C&C means less to me when it's someone elses' choice and their consequences, instead of making me feel like the leader. It's mostly personal preference but I know I'm not the only one who likes to be involved with the character when they play an RPG, and looking down from on high doesn't make me feel like I'm part of the action. It's basically like painting the 4th wall bright, glowing green and making it fire off a siren every few minutes. And as far as I'm concerned, if an RPG isn't immersive it's not doing it's job.
I'm not saying make it into a shooter, it's just that they're doing nothing new with isometric turnbased combat, and if you're going to retread that well trodden ground at this point, I think you kind of have to. I know they don't have the resources as an Indie company, but it's my opinion that graphics aren't something to be shunned like they inhibit gameplay, but just another tool used in making games, and to be honest the game looks pedestrian and unimpressive, even for an isometric RPG. So in this case I think it's a tool misused, at least from what I've seen so far. It doesn't need to be Crysis but considering the perspective there could be more done in it's aesthetics.
The main issue I have is that they're just making a typical isometric RPG, just with zombies. Which is disappointing to me because it's 2010, and there's all this new technology to play with, and it could be so much more.
Let's say the game is isometric. Your argument is that turnbased isometric is old, unremarkable, and immersion breaking.
Well, it's not old- first person is actually older than isometric, from what I've seen. The earliest first person RPG I can think of is Wizardry (1985) and the oldest isometric RPG I can think of is Ultima V (1990- the previous Ultimas weren't isometric due to technical limitations). What you're thinking of as old is the topdown perspective- a different beast altogether.
So you say that "they're doing nothing new with isometric turnbased combat". Aside from the obvious (isometric came after first person), isometric turnbased RPGs these days are not that common. Dragon Age is the only recent big name one, and it used RTWP, not turnbased, combat. If you're looking at indies, there are Avernum 6 and Geneforge 5. Both made by the same guy, and neither which you've played or will play (I haven't either). There's also the fact that there are a lot of factors to manage like infection, morale, food supplies, and that the engine is certainly capable of having very complex combat (try the AoD demo), which allows it to be unique despite its unique premise. There's also the focus on people and the way they behave after a catastrophe rather than on zombies- there's no zombie game that does this and it's ridiculous.
You play an RPG to be immersed. Well, I'm sorry that you play an RPG so that you can experience a buzzword. Immersion is a factor in all games- it's not unique to RPGs and it's not even unique to videogames. People like to be immersed in movies. People like to be immersed in books. People like to be immersed in games. Movies are always in 3rd person. Books and games go both ways. Honestly, the perspective depends on what you're trying to say. If you want to tell the story through the environment, you can do better with first person. The character is just a proxy for the player. If you want the character to be a part of the story, you can do better with 3rd person. The player sees the character's story play out. The use the character's skills to help them face adversity and arrive at the best possible conclusion. Fallout 3 is first person (well it can be 3rd person, but you know), Mass Effect is 3rd person, Bioshock is first person, Dragon Age is 3rd person. Fallout 3 and Bioshock have a big focus on environmental storytelling (through the voice recordings, and the "wow" moments). Mass Effect and Dragon Age have a big focus on storytelling involving the PC (cinematic dialogue, companion interaction). What does ZRPG seem more like?
As for the graphics, they're pretty damn good for an indie game. Check out http://www.avernum.com/avernum6/index.html. The art style seems good for what it is (it's modern times). You're honestly expecting too much if you expect really great graphics from indie. The big developers and producers spend millions on the art. Millions. And even if the game did get "better" graphics, where would they be? The whole point of indie games is that they offer something different from the mainstream- namely the gameplay is actually enjoyable. Having slightly better graphics wont draw the core crowd to them, since they still wont be as good as CoD.
» Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:08 pm 
