Very nice. I've always theorized about proper player-environment actions, and am glad a game is created where it is being implemented. I also love the idea of our creativity being the limits of our magic abilities and if you're designing it how I think you are, your power will be less focused on levels and more on individual skill ( as in, you can have two basic spells and be better then a person with an arsenal of spells).
You state it is a game about control a group of kids who manipulate the neighbourhood socially, economicially or by force. What else can I surmise from a statement like that, that the game doesn't involving bullying or intimidation of some form or another??
Does it matter? Your suggestion is that he should stop making the game because it may "send the wrong message" to today's youth. So when that same 7 year old kid who you just prevented from playing this game with some "bullying" in it, walks out of the game store with black ops 2, it's fine? When creating a game, limiting it to specific choices because some little kids might happen upon it is a very bad move. That's what age restriction is for.
And I doubt the game is aimed at kids, it'd be more on the teenager area of the market.
I think that explains why "original" games nowadays are as rare as dodo birds. Because "stealing" (creative or not) of game design is considered something normal. The correct approach is simple: draw insipration from life, not from other games. Too bad this is too difficult for many to pull out.
It seems like you commented on the article title without reading it. That's not the point.
And what's the point then? Yeah, i watched gameplay trailer of fast fast fast laser, it looks nothing like bomberman. The only screenshot on that page is bomberman screen, so i assumed that game is similar. It would be much more helpful if article featured screenshots for fast laser itself, and pointed out differences. And not just "Harr harr we took ideas from bomberman, look how smart we are"
And I still insist that taking mechanics from other games directly is wrong. Nice that this is not the case here.
*sighs* I guess I have to throw out all of my games, cause they're all supposedly wrong for taking mechanics from other games...
yep, you heard me. There is not a single new game anymore that has not taken some form of mechanic from another game, intentional or not. Why? Because the whole general game design theory's have already been created. That's why games are defined in "genres", because they are defining your game based on a criteria given through the knowledge of previous games. It's an utter disgrace for you to put down a game simply because it took inspiration from another.
There's a difference between Inspiration vs. Imitation.
This. It is when inspiration crosses over to imitation that taking mechanics from another game becomes a problem. You have to differentiate between the two when creating such a game, and understand how to split into a new path with your game and make it semi-original (cause nothings original these days).
Another forum tip: Instead of editing your original post, you should just simply make another post, lots of edits just makes the original post very confusing, and also makes the replies to that original post confusing.
I recently played through Bastion, and a lot sounds very similar. The currency in bastion is also some kind of "shards" that I think is related to time. So you should probably be a bit careful to not be too similar, maybe skip the narrator for example, since that is one of the things that really make bastion stick out.
Maybe focus on the parts that are unique to your game in the genre.
Sounds like you want to do a hack-n-slash rpg with separate "levels" (no open world) and a central menu where you do upgrades. In bastion that menu is interactive and in the form of "the bastion", but its still really just a menu, no gameplay. Sounds like a nice base design, and isn't taking on too much at once.
So what do you have that has the potential do be unique? The "friendlies" and tameable monsters seem like one point to me, that sounds interesting. Could become interesting if having different pets alter your tactics in a significant way... and maybe combinations of them will be even stronger. (have some bird-pet drop your snake-pet on the enemy or something)
Yeah, I see how that could get annoying. How about I’ll do the posts, and every few posts I’ll edit my main one and just input it instead of saying edit as such.
Yes, I’ll skip the narrator. I must’ve had what I call “Game-Creation Unconscious Shift” since I like giving names to things. It’s where a game you really enjoyed shifts through your mind to a game you’re creating and you start generating ideas similar to it unconsciously. It gets annoying when you discover it. I did some thinking, of how I wished my world to be unique. This is the conclusion I came to:
To create a world based on the idea of not telling a story, but showing a lives progress. With this in mind, I decided to create the world “entirely interactive and dependant”. As in, If a monster goes over a fire trap then they get burned. If a bird monster does, nothing happens since the fire doesn’t reach them. If they see a trap, they will avoid it. If your pet dies, it does not get mysteriously “reborn”. It’s dead. Goodbye pet. Just things that would happen in reality.
Yes, I wish to explore the pet’s part thoroughly in-depth. I want to make it something of a huge factor in the game. Say it’s hard to acquire monsters and the better the monster the higher the intelligence which means they don’t fall for traps so easily. Basic monsters would walk across traps, whereas higher monsters would require more and more elaborate traps to capture them. You could do things such as a slime trap, which slows them down when they walk over it. So you could get them to walk over the slime, and then quickly lay the trap while they’re stuck in the slime. I really wish this to not only be levels for the player to progress on, but more of a reality where anything the player thinks can happen.
Another original idea I had, well I thought was original, is the mini-bosses. To explain better:
The mini-bosses will be “instances” that occur at random intervals in the level. As with all the other things, they will be “in co-existence with the world”. As in, if they break through a wall in the level, and there’s a pathway behind it, you just gained a new way to progress. Besides that, though they cannot be captured, attempting a capture gains special shards which can be used to restore certain things (to be defined later). Again, the world works with them. If they hit a slime trap, they are slowed etc. Also, there are no special rules to the mini-bosses appearance. It could appear in the middle of a boss fight, and is what makes them so dangerous. --- Sorry I took so long to respond, was caught up in things. That’s just some of my thoughts on what you said. Yes, I’m ShiftyKake, it’s logged me in as this for some reason though and I can’t do anything.
I'm sorry everyone, if I've touched on subjects that had already been touched on. 5 pages was too much for me. ohk, some quotes from the first page.
Me personally in minecraft its all the same. Materials that you mine all seem the same as in red stone, lapis lazuli, diamond, iron, coal, etc all have the same block design, just different colors. My suggestion is to really set them apart from each other. Instead of it be all blocks change up the formats and make it so that its not just all 3d blocks. Cylidrical blocks, square blocks, rectangular blocks, all of these to me would make the game unique.
Nice idea depending on what progression you wish it to take. If you wish it to retain as a sandbox building game, then changing the shapes of blocks is unrealistic. You know who much of an ass it would be to build? If you wish it to be an entirely different type of sandbox game, then sure. It's a great suggestion.
Also, a side note, minecraft made the the blocks look similar on purpose and is the exact same reason why the game itself has such bad graphics. They wish the players themselves to make texture packs for the games, so they encouraged its development through that exact reason. People hating the texture.
Now some of my own ideas: -When the game becomes a little bit larger, add a campaign. (I read that Minecraft adventure mode is going to be silly) -Global server with user-created maps -Components: You can build sth in freebuild (creative) and when put on survival map as a set of semi-transparent blocks, to see where to place particular voxels.
Minecraft adventure mode's intention upon design and creation, was to be able to create a specific part of minecraft for people's modded maps, or "puzzle" maps. It is not designed to be playable as a normal minecraft game, but rather to allow easier and less trusting specific paths. Before modified maps could become a pain because you accidently destroyed a block that caused the entire place to collapse and ruin it, or you would play an actual "adventure" modified map which was a pain in the ass to adventure through because you had to keep in mind what you were or were not allowed to do. Besides that, the actually map builders now don't have to just trust that you won't cheat, adventure map does that for them. Don't trust what people say, make sure you understand the implications and reasons behind something being added before stating the public's opinion.
the rest are nice ideas, but a global server could become quite a "hassle" as such. Imagine not only maintaining it, but the amount of gigs it would need.
I would have hoped the physics and gameplay be more realistic. As in, placing blocks takes time, restraints on where you can place them, gathering stuff might not be possible due to environment (1000 tons of stone on top of the base of a castle, no mining castle base for you), limit to block carrying capacity. Of course it would require stuff like carts to move blocks around, or on multiplayer other players or npc's to help you. I just thought the player has too much power in how he can edit the world, i want to be able to make a castle where people cant just dig in in seconds or make a pile of dirt to climb over the walls...
I'm sure many people have said it, but terrible terrible idea. Just terrible. Blocks taking time to place is just another way to say we're creating a shop for you to waste your money on time saving items. This will not be an app game, no-one on the computer would find it worth it. And if you didn't make a shop, it'd be just as bad cause you'd have to sit there while a block takes the time to be placed. You have no idea how frustrating it becomes. Of course, the weight idea I can't disagree with,
And minecraft worked so well BECAUSE of the power the user had in editing the world. Taking that away is like taking away the whole idea of it. Of course, this is a different game, but you don't want to stray too far from the concepts that made it so popular.
I really wouldnt ecpect many people to play this (if thats what you want). The 'minecraft' phase has come and gone, along with games like terraria. I doubt you would be able to bring it back unless the game was really realistic.
This is a different game, he wishes it to be something that is NOT a clone of minecraft. Therefore, basing your statement of people not playing this on the idea that the "minecraft phase is gone" is entirely invalid, besides the fact that your wrong. Minecraft, believe it or not, is one of those games that you pick up again, eventually, after you got bored of it. It doesn't run out of fun, there's just nothing left to do in it except build what you have already built. So you leave it for a year, come back, and there's fresh new content there besides the fact that you have fun building again. I;m not even going to bother to talk about Terraria. ----- I stopped looking further, sorry. It's just my opinion on some things I saw,