I don't think any element of a game design can tap into the natural desire to do well than the addition of simple physics. In many ways it is the ultimate form of AI because it pits the player wholly against their environment. If something goes wrong they only have themselves to blame.This is a major part of the attraction to golf and billiards. Only through years of practice can the player learn the subtleties of the friction along the felt of the pool table or the precise angles and speeds of a pitching wedge.
When we first started developing [absorb] we were looking at games like Flight Control where you would draw out a full path for an object. While it works extremely well for Flight Control, it just didn't feel satisfying for a game like [absorb] and also made the game far too easy.
We could have added some kind of AI to [absorb], but instead we gave a simple physics implementation a shot. It adds a very dynamic feeling to the game, and also requires practice by the player to learn the "feel" of the game. Once the player does get the feel of the game and is able to get orbs into the gate with repeated success, it's much more satisfying than if we had included no physics and gave the player 1:1 control.
(1:1 control on touch screen devices is an issue that I believe deserves its own post. I'll come back to that at a later time.)
If your game is not difficult or satisfying enough and you start considering some form of AI implementation, consider for a moment how physics can make your game more difficult. There's a good chance it will also make it more fun.
Posts
