 |
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: Originally posted by loinburger
The game's story would be partially time-driven, not just event-driven. So, let's say your character spends all of his/her/its time selling ice cream; while you're doing so, Mon*Star or Mumra or whoever is still enacting plans for world domination. Unless you can stop them with the healing powers of ice cream (or possibly hot fudge), then some other hero will have to dispatch them. Or possibly they will conquer the world. Tough to say. |
I contemplated time-driven games but it's hard to coordinate, more so now that the games are continuous, having the clock running all the time regardless whether you are doing something or not.
How would you have the "bad side" and the "good side" paced? The PC and the NPCs need time to develop, which is the core idea of any RPG. Now, some players can develop characters faster due to luck, experience, or both.
quote: Originally posted by loinburger
Also, you wouldn't be restricted to being "good" or "evil", or "lawful" or "chaotic", or whatever the hell else you might get pigeonholed as. Maybe you want to kill Mumra in order to vanquish his evil, or maybe you want to kill him in order to steal his powers and conquer the world yourself. Maybe you're selling ice cream out of the goodness of your heart, or maybe you're selling ice cream because you're a capitalist swine. It's up to you. |
That's why I asked about the moral/value system. My view is what the PC does should have an impact on how others view him. If he is a nasty character good people will avoid or even oppose him.
quote: Originally posted by loinburger
Finally, you would be able to lead armies into battle and whatnot, either through being hired as a general by a king, by becoming king, by becoming an evil warlord bent on world domination, or whatever. |
That would be difficult. Systems designed to handle a few people/monsters/entities will have a hard time handling battles, unless those are very small battles.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999 time: 00:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How would you have the "bad side" and the "good side" paced? The PC and the NPCs need time to develop, which is the core idea of any RPG. Now, some players can develop characters faster due to luck, experience, or both. |
The clock probably wouldn't so much be a "countdown to apocalypse," more it would be a measure of how powerful your enemies are becoming. If you wait a hundred years to kill Socko the Arch-Lich, then be aware that Socko will have had an additional hundred years to increase in power.
quote: That's why I asked about the moral/value system. My view is what the PC does should have an impact on how others view him. If he is a nasty character good people will avoid or even oppose him. |
I very much liked how Fallout II handled this.
quote: That would be difficult. Systems designed to handle a few people/monsters/entities will have a hard time handling battles, unless those are very small battles. |
There'd probably have to be some abstraction going on. Maybe only important parts of the battle are actually fleshed out (like everything in my LOS, f'rinstance, or the area around the enemy commander), and the other areas (the places where my side's cannon fodder are fighting the enemy's cannon fodder) are abstracted into the combat.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000 time: 06:17
|
|
quote: Finally, you would be able to lead armies into battle and whatnot, either through being hired as a general by a king, by becoming king, by becoming an evil warlord bent on world domination, or whatever. |
quote: That would be difficult. Systems designed to handle a few people/monsters/entities will have a hard time handling battles, unless those are very small battles. |
maybe large battles can be handled by a different engine, the time of large battles is predictable, then when you hear that an invasion force is coming to your town in 2 days, then you have 2 days to prepare your army and then when it's time, you're automatically taken to the battlefield, which is somewhere outside the city and then the battle starts, off course if you choose not to lead the army, and just flee the town, the battle would still take place off course, only it will just be calculated, maybe depending on the charisma/leadership of the replacing commander
I think pausable RTS would work nicely for these battles.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999 time: 00:17
|
|
Another thing about the whole "good vs. evil" deal is that it shouldn't be readily apparent which you are, unless you're so powerful that your reputation precedes you. Let's say that I'm a Necromancer, and I'm in a region where necromancy is frowned upon (in other words, it is punishable by death). However, unless I'm extremely powerful and have built up a reputation as a badass necromancer, or unless I'm being ostentatious about my necromancy (wearing armor made out of human bones, or travelling with a zombie escort, etc.), there's no reason why the local guards/clerics/whatever would attack me on sight. Even if my reputation precedes me, I'm not going to be such an idiot that I just waltz into town without some sort of disguise. Same deal if I'm thief, or an assassin, etc., or a paladin-type do-gooder in a region where do-gooders are frowned upon.
The recognizability of your reputation was not a problem in Fallout II, IMO, because tribals wearing power armor were quite rare and so your reputation would precede you. You also wouldn't become a child-killer, for example, unless you killed children where everybody could see you. This was the same in Daggerfall, where you could murder to your heart's content so long as there was nobody around to see you. However, I consider the instant recognizability of your class/reputation to be one of the dumber aspects of, say, Everquest. If I'm a level 1 necromancer there is absolutely no reason why my reputation should precede me wherever I go...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
CygnusZ
|
|
Good lord man, Ultima VII's world depth is greater than any other game ever produced. And yes, the RTS combat _IS_ annoying. But I love how you can travel the countryside and find all sorts of neat crap.
Xenogears is probably considered the best Console RPG because it does away with the pretense of freedom. I guess Japanese RPGs really became the extension of the "interactive fiction" genre. Not bad at all, but different. They tend to be long, fun and sometimes surprisingly deep. I also maintain that they have developed an excellent combat engine.
Bah, I just can't get the attraction with fallout. The feel of that game drives me batty...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CygnusZ
|
|
But in some ways the forced Console stories more RPGish than the forced generic nature of Computer RPGs.
Computer RPGs suffer from being way too generic and Console RPGs suffer from being way too linear. As of right now, it's a question of balance as neither of these issues really have a hope of being resolved. I still think its arrogant for one group to claim superiority of one or the other calling it more like a "True" RPG. They're just different.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CygnusZ
|
|
Oh man... where'd you find that Hoe of Death? I looked all through all that trash on the riverside...
Anyway, I think you asked for good RPGs availible from the Underdogs, and I noticed they have a couple of rare games called "Worlds of Ultima" which are quite good.
Also, if you could find it, Ultima Underworld is excellent and worth a try.
Also, try getting an SNES emulator and locating the ROMs for Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy IV/V/VI (2e/5/3e) and Dragon Quest V and VI. Chrono Trigger comes with the highest reccomendation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
CygnusZ
|
|
Still seems like two different sides of the same coin to me. While I do agree that console RPGs do seem to be heavily influenced by the old PC Adventure games, they also reperesent many elements of the old style P&P style game that is poorly represented by computer RPGs. Maybe it was the way I always played P&P games though (not much emphasis on combat, but there always was a huge story).
It's like computer RPGs have the "gameplay" right, but console RPGs have the "feel" right.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001 time: 23:17
|
|
I, for one, would rather have a superb story and characters, rather than generic everything. Generic everything is what you get in most CRPGs. At least with a console RPG, I can *feel* my character's motivation, I can interact with various people and I can choose, or not choose to accomplish various side quests. I still say FF6 is THE best and for those who have no clue, there were only a handful of characters you HAD to get in the World of Ruin, the rest were optional, but had fun little plotlines on what happened to them after the cataclysm. Plus, there was no MAIN character. All had almost equal time in the spotlight, and a specific reason for doing everything.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|