Robot in Disguise
- Jun 17, 2009
Maybe I'm a cynic but if a country's economy collapses entirely, it might be better to be under new management to begin with. This game just goes the usual dystopia(sp?) route and makes you watch common NK soldiers do asshole things to justify toppling their regime.canadamus_prime said:
That makes sense to me. The problem with Homefront, from what I gathered from watching Unskippables episode on the original game, is that they gone for the classic dictatorship thing where, like you said, the oppressors are all assholes for no particular reason. And incidentally, I got the impression the Americans did that when they took over Canada in pre-war Fallout.Zydrate said:Maybe I'm a cynic but if a country's economy collapses entirely, it might be better to be under new management to begin with. This game just goes the usual dystopia(sp?) route and makes you watch common NK soldiers do asshole things to justify toppling their regime.canadamus_prime said:
Might I suggest implementing a mechanic similar to the first Rainbow Six regarding Player Characters?Goliath100 said:Agreed!
And now that both of you will get a notice for this comment, let me design this thing:
It's easier to explain the mechanics goals within a narrative, so a possible one would be:
The Player Character is a newly orphaned, local youth, living on a tropical island (which only less than 1000 lives on), who has been taken over by Not Boko Haram, because the island is important for weapon shipments for the mainland. The PC, not liking NBH and their occupation, joins 4-5 of his/her (I wouldn't state the gender at all) friends to start a guerrilla cell, with the goal of destroying NBH's heavily defended strongholds and force them to leave.
NBH would have 500 soldiers, spread over their main stronghold, 3 docks, and 6 outpost, plus new soldiers, equipment and resource coming in weekly. All the bases are to strong for the PC to take on directly, and only outposts can be stealthed through. So what can the PC do? Well, all characters(including civilians) has bars representing their need for Food, Water, Sleep and Moral, all with their own debuffs and eventual Death (low enough Moral and soldairs will defect) if not met. And guns and vehicles has a limited number, with limited ammo and fuel.
So the PC has to use their own limited resources to reduce (or steal)NBH's resources/manpower until the bases can be taken on, directly, or stealthily.
The PC should have a low damage threshold (like everyone else), forcing strategic play. The PC should consume Food and water, and need Sleep. Have small Inventory, 2 guns and 1-2 smaller, all with their own weight, plus weight Food, Water, Ammo and everything else they have to carry. The more weight the PC carry the faster they get tired.
The last thing, but most important is NO EASY INFORMATION OR GEAR. No NPS will ever just give you a gun or some useful intel. Ammo have to be stolen, weapons too. The PC have to get their own Intel. So espionage is a huge part of the gameplay.
So a typical "event" (there's no scripted missions, everything is organic)will go like this:
The PC pays a bartender for information: A convoy, consisting of 2 cars with a truck in between, delivering ammo will leave the eastern dock 9pm every Thursday. It will take the shortest route to the Northern Outpost. The player, wanting to ambush the convoy, goes to a mine field to pick up some mines (or you can find a guy that's makes landmines,and give him the materials he needs). Than set the mines on the road next to a strategic hill, where the player (with or without the cell) will wait. The first car of the convoy blows up, stopping the rest. The Player shoots down the soldiars, and takes the truck.
But here's the cool part: There's no script triggers. The convoy will leave the dock regardless of the player knows about it. The mines goes off even if the players isn't there. And then the game will respond to this action by increasing the number of escorts.
Q: Why are you using "they" when referring to the player character?
A: Because "player charater" is both the player and the in-game character.
Well, it's a good idea for Hardcore Mode, I'll give it that. But, I think it would better if it's the rule for the main stronghold: The player died there and the character remains dead and the rest of the cell in now wanted (shot on sight).Infernai said:Might I suggest implementing a mechanic similar to the first Rainbow Six regarding Player Characters?
Let's say your player character dies. Instead of going to a game over screen, the game switches gears and instead you take over control of one of the other Guerrilla's. This will happen each time a character dies until the cell is destroyed, which will result in a game over.
The company I work for, it's known as "held by." It's infuriating because it's the only bug fix request status that doesn't require a note to be added.aegix drakan said:"hurdy the gurdy"? Is that an obscure reference to Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles? I mean, I doubt that quite a lot, but it just seems to fit way too well.
This is my experience as well. You would be surprised what Developers will label as "known shippable - will not Fix"MoltenSilver said:Speaking from experience, trust me, the QA team found all these bugs, it's that someone else decided they weren't worth fixing.
"Hey, Devs, I know the RTS game is ending testing this week, but if the player blows up all the bridges on this map, they can make the map impossible to complete and it just doesn't end. One bridge should be indestructible or the game should flag it as a loss if all three bridges go down." REPLY: "Will not fix. If the player is dumb enough to do that, then let that be a lesson to them to not be such an idiot". :s
Anyway, I don't think he's going to review overwatch. He already skipped on Battleborn because he hates multiplayer only games, and there's not all that much content to Overwatch.
Granted it's my current addiction and I love the hell out of OW, but there's not much in the way to review and make jokes about for 5 minutes straight.