quote:Original post by MadKeithV

I''ve just had a ridiculously simplyfying thought, that was quite sobering to myself, and I hope it has the same effect on you guys:
We expect our players to have fun.

It''s that simple. No more, no less.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^/) /<é!t/-/ ~

That''s what I have tried to say in these many useless posts. If noone playes your stuff, it''s crap. Like I have said, many good ideas, but if they are not fun they are useless, well except for you.

Whether you simply ignore my posts or then you simply aren''t interested. Well, whatever.

Time comes, time goes and I only am.

Arch@on.. first I''d like to point out that Chaotic Good in D&D refers to one who is good in overall beliefs, but chaotic in the ways the go about those beliefs. This is the typical Ranger which Drizzt is ALL of my D&D rangers have been CG. This is a two-level system of alignment. The first level is Good, Neutral, Evil.. the second part of the full alignment. This is your overall beliefs. Good refers to what society sees as being "good". Neutral is believing in balance between good and evils and following your own road. Evil is the "dark" side of things, whatever society considers to be evil. It''s true you could write a game in which the "good" guys model the "bad" guys of current games, and heros and such are forced to find refuge in the wild
The first word is how you carry out your beliefs. You can be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. lawful is one who is honorable, a Lawful Evil still has honor and will not strike a foe who is weaponless. Neutral is following one''s own mannor of thinking here. Do it whatever way best suits you at this time. Chaotic is doing things in a shady mannor A chaotic has no problems lying to your face and stabbing you in the back when you turn around if they believe it will help them accomplish their mission.
Therefore, a chaotic good person will lie to someone who is "bad" and perhaps even kill them outright if they believe it helps society Drizzt and most rangers are like this and are also seen as "outcasts" and vigilanties While they''re good, they''re not above resorting to trickery to get the job done!

Now, the idea of infinate plots. I think Landfish is right here in some respects.. but not totally. If the game were to be modular and throw us a curve ball when we least expected it.. then it''d be life Because we all know life isn''t fair. It''s all in how we manage the curve balls, and do we accept striking out gracefully.. or take it hard? There''s a lot to life.. a lot of underlying things we never notice till they happen to hit us
As far as doing a game which models life, long ways off infinate code.. hehe. Anyways, i think the point of games being fun is the main thing we should consider. Not all games will be fun to everyone, but for those we targetted, is this game fun? I''ve played several disappointments lately. Darkstone, while cool looking.. has an overly simple way of running the player and becomes very hack''n slash repetition very fast. Too much graphics, not enough game. Even Lucas Arts'' game Force Commander is like this. Same thing, again and again, with new toys. The computer always attacks when you reach X point or X time. Never any randomness. I used to think these games were fun. Many many racing games have this, too. All the levels start to be similar. You get one computer guy who''s just got the perfect driving record and he whoops you every time until you learn how to wreck him as he laps you Excitebike 64 is very much like this. I''ve been spending time rubbing my fingers numb and to the bone trying to beat that game. Why? because the durn thing has some cool multiplayer options and special tracks. I''ve been playin the soccer with my girlfriend and her brother quite a bit But again, once you learn how to move your fingers correctly, the game''s solved. No more challenges. Someone who''s got low manual dexterity will never beat it, cause you''ve got to move fast It pisses you off greatly when some computer guy just goes flying past you like you''re sitting still, when you''re on full throttle. I mean, honestly.. where do these designer''s get off thinking that making the computer cheat is the only way to beat the player?! I''ll swap out to the rider that the computer was beatin me with, and then the guy i was playin beats me! It''s like it randomly picks one of the riders to gain a bonus to their ability. If you''re not perfect like them.. then you can forget it :/

Ok, i think i''ve rambled enough.. this should help us to focus thoughts on what we really want.. the player to have fun! I think too many programmer''s these days think they have to make the game impossibly hard in order for people to like the game! anyone else think this is WRONG?

J

I´d say you´re going about this the wrong way. I guess you should ask what the player wants from the RPG.

After all you´re doing games for the players and not the players are playing for the game....

I guess if you go about it your way you´ll end up somewhere along the short story or the sonnett. All art, no life. Never ever forget that games are to be played for fun and sometimes fun is in the simple things (look at diablo).

If you do games for the sake of creating the perfect RPG (can i still use that term here or will i be smitten by some fish or other?) you´re going to nowhere. It may be fun for you but essentially that´s not what it´s about.

Should this go in it´s own thread?....

From the table-top days to the CRPG the one thing that i dearly miss the most is doing something that catches the DM/GM off guard.

We all remember the story of the weak mage who came across the all so powerful evil mage whom was surrounded in an anti-magic barrier. The weaker good mage casted "reduce size" on the nearby boulder, picked it up and throw it at the evil mage. [squish]

I wish you could do this sort of stuff in CRPG''s, i really miss it.

The problem with CRPG is Bigger IS Better. I hate that, it''s so limiting.


WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"