Sign in to follow this  

Which design you like better?

This topic is 4731 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I've been in disagreement with my game designer for a while and I don't want to be biased so I'm going to throw out two game designs tos see which you guys think is better. So we want to make a game that's basically about breaking stuff like furniture. We want this game to be fun, adrenaline pumping, and interactive. The game will be made for small devices so not consoles. First disagreement was I wanted the game to be on a 2D plane with depth like Final Fight or Double Dragon since this gives a player a better controls for an action game. But the designer went with an isometric view, similar to turn based RPGS like Final Fantasy Tactics. I thought this was awful since the device does not have diagonal or multiple keypresses, only up/down/left/right. The isometric sprites may look better but the gameplay will suffer. I decided to let this go and continue with the isometric development. Second disagreement was with the gameplay style. The designer wanted the objects in the game to have basically a rock/paper statistics to it. You throw a TV onto the table, the table breaks. You throw the TV onto cabinets, the TV breaks, etc. Each object will have points value, and depending the way you break them, you get more points. So the goal of a level will be to get the X amount of points to pass the level. I sincerely hate games where you have to reach a points threshold to pass a level. Especially when its not immediate to a user how points are calculated. Also since this gameplay requires the user to thinking about which objects to throw on what, it loses a lot on the action/adrenaline feel of the game. The fact that you can fail a level because the objects left in the room won't yield enough points if the user destroyed things in a very bad order is horrid game design in my opinion. My idea would more of an action game where you walk up to an object and can attack/throw things at it to decrement its hitpoints value. The goal would be to break everything as fast as possible. This creates a better heart pumping adrenaline feel. You have numerous ways to attack and throw objects into other objects. My scenario doesn't allow objects to break immediately so you can attack it more. The strategy comes from using the best ways to destroy something quickly. The difference between this idea and the designer's idea is that this allows the player to see results on their actions. No matter what object they throw at something, they will damange something thus make progress. While the designer's idea allows the user to throw the right objects to be considered the "right" action. I know this all seems a bit vague and ramblish, but from what you guys read, which idea seems more "fun"? I don't really need suggestions since I'm more interested in knowing if I'm totally off, or the designer needs to play more games to know what's good/bad. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully I won't be agreeing with a mad man many times in my life, but this time I do. The designer should play more games. The concept of it being an adrenaline pumping destruction game is lost on accumulating points based on a scoring system that isn't automatically understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds to me like the two of you have essentially different ideas of what game you're making. He apparently wants to make a puzzle game; you want to make an action game. I don't think either concept is necessarily bad (though you've done your best to convince us to go on one side ;)). I'd suggest talking to your game designer and discussing exactly what you want to end up with at the end. If either of you has misconceptions now, they're only going to get worse with time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you dont really understand your designer. Just because a view is Isometric, it doesnt mean its going to be an RPG. Marble Madness worked just fine with that view, and i dont recall any Tactics or hit points.

And then about his Gameplay Idea. Its not like you think.
Suppose a TV = 100. a baby kitten = 1. obviously, ifyou throw the TV at the baby kitten, the baby kitten will break. we know this by human nature. Naturally, we know that throwing a water melon at an anvil breaks the water melon. We inherantly understand this concept. the values he's giving to the objects fall on a scale from easily breakable to invincible. he's just mapping objects along that scale.
Also, i dont think that any level would be any more impossible to pass using his idea than yours. You shoudl still be able to use walls and the floor to break stuff. The floor is pretty tough. The walls would break in areas after a while. Using Isometric view, you have more wall area to throw things at. As you break the wall more and more, weak spots on the wall become less and less effective against breaking your items.

Seriously, I dont think he's trying to make a puzzle game. I think you explained it like he is because you're too interested in your own idea that you wont take the time to concider and think about other ideas. There's probably a compramise that you two can make once you both fully understand eahothers points. Then you could create more unique gameplay that includes the best elements of both concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 4731 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

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

Sign in to follow this