Jump to content
  • Advertisement
  • 08/20/17 04:40 PM

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Grand Game Plan

    Game Design and Theory

    gdarchive

    During the development of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, Hideo Kojima came up with a Grand Game Plan for the sequel to Metal Gear Solid and how it would be utilized on the PlayStation 2. The Grand Game Plan was included in The Document of Metal Gear Solid 2, although only in the original Japanese text.

    In July 2006, Marc Laidlaw of Junker HQ released an English translation of the Grand Game Plan: MGS2gameplan.pdf



      Report Article


    User Feedback


    Excellent!

    This is a great example of a pre production GD’s vision. There are many game elements summarized in a compact way.

    From plot and game mechanics to thoughts on design, development plan.

     

    Oh, also this document helps understand MGS better :j

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

  • Advertisement
  • Game Developer Survey

    completed-task.png

    We are looking for qualified game developers to participate in a 10-minute online survey. Qualified participants will be offered a $15 incentive for your time and insights. Click here to start!

    Take me to the survey!

  • Advertisement
  • Latest Featured Articles

  • Featured Blogs

  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Mutantgun
      Hi Everyone,
      Hopefully all of this makes sense at the end, but if you need anymore clarification please let me know.
      Background: My MMORPG is a sword playstyle based game, where players need to complete a dungeon at the end of each floor to be able to progress to the next. (Players can go back to lower floors / Specific floors will have specific resources needed for crafting as to give players a reason to go back / Player skill progression will also require them to do specific quests/tasks on specific floors, again giving them reason to go back)
      Inspiration: Sword Art Online (Anime) - Aincrad game that the players were stuck in
      My map progression issue is this: I'm split between having all players locked to a specific floor until they/or the party they are in, completes the dungeon, then those players unlock the next floor OR if as soon as a party clears the floors dungeon and unlocks the next floor, that floor is unlocked for everyone on the server.
      I'm going to split these into options 1 (Individual Progression) and 2 (Server Progression).
      Option 1:
      Benefits:
      Allows the more dedicated/end-game player base to progress at a faster pace. Allows for end-game guilds to form and recruit from a more end-game player pool, I.e. Players from that specific floor Allows end-game players to sell their services to help newer players to progress through the lower floors Drawbacks:
      Possibility of new players being stuck in lower floors as there might not be good enough players left on those floors to help them make a party and progress through the dungeon ? Option 2:
      Benefits:
      Allows new players to skip floor progression to be with their friends that have progressed further in the game ? Drawbacks:
      Players will be on floors where they might not be able to survive or complete solo content because of their lack of skill, items, game knowledge Complains from new players saying the content is too difficult, as they are skipping floors New/lower player base will essentially just be waiting on the end-game players to finish the new floor unlocking it for the rest of the server, basically letting them sponge off of the top players progress After typing all of this out it's starting to become more clear cut as to which option I should take, but I'd like to check with the community here as I'm sure there are other benefits/drawbacks that I'm missing that might change my view of things.
    • By Loosearmy
      Concept for Delayed Shots in a Fast Paced Shooter
       
      The base for this concept is that with each click or trigger pull there is a X-second delay before the gun would actually fire. This would make it alot more difficult to time shots and could create unique design elements that would cater to this delay. (i.e sharp corners and hallways where it would be hard to time when to click in such a tight enclosed space). Ive had this concept for a minute and i know we could code it to work but my main concern with this is, would it be a good design choice?
    • By mujina
      What could be a way of avoiding using inheritance and virtual methods when designing components for an entity-component-system?
      I'll be more specific about my design issue:
      I currently have different classes for different kinds of colliders (let's say, CircleCollider and LineCollider).
      My system that checks for collisions and updates the positions and/or velocities of my entities should be something like:
      for entity_i in alive_entities { collider_i = get_collider_of_entity(entity_i) // components of same kind are stored contiguously in separate arrays transform_i = get_transform_of_entity(entity_i) for entity_j in alive_entities { collider_j = get_collider_of_entity(entity_j) transform_j = get_transform_of_entity(entity_j) if check_collision(collider_i, collider_j) { update(transform_i) update(transform_j) } } } my problem is that I don't have a generic `get_collider_of_entity` function, but rather a function `get_circle_collider_of_entity` and a separate one `get_line_collider_of_entity`, and so on. (This happens because under the hood I am keeping a mapping (entity_id -> [transform_id, sprite_id, circle_collider_id, line_collider_id, ...]) that tells me whether an entity is using certain kinds of components and which are the indices of those components in the arrays containing the actual components instances. As you can see, each component class is corresponding to a unique index, namely the index position of the array of the mapping described above. For example, transforms are 0, sprites are 1, circle colliders are 2, line colliders are 3, and so on.)
      I am in need to write a system as the one in the snippet above. I can write several overloaded `check_collision` functions that implement the logic for collision detection between different kinds of geometric primitives, but my problem is that I am not sure how to obtain a generic `get_collider_of_entity` function. I would need something that would get me the collider of an entity, regardless of whether the entity has a circle collider, a line collider, a square collider, etc.
      One solution could be to write a function that checks whether in my internal entity_id -> [components_ids] mapping a certain entity has a collider at any of the indices that correspond to colliders. For example, say that the indices related to the collider classes are indices 10 to 20, then my function would do
      get_collider_of_entity (entity_id) { for comp_type_id in 10..20{ if mapping[entity_id][comp_type_id] not null { return components_arrays[comp_type_id][entity_id] } } return null } This could turn out to be pretty slow, since I have to do a small search for every collider of every entity. Also, it may not be straightforward to handle returned types here. (I'm working with C++, and the first solution - that is not involving inheritance in any way - would be returning a std::variant<CircleCollider, LineCollider, ... all kinds of components>, since I would need to return something that could be of different types).
      Another solution could be having some inheritance among components, e.g. all specific component classes inherit from a base Collider, and overrride some virtual `collide_with(const Collider& other)` method. Then I would redesign my mapping to probably reserve just one index for colliders, and then I would actual colliders in a polymorphic array of pointers to colliders, instead of having a separate array for CircleColliders, another for LineColliders, and so on. But this would destroy any attempt to be cache-friendly in my design, wouldn't it? That's why I am looking for alternatives.
      A third alternative would be to just have a single, only, Collider class. That would internally store the "actual type" ( aka what kind of collider it is ) with dynamic information (like an enum ColliderType). Then I would have all colliders have all members needed by any kind of colliders, and specific collision detection functions which I can dispatch dynamically that only use some of that data. (Practical example: a "Collider" would have a radius, and the coordinate for 2 points, and in case its type was "circle" it would only make use of the radius and of one of the 2 points - used as the center -, while if it was a "segment" it would only make use of the 2 points). My gut feeling is that this would bloat all colliders, and, even if the bloat could be reduced - using unions in some smart way for storing members? I wouldn't know how -, then still the design would be pretty brittle.
      I'm clueless and open for ideas and advice! How do you handle in general situations in which you have components that can be naturally modeled as subclasses of a more generic component class? Inheritance? Smart hacks with variants, templates, macros, custom indexing? Dynamic "internal" type?
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!