hence the new technology statementUzique wrote:
that's like the guy saying everything to be invented has been invented... in 1900. herp derp.SEREMAKER wrote:
30 years of gaming
not much room left for new innovation .... till we get some radical new technology
well, i guess novels have been around for 350 years now... not much room left for innovation...
oh wait
Until a hang glider is invented that can go to the moon.SEREMAKER wrote:
Can't get to the moon on hang glider
MMOFPS with each side having 1 commander?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Plenty of room for innovation if anybody can figure out how. There's even some genres that could be revived.
you are the only person who wants this.War Man wrote:
MMOFPS with each side having 1 commander?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Plenty of room for innovation if anybody can figure out how. There's even some genres that could be revived.
Imagine a game with a battlefield with 4 sides of 30-100 players per team, each with a commander. Commander spends resources gathered from current territories captured on vehicles and buildings. He also orders people around and researches technology.
The battlefield would be constant and intense with many players battling eachother to capture any territories in the frontlines.
are you on heroin?SEREMAKER wrote:
so its new technology that got us to Dx10 and dual core .... not what we had 10 years ago
when I speak of new technology its to the tune of actual using your brain power to maneuver your character along with a controller .... no more just relying on a controller or a kinect that does a bad job on recording your movements
There are tons of things I want, I have various video game ideas. Also, somewhere in this world, there is someone wanting the same thing.Miggle wrote:
you are the only person who wants this.War Man wrote:
MMOFPS with each side having 1 commander?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Plenty of room for innovation if anybody can figure out how. There's even some genres that could be revived.
Imagine a game with a battlefield with 4 sides of 30-100 players per team, each with a commander. Commander spends resources gathered from current territories captured on vehicles and buildings. He also orders people around and researches technology.
The battlefield would be constant and intense with many players battling eachother to capture any territories in the frontlines.
I refuse to have any fucking implants to play a fucking video game.SEREMAKER wrote:
so its new technology that got us to Dx10 and dual core .... not what we had 10 years ago
when I speak of new technology its to the tune of actual using your brain power to maneuver your character along with a controller .... no more just relying on a controller or a kinect that does a bad job on recording your movements
but at least it's a little different.Miggle wrote:
you are the only person who wants this.War Man wrote:
MMOFPS with each side having 1 commander?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Plenty of room for innovation if anybody can figure out how. There's even some genres that could be revived.
Imagine a game with a battlefield with 4 sides of 30-100 players per team, each with a commander. Commander spends resources gathered from current territories captured on vehicles and buildings. He also orders people around and researches technology.
The battlefield would be constant and intense with many players battling eachother to capture any territories in the frontlines.
yes dumbassMiggle wrote:
are you on heroin?SEREMAKER wrote:
so its new technology that got us to Dx10 and dual core .... not what we had 10 years ago
when I speak of new technology its to the tune of actual using your brain power to maneuver your character along with a controller .... no more just relying on a controller or a kinect that does a bad job on recording your movements
Any MMO would have to be damn good to keep subscribers.War Man wrote:
MMOFPS with each side having 1 commander?
yeah like fucking matrix ..... exactly what I was thinkingWar Man wrote:
I refuse to have any fucking implants to play a fucking video game.SEREMAKER wrote:
so its new technology that got us to Dx10 and dual core .... not what we had 10 years ago
when I speak of new technology its to the tune of actual using your brain power to maneuver your character along with a controller .... no more just relying on a controller or a kinect that does a bad job on recording your movements
Not that kind of MMO, it would still have player payed servers available just like Battlefield and Valve games.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
RTS-FPS's are under-explored. Savage and even Renegade (for all its faults) never got the attention they should have. As AI improves, unit automation should make games like Hearts of Iron more accessible to the general public. The text-input interface of MUDs, MOOs, MUSHs and other text adventures would attract nostalgic gamers if done right. Hidden-object adventure games are a bit stagnant, but could be revived if people started making more good ones. Platformers are always fun to play, but most of the new games seem to want to use retro graphics. More of them like DKC Returns would be nice, and online multiplayer would be fantastic.Any MMO would have to be damn good to keep subscribers.War Man wrote:
MMOFPS with each side having 1 commander?
Last edited by War Man (2011-06-14 19:42:56)
Yes, with the beasts slightly better.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
They're under-developed because it's difficult to get the balance just so. Savage did a fine job of it though, I think.
Last edited by War Man (2011-06-14 19:48:00)
Good portion of those are little kids whining to mommy and daddy to get them the games.Lucien wrote:
Where is the fact that a video game's potential audience has grown hugely in the past years, primarily thanks to people who are less technologically-inclined and, in a word, "casual"? Devs are under no obligation to make amazing games any more: their audience knows less, demands less, and thanks to their overall numbers are simply capable of paying more.
probably one of the worse things that's happened to gamingLucien wrote:
Where is the fact that a video game's potential audience has grown hugely in the past years, primarily thanks to people who are less technologically-inclined and, in a word, "casual"? Devs are under no obligation to make amazing games any more: their audience knows less, demands less, and thanks to their overall numbers are simply capable of paying more.
True and false. With evenly-matched teams, beasts usually seemed to win. But a couple entrepreneurial humans could massively offset beast advantage. At the same time, humans were much better at turtling. And a surprise garrison could spew out catapults like nobody's business, taking out plenty of lairs from out of sight.War Man wrote:
Yes, with the beasts slightly better.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
They're under-developed because it's difficult to get the balance just so. Savage did a fine job of it though, I think.
Edit: They fucked up bad on the balance as beasts are little on the overpowered side.
Anyway, it depends on the games and how they manage to work out the asymmetric balance with the factions.
In my experience, beast always win unless their commander or team was shit.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
True and false. With evenly-matched teams, beasts usually seemed to win. But a couple entrepreneurial humans could massively offset beast advantage. At the same time, humans were much better at turtling. And a surprise garrison could spew out catapults like nobody's business, taking out plenty of lairs from out of sight.War Man wrote:
Yes, with the beasts slightly better.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
They're under-developed because it's difficult to get the balance just so. Savage did a fine job of it though, I think.
Edit: They fucked up bad on the balance as beasts are little on the overpowered side.
Anyway, it depends on the games and how they manage to work out the asymmetric balance with the factions.
In all, I think I've seen as many human wins as beast ones.
Uzique wrote:
i'm missing the point where he used the word 'innovative'.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
BioShock?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
The first BioShock was pretty good, as was World in Conflict. I hadn't played an RTS like WiC before WiC.
Innovative?
The whole game was just a watered-down version of the game System Shock 2. Jesus they even copied the fucking name.
i'm reading "pretty good" here, at my end
Maybe you just played on lopsided servers, or didn't play enough.War Man wrote:
In my experience, beast always win unless their commander or team was shit.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
True and false. With evenly-matched teams, beasts usually seemed to win. But a couple entrepreneurial humans could massively offset beast advantage. At the same time, humans were much better at turtling. And a surprise garrison could spew out catapults like nobody's business, taking out plenty of lairs from out of sight.War Man wrote:
Yes, with the beasts slightly better.
Edit: They fucked up bad on the balance as beasts are little on the overpowered side.
Anyway, it depends on the games and how they manage to work out the asymmetric balance with the factions.
In all, I think I've seen as many human wins as beast ones.
