Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Interested in a FREE copy of HTML5 game maker Construct 2?

We'll be giving away three Personal Edition licences in next Tuesday's GDNet Direct email newsletter!

Sign up from the right-hand sidebar on our homepage and read Tuesday's newsletter for details!


We're also offering banner ads on our site from just $5! 1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


Destroying the world vs saving it


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
12 replies to this topic

#1 dasgard   Members   -  Reputation: 101

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:26 AM

Generally speaking, do you think an online game where your goal is to "save the world" would have a bigger amount of player than a game where your goal is to "destroy the world" ?

 

By "saving the world", I'm not just talking about literally saving the world, but rather making good vs being evil.

 

From a general perspective, I think that making good is better, but since there are a lot more games where your goal is to save the world, would a game where your goal is to destroy the world not have more chances to have a bigger amount of players ?

 

What if you are destroying the world for good reasons ? Thoses reasons have to be simple and clear for players in this case ?

 

Does this factor count a lot in the success of a game ?

 

Aren't the mechanics of the game way more importants than this questions ?


Edited by dasgard, 05 September 2013 - 01:39 PM.


Sponsor:

#2 Tom Sloper   Moderators   -  Reputation: 10067

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:56 AM

Destroying an entire world could be a fun goal -- but if it's "the" world, then wouldn't the game end when the goal is achieved?  If not (if there are other worlds to destroy after that), then it could be a plausible construct. 


-- Tom Sloper
Sloperama Productions
Making games fun and getting them done.
www.sloperama.com

Please do not PM me. My email address is easy to find, but note that I do not give private advice.

#3 Mratthew   Members   -  Reputation: 1566

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:06 PM

This is a mechanic on its own, as the destruction or saving of the world could be the end of a match. 



#4 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4980

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 02:32 PM

Honestly I think a goal of dominating/owning a world is more appealing than either destroying or saving.


Phone game idea available free to someone who will develop it (Alphadoku game - the only existing phone game of this type is both for windows phone only and awful. PM for details.)


I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.


#5 kseh   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2154

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 02:43 PM

Some friends and I began a quest to search the world for 4 spirit crystals to prevent the world from being destroyed. But with international security being so much tighter these days, they wouldn't allow us on the plane with our swords and all the healing potions we brought. We went home and waited expecting the worst. The new baktun came and went without incident and now we're not so sure what to do.

Or at least, I think I'd like to play a game that starts out that way. There's gotta be a good story in there somewhere.



#6 dasgard   Members   -  Reputation: 101

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 02:51 PM

Thanks you for your answers



#7 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 20300

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:32 PM

Plausible "good" reason for destroying the world:
A) To rejuvenate the world through fire. Forests do this all the time - they gradually accumulate underbrush that dries out, and then in a lightning storm eventually catch fire and burn to the ground, allowing a new forest to spring up from the ashes. Geological evidence (in a discovery channel documentary I watched once) suggested that this happened on average every 200 years or so in California before it became heavily populated and we started putting out the brush fires (potentially, we might be building up more dry underbrush as kinder making whatever fire that we finally can't contain even more destructive than the normal ~200 year burns).

You don't need to destroy the entire world at once to rejuvenate it! You could do it in sections, possibly over periods of years, shepherding people out of the way to burn one section, then another. Perhaps your world does this in rotation, one section every 100 years, so with 10 sections, any given section is only destroyed once every 1000 years.

B) To prevent an alien parasite from spreading to other planets and eventually taking over the entire galaxy. If the planet you are on happens to be a ring-world, you could intentionally overheat the engines of your giant spaceship to cause a massive explosion that causes the ring-world to break apart.

 

Plausible 'bad' reasons for destroying a world:

A) Look what I can do


It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

[Need web hosting? I personally like A Small Orange]


#8 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2204

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 06:23 PM


Honestly I think a goal of dominating/owning a world is more appealing than either destroying or saving.

 

this is the natural evolution of all in-depth game simulations, to eventually conquer the game world as the ultimate goal.  very few games have ever been built with that level of scope though.  i did one once. RPG. start out as 1st level newbie.  get all the way up to high level, start building a castle and raising an army.   Conquer all the other fiefdoms on the map and then there's nothing left but random dungeon adventures to pay troop and castle upkeep.


Edited by Norman Barrows, 05 September 2013 - 06:28 PM.

Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


#9 DerrickB   Members   -  Reputation: 111

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 06:51 PM

Why not a game that incorperates both?  Players who want to save the world pair off against players who are trying to destroy it.



#10 LorenzoGatti   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2735

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 September 2013 - 01:35 AM

Another obvious option: saving the world through selective destruction.

 

For example, imagine something like the noxious substance around Zerg buildings in Starcraft, but more harmful, spreading fast and on a larger scale: reclaiming the land from the invasion requires thorough eradication of harmful alien life.

 

A different traditional option is some kind of blight, emanating from supernatural sources and subverting the laws of nature; if the effects are bad and permanent enough, corrupted things and creatures will need to be purged. Good for fighting (possessed and mutated creatures) and exploration (finding the sources), not to mention special effects. 


Produci, consuma, crepa

#11 Meatsack   Members   -  Reputation: 1021

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 September 2013 - 09:08 AM

Sometimes, I just want to play bad just to be bad.

Like playing the Joker in any Batman game that lets you.

If the character is psychotic, then destroying the world (and yourself in the process) isn't unrealistic.

The psychology of it is that even though the world is gone, YOU did it, proving that YOU are the most relevant / powerful person ever.

Of course, I'd make the game have multiple endings based on events.

Really, it could just even be a scaled-up version of Counter-Strike.


Writer, Game Maker, Day-Dreamer...  Check out all the wonderful things I've thought up at Meatsack's Workshop!

Check out the Current Ranking of Super Gunball DEMO on IndieDB!


#12 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2013 - 07:34 AM

in general, being the good guy sells better, but, as there are plenty of games like that, games like GTA and others usually sell very well.



#13 T e c h l o r d   Members   -  Reputation: 186

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 16 September 2013 - 01:50 AM

The popularity of Saving the World suggests it will have more Players. People are generally Good in the real world, and reflect this in their Virtual Avatars. Good and Evil are Factions. Factions inevitably form in a Online Game due to beliefs. Both Factions believe they are Right in their beliefs, while the opposite side is Wrong in theirs. Thus destroying the world can be equally satisfying, depending on your beliefs. In my opinion, the goal shouldn't be to explicitly define Good and Evil, but fuel both points-of-view with enough information for players to choose one of the beliefs and defend it. The success of the game depends on how well you can keep Players engaged, defending their beliefs. A good fire needs fuel, fuel the Conflict my friend.






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