OT: Master of Magic 2 - now looking quite likely

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
They get our geeks jobs, and send our geeks wives.

Actually, if they steal all your jobs, pretty soon they won't need to send you any wives because you'll be poor, and it'll be your turn to send THEM wives.

---

In Soviet Russia, WIVES send YOU!?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I'm not sure how, exactly, Fallout could be made in any way to resemble a first or third person game without completely compromising its "Falloutness", producing either a horrid game where everything you do feels completely ineffective, or a game which is basically Quake.

I disagree. The feel of Fallout was in the NPCs and the scenery and had nothing to do with the top-down isometric view. It also had much to do with the TB action point system. Converting FO to real-time is what I fear would break its feel, not the camera view.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Arryn:
I disagree. The feel of Fallout was in the NPCs and the scenery and had nothing to do with the top-down isometric view. It also had much to do with the TB action point system. Converting FO to real-time is what I fear would break its feel, not the camera view.

I can't imagine how you'd manage to do a first-person game in turn-based mode. How would that even work? Like one of those really old-school dungeon crawlers? I'd say the top-down view and turn-based play is nearly essential to the "feel" of the game - they've tried to take it real-time before, and it was largely regarded as awful.

The other fundamental expectation of real-time, first or third-person games is that when you're looking up close and personal at things, you can immediately observe any distortions. There's also the expectation that what you do MATTERS. Take, for instance, KOTOR, what would otherwise have been a pretty awesome if it wasn't marred by the awful attempt at third-person person view. As it stands, I considered it merely satisfactory. As a point: In a first or third person game, when you see an incoming projectile coming at you, your first thought is "INCOMING!", and you attempt to get out of the way. Sadly, in KOTOR, all of the enemy projectiles tend to be homing and will track you even if you duck behind a corner. In fact, nothing you do really matters, and rather than adding to the feel of immersion, the third-person view destroys it by making it very apparent that nothing you do matters - ultimately, combat is still resolved in the purely mechanistic RPG-style that would have looked fine from overhead, but just doesn't work up close.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I can't imagine how you'd manage to do a first-person game in turn-based mode. How would that even work?

Try "Return to Krondor", just to name one. There have been others.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Just wanted to post a thought in this thread :

Why should I bother with MM2 when I have dom2 ?

[Pickles]

"Why should I bother with MM2 when I have dom2 ?"

'Cos Dom 2 is terrible SP and MOM wasn't?

(this may be 10 years and a general disatisfaction with SP talking. I do remember longing to play MOM MP.)

Pickles

[Arryn]

Dom 2 is actually one of the best non-historical strategy games playable in SP. It is certainly better than any of its competitors in the genre (AoW, etc.).

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Pickles:
'Cos Dom 2 is terrible SP and MOM wasn't?
(this may be 10 years and a general disatisfaction with SP talking. I do remember longing to play MOM MP.)

I would tend to agree. Not that I consider it a major "broke" thing since Dom2 is meant to be a multiplayer game. Its pretty good SoloPlay for being an MP game. I think MoM was a great SoloPlay game, and would make a terrible multiplayer game. I certainly hope that MoM2 just recreates MoM without trying to add that.

Now if they tried a MoM3, and could possibly figure out how to do MP balance the way Dom2 does, then MAYBE they can achieve a game that does both fairly well. But rather than mess it up Id rather have both. Dom2 for MP, and MoM2 for SP.

[ July 23, 2004, 14:59: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
"I think MoM was a great SoloPlay game, and would make a terrible multiplayer game. I certainly hope that MoM2 just recreates MoM without trying to add that."

MP games need simpler core mechanics and fewer turns to complete than SP games IMO. Dom is of course fiendishly complex but the core movement system is simple, there are no alliance rules, and economic admin is straightforward. until mass forging comes along.

I am unsure what I want in MOM2. I would be happy with the same game pretty much revamped to 2005 standards. Or a MP game that had the feel of the original. But a bastard offspring that did both poorly would be very sad.


In reply to Arryn. Obviously we have different opinions as I cannot be bothered with dom SP - I sandbox a bit to test but that's it. The other games must be truly dire (I tried AoW and it was)

Pickles

[ July 23, 2004, 15:12: Message edited by: Pickles ]

[Kel]

I wouldn't want them to alter the gameplay significantly to make it MP but if they added MP as an afterthought, without changing SP, I wouldn't mind. It wouldn't be great MP, battles would probably have to be computer run, but as long as it didn't affect SP, it would just be a bonus (like the hotseat MP shell was).

- Kel