I'd like to do a little community brainstorming (with anyone interested) on the subject of RIFTS-inspired videogames. I know most Rifts fans would much prefer a MMORPG or even a standalone RPG videogame, but given the enormous expense and manpower required for such games, perhaps a smaller and more manageable non-RPG-style game would be good for introducing RIFTS to a wider audience of gamers. Depending on its success, this might open the door for the possibility of RPG games further down the line.
How open would you guys and gals be to a Third Person Shooter (TPS) in the style of Gears of War? More specifically, in the interest of keeping it scaled down to a viable first project, what if it were a pure PvP game (ie. no campaign, just online play, but with XP, some selection/progression of skills/abilities, equipment selection, etc)? It's been almost 20 years since I last played Rifts regularly, but intense combat was always a big part of the sessions I played and GM'd. I think the brutality of the RIFTS setting, combined with the rich diversity of character types would make for a pretty awesome shooter videogame experience.
Also, I'd be interesting in knowing what factions and classes would generate the most excitement. To keep things viable for a first game, I'd recommend selecting two factions (ie. teams in PvP) that would include 3-4 classes that represent a decent amount of variety in terms of potential gameplay and which serve as a good, solid introduction to the core of the RIFTS setting. Something like maybe the following:
I'm sure there are a ton of interesting classes from books that have come out in the years since I actively played RIFTS, but I think it important that the first introduction for newcomers should be something cohesive and easily understandable (which I think the main book did well, at least for me back in the day). Depending on the success of such a game, perhaps more classes/settings could be introduced later.
For anyone wondering what the point of this is, first and foremost it's an exercise in wishful thinking. Despite not having played RIFTS for a long time, my collection of books has traveled around the world with me for the last 15-20 years, and I still often dip into them to reminisce and for inspiration. Although an RPG videogame would be great, I know that if I were to see a RIFTS-based TPS I would snap it up in a heartbeat. As it happens, I am also a Game Designer and videogame developer with experience in the TPS market, but I mention this more as a side-note to explain my interest in this, rather than as any kind of promise to follow this up. Don't get me wrong, if I had the money and it were up to me, I'd already be pitching this to Palladium!
So for now, it's just a (hopefully) fun discussion and a bit of brainstorming. Any comments?
Kind regards, RedRaider
Umm i think a RPG tried a project like that and it bombed horibly it was called shadow run. I do not think what makes rifts great whould translate into a First person shooter with any less effort than a full blown stand alone rpg. If you just use a existing engine and slap on skins it will come across as forced or untrue.
You are also just making it magic vs cs there was more in tolkeen than just magic and psi- think a head hunter instead of a cyber knight. The burster could realy go both ways also not shure how well magic mechanics of dozen or more spells will afect the mechanics.
Last edited by Blue_Lion on Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.
Master of Type-O and the obvios.
Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......
I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
I'd like to do a little community brainstorming (with anyone interested) on the subject of RIFTS-inspired videogames. I know most Rifts fans would much prefer a MMORPG or even a standalone RPG videogame, but given the enormous expense and manpower required for such games, perhaps a smaller and more manageable non-RPG-style game would be good for introducing RIFTS to a wider audience of gamers. Depending on its success, this might open the door for the possibility of RPG games further down the line.
How open would you guys and gals be to a Third Person Shooter (TPS) in the style of Gears of War? More specifically, in the interest of keeping it scaled down to a viable first project, what if it were a pure PvP game (ie. no campaign, just online play, but with XP, some selection/progression of skills/abilities, equipment selection, etc)? It's been almost 20 years since I last played Rifts regularly, but intense combat was always a big part of the sessions I played and GM'd. I think the brutality of the RIFTS setting, combined with the rich diversity of character types would make for a pretty awesome shooter videogame experience.
Also, I'd be interesting in knowing what factions and classes would generate the most excitement. To keep things viable for a first game, I'd recommend selecting two factions (ie. teams in PvP) that would include 3-4 classes that represent a decent amount of variety in terms of potential gameplay and which serve as a good, solid introduction to the core of the RIFTS setting. Something like maybe the following:
I'm sure there are a ton of interesting classes from books that have come out in the years since I actively played RIFTS, but I think it important that the first introduction for newcomers should be something cohesive and easily understandable (which I think the main book did well, at least for me back in the day). Depending on the success of such a game, perhaps more classes/settings could be introduced later.
For anyone wondering what the point of this is, first and foremost it's an exercise in wishful thinking. Despite not having played RIFTS for a long time, my collection of books has traveled around the world with me for the last 15-20 years, and I still often dip into them to reminisce and for inspiration. Although an RPG videogame would be great, I know that if I were to see a RIFTS-based TPS I would snap it up in a heartbeat. As it happens, I am also a Game Designer and videogame developer with experience in the TPS market, but I mention this more as a side-note to explain my interest in this, rather than as any kind of promise to follow this up. Don't get me wrong, if I had the money and it were up to me, I'd already be pitching this to Palladium!
So for now, it's just a (hopefully) fun discussion and a bit of brainstorming. Any comments?
Kind regards, RedRaider
Umm i think a RPG tried a project like that and it bombed horibly it was called shadow run. I do not think what makes rifts great whould translate into a First person shooter with any less effort than a full blown stand alone rpg. If you just use a existing engine and slap on skins it will come across as forced or untrue.
Pretty sure shadowrun wasn't to great in the first place but that's neither here nor there.
Actualy it has been one of the top names in RPGs for a long time. Setting wise it should have lended better to a first person shooter. The tradional big names (in no special order) of RPGs are D&D, rifts, shadow run, and Vampire. Most gamers that have been around for over 10 years of playing even off and on have played at least 2 of those names. It is not game that every one likes but it is one of the big names in gaming.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.
Master of Type-O and the obvios.
Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......
I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
Blue_Lion wrote:Actualy it has been one of the top names in RPGs for a long time. Setting wise it should have lended better to a first person shooter. The tradional big names (in no special order) of RPGs are D&D, rifts, shadow run, and Vampire. Most gamers that have been around for over 10 years of playing even off and on have played at least 2 of those names. It is not game that every one likes but it is one of the big names in gaming.
I think you should include GURPS in there somewhere.
Especially since we all know Kevin Seimedia and Steve Jackson are the same guy...
A FPS would be terrible for the franchise. Please, what RIFTS needs, is a RPG with at least the Bladur's Gate engine. The Baldur's Gate saga is the King of RPG for people who loves pen and paper.
Head of Northern Gun Research and Development
"I'm ready man, check it out. I am the ultimate badass! State-of-the-badass-art!" - Private Hudson, ALIENS (1986).
You are right I did not list gurps and it is one of the big games out there. There are many games out there but there are a few that every long time gamer has herd of if not played. Not every game is right for every one and each player and group has its own choice.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.
Master of Type-O and the obvios.
Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......
I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
i think rifts would lend itself more to an Xcom like 3rd person turn based tactical set up. you could work in the variety of stuff in rifts into such a game much more easily than any real time shooter.
Author of Rifts: Deep Frontier (Rifter 70) Author of Rifts:Scandinavia (current project) * All fantasy should have a solid base in reality. * Good sense about trivialities is better than nonsense about things that matter. -Max Beerbohm Visit my Website
I honestly don't think that any Rifts Game should be a "shooter" of any kind -save some sort of "standalone simulator" type of game featuring a single piece of (preferably flying) armor like a SAMAS or Abolisher or Automaton or something like that, running sorties.
Rifts is not just about "shooting at the enemy" so I just don't think that it would transfer well to Shooter format, save for a few exceptions.*
*One example that I could come up with off the top of my head might be a Survival Horror game featuring, say, a squad of Coalition soldiers in the early days of the Post-Apocalyptic nation researching the then just-discovered, unnamed ruins of New York which would later come to be called Madhaven, with good reason. The main character, of course, could fulfill an Isaac Clarke sort of role as his teammates all go insane around him.
The Kevinomicon, Book of Siembieda 3:16.
16 Blessed art Thou above all others, O COALITION STATES, beloved of Kevin;
17 For Thou art allowed to do Evil without Limit, nor do thy Enemies retaliate.
18 Thy Military be run by Fools and Dotards.
19 Yet thy Nation suffers not. Praise be unto Him that protects thee from all harm!!
Anyone who thinks Rifts couldnt be a good RPG-Shooter needs to play Bordlerlands.
It basically IS Rifts the shooter. Smilar design aesthetic, lots of options, etc. Gearbos could make a game similar to Borderlands out of Rifts and it would sell millions of copies.
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.
I want to see from Palladium: Updated Aug 2015 -Rifts: Dark Woods/Deep South, Space 110 PA, Scandinavia -Mechanoids: Space (MDC) -Robotech: Errata for Marines timeline, Masters Deluxe with SC and UEEF gear, Spaceships -Updated Errata for post-2006 printings of Rifts books -Searchable, quality PDFs/E-pubs of current Rifts titles
Kagashi wrote:I'd rather see a FIRST person shooter.
You know the difference between the two is largely cosmetic, right?
(In a so-called Third Person Shooter, you see the whole body [e.g., Dead Space]. In a First Person Shooter, you see only your hands and weapon; if he came to me and INSISTED on making a Shooter instead of any other type of game, then I would advise him to make it 3rd Person as stated in the OP.)
The Kevinomicon, Book of Siembieda 3:16.
16 Blessed art Thou above all others, O COALITION STATES, beloved of Kevin;
17 For Thou art allowed to do Evil without Limit, nor do thy Enemies retaliate.
18 Thy Military be run by Fools and Dotards.
19 Yet thy Nation suffers not. Praise be unto Him that protects thee from all harm!!
Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Anyone who thinks Rifts couldnt be a good RPG-Shooter needs to play Bordlerlands.
It basically IS Rifts the shooter. Smilar design aesthetic, lots of options, etc. Gearbos could make a game similar to Borderlands out of Rifts and it would sell millions of copies.
Played "Borderlands."
And have to disagree that Mages AND Coalition Armor AND Psychics AND D-Bees would port over to such a format; in a Shooter, the characters have different strengths and weaknesses and capabilities, but are largely balanced out overall; IMO much of the flavor of Rifts would be lost in a Rifts Shooter if the same "basically balanced" mechanic was carried over.
The Kevinomicon, Book of Siembieda 3:16.
16 Blessed art Thou above all others, O COALITION STATES, beloved of Kevin;
17 For Thou art allowed to do Evil without Limit, nor do thy Enemies retaliate.
18 Thy Military be run by Fools and Dotards.
19 Yet thy Nation suffers not. Praise be unto Him that protects thee from all harm!!
Coalition States (Skelebot; or guy that uses/maintains skelebots as sort of mobile turrets, Grunt, Samas, Commando, Scout)
Tolkeen (though I'd prefer to see another magic using organization personally)
Mercenaries (Juicers, D-Bees, Borgs, and Crazies)
"I flew back to the states just to vote for Trump." Mumpsimus can be defined as someone who obstinately clings to an error, bad habit or prejudice, even after the foible has been exposed. I will not answer posts/questions/accusations by people on my foes list. The Ugly Truth - Carl Gleba on the Cabal of 24. Rifts® Online: Megaversal Highway.
Subjugator wrote:Fallout 3 absolutely BEGS to be turned into Rifts.
Just sayin'.
/Sub
Oh, don't get me wrong -the very first time that I saw Fallout 3 (the only Fallout in the series that I have ever yet seen, by the way), I thought of Rifts (except Magic is missing from the setting).
But then again, "Fallout 3" isn't really a Shooter; it's a lot closer to ES: Skyirm than it is to any true Shooter.
The Kevinomicon, Book of Siembieda 3:16.
16 Blessed art Thou above all others, O COALITION STATES, beloved of Kevin;
17 For Thou art allowed to do Evil without Limit, nor do thy Enemies retaliate.
18 Thy Military be run by Fools and Dotards.
19 Yet thy Nation suffers not. Praise be unto Him that protects thee from all harm!!
I'd like to do a little community brainstorming (with anyone interested) on the subject of RIFTS-inspired videogames. I know most Rifts fans would much prefer a MMORPG or even a standalone RPG videogame, but given the enormous expense and manpower required for such games, perhaps a smaller and more manageable non-RPG-style game would be good for introducing RIFTS to a wider audience of gamers. Depending on its success, this might open the door for the possibility of RPG games further down the line.
How open would you guys and gals be to a Third Person Shooter (TPS) in the style of Gears of War? More specifically, in the interest of keeping it scaled down to a viable first project, what if it were a pure PvP game (ie. no campaign, just online play, but with XP, some selection/progression of skills/abilities, equipment selection, etc)? It's been almost 20 years since I last played Rifts regularly, but intense combat was always a big part of the sessions I played and GM'd. I think the brutality of the RIFTS setting, combined with the rich diversity of character types would make for a pretty awesome shooter videogame experience.
Also, I'd be interesting in knowing what factions and classes would generate the most excitement. To keep things viable for a first game, I'd recommend selecting two factions (ie. teams in PvP) that would include 3-4 classes that represent a decent amount of variety in terms of potential gameplay and which serve as a good, solid introduction to the core of the RIFTS setting. Something like maybe the following:
I'm sure there are a ton of interesting classes from books that have come out in the years since I actively played RIFTS, but I think it important that the first introduction for newcomers should be something cohesive and easily understandable (which I think the main book did well, at least for me back in the day). Depending on the success of such a game, perhaps more classes/settings could be introduced later.
For anyone wondering what the point of this is, first and foremost it's an exercise in wishful thinking. Despite not having played RIFTS for a long time, my collection of books has traveled around the world with me for the last 15-20 years, and I still often dip into them to reminisce and for inspiration. Although an RPG videogame would be great, I know that if I were to see a RIFTS-based TPS I would snap it up in a heartbeat. As it happens, I am also a Game Designer and videogame developer with experience in the TPS market, but I mention this more as a side-note to explain my interest in this, rather than as any kind of promise to follow this up. Don't get me wrong, if I had the money and it were up to me, I'd already be pitching this to Palladium!
So for now, it's just a (hopefully) fun discussion and a bit of brainstorming. Any comments?
Kind regards, RedRaider
Umm i think a RPG tried a project like that and it bombed horibly it was called shadow run. I do not think what makes rifts great whould translate into a First person shooter with any less effort than a full blown stand alone rpg. If you just use a existing engine and slap on skins it will come across as forced or untrue.
You are also just making it magic vs cs there was more in tolkeen than just magic and psi- think a head hunter instead of a cyber knight. The burster could realy go both ways also not shure how well magic mechanics of dozen or more spells will afect the mechanics.
You do knopw there have been 4 shadowrun games already made , only one of them tanked and that was the FPS, the older 3 (2 of wich were in english so will talk about thoose as i cant read japanese) were great. both were top down isometric view , you could hire extra runners you could gear yourself out as ever you choose, you could be a caster with a cyber deck and heavy armor and machine guns both the US ones (snes and sega genises) were smash hits so much so infact that through kick starter Wiseman the creator of shadowrun (and battletech, and earthdawn and....) got almost 3 million from kick starter to create the game for pc/mac/andriod/apple os. thats not a sad amount of donated money from fans with no corprate backing. if palladium did a rifts kick starter for an rpg game and got that amount id be suprised.
The shadowrun FPS was and is horrid from both an fps stance and a shadowrun cannon stance. But yeah I wouldnt mock Shadowrun like you are as it 2 of the deepest old school rpgs out there and it was sucessefull. and the new one they are making Shadowrun:Returns looks to be anouther smash hit unless the tank on the production side.
If you're going to do rifts as an FPS then the siege of Tolkeen is a great setting for it. It would be cool if each character class had a unique (or a set of ) support calls. Psi Stalker could call a pack of dog boys. The grunt could call in a unit of SAMAS. The magic user could summon a Golem. Bug hunts or Dinosaur swamp would be good single player levels
Kagashi wrote:I'd rather see a FIRST person shooter.
You know the difference between the two is largely cosmetic, right?
(In a so-called Third Person Shooter, you see the whole body [e.g., Dead Space]. In a First Person Shooter, you see only your hands and weapon; if he came to me and INSISTED on making a Shooter instead of any other type of game, then I would advise him to make it 3rd Person as stated in the OP.)
Yeah. I would much rather see it in first person. You get more out of the game. Many times, I think the character gets in the way of what I should be seeing in third person games.
Anyway, should you be flying a SAMAS, it makes HUDs make more sense in first person than third person.
I want to see from Palladium: Updated Aug 2015 -Rifts: Dark Woods/Deep South, Space 110 PA, Scandinavia -Mechanoids: Space (MDC) -Robotech: Errata for Marines timeline, Masters Deluxe with SC and UEEF gear, Spaceships -Updated Errata for post-2006 printings of Rifts books -Searchable, quality PDFs/E-pubs of current Rifts titles
Subjugator wrote:Fallout 3 absolutely BEGS to be turned into Rifts.
Just sayin'.
/Sub
Oh, don't get me wrong -the very first time that I saw Fallout 3 (the only Fallout in the series that I have ever yet seen, by the way), I thought of Rifts (except Magic is missing from the setting).
But then again, "Fallout 3" isn't really a Shooter; it's a lot closer to ES: Skyirm than it is to any true Shooter.
Yeah, but that's the point, isn't it? BTW, it's the same company that owns both. So take the best of Elder Scrolls and Fallout and *BOOM* you have Rifts.
/Sub
There's a reason...and a very good one...that I have certain people in this forum blocked both here and on Facebook.
I can see an illustration of that nearly every time I come here.
Here is the thing the orginal poster said it whould be easer to do a third or first person shooter, because they are not full RPG that is corect but doing it that way whould fall short.
The fallout 3 and elder scrolls system is a full RPG built on a a first person shooter style engine. So in a sense doing it specifaly for rifts to that extent could work but whould be as much work as building a full RPG. As it whould be based on rifts style spells and weapons.
A simple first person shooter whould have trouble with the fact that some Classes have 2 to three times the hitpoints of another. Or dealing with several difrent spell mechnics.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.
Master of Type-O and the obvios.
Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......
I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
I agree that a 3rd-person Shooter/RPG hybrid would be best.
No, I don't think you can make an exact "copy the RPG mechanics to the screen" adaptation. I also don't think you should. The idea is not to put Rifts the game into Videogame format, but Rifts the setting.
The idea of factions can be used two ways: Singleplayer (different campaigns or different perspectives on the same one) and Multiplayer (obvious). There would be a fair amount of overlap in stuff like stats and skills, with the main difference being what weapons are readily available. So you could be a Coalition RPA or a Tolkien/Merc/Independent Robot Pilot, with the CS trooper starting with a Death's Head and the Merc having a Redwing or Flying Titan. Other classes would have access to jetpacks, (hover)bikes and various natural, robotic, magical or monstrous mounts.
Weapons would be "set" to each faction, but I think it would be nice to have a way to "steal" weapons belonging to other factions. The one that immediately comes to mind is probably the most direct: Let players pick up weapons from fallen enemies or placed around the level: If you end a multiplayer match carrying a weapon outside your usual armory, you have the option of "Keeping" it into the next one. when a single weapon type is Kept enough times (overall, not concurrently), you can choose to add to your personal armory permanently.
Cyber-Knight (and Juicer, etc) Auto-dodging abilities can be done with a kind of early-warning system that alerts the player when they are being targeted(and where from) and/or a dodge system like the one in Kid Icarus: Uprising.
I agree that a 3rd-person Shooter/RPG hybrid would be best.
No, I don't think you can make an exact "copy the RPG mechanics to the screen" adaptation. I also don't think you should. The idea is not to put Rifts the game into Videogame format, but Rifts the setting.
The idea of factions can be used two ways: Singleplayer (different campaigns or different perspectives on the same one) and Multiplayer (obvious). There would be a fair amount of overlap in stuff like stats and skills, with the main difference being what weapons are readily available. So you could be a Coalition RPA or a Tolkien/Merc/Independent Robot Pilot, with the CS trooper starting with a Death's Head and the Merc having a Redwing or Flying Titan. Other classes would have access to jetpacks, (hover)bikes and various natural, robotic, magical or monstrous mounts.
Weapons would be "set" to each faction, but I think it would be nice to have a way to "steal" weapons belonging to other factions. The one that immediately comes to mind is probably the most direct: Let players pick up weapons from fallen enemies or placed around the level: If you end a multiplayer match carrying a weapon outside your usual armory, you have the option of "Keeping" it into the next one. when a single weapon type is Kept enough times (overall, not concurrently), you can choose to add to your personal armory permanently.
Cyber-Knight (and Juicer, etc) Auto-dodging abilities can be done with a kind of early-warning system that alerts the player when they are being targeted(and where from) and/or a dodge system like the one in Kid Icarus: Uprising.
IMHO I agree that a 3rd-person Shooter/RPG hybrid would be best single palyer FPS and theN RPG look at ME 1,2,And 3 ,give option to players , buli the faction accroding to the area Rifts , and dont get me started withs with dimention and last Phase wrorlds CWW similar to ME 1,2, and 3 last Muti-player mode by factions by players vs player players vs sever systems look at ME3 ME= Mass Effcet 1,2 and 3 DLC can be added form diffrent worlds , hack Dimentions , and other Etc
let your YES be YES and your NO be NO but plz no maybe
Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Anyone who thinks Rifts couldnt be a good RPG-Shooter needs to play Bordlerlands.
It basically IS Rifts the shooter. Smilar design aesthetic, lots of options, etc. Gearbos could make a game similar to Borderlands out of Rifts and it would sell millions of copies.
Played "Borderlands."
And have to disagree that Mages AND Coalition Armor AND Psychics AND D-Bees would port over to such a format; in a Shooter, the characters have different strengths and weaknesses and capabilities, but are largely balanced out overall; IMO much of the flavor of Rifts would be lost in a Rifts Shooter if the same "basically balanced" mechanic was carried over.
You mean like... Sirens (psychics) AND Commandos (trooper/grunt) AND Hunters (psi-stalker/dbee tamer) AND Brick ((basically a juicer or mutant) And Gunzerkers (gunslinger) And Mechromancers (item creator/TW)?
You're *never* going to get "Coalition Armor" into a game (im assuming we mean, like - armored vehicles) with infantry-scale dudes. And have it make a lick of sense or be balanced.
SAMASzero wrote:No, I don't think you can make an exact "copy the RPG mechanics to the screen" adaptation. I also don't think you should. The idea is not to put Rifts the game into Videogame format, but Rifts the setting.
And this guy gets it.
Make it a great single player game with drop in/out co-op multiplayer (like Borderlands). The only part of the BL formula you even have to change is perhaps having more than a single active skill, which would NOT be that hard to do.
If you wanted, when the player finishes their faction-based single player game, have an online multiplayer portion too, i'd have it be a lot like League of Legends in how it is structured - simple objective based maps, focus on teamwork, and have player spend earned currency/points on unlocking new weapons/armor gear (as opposed to champs).
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.
Kagashi wrote:I'd rather see a FIRST person shooter.
You know the difference between the two is largely cosmetic, right?
(In a so-called Third Person Shooter, you see the whole body [e.g., Dead Space]. In a First Person Shooter, you see only your hands and weapon; if he came to me and INSISTED on making a Shooter instead of any other type of game, then I would advise him to make it 3rd Person as stated in the OP.)
Yeah. I would much rather see it in first person. You get more out of the game. Many times, I think the character gets in the way of what I should be seeing in third person games.
Anyway, should you be flying a SAMAS, it makes HUDs make more sense in first person than third person.
I prefer 3rd person shooters. Why? 1. many shooters offer armor mods (that supposedly alter the appearance and function of the armor) whats the point of having these in a 1st person? I dont get to see said appearance (except at the load/equipment screen) 2. If I am playing a Glitterboy I want to see the PA in action not see through its HUD.
DM is correct by the way. - Ninjabunny It's a shoddy carpenter who blames his tools. - Killer Cyborg Every group has one problem player. If you cannot spot the one in your group; look in the mirror. It is not a good session until at least one player looks you in the eye and says "you sick twisted evil ****"
Damian Magecraft wrote:I prefer 3rd person shooters. Why? 1. many shooters offer armor mods (that supposedly alter the appearance and function of the armor) whats the point of having these in a 1st person? I dont get to see said appearance (except at the load/equipment screen) 2. If I am playing a Glitterboy I want to see the PA in action not see through its HUD.
I prefer first person shooters.
Why?
It is more immersive. If I see myself running around, it is not the same as seeing the world as *I* run around.
This is another reason why the Fallout 3 or Skyrim engines would be great. It lets you go third person if you want, but doesn't require it. I don't want third person - I want first. You don't want first person, you want third.
/Sub
There's a reason...and a very good one...that I have certain people in this forum blocked both here and on Facebook.
I can see an illustration of that nearly every time I come here.
Personaly i dont think you have to include nor should you include everything, that would be an immpossibly high goal. The creator of any game from 1st,3rd,isometric,top down,whatever should pick 5 to 10 pc classes, 5 to 20 usable vehicles, 20 to 50 usable weapons, 20 to 40 spells, and 10 to 15 psionics. And thats still a crap ton of content. That doesnt include all the supporting items and how they interact with the inventory system and diffrent classes and uses, think maybe 5 to 10 body armors, eclips, mini missiles, granades, loot items like books and disks food water all sorts crap. You gotta figure out how detailed you want it. Do you have to eat and drink and sleep to survive? Wich side or sides of a conflict can you be on? Skills? And so much more. Id say if it was based on the fallout engine it would be good, if its isometric then id make it like the two 16 bit shadowrun games. I dont want a shooter, the game is so much more than a shooter to me.
the problem with single-player is that you need to make the AI work.
now, assuming it's just a mod, i'm sure that won't be *too* hard for the stuff that is essentially just a different kind of gun...
but i suspect not all things would be so easy. a realistic response to an invisible enemy might be rather difficult. teaching the AI how to fly in 3d in a game where the AI hasn't already got that would be unpleasant as well, i'm sure. having an AI try to figure out if you're just immune to fire or immune to all energy might not be too bad, but having it decide what to do if it has no weapons that can harm you might be a problem (does it run away, and if so is that even coded into the game? where is "away"? what if you have other allies nearby who aren't invincible?). you'd have to be very selective about what powers you add for that reason.
Shark_Force wrote:the problem with single-player is that you need to make the AI work.
That's a problem for every game.
now, assuming it's just a mod, i'm sure that won't be *too* hard for the stuff that is essentially just a different kind of gun...
but i suspect not all things would be so easy. a realistic response to an invisible enemy might be rather difficult. teaching the AI how to fly in 3d in a game where the AI hasn't already got that would be unpleasant as well, i'm sure. having an AI try to figure out if you're just immune to fire or immune to all energy might not be too bad, but having it decide what to do if it has no weapons that can harm you might be a problem (does it run away, and if so is that even coded into the game? where is "away"? what if you have other allies nearby who aren't invincible?). you'd have to be very selective about what powers you add for that reason.
We weren't talking about modding a game so much as a whole new one (though maybe on an existing engine).
Shark_Force wrote:the problem with single-player is that you need to make the AI work.
That's a problem for every game.
now, assuming it's just a mod, i'm sure that won't be *too* hard for the stuff that is essentially just a different kind of gun...
but i suspect not all things would be so easy. a realistic response to an invisible enemy might be rather difficult. teaching the AI how to fly in 3d in a game where the AI hasn't already got that would be unpleasant as well, i'm sure. having an AI try to figure out if you're just immune to fire or immune to all energy might not be too bad, but having it decide what to do if it has no weapons that can harm you might be a problem (does it run away, and if so is that even coded into the game? where is "away"? what if you have other allies nearby who aren't invincible?). you'd have to be very selective about what powers you add for that reason.
We weren't talking about modding a game so much as a whole new one (though maybe on an existing engine).
the original proposal was for a pure PvP game specifically to avoid the pitfalls of coding in AI. i can tell, because the OP said "More specifically, in the interest of keeping it scaled down to a viable first project, what if it were a pure PvP game (ie. no campaign, just online play, but with XP, some selection/progression of skills/abilities, equipment selection, etc)?"
any other game that does the same thing is also not going to have this problem which you say is in every game.
the rest of my observations were essentially along the lines of "but you could make a 'rifts' game with AI maybe if you were to just mod another game" and discussing some of the possible pitfalls, such as the existing AI not being able to cover certain scenarios.
A great example of a pure PVP game is MAG. There are 3 factions to choose from and different roles in each faction. Commando, Sniper, Medic, etc. It's fun, but only for so long, I agree that a fallout/skyrim game would be best as long as you include the option of switching between 1st and 3rd person.
Shark_Force wrote:the problem with single-player is that you need to make the AI work.
That's a problem for every game.
now, assuming it's just a mod, i'm sure that won't be *too* hard for the stuff that is essentially just a different kind of gun...
but i suspect not all things would be so easy. a realistic response to an invisible enemy might be rather difficult. teaching the AI how to fly in 3d in a game where the AI hasn't already got that would be unpleasant as well, i'm sure. having an AI try to figure out if you're just immune to fire or immune to all energy might not be too bad, but having it decide what to do if it has no weapons that can harm you might be a problem (does it run away, and if so is that even coded into the game? where is "away"? what if you have other allies nearby who aren't invincible?). you'd have to be very selective about what powers you add for that reason.
We weren't talking about modding a game so much as a whole new one (though maybe on an existing engine).
the original proposal was for a pure PvP game specifically to avoid the pitfalls of coding in AI. i can tell, because the OP said "More specifically, in the interest of keeping it scaled down to a viable first project, what if it were a pure PvP game (ie. no campaign, just online play, but with XP, some selection/progression of skills/abilities, equipment selection, etc)?"
any other game that does the same thing is also not going to have this problem which you say is in every game.
the rest of my observations were essentially along the lines of "but you could make a 'rifts' game with AI maybe if you were to just mod another game" and discussing some of the possible pitfalls, such as the existing AI not being able to cover certain scenarios.
I honestly have a bit of a problem with that as a concept.
Why? In one word: Shadowrun. Remember that? Exactly. (Okay seriously, it was a multiplayer PVP-only re-imagining for the 360 that came out a few years ago and went nowhere fast. The fans hated it, the public ignored it, and the new upcoming Shadowrun game looks to be an updating of the SNES and/or Genesis games' concepts).
If you wanna make a Rifts game people remember, you CAN'T make Call of Duty with lasers (or Star Wars Battlefront with magic, for that matter). You have to make it fun and memorable no matter the budget. Something that the critics and people who play it will tell their friends/readers to buy so that it can get a sequel that can be trusted with a bigger budget.
Problem is, the Mid-gaming market is shrinking fast. Look what just happened to THQ.
THQs problems actually had a lot more to do with losing 200 million on a bungled tablet peripheral than anything else. Most of their core franchises were very profitable.
That being said, everything else you touched on is right on. How many MP-only shooters have been successful of late? Oh yeah, none. Battlefront failed, Shadowrun failed, Brink failed, the latest Enemy Territory (Quake) was awful.
Liscense the IP to Gearbox. After playing BL/BL2 and seeing the upcoming Colonial Marines in action, they can handle it.
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.
