Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wavinator

Non-essential gameplay should be made vital or dropped

Recommended Posts

Do you agree with this statement? In general, what I mean is that if gameplay isn''t essential to the goal of the game, it should be dropped or the gameworld should be changed in order to make it essential. Otherwise, it would feel tacked on. An example of this is a game which has one level where you can fly an aircraft to get a bonus, but otherwise neither wins the level nor the game. I''m asking this because I''m trying to get a handle on whether or not there''s sufficient justification to add vehicle gameplay to a game that''s mostly about space travel and interpersonal interaction. While I already posted about driving itself in another thread, a totally different problem has cropped up: Where do you drive, and why? If the game only has one location where you can drive, it''s a waste. If you liked that gameplay, you''d have to constantly go back to that one location. Yet if there are places to drive on many different planets and space stations, then the player has to ask, "what''s the point?" Is it there so that they can win money? Prestige? Level up? What does driving have to do with the player''s overall goals? And what does it do that they can''t get done by any other means? Unfortunately, I don''t have good answers to these questions, and "because it''s cool" isn''t good enough, I think. I could invent areas that can only be reached by vehicles: For instance, an "airspace" rule that prevents players from landing in cities, or "harsh weather" that stops them from flying in a region. I could also invent opponents that are best dealt with by fast moving vehicles (outrunning tanks, for instance). But if you''re not going to be doing it most of the time, should it be a feature that''s cut? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that as long as the non-essential gameplay adds value to the game it is nice to have it, unless the game is supposed to be simple and straightforward.

Having just one location to drive isn''t necesarily a waste, if it''s implemented as a time saving feature(what means you can go to the same place with a slower method but that slower method should have some kind of advantage), for when the player is tired and wants to go somewhere quickly.

However if driving breaks the overall gameplay style, that is a reason to stop it from making into the game.

I think if you had the feature idea before it''s reason of existing in the game probably it''s a good idea to keep it from the game. I bring this point because you don''t seem to have a real reason to include driving in the game.

Now I would like to know, do you want to implement driving? If so, are you looking for an excuse to include it into the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Coz
I think if you had the feature idea before it''s reason of existing in the game probably it''s a good idea to keep it from the game. I bring this point because you don''t seem to have a real reason to include driving in the game.

Now I would like to know, do you want to implement driving? If so, are you looking for an excuse to include it into the game?


Thanks for the comments. This is more of a "look and feel" issue. Firstly, space games since the dawn of gaming time have claustraphobically locked you in a ship. There may be human settlements, but like a plague victim, you''re barred from them in most cases. Those that let you out do so only either in scripted sequences or only when you''re on foot.

I am actually looking for excuses to implement driving. I am concerned, however, that driving comes with expectations of high speed navigation or Car Wars style combat. This is fine if the player is a lawbreaker or chasing someone, or is in a Mogadishu-style war-torn city. But if there is no combat and no high-speed chases for the majority of civilized cities, then I fear that this part of the game becomes Microsoft Driving Simulator 2004.

The major problem with civilization is that it''s civilized. You don''t expect combat at every turn, or trade or even stealth while driving. Sure, I could go so far as creating race tracks, or cop chases, but the game is about exploring new worlds and managing a crew while doing so. It isn''t GTA.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you give some more information on your game? That might help determine if Vehicles should be kept or dropped.

For example, if you are working for a company (and not independantly), your ship could be optimized to land only on a certain type of pad. The company would drop one, and you would have to do explore the planet in vehicles. (And if you care about having combat, that would not be difficult to say some aggresive creatures inhabit the area).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Build driving into the mission structure and skill tree of the game. When you are making deliveries or establishing mines or transporting colonists on less civilized worlds, you''ll need to land on suitable terrain or shuttle to the surface, and then take the eight-wheeler out to the specific destination site.

You could be dealing with threats, or collecting wreckage, or setting up a satellite uplink array for triangulating GPS information, or whatever. The point is that driving skills could be character traits and driving missions could be the backbone of your operation if you train up for them and are able to make a living wage with it.

In cities, I''d be inclined to stick to mass transit for reasons of cost and speed, but if you have to take the hovertank down and secure a hostile landing zone before inserting the Mobile Infantry, then that''s what you''ll have to do. Put the vehicle down three miles out, cruise in under their radar Star-Fox style, and secure a better LZ. Knock down a few buildings, neutralize some radar, and then start up a good diversion a half-mile away while the Marines drop in and get ready to occupy the place. A little orbital support from the mothership is always welcome, but it''s not always appropriate for a "civilian freighter" to be backing up a mercenary raid with precision tactical weapons.

In conclusion, give players the option of using vehicles as an essential gameplay element, either by making missions with that feature available or offering it as one alternative in a complex situation, but don''t require them to actually drive the company car to the credit union to pick up the payroll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Dakar
Could you give some more information on your game? That might help determine if Vehicles should be kept or dropped.



Sure! Think of an open-ended RPG with some Sims-type crew management, whose focus is combat, stealth and/or trade. There''s both ground and space action using the same control paradigms, and semi-RTS system (very light) for supervising other agents, be they ships or people (or vehicles, in this case).

The game world is open-ended, so where you go and what you do is up to you and what you can afford. You take missions and/or get into freeform gameplay (piracy, smuggling, bounty hunting) to raise your reputation and cash. The main focus is leveling up your ship and increasing the loyalty, morale and training of your crew.

I see the ground mode taking place either on fractally generated terrain (planets) or inside large canned cities (like Babylon 5). The main activities will be exploring ruins for technology, performing a mission, or grabbing up resources in dangerous zones. The city related activities could involve extensions to missions (like fly here and assassinate this leader), exploring the city for secret facilities, or getting involved in races or chases with enemies or the law.

quote:

For example, if you are working for a company (and not independantly), your ship could be optimized to land only on a certain type of pad. The company would drop one, and you would have to do explore the planet in vehicles. (And if you care about having combat, that would not be difficult to say some aggresive creatures inhabit the area).



This would work especially well if there were scripted missions and a more formal structure. I''m going more for the Star Wars / Galaxy Rangers / Cowboy Bebop feel, though, where smaller ships just touchdown where they please. Your idea would work for large capital ships, though.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Build driving into the mission structure and skill tree of the game. When you are making deliveries or establishing mines or transporting colonists on less civilized worlds, you''ll need to land on suitable terrain or shuttle to the surface, and then take the eight-wheeler out to the specific destination site.



So "delivery" means complete delivery, huh? I like this. Rather than just tell the player "you mine an asteroid" from inside the safety of their ship, they instead drop down like in Armaggedon and dig into the terrain.

What if you did it this way: You could either have a competent character or drone do it (the automated way), or you could do it yourself.

If you take the automated way, you have no control over what happens and have to rely on the skill level of the agent if they get into a jam, which could be anything from mechanical trouble to an ambush to a space anomaly (whatever). If you do it as a player, it''s cheaper (no hiring a person or buying a bot), you get minute control, and you can respond in real-time, but you also risk your neck.


quote:

You could be dealing with threats, or collecting wreckage, or setting up a satellite uplink array for triangulating GPS information, or whatever. The point is that driving skills could be character traits and driving missions could be the backbone of your operation if you train up for them and are able to make a living wage with it.


This works perfectly for wild frontier locations and ancient ruins, where there could be all manner of dangers ranging from xenomorphs to raiders.

Cities, on the other hand...

quote:

In cities, I''d be inclined to stick to mass transit for reasons of cost and speed,



Yeah, I''m not sure how players will respond to mundane driving over a large environment. My guess is that they''ll rebel by the fifth or tenth time, at the latest, when they see yet another city filled with streets and cars that isn''t a raceway or shooting gallery. And I''m sure the first time they ever get stuck in a traffic jam (due to AI getting bogged down) will be cause for them to surround my home with burning torches.

quote:

but if you have to take the hovertank down and secure a hostile landing zone before inserting the Mobile Infantry, then that''s what you''ll have to do. Put the vehicle down three miles out, cruise in under their radar Star-Fox style, and secure a better LZ. Knock down a few buildings, neutralize some radar, and then start up a good diversion a half-mile away while the Marines drop in and get ready to occupy the place. A little orbital support from the mothership is always welcome, but it''s not always appropriate for a "civilian freighter" to be backing up a mercenary raid with precision tactical weapons.


Yup, as soon as you add a challenge like combat, everything''s fine. A friend suggested that EVERY city in the game be either overrun with monsters/eneimes or that there just be only one city in the entire game that''s overrun if the former doesn''t make sense.

quote:

In conclusion, give players the option of using vehicles as an essential gameplay element, either by making missions with that feature available or offering it as one alternative in a complex situation, but don''t require them to actually drive the company car to the credit union to pick up the payroll.


Agreed. Games have to get rid of the mundane or else make it challenging. Thanks for the good points (as always!)

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Ramius
One word.... Starflight.


I worship the floppies that game is inscribed on. In fact, I still have them and the original box!

However, updating the paradigm of a game where you can fly to 200 stars and 800 planets, land on every one, and collect minerals, artifacts and animals to a fully 3D world is daunting at best. The gameplay challenges are steep. When we roved planets in our terrain vehicles, we did so to make money because mining was the most lucrative activity in the game. But that got old, quickly, unfortunately. After that, most mined OTHER ships and visited planets only for the occassional artifact or hint.

We also did it in a small gamespace: Sure the planets were huge, but you could cover miles in minutes because terrain was just fractal shapes representing land and water (errr.. liquid). In true 3D, it would take forever to get anywhere!

Starflight also didn''t have cities (the 8 Endurium pyramids in a circle don''t cut it ). Cities raise the level of complexity to a very high level, and impose their own gameplay challenges.

But Starflight would have been nothing without its planets and driving mode.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In life you can do plenty of things that don''t pertain to any specific goal that you have, but you can still do them if you choose, so it''s more realistic.

Also, games are more fun if you have more freedom to explore, and if you do allow the player to do stuff that doesn''t help or hinder them in their quest to reach the goal, don''t be too obvious about it. Players who actually deserve to find secrets are the ones who will take time everywhere they go to observe everything and explore. You want the player to want to spend more time in your game and find out all they can. But make sure the distraction isn''t too great, or they''ll stop playing the game and just screw around doing nothing forever.

It takes more time to make, but it opens up the world more, and makes the game more fun.

-Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
When we roved planets in our terrain vehicles, we did so to make money because mining was the most lucrative activity in the game. But that got old, quickly, unfortunately.


True, but think of the possibilities a modern graphics engine could provide to enhance the activity... lush outdoor scenery, realistic 3D terrain (adds to the mystery of exploration... "what''s just over that hill?"), exotic out-of-this-world locations, and enough other bells-and-whistles to keep the exploration/resource gathering aspect from getting old too quickly. Probably couldn''t build an entire game around it, but then neither did Starflight. Most of the game may have been centered around planet hopping, but there were enough other aspects to keep things interesting.

In addition to the eye-candy delay (of apathy setting in), one could add oodles of different "resource" types to spice things up... after all, what is a rogue-clone like Diablo (or most RPG''s for that matter) without the "ooh, I haven''t seen that before" gratification while exploring a new area (whether it be a new +15 great sword of uberness or a new type of rock :-p). Another nice feature would be to liberally sprinkle unique and personable NPC''s throughout the land, providing the "gotta talk to ''em all" motivation for vehicular exploration, though that might be a little too time-consuming on the development side.

I should add that I''m assuming the use of relatively slow vehicles for exploration purposes, as one would likely miss out on the above motivations while zipping over the landscape at Mach 8. I''m also assuming that exploration would play a more significant role than a mere "game within a game", as pulling off the "let''s solve the motivational problems by making a huge, varied universe to mess around with" solution would be rather expensive. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Ramius
True, but think of the possibilities a modern graphics engine could provide to enhance the activity...



My dream would be the detail of a Morrowind mixed with the planetary scale of Starflight. Just knowing that I'm bounded not by a map but by my fuel tank would probably drive me nuts.

quote:

lush outdoor scenery, realistic 3D terrain (adds to the mystery of exploration... "what's just over that hill?"), exotic out-of-this-world locations, and enough other bells-and-whistles to keep the exploration/resource gathering aspect from getting old too quickly.



The trick here is figuring out what "old" is. Vvardenfell in Morrowind feels like an entire planet, even though it's just one island. Now, something on the size of an entire world would have alot of repetition, simply for lack of texture variety alone. Terrain can be wildly varied, but it would look the same around the globe (which might be okay, look at Mars).

But when you say "exotic, out of this world locations" I'm expecting for life-bearing worlds you'll want just about every form of terrain we have on earth: tundra; snowy, granite, red sandstone and basalt mountains; various forests and swamps whose plants vary wildly from planet to planet; and tons of wild new animals.

The problem is that with Starflight, you filled in the lack of details with your imagination. When you encountered, say, a sessile predator, it was an icon of a tree that did damage to you by drawing a line to your terrain vehicle. So much more is required today, though.

As soon as you give an exact form to things, you start getting tired of seeing them. And across multiple planets, it would mean that you'd have to model, texture and animate how many creatures, plants and special items????

Even procedural textures and procedural geometry for flora and fauna can only be of so much help. Players are going to want monsters with different attacks, different AI, etc. I'm not sure if they'll accept anything less simply because of what tightly focused, single-subject games have offered them to date.

Don't get me wrong, btw. I want to see this come about. But it's an ugly challenge to face.

quote:

Probably couldn't build an entire game around it, but then neither did Starflight. Most of the game may have been centered around planet hopping, but there were enough other aspects to keep things interesting.


I'd be curious to know how pared down this could be before it would be unacceptable. Say, twenty creature types total, with about 3 skin varieties each? Fifty different plant shapes, with about a half dozen textures each. You'd end up with "your basic big cat (panther, tiger, lion0", "your basic simian (monkey, gorilla)", "your basic bovine form (water buffalo, bison, cow)".

The only hope of making this interesting would be not to vary the forms, but to vary the properties and stats the flora and fauna had. So a spikey redwood on one planet would yeild a cure for a disease, while on another the same mesh would attack with metal eating spores. You could not hope to have hundreds of unique plants and animals times dozens of life bearing worlds.


quote:

Another nice feature would be to liberally sprinkle unique and personable NPC's throughout the land, providing the "gotta talk to 'em all" motivation for vehicular exploration, though that might be a little too time-consuming on the development side.


More than anything it's the world "unique" that massacres a concept like this. The cheapest way to make something unique is via text. A "Sword of the Moon" is little different from a "Sword of the Stars" except in text, and then in stats. Next cheapest is gameplay variation (a sword with one attack versus a sword with two special attacks), but that still requires bug testing and balancing.

quote:

I should add that I'm assuming the use of relatively slow vehicles for exploration purposes, as one would likely miss out on the above motivations while zipping over the landscape at Mach 8. I'm also assuming that exploration would play a more significant role than a mere "game within a game", as pulling off the "let's solve the motivational problems by making a huge, varied universe to mess around with" solution would be rather expensive. ^_^


Yeah, your ship would be the Mach 8 through the atmosphere, but the terrain part would of necessity have to be slow just to update things. Morrowind takes some time to load its new environments, and that would pose a significant problem to a fast moving speeder at ground level.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

[edited by - wavinator on April 22, 2004 8:46:04 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by NeoMage
Also, games are more fun if you have more freedom to explore, and if you do allow the player to do stuff that doesn''t help or hinder them in their quest to reach the goal, don''t be too obvious about it. Players who actually deserve to find secrets are the ones who will take time everywhere they go to observe everything and explore. You want the player to want to spend more time in your game and find out all they can. But make sure the distraction isn''t too great, or they''ll stop playing the game and just screw around doing nothing forever.



Good points. The major problem is that in an open-ended game, everything''s potentially a distraction unless you''re on a mission. And even then, if the world is detailed enough, there''s a temptation to get lost even when on a mission.

I suppose, though, that that''s the flip side of having a lot of freedom. If the game doesn''t feel like it''s progressing, I guess most players will try to move on, despite distractions. So there will be two opposing forces pulling at them as they play.

I rememember encountering this phenomenon in Morrowind. I''d actually forgo exploring, which is my natural tendency, just because I wanted to level up or get more money. So I''d constantly walk past interesting areas on my way to get things done.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you need a detialed person level view of planets? It would be a lot easier to have Low altitude flight system. You fly low over the area and interact with things from an almost map view. You set your bio sensor filters to detect to large animals, and they appear as red dots on the map or little animal icons. You could heave sensors for plants, structures, minerals. Diffrent levels of sensors would provide more detail and so on. so rahter then walk around a planet look for new species you use your survery vessel to fly low over the planet and use sensors and drones to detect and capture species for analysis or storage.

This way you could explore locations with hostile environments that a person couldn''t land on.

-----------------------------------------------------
"Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own."
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good thinking. I''m imagining this as being something like riding Flammie in Secret of Mana. You fly around and around, but you can only "land" in select locations. Once you''re down, maybe you can use the land vehicles, but you could optimize this by making the maximum range of the terrestrial vehicles just long enough to reach the edges of the "zoomed in" parts, and then require the ship to beam you back to the launch tube or whatever.

Or you could have the cities and significant regions done in detail, and make the rest of the globe into a fractal landscape. You can tool around forever in the fractal deserts and mountains of Mars, but "mapped locations" would be nested at important points on the surface.

Desolate planets would be just the ticket for this sort of thing. Optimally, I''d like to see an area so big that you could travel around it for days and days and still not find all the neat stuff.

There was an old flight simulator called "A-10 Attack!" that had some 10,000 square miles of Germany mapped in. You could fly around forever, finding little "easter eggs" and following rivers around, but you''d never really have to deal with more than a little bit of it at a time for missions. There were whole cities (simplistic ones, obviously) and airfields that never factored into the game, but if you had a map of Germany you could figure out what they were and amuse yourself by bombing the hell out of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don''t know if this will help any, but even on some modern tankers they require the use of vehicles to get from one end to the other. If your ship is large enough, this is an option as well. It might even add a dimension of time/fuel management to your sim.

ld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of the original question, I would agree if and only if the game in question is rigid. For example, I used to play Interstate ''76 and enjoyed the mission structure immensely, but in my opinion it would have been an even more awesome game if the landscape had allowed a more free-roaming structure.

This is tangential, but conceptually related: Some friends and I played Xbox all weekend. Three games dominated: KOTOR (only when everyone else was out of ''box juice), DnD Heroes, and Hunter: The Reckoning. DnD Heroes, however, ended up being the game that we played for pretty much all of day 2. Why? Because it''s not a game where the designer is getting in your face with GAME DESIGN. Rather, you can choose to cheat or not cheat, scale the diff up or down, drop in and out at random, etc. So in my experience the non-rigid game is best for hotseat multiplay. For online multiplay and single-player, the spectrum is considerably wider, but for my dollar they''re probably the most fun.

ld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all the gameplay you can get is essential. Think about Duke Nukem 3d and its "non-essential" gameplay. Did you have to flush to toilets ? no, but it was fun and gave you a little health. or the pool table, or the strippers. IMO, all gameplay you can get is essential. However, if you are squished for time, then I could see why only adding relevant gameplay would be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to check out http://anywherebb.com/noctis.html
You can explore virtually endless space, land on and explore randomly generated planets, some with vegetation and wildlife.

-Madgap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man, ghehe Wav - O - Rama lol, youre making some progress arent you man, im jealous !

My opinion on this would to if it aint essential limit it, I had the same problem I was like hey when my people invent this and that, they make a spacecraft, then I have to make a whole galaxy to roam in and make those planets, as detailed as this one. STOP... ghehe.

I would say to limit it, like Universal Combat does, you can land on some planets and there are some vehicles that are just neccesary nothing more. And remember it would always be a nice extra, it wont cost ya points it would always make for more.. So what ever you do in this you cant go wrong from my view.. Good luck !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by TechnoGoth
Do you need a detialed person level view of planets? It would be a lot easier to have Low altitude flight system.


You''re right, this would be MUCH easier. Unfortunately, I have it in mind that since you can board enemy ships and explore ancient ruins with a mix of RPG and RTS gameplay, there needs to be planetary exploration. If for no other reason that for veracity and immersion.

The plants and creatures problem may get explained away somewhat with the story. Planets are being raided by Siegers, these lifeforce eating amorphous vampires. So it might help quell some of the expectation of a riot of life all over the place.

(btw, one theoretical approach I''d love to have the time to study would involve mixing animal body parts and procedural texture generation. Limbs, appendages, heads and body shapes THEORETICALLY could be animated seperately, the bounding region determined in advance, then algorithmically combined, maybe even using some sort of physics spring system for semi-realistic movement. ''Course, that''s pretty far out there...)

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Or you could have the cities and significant regions done in detail, and make the rest of the globe into a fractal landscape. You can tool around forever in the fractal deserts and mountains of Mars, but "mapped locations" would be nested at important points on the surface.



This would be my favorite approach. I''m thinking about a fractal terran generator with tweaks for rivers. In theory, you could add in large mesh objects like boulders and preformed overhanging cliffs to get the right feel. Morrowind appears to mix and match large mesh objects, even embedding them right into the ground mesh, without trouble. Then you''d add beacons to call out special locations which are mostly hand built. This way, if a player comes down on an official beacon, they know they''re landing at a special location, versus if they just cursor over any location on the mercator map of the planet, they''re landing on fractal terrain.

quote:

Desolate planets would be just the ticket for this sort of thing.


To the extent that you can drop off things like supply caches or portable factories, a desolate area could be just what you want as well. And they could link nicely into XP farming and resource raiding, as there would possibly have been others who would have thought of the same thing. Prefab structures that are randomly scattered over a fractally generated map could be a great way of encouraging exploration, and since they''re prefab you won''t really trip out if you visit next time and they''re gone.


quote:

Optimally, I''d like to see an area so big that you could travel around it for days and days and still not find all the neat stuff.


I could see a large, randomly generated planet having a few nice attractions: Random junk and lost cargo for salvage, minerals, specimens and hostile creatures if it bears life, strange storms of particles (part of the backstory), prefab and secret bases, and ancient ruins / caves / underground base entrances. Don''t be surprised if you come across a strange ship filled with eggs.


quote:

There was an old flight simulator called "A-10 Attack!" that had some 10,000 square miles of Germany mapped in. You could fly around forever, finding little "easter eggs" and following rivers around, but you''d never really have to deal with more than a little bit of it at a time for missions. There were whole cities (simplistic ones, obviously) and airfields that never factored into the game, but if you had a map of Germany you could figure out what they were and amuse yourself by bombing the hell out of them.


I like that these guys put effort into something like that, and rewarded you for wandering. What did they do when you reached the borders of Germany, though? In 1942 you get a message "leaving the mission area" which simply turns you back around. I know Terran Nova, which had a massive outdoor level, made you lose the mission if you were outside the bounds (lame). I like that in Morrowind if I choose to water walk into the ocean it just repeats the same textures endlessly and calls the area "wilderness." It''s a nice compromise.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by liquiddark
Don't know if this will help any, but even on some modern tankers they require the use of vehicles to get from one end to the other. If your ship is large enough, this is an option as well. It might even add a dimension of time/fuel management to your sim.



I'm thinking of the Pillar of Autumn in Halo, where you can drive the jeep through the superstructure at the end.

Yeah, thanks for the reminder. Dreadnaughts and massive capital ships could could accomodate driving naturally.

PS: What did you mean by "rigid?"

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

[edited by - wavinator on April 24, 2004 6:14:29 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by clayasaurus
IMO, all gameplay you can get is essential.


This is an optimistic way to look at it. But I''m sure you''ve heard of games being criticized for having features that the reviewer claims were "tacked on." I''d hate to have that result.

But, sure, in general, the more fun stuff you can do, the better it is. The problem with your Duke Nukem example is that all of that stuff was right along the path of normal gameplay. You went into the restroom to kill a badguy, for instance, and the commodes just happened to be there. Now, if there was a completely seperate level with bonus gameplay beyond what you normally did in the game, that might be considered tacked on.


quote:
Original post by Madgap
You might want to check out http://anywherebb.com/noctis.html
You can explore virtually endless space, land on and explore randomly generated planets, some with vegetation and wildlife.



Thanks, I''m eager to check this out!



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Wavinator
quote:
Original post by liquiddark
Don't know if this will help any, but even on some modern tankers they require the use of vehicles to get from one end to the other. If your ship is large enough, this is an option as well. It might even add a dimension of time/fuel management to your sim.



I'm thinking of the Pillar of Autumn in Halo, where you can drive the jeep through the superstructure at the end.

Yeah, thanks for the reminder. Dreadnaughts and massive capital ships could could accomodate driving naturally.

PS: What did you mean by "rigid?"

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

[edited by - wavinator on April 24, 2004 6:14:29 AM]



This being a futuristic game I would hope that there is near instantious onboard ship travel. Afterall last thing I want to see is a message like "Raiders have boarded the ship it will take 30 minutes for reinforcments to drive to scene of the attack from the barracks." Then you also have to consider traffic jams and rush hour, when all is said and done what captain wants a 1 hour commute from their quarters to the bridge?


-----------------------------------------------------
"Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own."
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave


[edited by - TechnoGoth on April 24, 2004 6:44:30 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites