Hopefully no. Unless there's something of note, there's no need for that. It'd be like how LA Noire was a freaky accurate reproduction of 1947 LA but there was no real reason to explore it. That shit's a waste of time and resources.

nope because modern video games are shit

>>332045356
It'd be cool in a destruction based game. Think Red Faction Guerilla but on a bigger scale.

>>332045356
Loot n' shoot games would benefit greatly in every way. Having a lot to explore and loot is why people play those games, the division would be 5 times better if you could go into more than a few buildings.

>>332045870
You can actually go into a lot of building in the division. Doesn't make it better because there's not a lot to do in then.

Having a huge open world doesn't make a game good. Having a bunch of buildings you can enter doesn't make them good either.

Skyrim/oblivion probably come closest to what op is asking for.

>>332045356
>I dont see the fun of it so its not needed!!!!!!!!

We already could do it. Nobody does though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtC0lpKKE38

Whenever a dev bothers to find a gameplay reason to bother procedurally generating all the rooms and object placement in a building as per a set of rules.

imagine just finishing your degree in 3d modeling and art and shit and you get hired by rockstar and are told you have to design hundreds of living rooms and store interiors and shit that have no real content besides the odd encounter or something

>>332047078
why would you do all that shit by hand? That's what computers are for

>>332047193
i feel like people would complain if someone advertised like "every building has a full interior" and then they were all copypasted like oblivion dungeons or something

>>332047307
why copy & paste? Procedural generation is quite capable

STALKER 2
;_;

>>332047307
Procedural generation doesn't feel copy paste if it's done right. Though buildings of course might have similar interiors even in real life so you could repeat stuff occasionally but the tech is perfectly capable of doing lots of unique things.

>>332047485
The Stalker games actually had a decent amount of building interiors. There's still hope. Wait till after Cossacks 3 comes out.

>>332047406
>>332047494
i feel like on that scale it'd look noticeably sterile and you'd see a lot of the same assets over and over again to the point that you'd wonder why this shit was even in the game
i could be pessimistic though you guys are probably right about there being ways to ensure an adequate level of variation

>>332047574
>you'd see a lot of the same assets over and over again
Like commonly sold furniture? McMansion floor plans? Modular high rise architecture? Reality is repetitive.

>to the point that you'd wonder why this shit was even in the game
Sole reason is to eliminate barriers. Thats the one big opportunity and burden of a sandbox

>i could be pessimistic though
Frankly, most of the time it's just procedural generation having a terrible reputation

If I remember correctly TW3 allow you to enter every building.

>>332047707
maybe just the large houses/mansions would be hand done
like diaz's mansion in vice city

a city full of unenterable things is just as boring as a city full of enterable, but useless interiors
now a city made of interesting places and interiors that are interesting and unique, now that would be good.

>>332047574
No, I think you're actually being adequately pessimistic. Realistically I imagine even if the devs found a way to gradually give every household access and some value players at some point would become burnt out and just look up guides for where the most valuable objects are while ignoring the rest or just flat out ignore all of it for a straight line run.

I hate to use that sort of player as the reason not to put effort into things, but at the same time I feel it's sort of necessary since a large chunk of the work done to appease a small part of the consumer base could easily go towards other areas of the game and when it's not as I just hypothetically illustrated chances the train of thought will be
>I could go to that blue house, check its attic and basement, go through its draws and closets to appreciate the meticulous detail...or I could just drive around and shoot random people until I get bored and do a mission
Means what will most likely use up most of the dev time will have little benefit. Players who feel overwhelmed by choice or collection tasks will streamline things with a guide or just pass it up. Anyone who's actually a completionist probably won't even commend the effort since gameplay wise it's not actually making the game more indepth, it's just making it more of the same.

tl;dr it's an enticing idea, but in practice it's just going to be tedious all around

>>332047935
Even if there's nothing else to do in buildings besides maybe having gunfights that would still add to the game. Especially if all the interiors are destructible like in >>332046339

When BF4 had that map with the skyscraper you could go into I was thinking how cool it would be for instance if you could actually go to every floor in the skyscraper and have fights in there rather than just the ground floor and the ceiling.

I miss playing GTAZ with /v/. It was fun.

I'd love an open world game with an extremely detailed NPC system, where each NPC has their own little story and life that's influenced by either player actions or RNG.
It'd probably be impossible implement something like that, but I think it would be fantastic.

>>332045210
ARMAIII

>>332048117
Oh man, if we're talking multiplayer that's a whole new set of problems. Maps are usually chosen based on how balanced and fair they are, if a map kept changing its terrain producing even the smallest disadvantage in cover or movement everyone will just go for the final destination of the game or stop playing once they feel the meta turns a destroyed floor or wall into an advantage and any match where someone knows that becomes a Sisyphus simulator.

That's the thing about game design, at all levels the players determine a lot of what you can and should do more than the ability to do anything. I'm not really for or against any of his ideas since the game and genre are not for me, but I've learned quite a bit from seeing Sakurai juggle the Smash Bros series and all sides of its fans expectations.

>>332045210

if it's done by procedural generation, sure. Make building layouts based on some loose perimeters, generate interior models and place them randomly in an interior based on some loose perimeters, then just have shit randomly pallet/texture swapped for more variety.

But it'd be resource intensive as fuck and wouldn't be good for anything other than small scale towns.

>>332045210
No, people will always pick prettier graphics over more content.

>>332048523
When we're talking about procedural generation here we're talking about the devs procedurally generating it and then the final version being the same for everyone just so that it lessons the time and effort needed to design all the buildings and such.

>>332048568
see
>>332046339
It's entirely possible. Maybe not right now at the highest tier of graphics but you can still have it look decent. Note that that video is just a proof of concept too and isn't how it would always look.

>>332045210
doesn't fallout NV do this? of course there is probably some unenterable shack or something, but it seemed pretty open

>>332048656
Now that I look at it I think that sort of thing would work great for a 3D Rampage, though I'm not sure how a 3D Rampage would work.

Still punching all those buildings, finding things and people to eat in rooms and then watching it all come crumbling down was really fun.

>>332045210
This is best done in puzzle-esque games like Hitman. Exploring those levels is amazing. Not every room has something of worth or is advantageous in some way, but you can still check them out and explore.

Games that emphasize exploration often fail because they railroad and checkpoint the player into a set amount of locals so as not to lose their interest, but that's exactly why an exploration game is interesting in the first place.

File: dry bones.gif (2 MB, 540x540) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 540x540

>>332045210
Yes, but the game will be set in a place where the government dictates how all housing is built and what furnishing is used.

>>332049017
You mean like Stalker?

>>332048057
>players at some point would become burnt out and just look up guides for where the most valuable objects
Which is why you don't hardcode such things, but generate them for every player differently

>I hate to use that sort of player as the reason not to put effort into things
That's ok, I hate you for bringing a strawman into this

>could easily go towards other areas of the game
What other areas? The rest of these sandboxes is fine as is. We don't need even more mocap, scripting, tutorials and minigames in them.

>I could go to that blue house, check its attic and basement, go through its draws and closets to appreciate the meticulous detail
I like how absolutely none of this statement accounts for NPC reaction. You sure know how to execute concepts so blandly, they must fail.

>what will most likely use up most of the dev time will have little benefit
You have no idea. You think shooting random people is the pinnacle of sandboxing? Tell ya what: it's so shallow and simplistic, it's laughable, for a game. It's just all we get, because developers are chicken as fuck to actually do more, in part because of your delightful strawman.

>tedious
Ok, big, huge, highly important point here: The goal of interiors is NOT to give the player more and more shit to do, to drag out the grind to excessive levels. The goal is to remove barriers. Modern sandboxes taught us to collect everything, and "100%" a game. That goes right out of the window if you generate content to remove barriers. The sole reason for all the work is so anything the player does is not answered with an invisible wall, but an in-game-consistent reaction and followup. That they can not and will not do or see everything naturally follows from that. Lose the 100% thinking, it's not useful for a sandbox, at all.

>>332048656
>and then the final version being the same for everyone
Not necessarily. Being truly randomized helps to get over the "everyone must have the same experience" mindset, and as a positive side effect, fucks over guides, "forcing" players to actually learn their ingame world

>Maybe not right now at the highest tier of graphics
The only reason that video has simple models is that it's a proof of concept. A good streaming engine can have quite high quality visuals, as at any given moment, the amount of data is kept in check. This may, or will, require just-in-time generation though.

>>332049393
I was referring to that anon's talking about autistic people in multiplayer games being alienated by anything that makes a game not 100% based on player skill and memorizing the map.

And I know that, I even said that in one of my posts. I'm not sure how good you can get occlusion culling without it being obvious though. Like GTAV already runs at under 60 fps maxed out on a 980 I think (mostly because of the grass setting), and I'm not sure how well implemented you could get occlusion culling for all the building interiors if you have those. Especially if you have windows and can see into a lot of buildings at a time.

>>332045210
I want to see a free-roam game more in the style of Bully where the map area is a lot smaller, but things feel much more alive and real. Small area, but incredibly dense in content.

Either that, or a game with a different setting. We've had plenty of modern and historical settings. I want to see a free-roam game set in the future, or even in space.

I've toyed around with the idea of verticality in a game like this. I imagine buildings on top of each other or segregated layers of a city, but it never seems to fit quite right. It seems like it'd just be confusing and difficult to navigate and map out. But it would be interesting to see.

>>332050407
>I want to see a free-roam game more in the style of Bully where the map area is a lot smaller, but things feel much more alive and real. Small area, but incredibly dense in content.
That's actually a concept in video games. It's called the One Block Game. Where only one city block is the game area but everything is as interactive as it would be in real life and you could do basically anything you could do in real life.

Hasn't ever been done though. I think small but interesting areas is a better idea than just getting larger and larger with sparser and sparser content.

>>332050524
large worlds are extremely useful if you want to introduce distance and time related mechanics. For plain interactivity, one block is indeed the way to go

>>332046339
I know the total destructibility of the enviroment isn't the main point of this thread, but...with that system, what would happend if i entered at the ground level of a +15 floors building and literally destroy every wall?
Would the entire building collapse?
In the video it says that it doesnt require much resources as only what is immediately needed to be destroyed is calculated, but by logic if i completely destroy every wall of a ground level floor, the entire building should collapse(for the sake of simplicity, let's ignore how it should collapse way before every wall is destroyed), and calculating an entire building of +15 floors(im sure even less) would become extremely stressfull for the hardware.
The only solution would be to not collapse the building, which is dumb.
So either use a lot of resources in a system that's meant to not require lot of resources, or be unrealistic...kinda pointless in both cases.

>>332051157
>either
careful with your dichotomy. Just because you don't see more than two solutions, doesn't meant there aren't more than these two.
You do not need to model the interior of a building for its destruction, or at least not the interior of the floors you can't see at the moment. That can simplify calculations considerably. You do not need to make every part of a building destructible either. Load bearing walls and girders tend to be quite resistant

>>332051157
That demo wasn't really bothering with collapsing but I'm sure you could do collapsing to some extent, even if it's pretty simplified. We'll never know until someone tries to implement it.