LogFAQs > #954736590

CoorsLight posted...

I've always found it kind of weird how virtually every game has the same ice mechanics. Slow to gain momentum to run, then hard to stop. I guess it's just weird cause that isn't really what running on ice is like in real life, though that might not make for a fun game mechanic

The biggest issue there is that running in video games is treated more or less like driving a car, rather than actual running. In a car, you rely solely on friction between the tires and the roads to accelerate, stop, and turn, so if you reduce that traction, it takes longer to effect the same acceleration or deceleration, and you have to take turns more slowly to avoid overshooting them. Obviously, that's a bit of an oversimplification, because there's more nuance than that to driving in slippery conditions, but it's a close enough parallel that you can easily say that video game running is a simplified version of that.

Actual running, though, is substantially more complex. You're still relying on friction between your feet and the ground to accelerate (the force has to come from somewhere), but you accelerate on every step to counteract the deceleration between steps, and it really doesn't take long to reach your top speed. Reducing traction therefore reduces your top speed more than it reduces your ability to accelerate, particularly taking into account that trying to run on ice is probably just going to result in falling over because you'll be pushing harder than friction can push back. You can counteract that by increasing the angle of attack so you're pushing off of the ground at closer to 90 degrees, but that's still going to reduce top speed dramatically (and that has its limits before you just fall down).

As far as the physics go, though, treating running like simplified driving is a lot easier to work simulate, and given that this standard for ice physics dates back to the NES era (if not sooner), I understand going for simplicity over accuracy.

LinkPizza posted...

I hate water levels, though... Like 3D water levels.

The problem with water levels (or swimming mechanics in general) is that they introduce a new style of movement into the game that isn't used otherwise, which the game's controls often are not designed around. Most 3D games are designed to only allow free movement in two dimensions (which is all a stick can do), with movement in the third dimension being dictated by terrain, gravity, and the very limited active movement option of jumping. Sometimes you'll get flying mechanics, but those often come with some caveats that make them not completely free (most commonly constant movement forward, so you're still just controlling two dimensions of movement). Swimming, however, is completely unrestricted 3D movement (or at least, feels like it should be), which is often kind of awkward to implement while still feeling consistent with the land controls.

A notable exception there is Subnautica: The vast majority of the game is underwater, so controls are designed around that, and it generally feels really good. The land parts actually end up being what feels awkward. Even air management ends up feeling like a reasonable mechanic because you're given so many tools to improve it and gradually work toward being able to travel further away from air sources. But then that's a game that's been designed fully around swimming, so it makes sense that swimming would feel good.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.