Create your dream game!

[EgonSpengler]

Alpha Protocol The Witcher Geneforge Avernum

I'll look into those. Thanks for the tips.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm honestly not sure what you are getting at besides "3d graphics use more computing power than 2d and are more difficult to make", neither of which have any bearing on some staggeringly great 3d strategy games (GalCiv2, Rome: Total War, Civ4, etc).
Given the benefits with 3d engines such as scrolling (I would dread to have to play GalCiv2 if I couldn't scroll in an out), dynamic camera, and when done decently: easier at-a-glance
identification.

EDIT: I'm not saying using 2d graphics for a strategy game is bad or keeps it from being good. Rather, I'm just not getting how large strategy games today using exclusively 3d graphics is in any way a bad thing.

The issue which remains regardless of computer power & skills of the artist, is that if you have the objects in full 3d/all angles/zoom modes then no matter what you do you cannot prepare the equal level of the models looking good, cause there are literally countless different points of view for those objects.

An artist can prepare a great looking model for some set angles. But not for thousands, and essentially random ones. It is just not the same thing at all and - as i noted - in such a case the artist has to primarily focus on good skins for relatively low-polygonal models.

 

[Mouthwash]

What?

Spore was originally that way. Saying that you want Science Spore instead of Kiddy Spore is just reiterating the desire of 90% of the Spore fanbase- many of them only bought it because they thought it would resemble the 2005 version.

 

[BvBPL]

I'm not sure I appericate the difference.

 

[Ajidica]

The issue which remains regardless of computer power & skills of the artist, is that if you have the objects in full 3d/all angles/zoom modes then no matter what you do you cannot prepare the equal level of the models looking good, cause there are literally countless different points of view for those objects.

An artist can prepare a great looking model for some set angles. But not for thousands, and essentially random ones. It is just not the same thing at all and - as i noted - in such a case the artist has to primarily focus on good skins for relatively low-polygonal models.

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I'm still not getting why you seem to view 3d graphics in games -particularly strategy games- as a bad thing. As we have seen over the last decade it clearly has no impact on whether a game is fun to play as plenty of bad games- 3d and 2d have been created.
Even approaching it from a purely artistic direction, I've never played a 2d game where I stopped and thought "wow, that's beautiful". For example, a 2d game is fundamentally incapable of creating the following image:

Spoiler for size :

Again, 2d graphics in games can do their job just fine and I have no issues with them, but I don't understand why you believe that 3d graphics among high budget games is bad- even from an artistic perspective.

 

[Zack]

For computer games, I would love to see an RPG in which I really feel like my character is a driving force in the developing story. I want the world and characters around me to be reacting to me, and it's not just me reacting to them. For the most part, when I play RPGs I feel like I'm just being told a story, not making choices that effect the plot, the setting or the characters.

I can imagine this would be a tough nut to crack, but I see things in gaming that suggest it's possible. You would either need an insanely complex web of scripted, Choose Your Own Adventure-style, action-result options, or a kind of AI that can actually decide how NPCs behave on the fly. Some games have pretty decent combat-AI, and have for years. I recall being (un)pleasantly surprised when soldiers lobbed grenades at me in Half-Life 2 if I was behind cover, and that was 10 years ago. Civ V has pretty complex AI that includes personality traits and individual goals (although the war-fighting AI in Civ is abominable).

I also cannot play another RPG set in a generic, sword-and-sorcery fantasy setting. Maybe ever. I'd love to see a (good) game set in China Mieville's New Crobuzon or something equally inventive.

Man, you really need to play Alpha Protocol. It's exactly what you're looking for.

With that said, I would love a more polished Alpha Protocol, maybe in an open world (or at least hubs like DE:HR). That would be awesome.

 

[Leonel]

My dream game would be something like the Sims meets GTA. There'd be a mini-representation of the US or something and you can take jobs etc but if you wanted to, you could move to one of the major cities or be a truck driver that makes trips across the country or a pilot etc.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Spore was originally that way. Saying that you want Science Spore instead of Kiddy Spore is just reiterating the sentiments of 90% of the Spore fanbase- many of them only bought it because they thought it would be like the 2005 version.

Yeah, and said sentiments still represent my dream game. So?

Anyway, I found that list of games I would consider to be perfect. One's Deus Ex with the bad parts polished up and extra choices(e.g. siding with UNATCO) and another's Scribblenauts Unlimited with the possibility of custom levels and vocabulary.

 

[Narz]

Isn't this more or less what Beyond Earth is trying to do?

Cool, I hadn't heard of that one, maybe I'll actually try a new Civ game for the first time this millennium.

 

[Kyriakos]

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I'm still not getting why you seem to view 3d graphics in games -particularly strategy games- as a bad thing. As we have seen over the last decade it clearly has no impact on whether a game is fun to play as plenty of bad games- 3d and 2d have been created.
Even approaching it from a purely artistic direction, I've never played a 2d game where I stopped and thought "wow, that's beautiful". For example, a 2d game is fundamentally incapable of creating the following image:

Spoiler for size :

Again, 2d graphics in games can do their job just fine and I have no issues with them, but I don't understand why you believe that 3d graphics among high budget games is bad- even from an artistic perspective.

MMORPGs like the one you posted are surely better in full 3d, but it is not like you have a map there and stable objects you will look at thousands of times in each game (as in placed cities in a strategy game, for example). Of course i agree with you that i am approaching this as an (amateur) 3d graphics creator, and personally i never liked the same models of mine which looked good in static renders in Civ3, when used in Civ4 with some skins. The latter did not look good, and is indeed an all-together different approach from the ground up (focus on skins, less polygons, less protrusions and more flat surfaces to have the skins look better, etc).

That said, obviously it is more difficult to make something look good if it is to be seen in full 3d angle variation...

 

[EgonSpengler]

Have you tried Alpha Protocol?

Man, you really need to play Alpha Protocol.

I got Alpha Protocol last night. After going mano-a-mano with Steam (it crashed my machine twice) I decided to watch an episode of Fringe. I did finally get it installed, so hopefully I can get into playing it over the weekend.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

Civilization IV with Paradox levels of immersion.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Civilization IV with Paradox levels of immersion.

Can you hear this? This is the sound of a thousand computers combusting into fire.

 

[Phrossack]

An open world post apocalyptic game that doesn't involve fantasy.

Yes. Especially if it's not set in a bleak, barren wasteland, but in a world overgrown with (mostly invasive) plants and wildlife. I've dreamed of some game like that where you're trying to truly survive in a post-apocalyptic wilderness. Fallout is always in a miserably barren landscape and it's not survival, since there's civilization all over the place. Plus fantasy. In my world, you'd be really out in the wilderness, trying to survive by foraging, hunting, looting, and scavenging. You might be trying to patrol some struggling society's borders in an uninhabited wilderness and protect it from bandits and other aggressors, and there could be a lot of tracking spoor, hiding your own spoor, and generally trying to track enemies in the bush while avoiding detection.

An Elder Scrolls game with one mechanic borrowed from Civ. Each of the guilds, factions, houses in the game is, like the rival civs in SP Civ, working toward something it would regard as "victory" at this historical moment (and like Civ there can be multiple kinds of victory). Those potential victories are the climaxes of the plot. Your character, as per usual for ES games, can get involved in one of those quests for victory as much or as little as he or she wishes. But even if you don't, the guilds develop and deploy their resources (NPCs) to make progress toward that victory. So, NPCs go exploring dungeons to claim magic items, etc, important to the victory condition they are trying to achieve.

One step closer, in other words, to a truly living world. Even if your character goes fishing for the whole game, the NPCs in the game will continue to make their way toward the cataclysmic event (or one of, say, six of them) that, in a usual ES game represents the main plot. That way, not only can you, as now, do different things in the world depending on what kind of character you play; the world itself will play out differently every time you play the game, rather than just sitting there as a relatively static background for your character's adventuring.

Yes! So many game worlds are nothing more than Sleeping Beauties, completely inert and just waiting for the player's touch to get them moving. In fact, almost all non-strategy games I've played have been like that, except Mount&Blade. Like in Mass Effect. I'm told I have to track down the villain before he finds something, but I can take my sweet time exploring the galaxy first. An asteroid is hurtling towards a planet and will impact in four hours, but I can leave it at any time and come back in a few weeks, no hurry. Or in New Vegas, the two biggest factions are preparing for a showdown, but they won't do squat until I, a glorified mailman, arrive to set things in motion, and once I stop, so do they.

I assume the answer to this question is yes, but I will ask anyway: Have you played anything from the Europa Universalis series? It focuses more on grand strategy (and AI abuse) than troop management, but you might otherwise find it interesting. If all else fails, just watch some let's play.

I haven't, no. I've only heard of it. Sounds interesting, but I'm also really looking for something with Total War-style real-time battles combined with a strategy map, and so far Total War seems to have a monopoly on that.

I had some ideas I wrote somewhere. One of them was Spore with an emphasis on science instead of cuteness, and with actual depth. I'll dig it up when I go home.

Spoiler :

Good thread, OP. Well done.

That would be cool.

Spoiler :

Thanks!

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Yes! So many game worlds are nothing more than Sleeping Beauties, completely inert and just waiting for the player's touch to get them moving. In fact, almost all non-strategy games I've played have been like that, except Mount&Blade. Like in Mass Effect. I'm told I have to track down the villain before he finds something, but I can take my sweet time exploring the galaxy first. An asteroid is hurtling towards a planet and will impact in four hours, but I can leave it at any time and come back in a few weeks, no hurry. Or in New Vegas, the two biggest factions are preparing for a showdown, but they won't do squat until I, a glorified mailman, arrive to set things in motion, and once I stop, so do they.

You can't seriously be proposing a time limit for a sandbox game? That's why I never touched the Dead Rising series.

Spoiler :

Thanks!

Spoiler :

Been way too long since I've been excited to read and post in an OT thread.

 

[Phrossack]

You can't seriously be proposing a time limit for a sandbox game? That's why I never touched the Dead Rising series.

Not a time limit for everything, no. But it would make sense for a few missions to be time-sensitive. Otherwise there's no drive, no sense of urgency.

However, I'm definitely not proposing forcing the player to complete the main storyline, if there is one, in a rush, at the expense of side-quests. I am proposing having a game world in which NPCs go about their lives advancing their own goals. It really frustrates me when all the NPCs are mindless automatons who depend 100% on the actions of a character who's only remarkable in that he/she/it is controlled by a human player.

In Civ and Total War, as with most if not all strategy games, the AI acts on its own and at least tries to win. It's possible to legitimately lose a game. If there were some kind of third-party human observer somehow watching the game from their own perspective and with no knowledge of which faction was human-controlled, they might take a while to figure out who's the AI and who's the human, since they're all independent actors. If that observer were watching a game of New Vegas, on the other hand, they could instantly figure it out, since literally all other characters and groups are frozen in time, unable to move or act without the player's magic touch.

Mount&Blade is sort of a step in the right direction. You can go about on your own adventures, but as in Total War, the factions are still trying to win, and start wars on their own. However, that's about the limit of it, since there are no other bands of adventurers trying to work their way up, nobody else is taking the guild quests, and nobody else tries to start their own kingdoms.

I dream of a game in which you're just another person, and if you want to win, you have to work for it. In games like Mass Effect, it's essentially impossible to lose, since nothing happens without you and if you die or fail the mission, you just try again. Your ultimate victory is guaranteed. You're the only independent actor, and the entire game revolves around you. In Civ, if another civ wins, it wins, and you lose, and that's that. You're not spoiled, although it helps that the AI is still very stupid.

Glad you like this thread! I just had a bunch of ideas for games and I needed to share them, and where better to do that than a game forum?

 

[gay_Aleks]

I was thinking of downloading Mount & Blade recently actually.

Is it good?

 

[Zack]

I got Alpha Protocol last night. After going mano-a-mano with Steam (it crashed my machine twice) I decided to watch an episode of Fringe. I did finally get it installed, so hopefully I can get into playing it over the weekend.

Read/skim through this before you play. Boss fights are easy when you chain-shot them in the face.

 

[Phrossack]

I was thinking of downloading Mount & Blade recently actually.

Is it good?

Come for the game, stay for the mods.

It depends on what you're looking for. I'm one of those niche gamers who yearns for the chance to run down filthy infantry atop my glorious steed, so I love it. Combat is mainly in third person, but you can switch to first person if you want. It's not as good, though. There's also a real-time campaign map with castles, towns, villages, and factions that pursue war and that one thing between wars of their own accord.

It's fairly dated and in the base game the graphics are quite unimpressive. It's an indie game and it shows. However, mods can fix this to a degree, graphics aren't all that important anyway, and if you want a chance to personally participate in medieval combat with bow, sword, lance, crossbow, and so on, on foot or horseback, starting a small band of followers and working your way up to become a noble, then a king, then emperor, get it. Just make sure you can feed and pay your followers. It's easy, but crucial.

There's a wide range of mods, and they're easily installed. I highly recommend Brytenwalda and AD 1257. The former is set in Britain in 636 AD and includes around two dozen factions, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, Irish, and Britons. There are a lot of options for it that can make the game more complex, difficult, and realistic. And when you defeat the enemy and conquer a series of castles, you feel like you earned it.

AD 1257 is set in Europe, North Africa, and parts of the Middle East in 1257. Combat's a bit more realistic, graphics are much better, and there's a huge array of beautiful and mostly realistic weapons and armor. The recruitment system is based on the medieval lance system; it's more realistic and challenging. You can also build a manor near your fief and develop it. Its merchants can produce tribute in either cash or kind, and you can recruit an army to follow you there. This will cost a lot of money in wages and will reduce the manor's productivity, but it's very helpful if your castle is besieged and none of the other lords show up to help in time. Bulgaria is one of the factions, ruled by poor old Constantine Tikh before the swineherd killed him.

 

[Tarquelne]

I'll reply to the OP later.

3D vs. 2D:

IMO The problem with 3D vs. 2D isn't that the 3D cannot look as good - though this is generally the case - it's that it requires a heck of a lot more money to do almost anything.

As a practical matter, this means you spend less money, time, and effort on other things. Like, game design, AI, or anything else that you can't take a picture off. Either because you're spending the money on graphics, or because, you figure that if you're beautiful you don't need brains.

Strategy games tend to need more effort spent on non-visual factors to reach their full potential. Especially with regard to design and AI.

But, quite often, anything that doesn't make you go "Wow!" when watching a trailer gets short-changed.

I noticed an immediate drop in average PC strategy title quality when 3D graphics became common.