General Category > Untitled 3D Survival
Names for a game you have no idea what it's about?
chemical_art:
Yes using terrain as a mechanic (mining, building) is a great idea, however I find it causes a split focus between the surface world and the under world. I can love either (Dwarf Fortress 2) but I find it is necessary to focus on one mechanic over another (expand horizontally or vertically, over or underground, etc). Trying to do too many things leads to serious feature creep.
In either case, I feel it is feel the best return of investing the time to have the environment be altered is that if it ultimately expands the enjoyment players a player can have. Given a large enough "tool kit" players can have a ton of fun just experimenting. For your example of the towers you can make it so a tower can be leveled by shooting the base. You would have to give incentives to not always do that but the option is certainly satisfying.
https://youtu.be/2kMzYIWe_9U?t=4s
https://youtu.be/zSsdHPK8BIs?t=36s
x4000:
Right, for sure. I felt like that was something that overall RF:G got a bit wrong was making it so that the best option wasn't to just level the building. The only way they got around that was by limiting your weapons or making buildings respawn if you didn't finish them off before leaving the area, neither of which are things I loved.
For me, I feel like the harvesting of resources should come only when you're directly attacking the thing; and looting of stuff would only happen if you actually open a chest or cabinet or whatever versus blowing it up. So if you blow up a tower on sight, you're saying you didn't want any of the loot in there, and didn't want the full benefit of the resources it could have yielded. That sort of tradeoff would lead me to -- generally -- explore and loot a building and then nuke it.
chemical_art:
--- Quote from: x4000 on March 02, 2016, 09:11:44 pm ---So if you blow up a tower on sight, you're saying you didn't want any of the loot in there, and didn't want the full benefit of the resources it could have yielded. That sort of tradeoff would lead me to -- generally -- explore and loot a building and then nuke it.
--- End quote ---
Yes it is wonderful and allows for more flexible game-play. For example a key thing about explosive weapons is that either they are incredibly rationed (which leads to hoarding) or they are underwhelming which is not as satisfying. By making it so you have to have to leave a structure standing while inside is a very effective way to balance the weapon from being overused while still allowing it to have that power.
x4000:
Thanks, glad you like it. :) Yeah, I prefer to make it so that I can have my cake and eat it too on the explosives... but that there's a whole collateral damage thing to think about (and not in a punitive "don't like your escort NPC die" sort of fashion). Sometimes I just won't care about loot and I'll blow up the tower to get rid of the guys in it... and collect a bit of resources from it just because they fell out, heh.
Draco18s:
I figured it wasn't terrain which is why I used the word environment. I've played Men of War.
Also. Play Men of War, or at least watch videos of its amazing destructible stuff system and bullet ricochet. You absolutely can hide a tank inside a house, fire a shell through the wall (which leaves a hole), have the shell glance off the armor of one tank, decapitate a soldier, slam into the side of another tank, and destroy it (at least until someone comes along and repairs it, sort of).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version