{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/28/2012 2:42:00 AM
31
Post Apocalyptic? Why not During the Apocalypse?
In the vast amounts of Post Apocalyptic games like Fallout, I Am Alive, Metro 2033, and even Spec Ops The Line why have we not really see a game take place while the event was happening? Imagine a game taking place during a global flood? Or the spread of deserts or even the rapid growth of the forests?
Well it does not really mean that there would be mass death. Imagine an open world game where you started off normal. But the more you play, the forest grows and grows across the world and consumes towns and every other thing in its path. Not really killing, but destruction.
Would you like to see that happen? I personally have not see one before, so that is what I am basing this on.
[Edited on 12.27.2012 6:58 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] AngryBrute1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] King Leopold789 the apocalypse is something that is impossible for you to win. In a post apoc situation you can help rebuild. In a apocalyptic situation all you can do is watch the world burn.[/quote]It would set up a really interesting story, and world to explore as it changes over time.[/quote]the apocolypse is bound to happen there is no stopping it, thus you can not change the situation as much in the given setting compared to another one. Games are meant to be interactive and you as the player should have the ability to change situations. In a apocalyptic setting the player simply cannot change the course of events as much as compared to another setting, and thus why other settings are more prevalent in games.
