Wildlife & Underwater & Space

[texico]

But aren't the weapons going to be there anyway... when they're held in the player's hands? Wouldn't having them holstered on the player's back just be a change in spatial location, or am I missing something -.-

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by texico

But aren't the weapons going to be there anyway... when they're held in the player's hands? Wouldn't having them holstered on the player's back just be a change in spatial location, or am I missing something -.-

In the original you could have 2 guns and 2 side smaller guns. That would mean possibly 3 extra items per person in a battle where you may be rendering 100 other players

[texico]

Oh yeah, that didn't click in my mind for some reason

Well, they could at least let you holster the weapon you're "using" at the time, it looks a lot cooler than having everybody running around with guns in their hands at all times.


I wonder if we would see wildlife though. I doubt fish, simply because there aren't underwater elements to the game, so they'd probably see that idea as effort for not much reason.

It does bring up some questions though, like what the animals would look like (alien planet remember...).

[Warborn]

It isn't like they either create X vehicle, or they add in birds. People acting like adding in animals would mean sacrificing some major additions to the game. Pretty bizarre. Nobody is suggesting this would be a top tier feature they'd have to get done ASAP. Only that whenever they could add it, everyone would appreciate it if they did. Yes, everyone. Even the people who're full of shit and are saying they don't want it, if it was in the game and looked good and didn't make their computer explode or whatever the irrational technical fear is, they'd be happy about it.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I think you took what I said to the extreme, but in a good a way. There is a balance. My point was mostly that if they're going to add in something I'd prefer that it effect gameplay which is the point Bags was making. Though it is an overused argument that can apply to anything. I mean everything the devs do has an assumed time so a priority of features and weighing the cost of each feature is something that would ultimately need to be done, but could go without saying.

I did take it to the extreme, but it was to prove a point. There are all sorts of non-gameplay features which modern games are loaded up with in order to make them a richer, more full experience. Acting as if good looking character design or game environments isn't important because it's not a gameplay feature is a silly way of looking at it. Having good graphics, vibrant game worlds and other such purely cosmetic features is incredibly important for modern games. This game would be dead in the water if it released in 2013 looking like PS1 did.

[Whalenator]

Warborn, please.
Calm down.

[Warborn]

It's just text. Stop reading it angry.

[cellinaire]

What about only flys and mosquitoes then. Do you guys even think these would be so time-consuming for the programmers and coders? Will these also be proven as gameplay affecting insects? I mean seriously.....