Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Play the stinking part!


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
9 replies to this topic

#1 SonicSilcion   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 June 2000 - 05:40 AM

WARNING! EXTREMELY BIZARRE POST IS ABOUT TO COMMENCE: {Ingore this paragraph if you know what Digmon is about} Okay, I have been watching Digimon on Fox. In it are eight kids, each assigned a ''Digital Monster.'' Together, these 16 characters are charged with saving the real world by stopping the evil in the Digimon''s home ''shadow world.'' To this the Digimon must evlove, which is really just turning into a different but related creature {ala Poke''mon.} To evolve the Digimon require that their assigned kid needs protection to go up one level, then demonstrate a specified emotion or characteristic to go up another level. These evolutions are temporary, and require quite a bit of energy to mantain. When the Digimon is done with combat, it de-evolves back in to a former state. "Okay," you ask, "but what has this got to do with game design?" Well, some threads have brought up the question of how to make a player maintain his Role in an RPG without restricting their interaction. I propose this: Assign a few key attributes to the player''s character. The closer the player adheres to these attributes, the easier it is for them to accomplish their goals. In the same way, the less the player asheres to his/her ''part'', the more difficult it is to progress. This could be manifested in many waays. Examples: *a weapon only works when it''s wielder demonstrates a virtue *NPCs who recognize a player''s personification by what they do *tests of character {e.g. courage, determination, compassion} With gameplay based around this, it could actually be a *Role-Playing* Game. What are your thoughts or suggestions? ---Sonic Silicon---

Sponsor:

#2 The_Minister   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 June 2000 - 06:18 AM

Interesting... but plot? Where is the plot here?

Evolve your creature so that he can er defeat this other bad creature?

This sounds more like an (I don''t know what the new term for it is) online server-side RPG than a normal RPG. I can''t see people ''expressing virtues'' all day to power up their creatures. I mean, think about it.

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive

#3 SonicSilcion   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 June 2000 - 09:46 AM

Digimon is just an example. {I''m trying not get sued here.} The player would just have the character to control. There are no pets involved in this.

What I''m trying to discuss is a system where the player should, if not must, play the role they are given or have selected to advance in the game. It feels like a good idea to discuss, to me. If you have any comments on the latter section of the original post, please go right ahead.

#4 random-nomad   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 June 2000 - 10:52 AM

Hmmm. You''re talking about MMORPG''s here, right? Because this clearly doesn''t suit a single-player scenario, where you really ought to let the player choose what degree of "role-playing" they want to put into it, and how much simple power-gaming they want to do. In fact, there''s usually little point to fastidious roleplaying in most single-player RPG''s.

In MMORPG''s it becomes a whole other issue. I think though, that having people essentially forced to "display certain virues" because hey, that''s what it says on their character, will cramp a good roleplayers style. For those who want to roleplay, you''ll be limiting the breadth of possibilities in character creation, because it''s only possible to come up with a finite number of rules about what actions display what virtues. On the flip side, those who don''t want to roleplay will either be so put-off by this that they''ll ignore your game altogether, or they''ll just find some way of getting around it that will likely be even worse than being cardboard cut-outs (like Macro-ing the actions that lead you to seem courageous and such).



while( strcmp(reply,flame) )
followThread();


random-nomad

#5 Landfish   Members   -  Reputation: 288

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 22 June 2000 - 11:17 AM

Not necessarily. I think you could feasably create a single player game where the "game" part would reward playing in character.

Lets say you chose an intimidating character to play. You as the player are forced with several paths you can accomplish tasks with, but the most successful will usually be intimidating, not trying to befriend. You can add more layers to this to make the game more complex, but at heart it''s a pretty neat idea.

If you would have to combine certain actions to get the desired effect, hence making it difficult to "just intimidate." I dunno. Keep at it.

#6 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 24 June 2000 - 02:52 AM

- A Game Designer is a submissive tyrant -

I hope this thought helps.

Edited by - Paul Cunningham on June 24, 2000 9:53:42 AM

#7 SonicSilcion   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 24 June 2000 - 03:46 AM

quote:
Original post by Paul Cunningham
- A Game Designer is a submissive tyrant -

I hope this thought helps.
It does provoke thought, but I can''t see how it helps this thread. Anywho...

Landfish is on track with my thinking. So far it sounds like such a game would be called an ''Adventure'' game rather than an ''RPG.'' Maybe it could be called a Character Playing Adventure. Hmm, CPA. Sounds like someone I''d call to do my taxes. Maybe, Role Playing Adventure. RPA sounds much nicer. Hmm, now it''s starting to sound like Quest for Glory. D''oh!

#8 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2000 - 03:42 AM

One thing that i''ve learnt about game designing as that you shouldn''t get to strung up on its power. ie, yeah, you are the god but if you don''t make a world that people want to goto then they won''t, simple.

You need to be strong in thought and tact in your divine intervention. That will make you a true submissive tyrant :-). But then again, people change what they like and different people like different things so maybe some people will like it if you "force" them to roleplay rather than "incouraging" it.

See thread "Submissive Tyrants Welcome"

WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

#9 SonicSilcion   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2000 - 08:36 AM

Landfish, patron saint of all us odd thinkers, help me in my time of need...
I''m just getting hammered here. {Of course it would help if it was than me and Paul bantering.}

I wasn''t thinking of making only one possible path in the entire game. There''d be {like in many other games} different ''parts'' to play. And not sticking to a chosen part would just make sections of the game moore difficult, not impassable. Perhaps, as a reward/reminder, restrict the really nice items to those that stick to their part {but they won''t have to be perfect, per se.} That way it would only be discouraging to those that only wan''t to get the ''Bad Axe-Sword of Instant Death'' and breeze through the entire game following a game guide.

#10 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 02:28 AM

But will the player actually feel like they are playing a role? Go with it regardless i say, but it''s just something to think about. BTW, I''m not commenting about your game SonicSilicon :-) just spreading my opinion on the topic again.



WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS