quote:
Original post by _Josh
I think it gets harder to balance combat when you throw futuristic/modern day weaponry into a game. I don''t think real time games lend themselves to having futuristic weapons without resorting to a full-fledged FPS.
??? Have you played any RTS games? I''m not sure I follow you. Even at the character level, you have a few RT games like the old Crusader series, or the recent (though not that great for other reasons) Enemy Infestation, which was RT party based.
quote:
Has anyone else played UO? Well, imagine if they created an isometric style game that was modern day. How could you possibly balance the combat? I mean if everyone is walking around with assault rifles, it is insta-kill city.
No, this is solely a question of realism and arms vs. armor. Broadsword combat without armor should be insta-kill, but in most RPGs it''s not (realism). Flak vests and tactics are the modern day equivalent. Now project a bit forward, and you''ve got better full body armor, maybe even what I''m going with: powered, mechanised body suits.
quote:
a) the setting allows itself to not have guns (and other mass-killing machines), like a post-nuclear war environment where guns and ammo would be really rare (probably wouldn''t anyway, but you get the idea)
High law areas in modern day society would do this too. Last time I checked, here in the US you can''t walk around the streets toting a minigun.
You can modern / futuristic combat real-time. But you need to think carefully about UI, representation (character size), and as you say, balance.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
.
. But I think that one reason why they tend to go with the more widely accepted concepts... rather than taking elements and trying to blend them into a whole, is because it would seem odd to be fighting lizardmen on trains. (Think of the mildly out of place magical-electricity generators in the otherwise sublime Thief.)
