38 replies to this topic

[Blood-Pigggy]

Juni Ori, on Apr 21 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

DeathDude, on Apr 22 2007, 06:20 AM, said:

CoH I would say is a fantastic game for any RTS gamer that actually seems to be heading in a different direction of realism but that would seem more real. Its not perfect, and really name a game in the RTS genre that can be to an extent as real as possible? You can debate about how certain elements of the game are not executed as you might imagine, but the game comes close, and its a start, eventually developers may look at the style and improve it. Its gotten great and positive reviews, praised by gamers, its a game that any sort of RTS fan should check out as well, both are great games, but really to compare the two can be tough since they both have their own styles going for it, and imo both do a good job in their respective areas.

R.E.A.L.I.S.M
Ever seen or even heard of Close Combat series??? There the soldiers, every frigging one, trying to act like real soldier would do. Scripting can't be that hard, if it has been done already. In several occasions. Looking at how those tiny guys move in CoH and what tactics bring people victories in it, makes me just want to cry... And I'm not saying CC2-5 would be perfect. They are far from it, but right now, it seems we have gone baaaaaaadly back to stone age in terms of realism. But I do understand. Nowadays kids want simple and easy-to-learn things and one obvious solution to get through the problems. It's not only the game-makers problem, but it's more society's.

Be it as it ever may be, I'm not going to reply here anymore about WW2 "grand" strategies, that may work in CoH (which btw can still be entertaining on some primitive level). All I hope, is that if I ever have to fight for real, I have enemies who have learned everything from games like CoH. Or then not. It might make me scornful and thus make me make stupid move, leading me into shameful death...

You're just sounding jerky right now. And criticizing CoH's level of strategy when you haven't even played it is moronic to a ghastly extreme. Comparing CoH to Close Combat is stupid as well, not only are they in two entirely separate genres, but Close Combat has slipped into the level of mediocrity that's evident in most long-lasting war games.

[greywolf]

Ok, now that we've sorted out who prefers ultra-realism and who doesn't, could we get back on topic?

I've checked out (and by checked out, I mean I read the wiki article ) Neverwinter Nights, and while it looks interesting, it isn't entirely what I was imagining. It uses DnD mechanics like Beef said, but it doesn't look like it has a few things that are critical to pnp rpgs - dynamic NPC's and a freeform engine. I haven't actually played it, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like everything is interactible.

The best part about pnp rpgs is that you have total freedom to interact with anything as if you were there IRL. If I'm about to get in a barfight, I can take a chair, smash it over some dude's head,  take one of the broken pieces of wood, and throw it at another guy. Or if I'm in the woods and run into some orcs, I could cast an illusion spell to keep them preoccupied while I insta-burned the lower half of a tree to make it fall onto them. Destructible objects and environments are probably the hardest thing for a programmer to do, but it would be essential to making the ultimate RPG.

As for the NPC's, you could say that I could just use the internet to gather up a party to play with other people, but that's not a substitute for NPC's that have their own desires and motives. In any case, playing with other people over the internet quickly turns it into a MMORG of sorts, which is exactly what I want to avoid.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Maybe if developers start finding a use for physics other than just having the place look nice they could have situations like that in real graphic games.

That's partially why I'm excited about Crysis, apparently it takes Half-Life 2's physics to another level, which means that there's indeed trees falling on people, or buildings collapsing on top of them. I'm looking forward to the chance that the physics might allow for manipulation of the environment that could lead to my benefit in game, instead of just having stuff jumbling around.

[greywolf]

Indeed. Red Faction was a game a while back that tried to do some of the destructible environment stuff, but it was really inconsistent. You could blow tunnels miles long into the martian surface, but office cubicles were completely invincible. Sadly, I haven't seen any other game take such an approach to objects in the game world except for Freedom Force, and even then, the physics weren't quite right. Don't get me wrong, I love Freedom Force, but having a huge crater where you just shot a giant fireball would have been a lot cooler than just a big burn mark.

[DeathDude]

Red Faction indeed had the right idea being able to blast open walls, it was a nice start, just shame that ya couldn't use the destructible environment to ya know help ya out against enemies, but it was pretty far looking when it was released a few years ago.

Think it will advance further and definitely Crysis will be a sweet game when it comes out, like the idea of what the developers are trying to do with that game, it will be an awesome game no doubt, just hopefully not vista exclusive even though will be using Direct X 10, but still can't wait for that one.

[Doubler]

Digging was also the only thing worth doing in Red Faction. Did anyone else actually hit the limit to the destructible environment? In that special hall thingey I tried mining tunnels over the ceiling and back down to the other side. I only got halfway, then the environment became completely indestructible

Ultimate game? Hm. Freeform, expansive, vast, first person, action RPG. Actions with consequences, duties, randomly generated gameworld. Realistic and immersive, adding survival elements.

[Blood-Pigggy]

DeathDude, on Apr 24 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

Red Faction indeed had the right idea being able to blast open walls, it was a nice start, just shame that ya couldn't use the destructible environment to ya know help ya out against enemies, but it was pretty far looking when it was released a few years ago.

Think it will advance further and definitely Crysis will be a sweet game when it comes out, like the idea of what the developers are trying to do with that game, it will be an awesome game no doubt, just hopefully not vista exclusive even though will be using Direct X 10, but still can't wait for that one.

You will be able to play it on XP as well, but apparently without the DirectX10 features, most of the fancy graphics is coming from that, so you'll probably want to get Vista if you want to get the full impact of the visuals.

[DeathDude]

Yeah totally, hoping might end up on XP, since just got this new computer in January, and to get Vista and a Direct X 10 capable card would be quite pricey, granted have been seeing some ideas floating around and a program that might be able to use Direct X 10 features on XP oddly, going to wait it out for Vista at least and for the 1st gen of Direct X 10 cards to come out, work out the bugs and all that, still it looks amazing Crysis and will definitely is the nice showcase piece for Vista.

[MdaG]

I'm having high hopes for Mass effect. Fallout 2 was nearly perfect and I've yet to experience a game as captivating as it was.