Quote:Original post by Wavinator
How would you be sure to calculate the path the player intends? Are you going to assume shortest path? What if this drags them through territories they don't want to go through?

Likely allowing the player to plot the (approximation of) route they'd like to take, either by placing series of waypoint or straight draw the curve of route on the map.

Quote:I think the whole army thing is a handwave that ignores the basic problem: You've now got a different game. It's fine if you're doing a hybrid (in fact, I'd like to play it), but you open yourself to a whole rash of concerns (some of which I tried to outline) that simply don't apply to a party or single character.

Very true; but i think it's partially what makes trying to piece such game together fun. Let's be frank about it, the 'typical RPG' isn't *that* far from Progress Quest (i've been biting my tongue for 200+ posts to not mention it, but now someone else already had, so to heck with it :p) ... and this eternal cycle of "go out, whack monsters, bring loot, sell loot, watch tiny numbers grow into bigger numbers" with never anything new to it... it's dull. The much-touted "character development" that's supposed to be large part of experience is a fake when the character never changes from being ultimate killing machine ... that 'grows' from exterminating rats to exterminating dragons... but never moves beyond _exterminating something_ If you check every source outside of RPG games, it's generally considered a character "develops" when someone finally manages to break the mold they've been stuck in. I'd really like to see the concept of RPG grow to that level, too...

Quote:For example, if you go from an individual to a huge, warring group, the experience will be disjoint. Whatever was fun that related to being a young adventurer will now disappear when being a general. New concerns will arise, responsibilities you didn't have will crop up.

Aye, and i'd actually hope the game manages to create such feel for some players. Why? Because it's a very real part of *being* someone important and finding you no longer really can do all the little things you enjoyed. People either find they like new responsibilities and power, or not. And it's what ultimately drives some to turning it all down and getting back to what they were, just to be happy again (or not, people find different ways to cope with these sensations, and i'd like to allow for at least some of them)

Quote:What, for example, would be the interface for choosing the army? How would you specifically group and order different units? Where would your screen focus lie? If you switch to an RTS mode, you'll begin to devalue character identification. If you lock to the character, then you'll either frustrate players because they won't have fine army control, or you'll have to issue orders by proxy and effectively watch scripts run-- very "hands off," and annoying when individual units get stuck pathfinding, or get attacked where you can't see them. (..)

One of the biggest design problems I've had so far in trying to blend empire game and RPG is that of the training curve. A game must train you at each level to progress, and do so by exposing you to specific challenges that allow you to slowly sharpen your skills. The problem is, if your scope broadens, your training curve goes up exponentially.

So you'll have to figure out, at each level of being a hero, how it relates to having an army. You can't just suddenly spring an army on the player and expect them to be competent. So they must be giving orders and dealing with tactics at level one, and they must know that they're being groomed to be a general.

I've rearranged your reply a bit, since i find these bits i put together here, related. Indeed, suddenly switching from 'single hero' mode to 'here is your army, now command!' mode would be very discomforting (and quite silly to boot) Fortunately, the RPGs already have mechanics which allow you to slowly ease in the player in their advanced roles, and that's through "adventuring parties".

The player gets to learn how to recruit the right people, how to manage them around and on the battlefield, how to deal with issues they have. By seeing their companions up close on the battlefield player gains understanding on how very different types can perform there, even though the player themselves isn't really a knight/thief/archer/wizard/ninja/pirate rolled into one and as such wouldn't be able to know what they can expect from different specializations. Since their companions are other individual "people" with their own attributes, the personal element is still there, now additionally enhanced since these people might have their own preferences and quirks. They may take orders well and perform them well, they may perform them sloppily, some may even decide they know better than charge half-dead into bunch of strong enemies just because you yell at them to.

This is the battle management on small, easy-to-swallow scale... and if the player proves they're capable of handling it, the bar can be gradually upped. At some point down the road Eric the Viking might be replaced with a squad of vikings... but because the player got to see many times how Eric the Viking deals with say, enemy archer, the player has already pretty good understanding how a group of vikings stands against group of archers or a group of knights, and how their attributes compare on average. The individual element slowly shifts as well, from individual soldiers to squad leaders who are able to put their personal 'spin' on people they command... and then possibly further up, but it's still there.

Quote:The personal touch of an RPG will be lost in translation. A general doesn't go around questing for the peasants. He probably doesn't try to resolve the relationship between a couple of married villagers for the sake of love. Nor does he go fetch magical wood to prop up an old, senile wizard's windmill.

The general is impersonal. He doesn't solve people's personal problems as the RPG hero does. He conquers towns, secures the border, perhaps plays politics in the court (never done, but could be). The tone and emphasis is different.

To a degree, yes, it's right; The difference imo lies in the fact that --before becoming a general-- the player has spent long time "down there". They tried to help a pair of villagers, they did fix the windmill, and likely did many other things which now altogether put a *meaning* to trying to secure a town that'd otherwise be judged as "not worth losing many knights over" (or if it's ultimately judged as 'not worthy' then it still has "human face" of people the player got to know there, rather than being just a statistical record like your typical RTS 'control point)

The general might be now too busy to go and visit the pair they once helped, but it doesn't mean he can't receive the birthday card from them, with well-wishes and thanks for what he'd once done. Or to get a note in thankful letter from a wizard, after the general's latest campaign managed to save the wizard's village: "p.s. the windmill still stands strong" A much valuable reflection of what the player achieved over the course of game imo, than "Strength: 322" instead of "Strength: 321" on the character's sheet.

Quote:LOTR: "LEGOLAS! KILL HIM!!!! KILL HIM!!!!" Why was Legolas singled out by Aragon to take out the kamikaze orc? Because he's the best damn archer in the entire army. You can't escape the fact that, given an RPG, NPCs will have uniqueness, and as such, players will want to tactically position that uniqueness in the most beneficial way.

I'll be a cynic here and say that Legolas was singled out because #1 he's in the credits and #2, he's the only guy there who actually has name that's known to Aragorn ;s It'd simply have no impact to the reader/viewer if Aragorn instead yelled "Joe_234, take him out!" and the reader never heard of this Joe up to now, and then Joe is also never mentioned after... because he was a simple Plot Device.

But yes, there should be unique individuals in the game. But i think the focus should be on findig these individuals and putting them where their unique abilites *matter* and can be utilized best. As squad leaders, property managers and all sorts of organizers who act as the bridge between you as leader and the final receivers of your orders. Failing that you get swamped in the micro-managing that's a plague of 'conquer and manage' games, where you're too busy trying to juggle few hundred of units to ever get a clear understanding of the big picture you're expected to paint.

Quote:The alternative, as you're suggesting, is a tactic-less zergling rush where hundreds of clone knights mob a target. In that case, why even bother with the idea of an army if you're going to strip the general of significant decisions of varying risk and reward (think about what decisions generals have to make).

I think any commander acting in that manner would get a rude awakening after wasting large part of their resources in battle where it could be easily avoided with just the right use of forces they had at hand ... and their commanding would end abruptly, and on sour note. Of course, hopefully by the time the player gets to that seat, they're already aware of it, having gone through series of (smaller scale) engagements which if anything taught them gettting that Dan the Wizard recklessly killed makes both healing after battle troublesome, and the other people think twice about signing up for duty...

(damn that was long. sorry >.<

Quote:tolaris

Quote:wavinator
LOTR: "LEGOLAS! KILL HIM!!!! KILL HIM!!!!" Why was Legolas singled out by Aragon to take out the kamikaze orc? Because he's the best damn archer in the entire army. You can't escape the fact that, given an RPG, NPCs will have uniqueness, and as such, players will want to tactically position that uniqueness in the most beneficial way.

I'll be a cynic here and say that Legolas was singled out because #1 he's in the credits and #2, he's the only guy there who actually has name that's known to Aragorn ;s It'd simply have no impact to the reader/viewer if Aragorn instead yelled "Joe_234, take him out!" and the reader never heard of this Joe up to now, and then Joe is also never mentioned after... because he was a simple Plot Device.

You (or aragon) also knew he was the best damn archer in the army because he could make one shot and two orcs would drop dead.

Quote:tolaris
people might have their own preferences and quirks

An aspect to often overlooked (IMHO). Take a stereotype and add a few quirks and you have a nice character. Nice and easy way of making a character interesting and something beyond a fighter with strength $impresive_number. What about the quirks taking a more important role in gameplay? What if you have to choose between a strong fighter that is afraid of the dark and a fearless thief that would run through a dragon just at the sight of gold? Both would be stats wise a good choise, but you can't base your dessision on stats here. The stats could even be missleading.

Quote:Original post by tolaris

Quote:
For example, if you go from an individual to a huge, warring group, the experience will be disjoint. Whatever was fun that related to being a young adventurer will now disappear when being a general. New concerns will arise, responsibilities you didn't have will crop up.

Aye, and i'd actually hope the game manages to create such feel for some players. Why? Because it's a very real part of *being* someone important and finding you no longer really can do all the little things you enjoyed. People either find they like new responsibilities and power, or not. And it's what ultimately drives some to turning it all down and getting back to what they were, just to be happy again (or not, people find different ways to cope with these sensations, and i'd like to allow for at least some of them)

Are people ready for a game that uses gameplay to express meaning? So far, games have pretty much been purely for fun, like a painting which was painted to hang beautifully on the wall (and I see nothing wrong with that). However, now you're talking about a transition where you leave behind "whatever was fun" about the gameplay to emphasize the loss of the character's old self. Sure, the next phase might be fun in its own way, but most people play one game over another to get a specific sort of gameplay. You've now taken away what the player came to this game to get. That that was the intent doesn't change things. Also, easing the player into the new role won't help. If they don't like the new gameplay, they'll just find they increasingly dislike the game.

Now, it sounds like maybe you want to make games more "artistic" (I don't like the term used that way, but that's how it is). May or may not be a good thing, but does a large enough audience exist? Are you sure you would enjoy it if it were handed to you?

Quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
Are people ready for a game that uses gameplay to express meaning?

I'm honestly not sure ^^ Since the 'early gamers' are now in the 30-40 age bracket, it makes it somewhat reasonable to hope part of them would appreciate a game which digs a bit deeper than the usual ... as well as to expect that some of them are familiar with the concept of choice between letting things go or (trying to) get back to them, as a part of growing up and developing what we are. In this sense, a game which recognizes and taps into these experiences might evoke emotional response similar to one a good book or movie would.

Ultimately though, there's only one way to find that out ;s

Quote:However, now you're talking about a transition where you leave behind "whatever was fun" about the gameplay to emphasize the loss of the character's old self. Sure, the next phase might be fun in its own way, but most people play one game over another to get a specific sort of gameplay. You've now taken away what the player came to this game to get. That that was the intent doesn't change things. Also, easing the player into the new role won't help. If they don't like the new gameplay, they'll just find they increasingly dislike the game.

Well, am not too concerned with the 'people come to game for one, specific kind of fun' mindset, popularity of GTA and similar games seem to indicate people do like options in how to have fun in game. Extreme specialization is more of domain of market specialists, reviewers from game magazines and the min-maxers ;s

Anyway; aye, it's definitely something that'd be difficult to get done right. Unless you somehow manage to make everything 'good fun', the second best option would perhaps be to provide the player at each stage with range of activities wide enough they'll hopefully always find something in the game world they enjoy. Even then, the sense of a loss is always likely to linger there... but it *is* part of development.

Incidentally, in a way this is probably quite close to becoming one of possible answers to Wavinator's question from another thread, "how to present a player with a choice where some kind of a loss is part of the deal, and it cannot be removed by simple tap of 'quick load' key" ... but that's another story.

Quote:Now, it sounds like maybe you want to make games more "artistic" (I don't like the term used that way, but that's how it is). May or may not be a good thing, but does a large enough audience exist? Are you sure you would enjoy it if it were handed to you?

I tend to think of it as of being more "human" ... also rather unfortunate term, but it somewhat manages to convey the game is more focused on characters --including their shortcomings-- than it normally happens. Would i enjoy it personally? Yes, but this can be because i like games which focus on the 'role playing' in that sense of getting to experience someone else's life with the whole baggage that comes with it, not just the shiny pretty parts... and which manage to keep their characters believeable even in the most fantastic settings.

I would propose to make new threads with more specific topics (since there arose quite a few). Let this one die . It is loooong and prone to repetition.

Quote:Original post by Madster
About conveying meaning: All artsy games (i'm okay with the term) I know have tanked badly but the press has loved them, maybe because they had to take time to play them regardless if the box looked interesting or not, and they're kinda bored with the same ol'. Looking at the current gamer age range, I'd say we're almost ready. However not everyone should take this route. Think of what other arts do: Impressionism, realism, cubism... there's something for everyone. And there's your commercial painters churning out generic paintings and making a good living out of it.
Movies: you have film art, independent film, mainstream action and mainstream intellectual movies... we're stuck in the action phase and just expanding to the other possibilities. But that, too, is for another thread. wh00t 13 pages of fun!

Actually, my dislike of the term "artistic" is that I see no less art in what the commercial painters are doing than in what all those "artsy" folks are doing.

Anyway, the problem is that changing the gameplay is something akin to switching from an action movie to a romantic comedy. I really don't think that'd go over too well. Or, say, switching from a murder mystery to hard sci fi half way through a novel. This stuff can work in the "artsy" world because things there don't have to be beautiful, they just have to have meaning (that, and you can write off anyone who doesn't like it by saying "they just don't get it").

Also, I don't see what age of gamers has to do with it. I think, if anything, it's more to do with the age of the medium.

To me, what I'd like to see is not so much removing the numbers entirely but making them more like real life. Instead of a sword enchanted to +12 with a DS of 0.225, I'd like to see more realistic terms. Give the weight of the sword and make that directly related to the amount of damage it does. Make the shapness related to the amount that it can cause the target to bleed. The trick here is that there is no real measure for shapness, so in this case I think you would need a relative term to show the player instead of a hard number even if the sharpness is based on a number.

One possibility for sharpness is to have a standard cutting block where the strength of the sword is measured by how deep it can cut. By using this value and knowing the weight (the deapth comes from a combination of weight and sharpness) you can calculate the sharpness of the sword.

Another thing I'd like to see changed is if the oldest, strongest, highest trained character in all of the lands is sleeping on the ground without his armor on, a lowly rat CAN bite his neck and kill him... It drive me crazy in RPGs how importiant the level of the character is. In Gemstone, a train 10 character almost cannot be injured at all by a train 1 character no matter how stupid he is and no matter what the train 1 character does, the train 10 character will kill him. I'd rather see the character be given certian skills and if they don't use them correctly, they will not do very well.

What this allows for is when you have a group of ten characters fighting another group of ten characters the stratigy is somewhat more realistic. Instead of sending a single train 100 archer against 100 train 1 foot soldiers with tower shields (I mean really, if you can't seem 'em behind the shield how are you going to kill them?), you might send 10 spear welding characters against the soldiers to batter away the shields...

Again, I don't want to see numbers go away, I want to see RPGs become more realistic. Instead of depending on your level to allow you to defeat an opponent, I want to see players depending on tactics and a little bit on their skills. As they say, its not just the fighter, often its 90% luck, 9% equipment and 1% skill that allows someone to win.

Quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
Anyway, the problem is that changing the gameplay is something akin to switching from an action movie to a romantic comedy. I really don't think that'd go over too well.

If Will Wright's presentation of his Spore is any indication, this sort of gameplay was found refreshing, innovative and 'omg i can't wait to play it' ^^

(although now it sounds like i'd be trying to copy it... oh well :/

This discussion sparked up many different inside discussions and it seems that everyone wants to voice their opinion on them. Since we're killing this thread, shouldn't someone start other threads to continue the discussion on these more specific topics? With a brief summary of what was said here of course!