bishop_pass :"This is my point exactly! If you think a medieval setting is required to create the right atmosphere, then you like others havn''t expanded your minds to the possibilities."


(I) don''t think that it is NECESSARY, but since most game developers only make games with this style of beauty and atmosphere in this type of era, then as a consumer it is necessary to look at this type of game / period to find this... and I mainly buy other types of games in different settings anyway, as it is the GAMEPLAY that counts. Whereas when both the GAMEPLAY and SETTING match .

I see that developers might do better to be open minded . But I think that one reason why they tend to go with the more widely accepted concepts... rather than taking elements and trying to blend them into a whole, is because it would seem odd to be fighting lizardmen on trains. (Think of the mildly out of place magical-electricity generators in the otherwise sublime Thief.)

I think it gets harder to balance combat when you throw futuristic/modern day weaponry into a game. I don''t think real time games lend themselves to having futuristic weapons without resorting to a full-fledged FPS.

Has anyone else played UO? Well, imagine if they created an isometric style game that was modern day. How could you possibly balance the combat? I mean if everyone is walking around with assault rifles, it is insta-kill city. The only way I see a modern or futuristic style game making it is if either of two things happens:
a) the setting allows itself to not have guns (and other mass-killing machines), like a post-nuclear war environment where guns and ammo would be really rare (probably wouldn''t anyway, but you get the idea)
b) turn based. The Jagged Alliance games come to mind here. The problem with that is when you have multiplayer games, how would you handle that? Does everyone in the world go into turn based mode when a battle occurs? Obviously you couldn''t do that. Just the parties involved? Well what happens if other players interfere by getting in the way or what happens if you threw a grenade into two parties at war? I think it would get pretty hairy to code...

quote: Original post by Ketchaval

...is because it would seem odd to be fighting lizardmen on trains. (Think of the mildly out of place magical-electricity generators in the otherwise sublime Thief.)

Aren't most game plots odd anyway? Hobbits were probably originally percieved as odd until they became a cliche. Regarding the electrical generators in Thief, these were fantastic. They added an original flair and style to the game, setting it apart from Thief's cliched counterparts.



Edited by - bishop_pass on October 21, 2000 11:48:04 AM

quote: Original post by _Josh

I think it gets harder to balance combat when you throw futuristic/modern day weaponry into a game. I don''t think real time games lend themselves to having futuristic weapons without resorting to a full-fledged FPS.

Has anyone else played UO? Well, imagine if they created an isometric style game that was modern day.

Who said anything about isometric? Why does an RPG need to be isometric? A Game in the style of Thief could have been an RPG. Thief had a bow and arrows. Sniping was possible.

Use of a powerful weapon has to be moderated by the environment.

The bow and arrow in Thief would obviously be a lot weaker than a sniper rifle, though. In Thief, also, you had to account for the trajectory of the arrow which made it hard to get the one hit kills from a long distance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that futuristic multiplayer doesn't work too well on a large scale. Futuristic single player can work well (Deus Ex). But then again, Deux Ex is a RPG FPS hybrid.

Edited by - _Josh on October 21, 2000 12:19:35 PM

I have always assumed that the difference between a FPS and an RPG is that a FPS is expected to be played in real time, and so your choices of play have to be somewhat limited to be of practical use. RPG''s offer many more options during play, but this drives the speed of the game WAY down.
- What''s the difference between an RPG and a RTS game? - Lubb

quote: Original post by _Josh

I think it gets harder to balance combat when you throw futuristic/modern day weaponry into a game. I don''t think real time games lend themselves to having futuristic weapons without resorting to a full-fledged FPS.

??? Have you played any RTS games? I''m not sure I follow you. Even at the character level, you have a few RT games like the old Crusader series, or the recent (though not that great for other reasons) Enemy Infestation, which was RT party based.

quote:
Has anyone else played UO? Well, imagine if they created an isometric style game that was modern day. How could you possibly balance the combat? I mean if everyone is walking around with assault rifles, it is insta-kill city.

No, this is solely a question of realism and arms vs. armor. Broadsword combat without armor should be insta-kill, but in most RPGs it''s not (realism). Flak vests and tactics are the modern day equivalent. Now project a bit forward, and you''ve got better full body armor, maybe even what I''m going with: powered, mechanised body suits.

quote:
a) the setting allows itself to not have guns (and other mass-killing machines), like a post-nuclear war environment where guns and ammo would be really rare (probably wouldn''t anyway, but you get the idea)

High law areas in modern day society would do this too. Last time I checked, here in the US you can''t walk around the streets toting a minigun.

You can modern / futuristic combat real-time. But you need to think carefully about UI, representation (character size), and as you say, balance.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by Ingenu

Playing is fleeing away from reality in a place in which you cannot be beaten by easily, and where bad are looking bad and good are good.

I think this is a good point, but it doesn''t lead away from the modern setting. It''s true that for the common man the world is filled with limits and fences. Nobody wants to play a nobody, they want to matter.

But that just means you up the odds. The character has to be special somehow. A superhero, a spy, a psychic, a crack mercenary.

After all, who wants to play a peasant lackey in a fantasy game?



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by bishop_pass

Aren''t most game plots odd anyway? Hobbits were probably originally percieved as odd until they became a cliche. Regarding the electrical generators in Thief, these were fantastic. They added an original flair and style to the game, setting it apart from Thief''s cliched counterparts.

Amen brother. I like the way you think. You can be on my team anytime!

It can be damn hard to set yourself apart from the pack. Setting is one awesome way, because it (sometimes) suggests new types of gameplay. So what are you doing to prevent being YAMG (yet another medieval game)?



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

That did take a lot of courage for thief to put in those futuristic objects in w/ medival ones. Thief just did so many things well.

It''s funny how a lot of games take place on other worlds, but they''re all stuck in the Dark Ages at the point where the game takes place


""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

"All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." -Pink Floyd

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.