Exploration Games
Author
My current XNA Project is called Tribute and is a tribute to all the good platform games of the 90's, but with a touch of my personal design.
The game that has inspired me the most for this project is the best platform game ever, all times: Super Metroid with its superb atmosphere, abundance of secrets and hidden passages, slim controls and excellent music is a milestone of platform/action/exploration games and has not yet been surpassed.
Another game that has inspired me for this project is the Castlevania of the late 90's and the eary 00's: Symphony of the Moon and the GBA/NDS counterparts.
As most of us know, these games are more focused on action rather than exploration, even though some exploration is required to collect items that are required to proceed in the game, but I rather explore more and kill less.
My question is as followed: Do I really need to kill stuff to make the game appealing to the big mass? My hopes are that the exploring alone will keep the gamer interested to keep on going.
Alone In The Dark : A lot of exploration, some killing but all were different.
Myst : pure exploration.
Prince of Persia I : Low on killing, heavy on exploration.
Sometimes, killing (or neutralizing) an opponent is a puzzle in itself. It can use the environment as a tool and require a heavy amount of exploration.
Myst : pure exploration.
Prince of Persia I : Low on killing, heavy on exploration.
Sometimes, killing (or neutralizing) an opponent is a puzzle in itself. It can use the environment as a tool and require a heavy amount of exploration.
Author
Indeed, there are some games that relies heavy on exploration, but iirc, Alone In the Dark had a really small world with loads of puzzles and stuff. AItD is still classified as a "Action/Adventure" game while Myst is as you said a pure "Interactive, Non-Realtime" Puzzle game.
You could say that PoP (The first games) is something that I'm trying to achieve, but instead of running in a castle, you are free to roam the land.
You could say that PoP (The first games) is something that I'm trying to achieve, but instead of running in a castle, you are free to roam the land.
A Good mix of the two was Hitman 3. With stealth, planning and exploration you could complete every level by only killing your target.
Or if you wanted you could gun down everyone you saw.
Or if you wanted you could gun down everyone you saw.
Author
Quote:Original post by Delphinus
Try Knytt. It's based completely on exploration with a very limited set of abilities.
Yes, I have tried that little wonderful piece of game and that is essentially what I want to create, except for the sake of a complete ripoff.
Another question I've been searching for answers to is wether to implement death in the game. In my opinion, death is the ultimate way to punish a player that happens performs the wrong action at a certain time.
If there are no (or a very few) enemies in the world, what could possible kill the player? He or she can jump/fall to death and be killed by traps but nothing else. If the only way to die is by instant-death, there's no real need for a healtbar and with no need for a healthbar, we are in no need of an OSD, which is good.
Ironically, it sounds very close to what I want to create as my first fully-produced game. Personally, I'd refute death in all its forms as part of an exploration game - it's unnecessary and distracting for the player. Traps should be obvious to the experienced player, and set the player back only a little. Knytt does this with its random holes in the floor, though it also implements death in a more traditional way. Death would ordinarily be a setback - so create non-deadly traps that set the player back just as much. Why we require death as a failure condition is beyond me.
For achieving challenges in my game, I reward boosts to the abilities required to reach that goal. My reasoning was that players will automatically engage with that which interests them most, and that rewarding them with abilities to further grow in this area is only a good thing. Provided that a suitable number of challenges are made to each ability in various stages, the player will have at least as much playtime clocked as it takes for them to achieve maximum capabilities in the skill they're most interested in.
I also provided focus on the storyline and background to the game - essentially, the rewards for achieving are discovering more about the game world. Through carvings, writing, and the general terrain, I'm attempting to create a game where the aim is to find out the history of the region - like an archeologist. Moreover, the main character's backstory is tied into the region's. At maximum abilities, the main character can head to the huge temple in the centre of the game world for the conclusion to the game.
For achieving challenges in my game, I reward boosts to the abilities required to reach that goal. My reasoning was that players will automatically engage with that which interests them most, and that rewarding them with abilities to further grow in this area is only a good thing. Provided that a suitable number of challenges are made to each ability in various stages, the player will have at least as much playtime clocked as it takes for them to achieve maximum capabilities in the skill they're most interested in.
I also provided focus on the storyline and background to the game - essentially, the rewards for achieving are discovering more about the game world. Through carvings, writing, and the general terrain, I'm attempting to create a game where the aim is to find out the history of the region - like an archeologist. Moreover, the main character's backstory is tied into the region's. At maximum abilities, the main character can head to the huge temple in the centre of the game world for the conclusion to the game.
Author
Quote:Original post by Delphinus
// .. //
I also provided focus on the storyline and background to the game - essentially, the rewards for achieving are discovering more about the game world. Through carvings, writing, and the general terrain, I'm attempting to create a game where the aim is to find out the history of the region - like an archeologist. Moreover, the main character's backstory is tied into the region's. At maximum abilities, the main character can head to the huge temple in the centre of the game world for the conclusion to the game.
Interesting. I've also planned to reward the player with new "findings" about the world like you mention. A simple reward for climbing a certain mountain can be the revealing of a church or any other religious building/symbol. Even though the player seems to be alone in the world, I want to have a dynamic world that can change depending on when and how the player visits a certain zone.
The second time the player visits the religious building/symbol, it might have been desecrated or perhaps.. traces of ghosts or something like that. Time and space will be of great significance in my to-be game
I just downloaded Knytt, a really interesting piece of programming, but, therein lies the problem. Yes, I found it fun and it was certainly well created but I define a game as being engaging and it just seemed to be lacking a certain level of interaction that would keep me hooked. I'm not sure what that level is though and I'm not suggesting it has to be combat but, whilst, I enjoyed the graphics and ambiance there was nothing that really made me feel part of the action and I quickly got bored of simply exploring the land. Maybe its just me though and that the level of abstraction actually went over my head rather than under it.
I used to enjoy playing Starquake (thats going back a long time, eons in computer gaming) which is essentially the same formula but with combat as well.
I used to enjoy playing Starquake (thats going back a long time, eons in computer gaming) which is essentially the same formula but with combat as well.
You might want to check out Within a Deep Forest (another Nifflas game), which is similarly exploration-oriented. It deals with death by including very frequent checkpoints, to the extent that basically each jumping puzzle has a checkpoint right before it. This lets you punish the player for making mistakes without adding tedium.
Personally, I would recommend that the world the player is exploring have life; the life just need not be hostile. Insects buzzing around, fish in the ocean, little hopping things on the ground, all just there for flavor. If you're making an exploration-based game, then there needs to be an incentive for exploration, and little bits of flavor count for a lot.
Personally, I would recommend that the world the player is exploring have life; the life just need not be hostile. Insects buzzing around, fish in the ocean, little hopping things on the ground, all just there for flavor. If you're making an exploration-based game, then there needs to be an incentive for exploration, and little bits of flavor count for a lot.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
