wouldent mind seing what the mod comunity would do with the PC port.
DaemonSpawn
27/06/09 @ 13:24
#13
+2
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
2 mute09
On xbox 260 game runs pretty well. Not my PC preferred 60+ fps, but solid 30 - for sure. Explosions and destruction can sometimes be very spectacular - I''ve never seen anything like it in videogames.
Of course Crysis has much better textures, lighting, geometry, view distance, beautiful special effects, particle system and quite realistic physics, but when my high-end PC bows in horror on CPU_demo1 (the one with unlimited rocket launcher ammo and several exploding huts), I clearly understand that RFG has in some way more fun destruction physics because it runs on inferior hardware (xbox 360/ps3) with tons of limitations and still allows to blow much more shit up.
Yeah, it's not photorealistic, yeah, not that technologically advanced as Crysis, but it's still fun to play (blow up, destroy and crush) and watch (collapsing buildings and... well - more collapsing buildings), just in its own way.
I'd like to have more games like RFG which build gameplay around some fun feature and really make that feature work without crippling all other game aspects (plot, graphics, level design, framerate etc) too bad.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 27/06/09 @ 14:26
Super_Zee
27/06/09 @ 13:47
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Really interesting article, but it's nit-picking time - RFG doesn't belong in the "First Person Shooter genre" as, well, it's not an FPS. I really wish it was, but the devs argued they had to move to third-person so the player wouldn't get lost in the carnage. I'm not convinced, but I would have preferred a linear FPS with an amazing storyline, brilliant set-pieces and rock deformation anyway.
Lemming81
27/06/09 @ 15:33
#15
-2
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Physics and nice graphics would have been nice and not unreasonable in this day and age. I was going to get this game but all the footage of it I've seen make it looks...well a bit shit in the visual department really. Can't put my finger on it though. Maybe inFamous has spoilt me a bit.

Also, I would have loved a more gritty Blackhawk Down feel to the game. The whole insurgence on a dusty red landscape could have made this fantastic rather than the slight cartooniness it seems to have instead.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 27/06/09 @ 16:36
Weebleboy
27/06/09 @ 15:47
#16
-4
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Or you could, you know, just use Havok Destruction.
Nephirion
27/06/09 @ 18:44
#17
-1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@ miiiguel; If you PC is limited you can buy a new one or upgrade with a console your stuck with a limited hardware spec
miiiguel
27/06/09 @ 21:30
#18
-5
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Nephirion : that wouldn't change anything, PC is an open architeture, and therefor a dev has to think about every single one out there. Consoles do not suffer from that.
Anyway, I can't stand office-desk gaming, I do PC 10 hours a day for working purposes, don't do ludic on a PC.
Chufty
28/06/09 @ 09:30
#19
+6
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Nephirion : that wouldn't change anything, PC is an open architeture, and therefor a dev has to think about every single one out there. Consoles do not suffer from that.

Supposedly, that's what DirectX is for - unifying PC gaming architecture. The problem is NVidia keep making faster and more expensive graphics cards and convincing people that they're needed to play the latest games - which is just completely wrong.

Even a fairly old and fairly cheap PC processor is going to be much better at doing this sort of complex physics processing than certainly a PS3 and probably an Xbox 360 as well. In theory the PC game should be far superior.

PC gamers, however, know it wont be.
onyxbox
29/06/09 @ 08:04
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Excellent Article, this is more like it EG. I love reading this kind of feature.

:-D
kinky_mong
29/06/09 @ 09:52
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Screw all the moaners, as Volition said in the article, fun comes first over realism. The Geo-Mod technology is a great achievement and while impressive in Single Player, it really is something else in multiplayer. Playing a match on Quarantine is fantastic when the heavily built up square area gets reduced to rubble by the end of the match.
Chufty
29/06/09 @ 11:13
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
mute09: Thanks for your intelligent contribution.
miufs
29/06/09 @ 11:54
#23
+1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
As a civil engineer i must say that some parts of it are very good indeed but in others it lacks some major physical properties of materials such as the plasticity of steel and lines of rupture of structures with multiple degree of freedom.

But even so, it΄s great to see these improvements in a game.
Kudos to Volition!
Dr.Mott
29/06/09 @ 13:26
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It is definitely a very impressive engine, although as someone already said, you do get huge buildings being supported on just a couple of tiny sticks on too many occasions. But generally though, brilliant, especially in multiplayer.
RichardDawkins
30/06/09 @ 10:34
#25
-1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Wastelander I think you can put a lot of that down to the lower gravity of Mars.
Darren
02/07/09 @ 15:05
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'm happy to wait for the PC version because, while the console versions are undeniably impressive in terms of physics, that has come at the expense of a smooth tear-free framerate but Volition have never been too bothered about that in the past. The god-awful tearing in the console demos I tried instantly put me off purchasing it on either of those platforms. Nice game otherwise though even if the physics and over abundance of red in the colour palette are really the only two things which make it stand out from any other third-person action game.

Even if the PC version is poorly optimised, my PC should still be able to run it fine because its far more powerful than either a PS3 or Xbox 360. Here's hoping that we still get a quality "port" though.
Davemanz
07/08/09 @ 06:44
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Darren, what console did you play the demo on? I have the PS3 version, and while I wasn't entirely impressed by the demo I bought the game and the engine runs amazingly well. The frame rate is really high and I don't see any tearing, really. This and Burnout are both built on absolutely wonderful engines that work great on the PS3, give it a shot.

Comments: 1-27 of 27 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Get Games.  Download Great PC Games - Serious Sam HD for only £9.99

X View gallery