Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


Member Since 05 Aug 2013
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:28 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: using technology as magic

23 November 2014 - 09:37 AM

If you combine complexity (think of chess) with fast reaction times (think of realtime combat), then you will have a very low frustration threshold.

It's really not that complex. The way I'm reasoning it, the player would get into a battle, drain their stamina, and burn some HP. Supposing the UI isn't terrible, they will realize what they're doing and form a heuristic to deal with it; namely, keep stamina low, but not empty. If the game is as fast as Quake, this could be a problem, but if it's a bit more tactical (like EVE Online, to use DI2agon's example) the player has more time to think about... well, tactics.


Turning to DI2agon, the universal rule of game design applies here: make a quick-and-dirty prototype, and see for yourself if it works. Like in science, talking about how it would be will get you so far, but you're not really a scientist until you test your hypothesis.


Honestly, what I'm more concerned about is that this system isn't complex enough. If magic, melee, and ranged attacks all drain stamina, then what differentiates magical attacks from the mundane, apart from cool particle effects? As for the setting, a fantasy universe with godlike beings who have sufficiently advanced tech is a great idea, but how would you get across to the players that it isn't magical to them?

In Topic: Can You Solve This 4th Grade Math Problem ?

23 November 2014 - 09:03 AM

Took me around 12 minutes. It really came together when I realized I could do this:


A 1 2 3 4 7 9

C 1 2 3 4 7 9

E 1 2 3 4 7 9

I 1 2 3 4 7 9

N 1 2 3 4 7 9

S 1 2 3 4 7 9

U 5


And then eliminate the impossible.


By the way, Here's the problem in more sensible notation:


CAN / U = SU + E / U

CAN - CU0 = IN

IN - IU = E

In Topic: Golden era of the RPG

13 October 2014 - 09:53 AM

I don't know that it would be appropriate to talk about a golden era of RPGs at all, since I think few would argue there's been a decline in quality after its end. The only thing that makes older RPGs better is what valrus and others have been saying: nostalgia.


I have my own rough division of eras of the computer/console RPG, but since I didn't play too many of them when I was young, it's mostly out of historical interest. Here it is:

Prehistory (1975-1980): Reaching from dnd on PLATO terminals to Rogue. Most RPGs were weak ports of DnD.

Early Classical (1980-1985): From Rogue to Ultima IV. Most of the conventions of classic RPGs were developed, such as the Roguelike genre and the dungeon/town/overworld distinction.

Late Classical (1985-1997): Ultima IV to Final Fantasy VII. This is where the RPG really matured, starting with Ultima IV breaking the "defeat the evil overlord" mold. Lots of classic, genre-defining series started here, like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest for the JRPG, Fire Emblem for the tactical RPG, and Ultima Underworld and The Elder Scrolls for the first-person RPG.

Middle Period (1997-2007): FFVII to Mass Effect. Most of my favorite RPGs came out in this period. The MMO, as opposed to the MU*, took shape with Ultima Online, EverQuest, and World of Warcraft. The western, action RPG was refined in System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines. Fallout and its descendants had their age of glory here.

Modern Era (2007-Present): I'm really not sure about putting Mass Effect at the start, especially since it puts Oblivion before. Recent RPGs seem to be about turning "RPG elements" from a cliched buzzword into the status quo. Roguelikes exist again, too.

In Topic: Good Emperor and bad rebels

10 October 2014 - 10:24 AM

People like those they identify with, and identify with those whose motives they understand. Since the player is the emperor, you don't need to explain why they're doing anything -- at best, you're explaining something the player already knows, at worst you're telling them they did something they didn't do. The player will always feel they're justified, unless you throw them a massive curve ball.


The rebels, on the other hand, are a mysterious force by default. The player's first reaction will be that they did something to deserve punishment. In Civ, a city will revolt if the player lets its happiness drop too low. Because the player can see the happiness of a city and what goes into it, they realize they did something wrong. If there is no such cause at hand, however, players will tend to accept that the rebels are an obstacle to overcome. Again, in Civ, there are barbarians who consistently attack the player, but since their actions are never explained, the player just assumes they are part of the difficulty of the game.


That's more to do with the design side. As far as writing goes, if you want the rebels to seem evil, keep their motives vague, and emphasize the things that are bad for the player (like if the rebels are disrupting the economy, or want to depose the player). If you want the player to like them, explain their motives in depth.

In Topic: Are 2D side-scrollers too common?

03 October 2014 - 01:25 PM

You could make a top-down metroidvania. You can still capture the feelings of exploration and gaining new abilities without the platforming. But I completely agree with Orymus3, there's still plenty of space to be explored in side-scrolling shooter/platformer metroidvania type games. Just maybe don't make one about a female bounty hunter with super missiles, and screw attacks.