I don`t know how many of you played Dagger`s Rage.
It was a 2D rpg/space shooter.
The thing about it was that the plot was not really linear.
It was uhm...lets invent a word....
para-linear.
Certain plot points happened, but the player was not forced into the plot.

so you don`t really need a linear plot.
I always found linear plots to be kinda lame.
The player shouls be able to affect the outcome of what happens.


~V''lion

Bugle4d

quote:Original post by Oluseyi
Mayrel:
How do you answer "yes" to an either-or question? "Do you want A or B?" "Yes."

Yes means ''yes, I do want A or B''.

Do I want big ships or little ships? Yes, I want to have big ships or little ships. Yes, I want the game to feature both options, and to either let me choose my preference, or vary it mission-by-mission, depending upon which fits best with the kind of game you''re making.

NextOnePlease, how many space battles have you seen documented in military history? How do you know that space battles will be fought like sea battles? It would make sense for an admiral/general to fight wherever he can secure an advantage, and that is likely to be somewhere where he has things to hide behind (whether for retreat or ambush). That doesn''t necessarily mean that there will be no open-space battles (because somebody is going to want to cut your fleet off before it gets to its heavy fortified asteroid field), but that there will be ample opportunity for strategy in the confined-space battles.

Also, who says that the ranks in a space-based military would follow the Navy designations? They may use RAF or USAF terms:
the space-based ''general'' might be a Air Chief Marshall (to follow RAF usage) or a General (to follow USAF usage). You might also have multiple forces with different designation schemes.

Finally, by ''isn''t the point of the fastest opponent that it be faster than you'' I mean ''isn''t the reason the developer put in a really fast opponent that he/she wants to force you to figure out a strategy for taking it down that doesn''t involve you simply flying up its exhaust pipe''. Ergo, the fastest opponent ought to be faster than you, because, otherwise, what''s the point of it?

Er, that wasn''t really the finally. This is: customisation is a stunningly good idea. If your game is heavily configurable, and allows for new ships/weapons/equipment/computer-systems to be shared (perhaps via some kind of in-game market, assuming a multiplayer game), I think you''d keep players interested for longer than they would otherwise be.


Just Plain Wrong

On the subject of customizability, I would *love* to see a space game with the level of customizability you had in Mechwarrior 2. That would be extremely cool, in my opinion.

WOOHOO! I dig fighting in space =)

(1) What are your favorite elements of space shooters?
Visiting different planets (varying stats, market, race, etc). If I cannot explore, it just doesn''t feel like space.

(2) Least favorite?
Mission-based... see (1).

(3) Would you prefer huge dogfights with hundreds of fighters on both sides or more one-on-one scenarios?
Combat should vary. If I attack a space station, I expect to see some serious defenses and an impressive armada. I''d feel jaded if I attacked a space station containing tens of thousands of inhabitants just to have 3 or 4 measly fighters defending.

(4) How much control do you like? (ie. do you want to be able to do a quick barrel roll while yawing to the left and aiming your gun turret with the mouse, or, just point and click to aim and fire?
Hmmm... I remember a game called "Light Speed" about a decade or so ago that had a fixed main turret and a weaker weapon that you could aim independantly of you ships direction. This worked well because you could use either one dependaing on how you liked to play and each had its benefits.

(5) Do you like lots of small ships, or a few huge destroyer/mothership types?
My favorite part of X-Wing was fighting off wave after wave of Tie Fighters so that I can get to the Star Destroyer and take out its shields so that my Y-Wings could take the Destroyer down. Yes, vary the size of the ships. =)

(6) Do you like realism in flying, or arcade-style maneuvering?
Realism? In space? I''d imagine it''d be tough to pilot in zero gravity. Although, it''d be cool to thrust forward, turn off the thrusters and still be moving full speed and be able to reverse direction (still moving in the same direction) and shoot the guy that''s chasing you. To answer your question, I prefer arcade- style maneuvering but if you could find a "fun" way to implement realism, more power to ya =)

(7) Do you like a complex damage model(if you get shot in your yaw thruster system, you can''t properly turn anymore, your navigation system can get fried, etc...), or do you just want a number from 0-100 telling you your health?
Provide diagrams of the enemy ships components (if available) and allow the player to shoot at those components. This doesn''t add any complexity to gameplay as newbie players can just fire away at the ships to achieve the same goal while veteran players can take ships down with greater precision.

(8) How long should a battle last, 10 intense minutes of adrenaline, or a two hours of a complex tactical situation?
Ummm... this depends on the type of game or perhaps just the type of battle. If I''m carrying expensive cargo, I may have other ships attempt to pirate my goods. This would be a 10 minute battle. On the other hand, if I''m attacking a space station, this would be a 2 hour ordeal. It depends on what kind of game you are making. I''d prefer to be able to attack the space station. =)

(9) Do you want automatic weapons systems(ie. radar + missile locking + energy trail tracking), or do you prefer having to fly to them and fight it out?
Both. Initially, weapons would be simple guns/lasers with possible weak missiles and limited tracking systems. As the game progresses, better weapons and automatic systems can be afforded. This can be balanced by price. Do I want to spend my fortune on weaker weapons that do the work for me or do I want to spend it on powerful weapons that I have to target myself?

(10) Saving in the middle of a battle?
NEVER!!! =) I''m not a big fan of saving. Do something imaginative. I recently saw a space sim in development that allowed you to buy a clone of your character and insurance on your wealth. If you died, you just took on your clone and the insurance covered everything else. If you could not afford it, you could not save. This limited saving and made it feel more "realistic".

(11) Lots of people on your side helping you, or pretty much a one-against-all situation?
I like a game with flexibility. If I want to be in one-on-one dog fights, I''ll become a pirate. If I want to fight in massive battles I''ll be a conqueror.

My personal opinion for any game is to have flexibility to do the things I want to do. This is hard and I understand you may want to specialize so I''ll give a quick run-down of what I would prefer depending on what type of game you are producing: For an RTS-like space sim, I''d prefer tactical battles with large scale ships (with smaller fighter ships on-board). However, in the case of a space shooter, I''d prefer small dog fights with arcade-style controls (see 6). However, I''d like to see an original angle on the game. Perhaps you can choose one fantastic feature to focus on... Large-scale combat, corporate control, infinite technology upgrades, etc.


- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!