» Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:46 pm
Thanks for posting the Art Serge. Some Constructive criticism that can heighten realism: Based on my childhood experience of the non pro$perous side of the bank and warfare model and the fact that my father is a civil engineer who had to design building specs that have to withstand direct rockets red glare and yellow artillery hits, the concrete in the building should have some iron beams and metal mesh hanging after the destruction.
Also, the destruction of the ground should be more severe( sink holes in some areas and raised asphalt earth chunks in some others) The only Nuclear weapons ever deployed in a war were exploded 800-1000 ft in the atmosphere but if there were an all out war, you have a higher probability of ICBM's hitting the ground directly and affecting structural integrity beneath your character's feet.
It may be harder to design from a gaming perspective but it adds to realism and can be used as a several plot devices.
There is not enough ground destruction in the wastes(1990's isometric game engines did not have the technology to properly display the realism needed but that should not be too much of an issue today)
Also, for the designers, since the ground should display chaotic damage, the severity of the destruction in some places would inevitably lead to instability that should be used as a probability based characteristic of the game environment.
The wandering survivor should not automatically expect the earth underneath their feet to stay where it is whether or not he/she is walking above it. A massive amount of Exploding nukes "may" effect the Earth Geologically, especially if an overwhelming number hit deep within one area to destabilize it(Think along the terms of the tiny slivers that link continents and if they are severely struck, not likely but "possibly" leading to Earthquakes....It would be cool from an immersion perspective)