Quote:
Originally Posted by Yes Or Nay
Seconded.
As for inexhaustible resources, I actually think that the aspect of their exhaustion is an important part of the "strategic" part of the game. Manage your resources and at the same time defend and expand. Also, I think it adds to the realism of the game. My option though. 
Concerning the static health, I would agree it would add to the hard-core feeling of the game. But I would not want it to become the only option in FPS. Possibly only on higher difficulties.
I, for one, miss the expanded dialogues in, for example, PS:T or Morrowind. Morrowind's sequel drastically cut the dialogues and in my opinion that kinda ruined the could-be-wonderful game. |
These are all features you'd like to see
more of, don't assume anyone means "all games need to have this". I don't want to see the standard resource model removed from RTS games, it works well in Starcraft, it's just that too many games slow down and become boring in the early game because you're busy stockpiling resources in order to tech up. The Age of Empires games are extremely bad regarding this, it almost feels like it takes twenty minutes to just start the game because everyone is spending resources on more villagers and gathering nonsense. I love the AoE games, their early game is just astonishingly slow.
Just making that clear, we still need shooters like Doom with replenishable health, I just want the static health to be more prominent in games that emphasize not making mistakes, ie stealth games or more 'realistic' titles like CoD which at least offer to maintain the illusion of realism.
Perfect Dark and GoldenEye used it well without becoming an aggravating issue, but that's also thanks to their great level design.
There's only one thing I want to see removed and that's regenerating health which hasn't worked well in a single game I've played yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRS
Don't be afraid of isometric view.
These days everything has to be full 3D (by this I mean also full perspective view). In certain games - like the city building series Caesar or SimCity or even something like Transport Tycoon - having a fixed angle and no perspective distortion actually helps the player to assess distances (laying out the buildings precisely).
The real Fallout 3 (codename Van Buren) looked great despite using this view. And they did implement 3D engine, so isometric doesn't mean "spirtes". Games like Railroad Tycoon 3 or Trucks & Trains Tycoon were inferior to older versions as the player didn't benefit from the full 3D perspective view, but constantly fought with camera placement.
|
I don't think isometric is as dead as many people would point it out to be, I just think the issue is that too many developers become comfortable with their existing engines and gaming models.
Bethesda is a prime example, GameBryo is great for isometric or turn-based games, it gave us Kohan, Civilization IV, Freedom Force and a ton of other games, but Bethesda doesn't want to deviate from their existing formulae, because that's hard to do, because it takes more money and time (although God knows what took them four years just to reskin Oblivion and add in horrible shooter combat to make Fallout 3), also there's always the idea that they just
can't pull it off which is why developers stick to the same genres and ideas.
Since there are fewer people making isometric games, that means there are fewer companies that actually have experience making them, eventually leading up to a scenario where there are very few companies that are making them at all because they're comfortable with them.
Let's not forget that the genres that the perspective lends itself to are difficult to make, top down RPGs in the realm of Baldur's Gate or Temple of Elemental Evil, RTS and TBS games, simulation titles, all that stuff is more difficult than an action game, or the vastly overrated first person action RPG.