Search results

Just how much do they pay you, man?! If you need competition in a specific subset of a genre, maybe you could try playing Gothic or Arx Fatalis. Assuming you can live with the graphics of the time, of course. I... can't imagine a 1st person PoV Diablo. That would be utterly missing the...

Aye. That's my defining factor for an RPG: A game in which the player's skill has no effect on the character's success or failure chance. Which is why I had to go lie down after trying to pick a lock and being presented with that fucking minigame. I didn't even attempt it, I just gave up and cried.

First-person RTS games exist. Battlezone springs immediately to mind. It does work, just fine. One quick google search, and I found this, which might be what's being referred to. EDIT. Furthurmore, I'm curious as to just what the conservative side is, when it comes to updating titles such...

See, slaytanic, you're part of what he's referring to. There is plenty of scope in FOnline to do stuff other than PK everyone. Such as making stuff. Just because it's a big, bad, post apocalyptic wasteland doesn't mean that everyone and their dog(meat) is a psychotic killer.

You can already do that, increasing the level cap just lets you have more perks on top of that.

Tactics had a true TB mode, and the game was a lot better when you used it, in my opinion.

Not to mention GFWL is a terrible pile of badly ported crap with a model that might've worked for XBox kids, but never went down well with the PC crowd, even after Microsoft capitulated and made it completely free.

They can. Readily availible tools and some basic programming knowledge can take indie devs a long way these days. And seeing as the target demographic aren't too fussed about games needing to run on Shader Model 3 and use all 512MB of RAM on my video card, their dev costs are kept neatly down...

Acheivements shouldn't be for just playing the game. Like the "Killed 300 people". Feh. Let's have an acheivement for killing 300 people with your bare fists naked or something.

As of late I've started to feel that the gaming industry will split, as it were. It's already done it. You've got million dollar AAA titles with huge marketing campaigns on the one hand, bought by the truckload and just rehasing old ideas with new skins every year, and the indie scene, steadily...

The comments are what bugs me That's not how it works. And VATS is not quas-turnbased, it's bullet time. Tactics had real turn-based, and I much preferred playing it in that mode than continuous.

Well, actually, I'll beat on the horse a bit more too. I think the best way to define an RPG is this: Does the success of the character's actions rely on the player's skill at controlling the character, or the character's skill values in those areas? If the former, it's not an RPG.

Not to mention Akalabeth was also presented in first-person, completely defying statements that Fallout 1 and 2 were isometric because First-person couldn't be done then. (Never mind Doom, or Deux Ex)

You could argue then, that GTA:SA is an RPG. Because it has that specialisation factor.

This is part of the problem with the game. As for the sniper, utterly lacking in backstory and reason to exist, like so many other characters.

See, this is the difference between an RPG and many other genres. An RPG needs to be internally consistent and make sense, because you're expected to live through an alter ego in this world, and if the world doesn't make sense, that's simply not feasible.

you think wrongly.

Wouldn't it be "apocalyptic"? Is it during the plague, or after it? Because a game during it would be pretty good in many ways.

The problem is you won't really be able to fix VATS, I really doubt combat can be made decent while preserving the control system and viewpoint of FO3, and you'll have an awful lot of trekking through empty nothing. Which could be cool, in its own way.

That's just the thing, these were wasteland brahmin. I think it just goes with the stories of people dying to rats and geckos. How does one get levels again?