Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

FREE SOFTWARE GIVEAWAY

We have 4 x Pro Licences (valued at $59 each) for 2d modular animation software Spriter to give away in this Thursday's GDNet Direct email newsletter.


Read more in this forum topic or make sure you're signed up (from the right-hand sidebar on the homepage) and read Thursday's newsletter to get in the running!


ivan.spasov

Member Since 01 May 2013
Offline Last Active Dec 09 2014 07:09 AM

#5158284 3rd person camera versus Diablo III style camera

Posted by ivan.spasov on 04 June 2014 - 11:44 PM

As it looks to me, you guys are still in early, early development stages. Why not playtest both ? This is the stage you get to experiment at and this is the stage where such changes will cost less.

Let's say that you decide on a camera and at some point you end up disliking it. By then you've developed a really good chunk of your game and such a change may come in expensive - glitches, aesthetic issues and so on.

You should really experiment on this since it is one of the most important parts of what you are about to do. Try both cameras and try several angles, see what you and your team like the most. Develop it further until you get a result that fits your needs.




#5155194 Roads (connection between villages/cities)

Posted by ivan.spasov on 22 May 2014 - 05:45 AM

 


There are other ways to solve this problem as well. I would strongly suggest you look into some graph theory. With a proper understanding of graphs you should be able to solve a big lot of logistics problems as graphs are the actual thing used for real world road works and logistics.
One important thing, it is the PLAYER's job to solve these logistic problems biggrin.png That's where the fun is (how to lay down the road system properly).

 

That's why I'm not so fond of hubs... It's the player that should "invent" that there should be hubs (or maybe if there should be not in a particular map). The system should allow the player to have fun with laying down these roads, optimizing what route would make most sense and so on.

 

With hubs it's trivial (no decision to make), all neighbouring villages are connected to the nearest city and that's it, all you can do is upgrade these roads.

 

You've got a point. However, if the player is to be free and as creative as he/she wants, then you always have the possibility of having messy logistics. Having the clean roads would imply restriction, at least to some degree. In that sense, you can maybe combine some stuff ? Since you do have the village positions preset, you can, as LorenzoGatti suggested, limit the crossings to a certain ammount. If you have designed the villages to be structured into a closed graph with the sufficient ammount of weight on each village, as a point, you should be able to build a road from any one point A to any one point B in the same graph. That does imply though that these connections are not going to be direct most of the time and that you will most probably need to go through a point C in order to reach point B. In that case, the road might not be as efficient as possible, however it will exist. By doing so and having the ability to cross an N ammount of times (N being the number that suits your needs), you should be ok and have a somewhat not ugly logistics system, without limiting the player too much and without having separate villages isolated.




#5155116 Roads (connection between villages/cities)

Posted by ivan.spasov on 21 May 2014 - 02:02 PM

As Orymus3 said, hubs are a valid idea. Let's look at this - several villages are able to connect to one bigger town that will act as a region capital. Each village can have a direct connection to the other and must have a connection to the region capital, be it direct or through another village. From that point, you can connect region to region with the connection points being the corresponding region capitals. A village in one region cannot have a direct connection to another village in another region. The way to get from that one village to the other should be through the region capital.

There are other ways to solve this problem as well. I would strongly suggest you look into some graph theory. With a proper understanding of graphs you should be able to solve a big lot of logistics problems as graphs are the actual thing used for real world road works and logistics.




#5145585 Pirate RPG class design

Posted by ivan.spasov on 09 April 2014 - 01:05 AM

Several things to note - when you go on to design a class for an RPG or design just about any archetype of character, you have to make the archetype seem realistic. And not realistic in the blunt sense but realistic in your own world that bends on it's own rules. You have to follow the same rules you yourself have created in order for things to stay consistent, realistic and believable. In that regard, if your world is heavy on magic it would be only logical for a pirate to be able to use such skills. However, I'm not so sure about the notion of the medium armor or just about any type of armor that's not light or even cloth. Thing is - the pirates are not combat motivated like say a barbarian. They thrive on riches, finding treasure, plundering and other stuff like that. They are basically greedy and would go on to do nasty stuff to satisfy their greed. In the land of exploration and sea adventure - the waters were the perfect place for defunct sailers and demoted captains to pursue these passions. And that's just the thing here - you give out the Ironborn analogy. They are prototyped more on Vikings that indeed did plunder but they craved battle and lived off of what they stole. So to the iron born, the heavy armor is something more in tune. The pirates though ... they want to live to see another day, to plunder another ship for it's riches and drink another bottle of rum. They need something light to swim in if (when) they fall.

That's the main thing of the pirate archetype - selfish, greedy, plundering, mobile, agile, sea bound, bravery driven off of greed, scavenging, adventurous.

 

Just my two cents on the topic though.




#5143629 ww2 pirate game - make combat more fun

Posted by ivan.spasov on 01 April 2014 - 12:42 AM

Do some more in-depth search on your setting and you will get more answers to your question then you think. For starters, in WW2 a lot of ships were carriers - they boarded planes Look up the U.S.S. Enterprise. You would get lots of technical references from there. For example, you could build an airstrike against an enemy ship - draw out the hit trajectory and a couple of seconds later - boom, an air strike. This is just an example.

It really depends on your own design in the long term. How realistic and time period correct do you want the game to be ? How accurate ? By the looks of it, I'm guessing, pretty close to the real thing, though are you in for some technical tweaks and strays from the time period ? I'm talking stuff like having planes, carrier style, on a larger battle ship. I'm talking about having really high level artillery on board, mostly equipment that you would expect to be found on different kinds of ships.

If you don't feel like going a bit overboard and want to stay accurate, just look up some vessels from the time period and see what they had in terms of tech and firepower. Look up the tech and see how you can turn it into a gameplay mechanic. You most certainly don't need to fire guns, rockets and underwater missiles the same way, so you can maybe think of different handling techniques for different fire types.




#5142506 My Post-Apocalyptic Life - Game Design Document

Posted by ivan.spasov on 27 March 2014 - 02:01 AM

Something I really did not see in your document was the point of view, control setup and in-world player flow. To be more specific - is it a 2D or a 3D game ? What is your navigation tool inside the game world - are you using a first person camera, are you going for an over-head position with a point-and-click control scheme or is it something totally different ? How is the player going to transition from states ? How does that tie in with the environment ? With the set up scheme, how will the player be able to interact with intractable stuff ? There are many other questions in these lines that you can ask yourself and yet are a corner stone of the experience.

Another thing I was really missing in your document was the basis of the atmosphere, look, feel and aesthetics of the entire world. Yep, sure, it's post-apocalyptic so that doesn't lead to sunshine and happiness obviously, however execution can be done on this in multiple ways. Is it a world without hope that tends to grind on the player's mind ? Is it a world that has no short-term happy end and you are in full survival mode ? Are the set pieces suppose to scare you ? Or is this a world that starts from the beginning - one kingdom falls and another starts to show itself. Is it a world where after despair - hope comes ? Do the set pieces show more nature or more destruction and aftermath of the apocalypse ? This is very important for the overall tone that you are going to be setting and for the entire experience as well.

 

If I go through the document again, I'll probably find something else as well, mostly due to the fact that the stuff I mentioned above is missing.

Iterate on your document and see what you are missing and where you can improve. Think of the cornerstone things you are missing. Add them in, then iterate again and again.

 

-- Small edit here --

 

You should really add the platform that you are striving to develop for as well as your target audience. This is a MUST answer question. Who are you making the game for and how will they be able to reach it ?

 

Just my two cents on the topic, hope it helps.




#5135818 What makes a game fun

Posted by ivan.spasov on 02 March 2014 - 02:47 AM

As you said it yourself, it really depends on too many things. In general, I think thath a game can be seen as fun if it gives the player an evolving space of components. Be it evolving the player's skill to play, be it evolving an interesting and immersive story or be it evolving in competition in multiplayer. To me, fun would be to feel rewarded - to see your progress and realize that you've achieved something. It can come in all shapes and sizes - beating a high score, getting through an interesting story, looting that one good item that makes you go "Yeah ! Awesome !" or going past a serious challange in the face of a boss or a puzzle. It all depends on how the core mechanics are going to be handled. A big MMO game, like WoW would give you long term satisfaction by allowing you to slowly but surely increment your long term evolution - each raid counts, each quest counts, in the end you know that after investing your time, your character is going to evolve into something strong and it will make you happy. And that's just one of the many sides of such a big scale game. Now, to look at something really small - a casual game. For example Dumb Ways To Die. It's a game you would play for a couple of minutes in the subway with no real long term evolution. However, what it gives you is an evolving game pace. It gets faster and faster, each time you master one speed level. And mastering the speed level is where your evolution as a player is nested. Getting better and better at saving the guys in the game makes you feel good, because you are going forward with your skills. Ultimately, this makes you have fun.

And again, this can be just one of many, many interpretations and means of having fun. This is really a subject that cannot be covered easily.




#5135633 Other ways for punishment than restarting

Posted by ivan.spasov on 01 March 2014 - 08:17 AM

I think you need to shift your focus a bit. The thing is - you don't want to go and "punish" the player for not being as good as he should. Instead, you should look at it from this prespective - you are giving the player a chance to reiterate what he failed at, so he can master the needed skills to go past that. This is what the entire situation with "sending you back" does - it reverts the player's progress to a point where he has to rethink and improve on skills in order to go further. To illustrate - the games, that actually really frustrate the player are those that throw you way back after you die or mess up the mission. It's frustrating because you have to repeat things that you already have gained the skills to do and you can't focus on the things you need to obtain ... so you fail again and again and ultimately - quit the game. The proper way to do this would be to split your level or mission/quest/task sequence in segments that help in building the player's learning curve. Once a segment is fully passed, the player should not have to play through it again if he messes up in the next segment. The segments should be fairly short, as having long segments often defeats the idea of having them in the first place.




#5135573 Games are Easy to make, So why is making Video games so hard?

Posted by ivan.spasov on 01 March 2014 - 12:08 AM

There are several things here to note. First off - as you said it your self, as a kid you think up of a game and adjust it's flaws on the fly. With games you can't do that for several reasons - you are charging people money for your product, you are paying devs, artists and so on to make the changes, so off goes the budget, the player already has a bad taste in his mouth for an under thought mechanic so he might not even download your patch.  Another thing is the artistic side. As a kid, you have a wild imagination, however it is your own. If you are playing a cops vs. robbers game, you are imagining something totally different to what your friends are, despite the similar rules. In a game you have a physical representation of those rules and the imagination of one to several people and you go in the realm of visual arts. If you don't have a clean, detailed and full blown idea of exactly what has to happen in your game, the art is going to go in all sorts of unimmersive and weird directions. To build off of that, you have the technical side. Every single little mechanic in your game is turned into a technical feature. Every one. And it is a separate feature, especially if you are going for behavior driven development. Now, let's say you are not in the clear right away on what you want to have ... then you bust out several features that end up being flawed and buggy, be it as a logical error or just flawed in generally. And let's not forget how many games went down the path of obscurity by employing huge game changer updates. This is not something you want to do once you go live.

For "sandboxing" your ideas, how a child would, you have your alpha and beta stages, respectively. This is the time to experiment, remaster, rework, remove or add, develop, bold up and further features and mechanics.




#5131221 Blender for making Games?

Posted by ivan.spasov on 14 February 2014 - 03:48 AM

To be quite honest, with Blender you can do pretty much anything you want. It's a matter of personal preference and how fast can you work with it.

I've tried it, didn't really like the interface, didn't really like some of the workflow. I'm doing mostly architectural models, props and other stuff like that and I find working with 3DS Max more optimal for my case. However I've seen plenty of good stuff done fast with Blender. It's all up to the artist.

So in my mind, basically it's all up to personal preference :) as long as good assets are made, everything is cool.




PARTNERS