RPGs in development ?

Reconite said:
...would you rather a big-money Bethesda-esque rape Wasteland 2 made by a different studio or would you rather Brian Fargo just keeps Wasteland to himself and does nothing with it?
Click to expand...
Option B, no question about it. Whatever it takes to prevent option A.

What I'd really like to see is some small developer with integrity acquire the rights to The Elder Scrolls and turn it into an isometric PnP RPG simulator with turn-based combat, a great story, and excellent writing. I would call that justice.
 
Developers are so touchy about game engines. They don't like like giving them away, even if they are now obsolete. If even a couple of the majors started to GPL their old game engines after they had replaced them, loads of tiny indie companies would spring up within months, because getting an engine is one of the most costly parts of making a game. As a modder, I know that even an engine a decade old can usually be tarted up/tweaked enough to be very nice indeed.

Oh, on other news, fair amount of vague rumours that Elder Scrolls 5 is currently in development. They said they wouldn't say if it was gonna be a MMORPG or not. Allegedly. Well, I doubt they would make F4 even before NV had been released. I hope it is not. Really I do. (a MMORPG, that is)

I think isometric PnP has had it's day, at least with RPG's. It was developed as a style to hide the real graphical and memory limitiations of 90's PC's. And turn-based? I don't think I can remember a RPG using that for about a decade now.
 
And turn-based? I don't think I can remember a RPG using that for about a decade now.
Click to expand...

TOEE was the last major WRPG to use it, yes. 2003. There's still quite a few indie games though, take Avernum series for example. Also, TB is still prominent in Japanese games.

I think isometric PnP has had it's day, at least with RPG's. It was developed as a style to hide the real graphical and memory limitiations of 90's PC's.
Click to expand...

Well, we can speculate about that. Maybe it was, and maybe it wasn't, after all there were a plenty FP RPGs in the 90s as well. The bottom line is, though, if a fan of the view would like to have it, is it so wrong to demand it to happen? Quite a few recent games offered pseudo-isometric camera options for PC gamers, which makes me believe it's not so out-of-ordinary. NWN, Witcher, and even DA:O (sorta) all did that. Not the best implementation in some cases, true, but it's doable if there's a need for it. And I'd argue it's more about gameplay style that graphics, because if you're just button-mashing (which most modern RPGs have you do), then of course isometric is useless. If you're planning out strategies, party formation and all sorts of things like that, top-down view is vital. I mean, there's a reason why, for example, a game like Starcraft2 was released with a top-down perspective.
 
I think isometric PnP has had it's day, at least with RPG's. It was developed as a style to hide the real graphical and memory limitiations of 90's PC's.
Click to expand...
Though I dont like to think about it that way. Particularly as Tourn Based combat and PnP in particuiliar could be seen as advantage exactly cause of the points you mentioned. Memory and hardware can be used much more efficiently because you have (more or less) only to calculate a few things for indidivual actions, like movement and actions for one character at a time while in a real time based/arcade gameplay you have to do many things for several characters which puts a clear limit on the number of actions you can see and perform, as shown nicely by Fallout Vegas which serves as perfect example since most if not all battles have 10 people as maximum and most of the locations also dont offer many people inside or have to be designed as "closed entitiy" like the Strip and thus cant really create the ilusion of beeing a big city or place. But that just by the way. PnP offered a different form of roleplaying with archetypes while games like Vegas offer a more open roleplaying (you do as you see fit). In games like Vegas you are suposed to be the character (hence first person/third person) while in PnP games you are suposed to create a character and only "guide" him, not act "like him" hence the top down/birds view. Playing the character in F1 means to observe his actions and just be the helping hand like a god-figure. Call it a spirt or inspiration to the character. It are completely different aproaches and with different results and experience. The one is not better then the other. Both have clear advantages and disadvantages. To me it feels today like many people want for example the setting of Fallout (as thats what they loved) but dont want the "gameplay" it offered as they have seen it as boring or not "modern", thus they go on about creating a experience which fits their preference.

But thats not either a revolution nor a improvement its simply a "shift" to the side (in gameplay) like if I would make Halo in to a Real Time Stragy game and calling it a Sequel because I disslike shooters but love the Halo setting and as well calling it a "modernisation" and everyone who does complain and not liking it to be the next step in Halo games would be simply "old fashioned".

Also with Tourn Based or PnP beeing a form of "gameplay" graphics do not mater here in anyway as it would be no problem to make a top down strategy game with tourn based combat using the newest visuals and high end hardware. Strategy games havnt stoped in their visual evolution for the past 15 years mind you ...

~ See for example Demigod now just imagine it with a tourn based gameplay. Graphic doesnt play a role here really.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dChcm8Go9XU&feature=fvst[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top