Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Yolan]

An industrial revolution MMO.

You start at the typical level of your stone gathering, tree chopping survival game, but a tech tree allows for full expansion to high end development. Only thing is, it requires massive human organization. Only by getting thousands of people together in some kind of cooperative clan-like community could you made decent progress in building the mines, railways, smelters, mills etc.

I think this, combined with serious issues with environmental degradation and armed conflict, could make for a really great MMO experience.

[Sirus]

Watching (and playing) a bit of Dying Light has made me think about the concept of a first-person beat-em-up/brawler game.

Does Condemned count? It looked like it was trying to do that to me. Though I never got to play it myself. Closest other thing I can think of is the mod/standalone mod Action Doom 2.

Seconded. It's exactly what you're looking for, Azy.

[scrdest]

Watching (and playing) a bit of Dying Light has made me think about the concept of a first-person beat-em-up/brawler game.

Does Condemned count? It looked like it was trying to do that to me. Though I never got to play it myself. Closest other thing I can think of is the mod/standalone mod Action Doom 2.

Zeno Clash is pretty much this, in a rather trippy world.

[Trebz]

Are there any decent modern rpg's with random encounters anymore? Not including any jrpg's or the Fallout series.

I think they've gotten pushed away with modern game design.  And, well, modern budgets.  Why use random encounters when you can hand place everything?  I think even in Fallout/Elder Scrolls its not really that random.

I think it might have more to do with modern gamers. Budgets were not better back in the day. At the risk of sounding like an old timer, games used to be way more complex. Stories were good or bad but there was a lot more open world/choices in games. How many modern games do you build something then interact with that world?
And random encounters are a great filler. In Fallout 1&2 you had to be ready to fight anything. In the later ones you know if you will be fighting humans, monsters, ghouls etc.

[AzyWng]

Watching (and playing) a bit of Dying Light has made me think about the concept of a first-person beat-em-up/brawler game.

Does Condemned count? It looked like it was trying to do that to me. Though I never got to play it myself. Closest other thing I can think of is the mod/standalone mod Action Doom 2.

Zeno Clash is pretty much this, in a rather trippy world.

Isn't Condemned a horror game? I'm not really that good with horror (the Volitales had me scared out of my mind when I was doing "Airdrop").

[itisnotlogical]

Are there any decent modern rpg's with random encounters anymore? Not including any jrpg's or the Fallout series.

I think they've gotten pushed away with modern game design.  And, well, modern budgets.  Why use random encounters when you can hand place everything?  I think even in Fallout/Elder Scrolls its not really that random.

I think it might have more to do with modern gamers. Budgets were not better back in the day. At the risk of sounding like an old timer, games used to be way more complex. Stories were good or bad but there was a lot more open world/choices in games. How many modern games do you build something then interact with that world?
And random encounters are a great filler. In Fallout 1&2 you had to be ready to fight anything. In the later ones you know if you will be fighting humans, monsters, ghouls etc.

A lot of old games that are hailed as "open world" are typically pretty boring and empty, however technically impressive they are. Daggerfall for instance; sure, you can ride your horse all over the largest map in gaming history, and there's absolutely nothing anywhere but small hills and tree sprites.

It also drives me insane when games like Final Fantasy or Zelda are said to be "open world." Yes, there is a world and technically you can go anywhere, as long as you have the required key items and plot flags set by going to each dungeon and town in exactly the order prescribed by the game. When you've got the ultimate vehicle, opened all the waist-high fences and gotten all the items, it's truly an open-world game!.... now that there's nothing to do besides go beat the final boss.

[Parsely]

I think it might have more to do with modern gamers. Budgets were not better back in the day.

At the risk of sounding like an old timer, games used to be way more complex.

Stories were good or bad but there was a lot more open world/choices in games.

How many modern games do you build something then interact with that world?

And random encounters are a great filler. In Fallout 1&2 you had to be ready to fight anything. In the later ones you know if you will be fighting humans, monsters, ghouls etc.

Random encounters can still be "hand-placed" since some games define the kinds of enemies that appear in a given area, but I see what you mean. Both can be done sloppily. To me, not being able to anticipate what you're going up against in a fight without being killed by it first

Do I need to remind you you're on the Dwarf Fortress forum? When you google "most complex game ever" the first thing that comes up is DF. You're surely blind if you think that there isn't a bevy of options out there.

We're drowning in open world games today that are bursting with choice. If choice is all you want, there's never been more.

Dwarf Fortress (again), Space Engineers, Starsector, Cortex Command, Survivalist, Subnautica, and Factorio, are just a few, excellent, modern games in my library that easily meet that criteria.

Games have always been beautiful and people never stopped having good ideas. The games that came before have inspired the designers of today. With the indie wave, games have become more complex, varied, and free than ever before. We are living in a golden age, and you're squandering it by not making an effort to take in what's around you.

A lot of old games that are hailed as "open world" are typically pretty boring and empty, however technically impressive they are. Daggerfall for instance; sure, you can ride your horse all over the largest map in gaming history, and there's absolutely nothing anywhere but small hills and tree sprites.

It also drives me insane when games like Final Fantasy or Zelda are said to be "open world." Yes, there is a world and technically you can go anywhere, as long as you have the required key items and plot flags set by going to each dungeon and town in exactly the order prescribed by the game. When you've got the ultimate vehicle, opened all the waist-high fences and gotten all the items, it's truly an open-world game!.... now that there's nothing to do besides go beat the final boss.

So at what point does a game become open-world, for you?

[itisnotlogical]

A lot of old games that are hailed as "open world" are typically pretty boring and empty, however technically impressive they are. Daggerfall for instance; sure, you can ride your horse all over the largest map in gaming history, and there's absolutely nothing anywhere but small hills and tree sprites.

It also drives me insane when games like Final Fantasy or Zelda are said to be "open world." Yes, there is a world and technically you can go anywhere, as long as you have the required key items and plot flags set by going to each dungeon and town in exactly the order prescribed by the game. When you've got the ultimate vehicle, opened all the waist-high fences and gotten all the items, it's truly an open-world game!.... now that there's nothing to do besides go beat the final boss.

So at what point does a game become open-world, for you?

When there are not large limitations on where you can travel based on progress in the main story of the game. If you can tank the damage and defend yourself, you can go almost anywhere in Morrowind without ever beginning the main quest. Same for Skyrim, any main-series Fallout game, Zelda 1 to a degree, and certain MMOs depending on what you count as a "main quest."

This is in contrast to a game like say, Deus Ex, which I occasionally see described as "open-world." The maps are very large with lots of optional content, and you have a certain degree of freedom to go where you will, but the game progresses linearly through stages, and you can't go back and forth as you please, instead being shuffled to the next stage once you've done all you care to do in the current area.

Not to say that Deus Ex is bad or limited or should give the player more freedom. It's excellent. It's just not an open-world game.

[Egan_BW]

Is Dark Souls open-world?

[Retropunch]

Is Dark Souls open-world?

I was just having a discussion with some friends about this a few days ago. It all comes down to if you believe that having to defeat a boss counts as stopping it being open world.

Other than that, I'd argue it is. You can go mostly anywhere at any time (even something like Skyrim has areas that you can't go to/back to) without any issue, there's multiple paths you can take through most places/avoid places if you like. More than that though, the whole point of open world is that there's constant challenge - and with enemies constantly re-spawning there is that constant challenge.
 

[Trebz]

I think it might have more to do with modern gamers. Budgets were not better back in the day.

At the risk of sounding like an old timer, games used to be way more complex.

Stories were good or bad but there was a lot more open world/choices in games.

How many modern games do you build something then interact with that world?

And random encounters are a great filler. In Fallout 1&2 you had to be ready to fight anything. In the later ones you know if you will be fighting humans, monsters, ghouls etc.

Random encounters can still be "hand-placed" since some games define the kinds of enemies that appear in a given area, but I see what you mean. Both can be done sloppily. To me, not being able to anticipate what you're going up against in a fight without being killed by it first

Do I need to remind you you're on the Dwarf Fortress forum? When you google "most complex game ever" the first thing that comes up is DF. You're surely blind if you think that there isn't a bevy of options out there.

We're drowning in open world games today that are bursting with choice. If choice is all you want, there's never been more.

Dwarf Fortress (again), Space Engineers, Starsector, Cortex Command, Survivalist, Subnautica, and Factorio, are just a few, excellent, modern games in my library that easily meet that criteria.

Games have always been beautiful and people never stopped having good ideas. The games that came before have inspired the designers of today. With the indie wave, games have become more complex, varied, and free than ever before. We are living in a golden age, and you're squandering it by not making an effort to take in what's around you.

I'm not being a jerk, I really did want recommendations and value your input. I'll check the ones you mentioned out. And (of course) I've played DF. It is the most complex game out there. I wish there were more. The ones I've played that are pretty complex are Rimworld, Unreal World,Cataclysm DDA, Zomboid, Elder Scrolls, MegaTraveller, original Wasteland, Fallout 1&2, etc. So except for Rimworld and Zomboid the rest are all really old.
Deus Ex would be great if it was truly open world. If I remember right the original was pretty open.
The more choice and simulations in game the better.
There are a lot of good game "ideas" out there but the studios either never fulfill their promises or go broke trying. Or they leave it to modders to fix the flaws.

Can you tell me more about your recommendations? What are their best features?

[itisnotlogical]

Just as a thought experiment, I wish Newcom had kept every single design from Oldcom, just made it 3D. Newcom's designs are from what I call the "Quake 2 90's," so called because everything in Quake 2 was blocky, metallic, and brown-greenish-grey with the occasional blinkenlights. Newcom reminds me of Quake 2. Oldcom did not.

If anything, Oldcom kinda reminded me of the Simpsons, especially in the suburb/town maps.

[Mathel]

A version of X-COM: UFO Defence, that would be truly multiplayer. Up to 4 X-COM players and up to 4 alien players on both geoscape and battlescape. 1 player per side required, but it can be AI. No side can have AI as a player, if it has at least 1 human player and no side can have 2 AI players.

The aliens would be able to research and produce human weapons and their more powerfull adaptations, but would be limited by a resource as well (let's say iron, which they would only get from succesful missions)

Players could trade within side. Also they would not lose points from allied losses in battlescape, only their and civilian. (But penalties from civilian deaths would be shared, while points for civilians saved would be split.)
Points from kills and loot would go to the killing player, if his troops won, the rest would be split among winning side.

[AzyWng]

*Cue random morons/trolls who toss grenades at their own teammates*

[Mathel]

Ok, point penalties for friendly fire kills.