To sum it up, I have been dealing with this situation for some time now. You have probably heard about the most recent video games that are mainly based on ray tracing, 4K textures, etc., but in one aspect they all seem to be missing the mark – the realism in the characters falling down?!? It feels like we are living in the future already but the ragdoll physics are still hanging around like it’s 2010.

The whole topic was brought up because of gaming commentator NikTek’s claim which he described as an atom bomb and thus everyone started talking about it. He basically asserted that realistic ragdoll is a lost technology that only Rockstar Games still possess. And really?? He is not wrong. How is that there are high-fidelity graphics and still no one can manage character collapse like in Grand Theft Auto IV, released in 2008, anymore?

That is a long time – sixteen years, folks. We were still using flip phones when GTA IV came out and somehow its physics still look better than those of most modern games. Incredible.

The reactions to NikTek’s tweet were quite intense, to say the least. There are totally divided gamers on this topic. A part of the audience is made up of “YES FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT” types while the others are categorically rejecting the argument as nothing but pure rage bait. It is a classic Twitter moment.

A user named DamnedChudders in a very clear way said the issue right when he said – “Games today want to be visually appealing at the cost of making their worlds feel lifeless and tedious.” And that’s the point, right? We are so concerned about making everything look nice that we unknowingly ignore the aspect of making it alive.

But here comes the technicality. Don Norbury, who apparently worked at LucasArts at some point, gave the public an insight into the reasons for this rarity. Don talked about something called Euphoria – the name probably sounds like a drug but it is in fact middleware developed by a company named Natural Motion that simulates lifelike movements. Heh, it seems that an entire herd of math wizards is needed to properly operate it. Therefore, they had to have three of their specialists always available just in case the physics would go wrong.

Now this sounds logical. It is not a piece of cake to develop a lifelike ragdoll; it is rather complicated and involves a lot of different factors to consider, not to mention the burden of solving physics equations. It is all about getting it right emotionally. Federico D’Anzi made it very clear – “It’s not about the technology, ragdolls are rather simple, the problem is in making it credible.”

Then the debate surfaces again whether good ragdoll physics even matter for gameplay. Freemode Pilot mentioned Helldivers 2 where the constant ragdolling simply turns the game frustrating as an example. Which, fair point I guess?? But there is a difference between good physics and annoying mechanics.

The players who reacted to the tweet suggested other video games where ragdoll effects were implemented nicely, however, so the battle will not be fought on this front. Saints Row was utilized for generating complete minigames around their physics. Max Payne 2 and 3 were often referred to regarding their amazing bullet-time ragdoll moments. And it seems that Black Ops 6 has pretty good physics too?? However, I have not experienced that for myself yet.

What is really intriguing though is how divided the people are about whether GTA IV’s physics were actually good or it was just nostalgia talking. On the one hand, there are gamers who claim that the weight and impact felt more realistic than in GTA V, while on the other hand, the physics are being called “terrible and outdated”.

However, what I personally find regrettable is that the people on the tweet were sharing minor details from GTA IV that just seemed… right. Like the moment when Niko kicks the windshield out and ascends out of a flipped-over car. Or crashing into different characters and eliciting different kinds of responses. Such was the quality of detail that the game world became animated.

But then again, Dravarden raised the issue of player choice and preferences by stating that Counter-Strike was so realistic that it had a hard time even trying out ragdoll and being complained till it had to become more chaotic and goofy and so on. So perhaps the developers are just giving the players what their heart craves the most???

Yet, still there is a question of the extraordinary accompanying a perfectly timed physics moment that just feels right. Such moments are those that you do not acknowledge until it is too late. And this Twitter exchange reveals that many players are still conscious that this feature is missing in almost all modern games.

There is no question that this technology is still existent – Rockstar is just applying it in their upcoming games. In fact, some comments even say that the middleware used is available for others also to employ. So the real question is, what stops the other companies from developing more games that work in this area?? Is it that the cost is too high? Is it too difficult? Or perhaps the majority of players do not care enough?

I, for one, think that it is one of those subtle things which can easily differentiate between good and great games. It’s not whether the graphics of your game are the most cutting-edge; it is about how immersive it is to play in its world. As things stand now, according to players’ responses, most worlds are not as reactive as they were back in 2008.

Perhaps the time has finally arrived for the developers to go back to the old physics systems and find out what made them so unforgettable. Because honestly speaking? I would rather have the old days of ray tracing than the new days of characters piling up like cardboard cutouts any time. Just saying. PlayStation and Xbox gamers alike would probably agree.