›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Lack of futuristic set RPG's

EasySmoothEasySmooth Member CommonPosts: 7
in General Gaming

Lets see what we got :

Deus Ex

Fallout

Portal (RPG???)

HALF LIFE  (more FPS)

Crysys *same*

doom *same*

what do you think

 

«13

Comments

  • VolkmarVolkmar Member UncommonPosts: 2,501

    Mmmmh.

     

    Shadowrun returns

    Wastelands 2

    EVE

    Star Trek Online

    ALL Kotor games including swtor

    Dawn of war II

    MASS EFFECT

     

    do I have to go on?

     

    "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"



  • gideonvaldesgideonvaldes Member Posts: 148
    Originally posted by Volkmar

    Mmmmh.

     

    Shadowrun returns

    Wastelands 2

    EVE

    Star Trek Online

    ALL Kotor games including swtor

    Dawn of war II

    MASS EFFECT

     

    do I have to go on?

     

    go brother, wanting your list tho..

  • moonboundmoonbound Member UncommonPosts: 396
    Check out Dex on steam it looks cool.
  • ElikalElikal Member UncommonPosts: 7,912
    I am with you in this. There should be more sci fi RPGs. Anyone still remembers MegaTraveller? Kinda 1987-ish. Loved the Traveller setting. Or Anarchronox, where we never got the sequel. Or System Shock, which was never continued.

    People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert

  • HorusraHorusra Member EpicPosts: 4,411
    Star wars happened a long time ago not futuristic.....
  • AsheramAsheram Member EpicPosts: 5,078
    Can't wait til Cyberpunk 2077.

  • NordicApacheNordicApache Member UncommonPosts: 134
    I do feel the market for Sci-Fi setting MMO's is small. The amount of Med-Fantasy themed MMO's is sickening lol. 
  • KanethKaneth Member RarePosts: 2,286
    Asheram said:
    Can't wait til Cyberpunk 2077.

    I hear ya. I really hope it turns out to be an awesome game. Additionally, I love the latest Shadowrun games, but man I'd kill for an open world Shadowrun rpg as well.
  • FlemFlem Member UncommonPosts: 2,870
    Bioshock games, not strictly RPG but do have some elements of RPG.
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    The problem with "futuristic" set anything is that it usually is not at all futuristic.  What we get is a pastiche of fantasy elements with a veneer of phony technology.

    This is not being overly critical of the gaming industry because it is true of films TV shows and books too.

    A list of phony "magic" tropes:
    • Life Signs detectors , tell me exactly what are they detecting?
    • Star Trek style transporters,   how could anything disassemble a living creature and reassemble it somewhere else?
    • Unobtanium, the Periodic Table has no gaps, so do not event new elements that could not exist.
    • Demonic possesion, Vampires etc.  Fantasy not futuristic, not science.
    • Breeding between alien species and humans.
    • Floating mountains.
    • Space battles with no real distance effects (things look smaller at a distance)
    • no consideration of time dilation due to relativity effects.
    On and on,  Kerbal Space Program is about it for realistic space games.
  • mmoguy43mmoguy43 Member UncommonPosts: 2,770
    edited September 2015
    Deus Ex: Mankind Divided and XCOM2 is coming next year.

    Other good kind of RPGs on steam: Transistor, Invisible Inc, Alien Isolation...

    The Shadowrun Return games are good if you want a story heavy RPG.

    System Shock2,Anachronox, and Omicron:Nomad Soul If you are prepared for some old, weird, and hard to follow stuff. 
    Post edited by mmoguy43 on
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    I love half life,one of my favorite games of all time.
    To me it is never about NEEDING a certain genre fulfilled,it is more about QUALITY of games that is severely lacking.

    HL is the perfect example,if there were 20 HL developers ,i would be busy playing too many games lol.

    Checked out Dex since i never heard of it ....a big NO ..hell no,another cheap Steam game.

    IDK if Just Cause would fall into this category but it is a cool game as well.


    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    craftseeker said:
    The problem with "futuristic" set anything is that it usually is not at all futuristic.  What we get is a pastiche of fantasy elements with a veneer of phony technology.

    This is not being overly critical of the gaming industry because it is true of films TV shows and books too.

    A list of phony "magic" tropes:
    • Life Signs detectors , tell me exactly what are they detecting?
    • Star Trek style transporters,   how could anything disassemble a living creature and reassemble it somewhere else?
    • Unobtanium, the Periodic Table has no gaps, so do not event new elements that could not exist.
    • Demonic possesion, Vampires etc.  Fantasy not futuristic, not science.
    • Breeding between alien species and humans.
    • Floating mountains.
    • Space battles with no real distance effects (things look smaller at a distance)
    • no consideration of time dilation due to relativity effects.
    On and on,  Kerbal Space Program is about it for realistic space games.
    Life sign detectors are presumably listening for stuff like heartbeat and breathing if they are portable, larger systems that are setup also register movement and heat. It isn't really that far fetched to register a heartbeat, the hard thing is to pinpoint it but it is still far from impossible.

    The transporter is a bit fuzzy though, in theory it works and it has been done with single fotons but it would be easier to just copy you where you are needed. It also sets makes some meta physical questions like if there actually is a soul....

    And yeah, you cant make new actual elements (unless they have a gigant mass and somehow stay stable) but you can add rare isotops (heavy water is still water but far rarer than regular water) and chemicl compounds. Unless we are speaking dark matter and anti matter of course.

    Well, there are parasites that takes controls over insects and even affect certain birds so it isn't totally impossible something could do this with a human.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141031-zombies-parasites-animals-science-halloween/ that is a few, creepy. :)

    As for breeding with humans it would be possible of closely genetical siblings, Twileks in SW are probably genetically modified humans and that should work. A horse and a dunkey can breed as well as a tiger and a lion. Most hybrids tend to be sterile though but not all (certain Ligers aren't).

    I can't explain how a mountain could fly unless you use extreme magnetism but it might be possible to conquer gravity, maybe you can manipulate Higgs bozones or something.

    The last 2 is just bad movie logics and effects, in the last case there is of course the possibility that Einsteins theory is wrong, Tesla thought so and he did consider the possibility himself during his last years.

    My point anyways is that it is as hard to predict the future, if you look on older predictions they tend to be silly. Some stuff are impossible, others take a lot longer and in some cases it either goes way faster or was impossible to predict from the beginning.

    A wise man once said: the future is like the bum of a baboom, Colorfull with lots of s#it.
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Loke666 said:
    craftseeker said:
    The problem with "futuristic" set anything is that it usually is not at all futuristic.  What we get is a pastiche of fantasy elements with a veneer of phony technology.

    This is not being overly critical of the gaming industry because it is true of films TV shows and books too.

    A list of phony "magic" tropes:
    • Life Signs detectors , tell me exactly what are they detecting?
    • Star Trek style transporters,   how could anything disassemble a living creature and reassemble it somewhere else?
    • Unobtanium, the Periodic Table has no gaps, so do not event new elements that could not exist.
    • Demonic possesion, Vampires etc.  Fantasy not futuristic, not science.
    • Breeding between alien species and humans.
    • Floating mountains.
    • Space battles with no real distance effects (things look smaller at a distance)
    • no consideration of time dilation due to relativity effects.
    On and on,  Kerbal Space Program is about it for realistic space games.
    Life sign detectors are presumably listening for stuff like heartbeat and breathing if they are portable, larger systems that are setup also register movement and heat. It isn't really that far fetched to register a heartbeat, the hard thing is to pinpoint it but it is still far from impossible.

    The transporter is a bit fuzzy though, in theory it works and it has been done with single fotons but it would be easier to just copy you where you are needed. It also sets makes some meta physical questions like if there actually is a soul....

    And yeah, you cant make new actual elements (unless they have a gigant mass and somehow stay stable) but you can add rare isotops (heavy water is still water but far rarer than regular water) and chemicl compounds. Unless we are speaking dark matter and anti matter of course.

    Well, there are parasites that takes controls over insects and even affect certain birds so it isn't totally impossible something could do this with a human.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141031-zombies-parasites-animals-science-halloween/ that is a few, creepy. :)

    As for breeding with humans it would be possible of closely genetical siblings, Twileks in SW are probably genetically modified humans and that should work. A horse and a dunkey can breed as well as a tiger and a lion. Most hybrids tend to be sterile though but not all (certain Ligers aren't).

    I can't explain how a mountain could fly unless you use extreme magnetism but it might be possible to conquer gravity, maybe you can manipulate Higgs bozones or something.

    The last 2 is just bad movie logics and effects, in the last case there is of course the possibility that Einsteins theory is wrong, Tesla thought so and he did consider the possibility himself during his last years.

    My point anyways is that it is as hard to predict the future, if you look on older predictions they tend to be silly. Some stuff are impossible, others take a lot longer and in some cases it either goes way faster or was impossible to predict from the beginning.

    A wise man once said: the future is like the bum of a baboom, Colorfull with lots of s#it.
    Life signs detectors in these tales can distinguish between 'intelligent' life and 'non-intelligent' life kind of hard to do that from a heart beat, particularly when you can do it from 100,000 km away through vacuum and space ship walls.

    It is a photon not a foton, and a single particle is a whole different thing than a living creature which must be assembled just so to preserve life, memory etc.

    Heavy water is heavy because the Hydrogen in it is from uncommon or rare isotopes.  It is still water, it still breaks down into Hydrogen and Oxygen in the same ratio and still behaves exactly the same chemically.

    As to cross species breeding, the examples you use are all from closely related species on earth with over 95% of their DNA identical.  Alien species may not even have DNA as their genetic material and even if they do would have nothing in common with any earth species.  Think breeding mushrooms with chimpanzees and extrapolate, not tigers and lions.  This also covers your parasite examples.

    As for relativity, back at the beginning of the twentieth century debate was viable.  Today, if you use GPS you are relying on relativity.  We may come up some day with something that supersedes relativity but it will have to account for everything relativity accounts for including time dilation.

    Finally anything that includes discussion of a soul is either religion or fantasy, it is not science.
  • GadzGadz Member UncommonPosts: 32
    star wars shouldnt be on this list.. its historical and not futuristic
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    craftseeker said:
    Life signs detectors in these tales can distinguish between 'intelligent' life and 'non-intelligent' life kind of hard to do that from a heart beat, particularly when you can do it from 100,000 km away through vacuum and space ship walls.

    It is a photon not a foton, and a single particle is a whole different thing than a living creature which must be assembled just so to preserve life, memory etc.

    Heavy water is heavy because the Hydrogen in it is from uncommon or rare isotopes.  It is still water, it still breaks down into Hydrogen and Oxygen in the same ratio and still behaves exactly the same chemically.

    As to cross species breeding, the examples you use are all from closely related species on earth with over 95% of their DNA identical.  Alien species may not even have DNA as their genetic material and even if they do would have nothing in common with any earth species.  Think breeding mushrooms with chimpanzees and extrapolate, not tigers and lions.  This also covers your parasite examples.

    As for relativity, back at the beginning of the twentieth century debate was viable.  Today, if you use GPS you are relying on relativity.  We may come up some day with something that supersedes relativity but it will have to account for everything relativity accounts for including time dilation.

    Finally anything that includes discussion of a soul is either religion or fantasy, it is not science.
    Ah, I was thinking of smaller scales. No that doesn't work.

    Heavy water have been used for making early nuclear weapons, it was used in the Manhattan project and the Nazis got their fascility bombed. Isotops can be expensive and useful for certain things, particularly Uranium.

    Sorry, Foton is Swedish. My English is usually accetable but in certain technical cases (and others as well) I misspell.

    Yes in the first case. But with parasites they could involve to affect other species, in cases where humans have lived on a planet a long time it is not impossible.

    And yes, unless it exists it is fantasy/religion. I don't think it does but totally ruling it out is hard since it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Anyways it was just a footnote.
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Loke666 said:
    craftseeker said:
    Life signs detectors in these tales can distinguish between 'intelligent' life and 'non-intelligent' life kind of hard to do that from a heart beat, particularly when you can do it from 100,000 km away through vacuum and space ship walls.

    It is a photon not a foton, and a single particle is a whole different thing than a living creature which must be assembled just so to preserve life, memory etc.

    Heavy water is heavy because the Hydrogen in it is from uncommon or rare isotopes.  It is still water, it still breaks down into Hydrogen and Oxygen in the same ratio and still behaves exactly the same chemically.

    As to cross species breeding, the examples you use are all from closely related species on earth with over 95% of their DNA identical.  Alien species may not even have DNA as their genetic material and even if they do would have nothing in common with any earth species.  Think breeding mushrooms with chimpanzees and extrapolate, not tigers and lions.  This also covers your parasite examples.

    As for relativity, back at the beginning of the twentieth century debate was viable.  Today, if you use GPS you are relying on relativity.  We may come up some day with something that supersedes relativity but it will have to account for everything relativity accounts for including time dilation.

    Finally anything that includes discussion of a soul is either religion or fantasy, it is not science.
    Ah, I was thinking of smaller scales. No that doesn't work.

    Heavy water have been used for making early nuclear weapons, it was used in the Manhattan project and the Nazis got their fascility bombed. Isotops can be expensive and useful for certain things, particularly Uranium.

    Sorry, Foton is Swedish. My English is usually accetable but in certain technical cases (and others as well) I misspell.

    Yes in the first case. But with parasites they could involve to affect other species, in cases where humans have lived on a planet a long time it is not impossible.

    And yes, unless it exists it is fantasy/religion. I don't think it does but totally ruling it out is hard since it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Anyways it was just a footnote.
    Heavy water was not used for the manufacture of early nuclear weapons, Uranium and Plutonium were.  Heavy water can be used in a reactor to breed Plutonium from Uranium, but the Manhattan project used graphite reactors.
  • AlverantAlverant Member RarePosts: 1,347
    The problem with "futuristic" set anything is that it usually is not at all futuristic.  What we get is a pastiche of fantasy elements with a veneer of phony technology.
    OK you got two problems with that premise.

    1) You're expecting sci-fi to be able to accurately predict the future, science, technology, and how all that will affect society. Then you go nitpick a whole thing as if SF creators have an obligation to explain in detail how there can be more elements on the periodic table or how warp drive works. That's too much to ask. How about you have fantasy give the same amount of detail of how a dragon can fly given its weight and wingspan? How about how pixies can talk and cast magic despite having a brain the size of a walnut? Want to destroy The One Ring, take it to a nuclear testing site or put it in molten lead then make it part of a smart bomb and drop it into Mt.Doom from a suborbital jet.

    2) Sci-fi is about how people react to a changing world and our place in it. In the broadest of terms, it's a metaphor and all the gadgets are just a means to an end. Fantasy is dressed up nostalgia.

    The reason why there is fewer SF media than fantasy is that creating SF is hard. If you want fantasy, copy a castle in Europe then have orcs invade. Sci-fi makes a bigger effort to explain itself because it has to. It's not perfect but better saying, "It's maaaaaagic."
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Alverant said:
    The problem with "futuristic" set anything is that it usually is not at all futuristic.  What we get is a pastiche of fantasy elements with a veneer of phony technology.
    OK you got two problems with that premise.

    1) You're expecting sci-fi to be able to accurately predict the future, science, technology, and how all that will affect society. Then you go nitpick a whole thing as if SF creators have an obligation to explain in detail how there can be more elements on the periodic table or how warp drive works. That's too much to ask. How about you have fantasy give the same amount of detail of how a dragon can fly given its weight and wingspan? How about how pixies can talk and cast magic despite having a brain the size of a walnut? Want to destroy The One Ring, take it to a nuclear testing site or put it in molten lead then make it part of a smart bomb and drop it into Mt.Doom from a suborbital jet.

    2) Sci-fi is about how people react to a changing world and our place in it. In the broadest of terms, it's a metaphor and all the gadgets are just a means to an end. Fantasy is dressed up nostalgia.

    The reason why there is fewer SF media than fantasy is that creating SF is hard. If you want fantasy, copy a castle in Europe then have orcs invade. Sci-fi makes a bigger effort to explain itself because it has to. It's not perfect but better saying, "It's maaaaaagic."
    Nope cannot let that one pass.

    I do not expect sci-fi to be able to accurately predict the future.  I do expect it to extrapolate from what we know to some future adding some speculative stuff.  What I do not accept is 'magic' thinly disguised as technology. 
    Warp drives, 'star gates'  and similar are speculation on existing science and are fine by me.  Additional elements not found on the periodic table are fantasy and are not and neither are the other things I included in my original post.

    No matter how you dress it up if it is fantasy it is not Science Fiction and it is not 'futuristic'.
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    craftseeker said:
    Heavy water was not used for the manufacture of early nuclear weapons, Uranium and Plutonium were.  Heavy water can be used in a reactor to breed Plutonium from Uranium, but the Manhattan project used graphite reactors.
    They did actually experimenting with it during the Manhattan project... I saw a program about isotopes and did spend some time on it early on. And yes, you didn't use the water in the bomb as such but you can use it during the process. And you certainly can use Uranium isotopes for a lot.
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Loke666 said:
    Heavy water was not used for the manufacture of early nuclear weapons, Uranium and Plutonium were.  Heavy water can be used in a reactor to breed Plutonium from Uranium, but the Manhattan project used graphite reactors.
    They did actually experimenting with it during the Manhattan project... I saw a program about isotopes and did spend some time on it early on. And yes, you didn't use the water in the bomb as such but you can use it during the process. And you certainly can use Uranium isotopes for a lot.
    Nope still wrong, Harold Urey conducted research in the use of heavy water at Columbia in the 1940's but that research did not lead to the production of significant quantities of Plutonium during the Manhattan project.  It is true that heavy water processes are now used for this purpose but that was not true for the construction of early nuclear weapons.
  • evgen88evgen88 Member UncommonPosts: 120
    Alverant said:
    The problem with "futuristic" set anything is that it usually is not at all futuristic.  What we get is a pastiche of fantasy elements with a veneer of phony technology.
    OK you got two problems with that premise.

    1) You're expecting sci-fi to be able to accurately predict the future, science, technology, and how all that will affect society. Then you go nitpick a whole thing as if SF creators have an obligation to explain in detail how there can be more elements on the periodic table or how warp drive works. That's too much to ask. How about you have fantasy give the same amount of detail of how a dragon can fly given its weight and wingspan? How about how pixies can talk and cast magic despite having a brain the size of a walnut? Want to destroy The One Ring, take it to a nuclear testing site or put it in molten lead then make it part of a smart bomb and drop it into Mt.Doom from a suborbital jet.

    2) Sci-fi is about how people react to a changing world and our place in it. In the broadest of terms, it's a metaphor and all the gadgets are just a means to an end. Fantasy is dressed up nostalgia.

    The reason why there is fewer SF media than fantasy is that creating SF is hard. If you want fantasy, copy a castle in Europe then have orcs invade. Sci-fi makes a bigger effort to explain itself because it has to. It's not perfect but better saying, "It's maaaaaagic."
    Nope cannot let that one pass.

    I do not expect sci-fi to be able to accurately predict the future.  I do expect it to extrapolate from what we know to some future adding some speculative stuff.  What I do not accept is 'magic' thinly disguised as technology. 
    Warp drives, 'star gates'  and similar are speculation on existing science and are fine by me.  Additional elements not found on the periodic table are fantasy and are not and neither are the other things I included in my original post.

    No matter how you dress it up if it is fantasy it is not Science Fiction and it is not 'futuristic'.
    Nope, wrong, don't confuse your definition and expectation of the genre to what the rest of the world may want and understand.

    science fiction
    noun
    1. fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
    What you are talking about is one type of science fiction, heavy emphasis on science. Do you realize how many times established "facts" of science have been determined wrong? While I do agree with you on a lot of things, I've never been a fan of Star Trek's "technology" or all the hokey things they say they can do now in TV and movies, enough people seem to find it entertaining which is the whole purpose of fiction.

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    evgen88 said:
    Alverant said:
    The problem with "futuristic" set anything is that it usually is not at all futuristic.  What we get is a pastiche of fantasy elements with a veneer of phony technology.
    OK you got two problems with that premise.

    1) You're expecting sci-fi to be able to accurately predict the future, science, technology, and how all that will affect society. Then you go nitpick a whole thing as if SF creators have an obligation to explain in detail how there can be more elements on the periodic table or how warp drive works. That's too much to ask. How about you have fantasy give the same amount of detail of how a dragon can fly given its weight and wingspan? How about how pixies can talk and cast magic despite having a brain the size of a walnut? Want to destroy The One Ring, take it to a nuclear testing site or put it in molten lead then make it part of a smart bomb and drop it into Mt.Doom from a suborbital jet.

    2) Sci-fi is about how people react to a changing world and our place in it. In the broadest of terms, it's a metaphor and all the gadgets are just a means to an end. Fantasy is dressed up nostalgia.

    The reason why there is fewer SF media than fantasy is that creating SF is hard. If you want fantasy, copy a castle in Europe then have orcs invade. Sci-fi makes a bigger effort to explain itself because it has to. It's not perfect but better saying, "It's maaaaaagic."
    Nope cannot let that one pass.

    I do not expect sci-fi to be able to accurately predict the future.  I do expect it to extrapolate from what we know to some future adding some speculative stuff.  What I do not accept is 'magic' thinly disguised as technology. 
    Warp drives, 'star gates'  and similar are speculation on existing science and are fine by me.  Additional elements not found on the periodic table are fantasy and are not and neither are the other things I included in my original post.

    No matter how you dress it up if it is fantasy it is not Science Fiction and it is not 'futuristic'.
    Nope, wrong, don't confuse your definition and expectation of the genre to what the rest of the world may want and understand.

    science fiction
    noun
    1. fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
    What you are talking about is one type of science fiction, heavy emphasis on science. Do you realize how many times established "facts" of science have been determined wrong? While I do agree with you on a lot of things, I've never been a fan of Star Trek's "technology" or all the hokey things they say they can do now in TV and movies, enough people seem to find it entertaining which is the whole purpose of fiction.

    Well we can have different opinions and that is fine.

    But you state 'Do you realize how many times established "facts" of science have been determined wrong? '

    Do you?  Because for me the answer is not very often.  Over time theories change, but usually by incorporating new data into a larger picture, as relativity did with Newtonian mechanics. But aside from philogiston, which was postulated and never considered a fact I can think of none.
  • RadixMalorumRadixMalorum Member UncommonPosts: 143
    The problem with "futuristic" set anything is that it usually is not at all futuristic.  What we get is a pastiche of fantasy elements with a veneer of phony technology.

    This is not being overly critical of the gaming industry because it is true of films TV shows and books too.

    A list of phony "magic" tropes:
    • Life Signs detectors , tell me exactly what are they detecting?
    • Star Trek style transporters,   how could anything disassemble a living creature and reassemble it somewhere else?
    • Unobtanium, the Periodic Table has no gaps, so do not event new elements that could not exist.
    • Demonic possesion, Vampires etc.  Fantasy not futuristic, not science.
    • Breeding between alien species and humans.
    • Floating mountains.
    • Space battles with no real distance effects (things look smaller at a distance)
    • no consideration of time dilation due to relativity effects.
    On and on,  Kerbal Space Program is about it for realistic space games.
    Science Fiction has no obligation to be Science Simulation. What you're describing above would be simulation. One of the major rules of any fiction, including games, is the willing suspension of disbelief. If you can't get past the fact that the 'science' is BS, it might be you're blurring the lines between an RPG and a simulation. Of course most science fiction is BS, writers (books, movies, or otherwise) are normally story tellers first and astrophysicists second (or, more likely, not at all).

    I get where you're coming from, I really do, and I'm not trying to flame you. The science is certainly BS, but its just a game/book/movie. Suspend disbelief and be entertained for a while (unless it's really that bad). "Real" Science stories can be painfully dull. I love Neal Stephenson to death but my eyes were bleeding halfway into Seveneves.

    And, adding S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series to the list. Shooter with RPG elements and really enjoyable story but also pretty darn sandboxy. To the person that is going to say S.T.A.L.K.E.R. isn't futuristic because it takes place in present day (and said same for Star Wars taking place in the past) futuristic means 'in the manner of the future' or 'like the future' it doesn't mean 'in the future'. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ic

    PS my favourite element is BO0. It's there on the Periodic Table, it's just hard to find. It's the element of surprise. ;)

  • FomaldehydeJimFomaldehydeJim Member UncommonPosts: 673
    edited September 2015
    Even those sci-fi games you do find always seem rather limited in scope or imagination. Only Mass Effect or Fallout have come close to scratching my itch. I do love Star Wars but I consider it fantasy in space... heroes journey, space-wizards, no real attempt to explain technology.  
Sign In or Register to comment.