Melcyna, on 19 August 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:
Similarly when it comes to gameplay, there's not much room in either space or processing power for anything that isn't useful to the gameplay itself. Which is why when games like System Shock came out it was nothing short of phenomenal for the amount of gameplay mechanic and interpretation that they managed to cram in with so little space..
System Shock was one of a kind. We should be careful to not compare the crème de la crème of old games to the run-of-the-mill games of today.
Melcyna, on 19 August 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:
It's rather depressing when games of that depth became a rarity. Witcher yeah that was pretty good for a modern RPG, still depressing that there hasn't been a SINGLE RPG with writing quality like Planescape: Torment but i can concede that games like Witcher even if it doesn't posses the same level of atmosphere and writing like some of the old classic, is still good enough considering there are so few alternatives.
Well, since I know the books the witcher games are based upon I have to disagree there. However, more generally the difference between witcher and planescape is that between a movie and a book. And books are not the hottest medium either any longer.
Melcyna, on 19 August 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:
EXCELLENT? and World of Tank?
Those 2 don't go with each other i am sorry to say, no games with P2Win aspect should ever be paired with the tag EXCELLENT.
An F2P like LoL? ok i can sort of accept that statement even if i don't like the game itself... but WoT? hell no...
Hehe, yea thats a controversial one.
WoT is simple to get into, but has a surprising depth - and for PvP games thats the best kind of game.
It's fairly realistic armor model requires a fair amount of skill and knowledge to hit the weakspots of tanks (or to hide your own behind terrain), you need situationaly awareness, you need to know where to position yourself and you need to know when to push/when to retreat/when to cower and just stand your ground to play it well.
It has some serious weak points, I agree, but im either past them or I don't really care about them.
The only bad thing about WoT that you cannot excape are the hordes of utterly incompetent players, who directly influence your own chances of success (well, MWO will suffer from that too).
I can basically jump in whenever I have 15 minutes to kill to shoot tanks and have fun (or pop a vein when the dumb nitwits on my team did something mindblowingly dumb ... again). And I dont have to pay nothing for it.
Elessar, on 20 August 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:
Most of the time at least.
Although it is interesting that, in terms of gameplay complexity, 1-2 man donationware projects are often multiple times more complex than commercial titles.
Just think of Dwarf Fortress or Aurora 4X (hell, many games developers themselves play Dwarf Fortress and incloude small tributes to the game in their own games

).
Thanks to completely foregoing complex graphics and extensive game music, they don´t have to employ a large staff dedicated to graphics and sound and can put their full work into gameplay
Well, yea, but in all fairness, dwarf fortress is made for crazy persons. I greatly enjoy reading Let's Plays of it but I wound never ever spend the work to find out how to play it
Crankwerk, on 20 August 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:
Cyperpunk (RPG by the team that gave you ..."drumroll" Witcher series)
Holy wow. Thank you so much for mentioning this. Now im psyched.
Other interesting games are the "Supreme Commander" games. They are RTS games, but try to stear the gameplay away from tactics (aka micromanaging a handful of units) to real strategy (aka managing whole armies with 100s or 1000s of units).
Everybody who likes RTS games should at least try them. A more recent indie game with the same basic idea is "AI War" (its on steam).
Edited by nektu, 20 August 2012 - 09:02 AM.