If your question is whether or not the things they advocate doing are practically useful or not, then why don't you just imagine trying to make a game that explicitly does NOT do what they are advocating? Depending on what you can imagine, you may be able to identify whether or not what they have to say really has any merit. Ultimately, it is whether what they say proves useful to you as a designer. The design process itself is highly collaborative / iterative / interdisciplinary. Personally, I find many of their videos to be highly thought-provoking and useful, but it's not as if everything stated by every designer is "the ultimate truth". People simply design according to what they believe will make a great game. How much of their advice you intend to use is up to you.
Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!
facehead1992Member Since 29 Mar 2014
Offline Last Active Jul 26 2015 10:06 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 62
- Profile Views 1,152
- Submitted Links 0
- Member Title Member
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted by facehead1992 on 16 March 2015 - 12:05 AM
Okay, there have been a lot of "swipes" at both action and turn-based games, so we should probably establish some things.
1. Both types of games may or may not have story as a powerful agent towards creating enjoyment in a player.
- action and turn-based has a relation to the engagement with combat and gameplay mechanics, neither of which are necessarily related to the portrayal of a story. Story is generally presented in cutscenes in between these combat scenarios, so it is irrelevant to an evaluation of whether one is "better" than the other.
2. Both types of games appeal to different audiences.
- action isn't "better" than turn-based just like how baseball isn't "better" than chess. One is action and re-action based, the other is purely intellectual, much like how Scouting Ninja described previously.
The basic and most important difference between a turn-based game and an action game is, that turn-based games are all about decision making (tactically or strategically) and action games are more about re-action and less decision making (during the action part of the game).
3. The same decision-making -does- occur, it's just that the amount of time you have to deal with that problem is drastically reduced.
- The player must rely on a split-second decision derived from their experience and knowledge of the level/mechanics, and then they must execute it, relying on their dexterity, i.e. "how fast can I make my thumbs/trigger fingers move?". In a turn-based game, the time is expanded into "infinity" (what Scouting Ninja said), so that you may choose to make this decision in any given amount of time. The more you reduce the length of a "turn", the more the game begins to approach the state of an action game.
well. you said very well my friends but there are something that i disagree. first you said a shooter and a turn based game are mostly the same but the time factor is deleted in turn based. i think most of turn based game give you time limitations just to prevent the game to be very slow. and you said in a shooter still you have to choice factor and im agree with it but a very important thing that makes it a shooter much better is skill factor. you should be able to aim faster, move faster and...
4. While it may be true that time mechanics can be added to preserve the flow of the game (such as in XCOM multiplayer with a limit of 1.5 minutes per turn, or something to that effect), the statement that a "skill" factor is only present in shooters is not actually the case. A "dexterity" factor is not present in turn-based games, true, but a proportionally larger amount of "intellectual" factor is. This is generally because the player must control more characters than in an action game. In action games, you control yourself and your own movements. Turn-based games usually have you controlling a group of characters and coordinating their efforts. This means that the influence of your strategy and tactics skills becomes multiplied compared to the same type of skill evaluated in action games. Both game-types require large amounts of skill. Action = intellect + dexterity. Turn-based = intellect + more intellect. Essentially.
Again, it's not as if one type is better than the other. They simply rely on different types of skill sets more or less and have a corresponding difference in pacing. Action generally encourages an adrenaline rush with a quick suspense-release cycle whereas turn-based has this kind of slow rise of suspense or tension resulting from the gradual development of problems and then a big feeling of success if the troubles can be averted in the end, regardless of how long it takes to do so. They can both have strong or weak stories. They both can have relatively large levels of strategy or tactical thinking. The question is simply how many times must that task be done per "turn" (controlling how many characters) and how quickly do those turns progress (milliseconds or minutes?).
Posted by facehead1992 on 03 October 2014 - 10:53 PM
When you say "influences from Timberman" how do you mean it? Gameplay? Style? Themes? Whatever the case, you should carefully design a character that is going to be clearly identifiable and wholly consistent with the theme for the video game. If you tell people more about what your game is about and what the setting / thematic design is, people will better be able to suggest character ideas.
Posted by facehead1992 on 29 September 2014 - 12:46 PM
I have to seriously agree with Paragon123 here. With the level of realism you are attributing to hitting an enemy AT ALL, you can't expect it to be "difficult" to kill a person on the battlefield (because modern guns are quite simply highly effective killing tools). One limitation you can put on players spamming shots to the abdomen (which is the origin of your balancing issue) is to drastically limit the ammo available to them in comparison to the quantity of enemy troops. If they run out of ammo, they would have to acquire new ammo from a corpse, possibly even an enemy corpse, which means approaching the enemy directly without ammo / an effective defense. This is a risk that players will want to avoid, therefore they will be careful with their aiming in order to conserve ammo.
Posted by facehead1992 on 27 September 2014 - 01:49 AM
Well it would do well with either, but if I made it a game it would have to be very cinematic.
While I know you said you are making a comic for now, I would advise you in the future to be extremely wary of this statement. Games are built to be an interactive medium, and while there ~can~ be value in large cinematic sequences (so long as they occur relatively infrequently, or support a massively engaging story/characters), such things are typically reserved for huge AAA productions that have the budgets to make such sequences well. Furthermore, a game that focuses on cinematics wastes the player's time when they are expecting an engaging -interactive- experience from the product.
Given what you are describing a novel or comic book certainly sound like a better medium if you are disregarding the use of video/film altogether from the start.
Also, for future reference, if you ever do decide to produce a game, make sure you don't simply make a game that has gameplay elements and then has a story that merely "supports" those elements. That will make a game of course, but the best games are the ones in which the gameplay elements themselves imbue the story with cohesive magic in some way. By this I mean that the gameplay and story complement each other respectively and not just one of them supporting the other alone.
Posted by facehead1992 on 05 August 2014 - 03:07 PM
1) "Market" and "Leveling" sections are incomplete sentences (as in, they just suddenly stop). Might wanna finish those.
2) The concept of your crafting process is similar, somewhat, to Divinity: Original Sin. You should check out some videos about it and get a sense of how exactly you want to design the process. That game has an excellent system, so it is productive inspiration.
3) The entire concept of "sin" that you've mentioned seems like a detrimental game design concept. Many of the activities people enjoy in MMOs is the PvP and if there is a higher penalty for killing other players, the game won't be enjoyable. The way you describe it makes it seem like any and all PvP activities will be something that only pulls players down rather than rewarding them, regardless of the context. Since most of the people are LOOKING for that kind of content, you would be losing most of your intended audience right there. I suggest having such a system only outside of duels/multiplayer matches, etc.
Posted by facehead1992 on 02 July 2014 - 03:23 PM
There are many people who show up with a deep game idea, but with little to no game experience. It would be more beneficial for you to begin by making a much simpler game (or multiple games), perhaps ones that have similar activities and/or objects so that, as you complete those games, you become more proficient with the tasks necessary for the other game you want to make.
Also, if you have no game development experience, it is highly unlikely that anyone here will jump on board your project as it stands. More than likely, you will need to develop your own skills independently first. You are therefore unlikely to get many people using private messages to contact you about your game. If you have specific questions about the game, how to develop it, and/or what techniques are necessary / how to go about the process of making a game, plenty of people will probably offer their assistance (myself included). I just want to make sure you have some realistic expectations of what to expect from the people here.
Posted by facehead1992 on 24 June 2014 - 08:39 AM
From the sound of it, it seems like a game that focuses on a single player story would be more akin to what you are looking for. Managing a complex story structure as you desire wouldn't be manageable with multiplayer components added on top of it. Additionally, incorporating online multiplayer as part of a solo beginner project is really not viable at all. To minimize the amount of content you have to make, I would suggest making a general campaign that every character participates in to some degree, completing the same missions (possibly with very minor differences), and then, since you really want there to be a unique plot integration for each "class", also having a separate line of missions that are exclusive to the specific class being played. For example, there may be a quest in which multiple shoguns are all fighting against a particular threat (the group storyline), and then there could be a few quests that focus on the individual activities of the class. This way, you can produce content that will be used by all of the classes and just devote a relatively small portion of your resources to developing content for the "unique" class stuff. Otherwise, you'll be producing 3 times the work of an actual game in order to essentially create 3 different games, one for each class.
I would suggest you use a simple game engine, particularly one that uses a 2D system, for game development since you are a beginner. Game Maker: Studio is pretty good (been messing around with it lately). The free version limits the number of items you can have, but it's still a good program. Another option is Construct 2 which is HTML/CSS/JS based. It's pretty good as well. Not sure about other options though. I would NOT recommend Unity for this type of project. A beginner jumping into 3D game development wouldn't really be a good idea imo. Not unless you are willing to devote several hours just to learning about texturing, lighting, modeling, and animation techniques, aside from the other aspects of learning how to program a game.
Posted by facehead1992 on 23 June 2014 - 08:59 AM
I agree with Lorenzo. You've got a lot of stuff you are trying to integrate into a single game and especially as this is your first game, you should start with something exceptionally small. Blurring styles is something that lends itself to people with more experience with the individual styles involved, as well as general game development/design experience already. Each person here likely has several "dream games" that they would like to make one day, but you should be patient. Wait until you have the right team/skillset/experience so that when such a game IS made, it can be exceptional.
In the mean time, you could attempt to make games that are representations of each of the separate elements of the game you want to make. Every game is, in and of itself, a combination of simpler games after all. Even Tetris is composed of the games of "identifying the blocks", "positioning the blocks", "rotating the block for the right integration", and then executing those steps as quickly/precisely as possible. It is worthwhile training to make sure you can complete the smaller tasks for your game efficiently before running head-on into the foray. What's more, the results of your efforts can effectively act as prototypes of the game you eventually wish to make anyway. You will have things to work off of and will become more aware of the pitfalls associated with developing that particular type of game system.
Posted by facehead1992 on 16 June 2014 - 12:27 AM
Yeah, everything Tom said is pretty much the gist of it. If you have little to no experience making games (which is similar to my own department), it would be very wise for you to either start with things as simple as possible (if you want to make something yourself and develop your own skills) or work on a game that someone else plans to program. You essentially need to decide whether you want to learn programming and really become proficient with it. Since you said you were more of a writer/designer, that may not be something you want to devote yourself to - in which case, you'll wanna find someone else already making a game and help them as a writer/designer. I think of myself as a programmer, game designer, and narrative designer, but I'm not talented at actual narrative writing, so I understand the predicament a bit, especially since I am not yet in contact with any writers willing to do free work on a project that likely will not yield any funds.
Posted by facehead1992 on 12 June 2014 - 09:06 PM
I'm familiar with narrative methods of making dialogue engaging, i.e. people are interested in the dialogue because of its content, but what about generating a dialogue system where the system itself is entertaining to explore/improve upon/"succeed" in? The thought just came to me earlier, and I can imagine somehow gaining the ability to somehow generate particular dialogue responses that are certain rhetorical techniques or something, (say, if it was a debate game somehow?). However, I'm generally just looking for ideas anyone might have concerning how one would make the act of engaging in dialogue a thing that is fun in and of itself, outside of what narrative content the dialogue might provide.
Posted by facehead1992 on 08 June 2014 - 06:52 PM
same as jeffery, but you also need to realize that any game mechanic could be designed for any functionality really. Bribing as a concept could be used any number of ways. If you are the briber, bribing could be a means of ensuring / increasing the chances of an external character/organization executing a desired action within the game context (i.e. "do this for me cause I have money"). It could be a ruse of some sort where the player's ultimate goal is the surreptitious transmission of funds from one party to another (for whatever reason the player wants that party to have more resources). Perhaps the player bribes as means of appeasing someone as no other negotiation can be done to convince the party to do something the player wishes to negate/prevent.
If the bribee, it could act as the skill tree system jeffery suggested (whereby choosing which group's bribe to accept can in some way affect the game's results, i.e. I accept the bribe of the militaristic gang over the ambitious politician because I want my reputation with the gang to increase more than I want the politician's view of me to increase - the increased reputation earning more "abilities" as it were). Honestly, a "bribe" is just an story-approved term for a transfer of resources that has a particular connotation associated with it. Any game interaction that involves a transfer of resources, for ANY purpose, that can appropriately be coined as a "bribe" within the story context will be a mechanic that could be acceptably labeled as a "bribe".
Posted by facehead1992 on 07 June 2014 - 11:56 PM
The scroll would work, since it is conventional and easily recognizable to others with experience playing RPGs, but you may want to use other symbols that have more direct relevance to the type of task the player would be requested to complete. You mentioned "Scout, Raid, Recover or Explore" quests. I would suggest something such as this:
Scout = shoes, running (possibly with lines flowing from the side to indicate as such). Conveys a sense of movement over terrain.
Raid = sword/shield/other weapons crossing each other or some such. Indicates combat.
Recover = hand grasping an artifact of some sort (or whatever praised item). Hand could be surrounding it or have a firm grasp. Indicates acquisition of an item.
Explore = an eye, or maybe simply a miniature landscape icon of some sort. Indicates visual interaction / new terrain.
If you intended to add some sort of details to these quest icons (such as whether or not there was new information about them, "you don't have this yet", or "this quest has updated. Talk to me to progress" or whatever it is, you can highlight the icons with specific colors.
Regardless of what method you choose, in order to ensure there is minimal ambiguity with the player, I would advise you to eventually point out these details and their meaning to the player directly using some kind of tip/hint system. This makes the meaning of the symbols clear to the player from the get-go and ensures they receive a high level of detail simply from a quick visual recognition of the symbols.
Posted by facehead1992 on 05 June 2014 - 01:06 PM
The significance of a realistic and consistent narrative is completely dependent on how much the game itself emphasizes its own story as a means of attracting/enticing the player. If I'm playing a tetris knock-off, you can guess that I'm likely not gonna care squat about whether any of the characters are behaving naturally. It'll just be awkward, and I'll deal with it because I'm more concerned about the blocks and THEIR movements.
The games you mentioned generally try to deliver a "valued" story experience (I say "valued" because the creators developed it with the viewpoint that some of the value you are purchasing when buying the product is a story, in addition to a gameplay experience). In something like those, I would say that it is critical, for the story to be successful, that the story be as coherent and consistent as possible. If you confuse or irritate the player while they are playing a game, then their immersion in the story breaks. The best games are able to maintain an ongoing immersive experience that makes people lose track of time (*cough cough* Skyrim *cough cough*).
That said, if you have a story that fails on occasion in this respect and jolts the player out of the experience so that they can ponder something strange such as you describe, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a "bad" video game. After all, any of the other components of the game could help it be a positive experience for them: art, music, gameplay, level design, control interface, voice acting, or even just the general plot. Some hiccups every now and then in the story will detract, but not necessarily ruin, the story element of the game.
What WILL be a problem is if there are gaping holes in the story that make you wonder at the motivations of the characters or leave you completely confused as to what/how things are happening. It is here that you will confuse a player, leading to irritation at the story, and a soon-to-be dissatisfied player. To avoid this, make sure that, if you have a story in your game, the gameplay complements the story just as much as the story complements the gameplay. The player shouldn't be doing things that don't make sense within the context of the story. Likewise, the story shouldn't go along paths that don't make sense with what the gameplay entails.
After checking that the two are balanced, you will need to make sure that each individual segment of the game (with story-gameplay-pairs already balanced) are then balanced against each other so that successive tasks make sense in light of the previous tasks. It's necessary to line up the story this way so that the story proceeds in a fashion that follows an easy-to-follow narrative and it's necessary for the gameplay because the nature and difficulty of the tasks presented to the player need to align themselves with both the difficulty curve & the diversity of gameplay experiences the player expects (example: if you have several different activities in the game, don't make the first 3 tasks given to the player all be the same. You will need to showcase all the experiences in store for them so that they will wish to continue).
Posted by facehead1992 on 31 May 2014 - 03:28 PM
Anyway, i don't think a game based on news-events would be feasible, if only because the "news" is only "new" for a day to a week,
which is a helluva short time to create some levels/mods.
I have to agree with this. You'd have to realize that you want to create a video game that will have new content, every single day, for any variable of news items, likely more than 5 or so. In order for people to want to "play" this game (since games are meant to be played), they are going to want each of the things they experience in the game to be engaging, entertaining, and challenging to some degree. Unless you had a massive team with you, working throughout most of every day, it wouldn't be possible to create all of the game content you want - at least not if you want "new" content for each day.
There are also some fundamental issues with the concept as well. I don't see you really having a viable audience. The majority of people who are even willing to devote time to keeping up with the news want it as quickly as possible - essentially an information download. Often times just the highlights as well. They don't care about receiving it in an entertaining way because their purpose in going to the news isn't to be entertained, but to learn and to learn fast. For that, videos and written articles with pictures work the best. To create a video game, it would need to be interactive (which websites can - and do - already do). You would likely need some kind of environment for the users to explore in order to "experience" the news through the game-play. Additionally, the content of the news would have to be clearly interpreted via the game experience. All of this takes an immense amount of planning and work to produce. Therefore, again, it doesn't seem viable as a video game format.
News, for a presentation format, lends itself towards websites that are easily navigable (with an interface), straight to the point, sort the news content, provide headline highlights that can be seen quickly and visually, and can be designed so that if someone is interested in a particular news item, they can select it quickly and learn more about it through visual and/or auditory methods.
The same experience as a game would require presenting all of this plus interactive elements which further adds to the workload. If you were to dumb the game down to a model that would actually be logistically possible to produce, it would essentially be such a stripped down experience that it would be virtually identical to any website already available. If that is the case, then you won't get any customers as most people are already comfortable with their current news outlets. You would have to convince them to use your product by demonstrating its superiority over the websites out there.