See-saw RPG?
Yes.
In these types of RPGs balance is needed.
A good example would be a moral system within a game.
If you are too bad then you could find yourself facing more enemies(for less benefits) and maybe erosion of items than you would like to.
If you are too good then you could find trouble leveling up and the storyline could pause.
This is just a moral system.
The focus is to create a balanced and all-around fun gameplay.
At the same time, fun if you choose to be extreme.
As the example with the moral system-
-A somewhat bad guy getting tons of items and experience
-A somewhat good guy not being faced with constant storyline continuations and can play at their speed
What do you think?
While you may think "ok video games always do this"
Not with a constant duo system.
That tracks your actions and switches the gameplay according to your extremes.
Most games- you have to trigger something to get things moving or get special items to make certain crazy stuff happen.
So is this a future?
Linear RPG? Sandbox RPG? See-Saw RPG?
Oh, heh, I thought this was going to be about the way some MMOs send you back and forth between a linear outer world with quests and monsters and a sandbox home where you can do sim activities like growing plants or training pets. I like games that encourage the player to alternate between two types of gameplay so they don't get bored and burnt out. But I don't really see the appeal of punishing a player for playing with a consistent style.
There is nothing wrong with having a system based on good/bad morals. IE, Ultima Online had Fame and Karma, Karma would be your "moral" see-saw that players could go up and down dependent on actions. Forcing certain things on a player, not so good though.
Aren't see-saw rpgs common in western rpgs? Maybe not exactly how you put it, but it's a common mechanic. I don't really like it all that much, unless you take a sort of Shin Megami Tensei approach to it, where the game branches near the end and the ending changes massively, that's how it could be interesting.
I think that if your character is bad, then he has to be BAAD, like, child killing bad. Or something.
I think that if your character is bad, then he has to be BAAD, like, child killing bad. Or something.
Author
There is nothing wrong with having a system based on good/bad morals. IE, Ultima Online had Fame and Karma, Karma would be your "moral" see-saw that players could go up and down dependent on actions. Forcing certain things on a player, not so good though.
I wasnt thinking of an MMO more of a JRPG.
I know forcing certain actions isnt good but it was more of an example.
The game kinda morphs itself on what you spend most of your work in.
Author
Aren't see-saw rpgs common in western rpgs? Maybe not exactly how you put it, but it's a common mechanic. I don't really like it all that much, unless you take a sort of Shin Megami Tensei approach to it, where the game branches near the end and the ending changes massively, that's how it could be interesting.
I think that if your character is bad, then he has to be BAAD, like, child killing bad. Or something.
Actually your actions would increase to that point. You kinda start out in the middle.
Staying in the middle(or near it), you benefit the most from the game than extreme gameplay in one area.
I actually thought the whole game would be like this.
Very non-linear with a free-for-all/whatever-you-want sandbox approach.
Like I said in another reply.
The game morphs with your repetitive actions and alters difficulty.
I guess a better example would be between: Battles, NPC interaction, storyline, quests, item collection/creation, & minigames.
I understand. You gotta weight the benefits ot that against time spent and resources, though.
Why would the story line stop if you play as good player? That makes very little sense. That's just forcing people to play as a bad character. And why would there be more enemies if you bad? Are there no bad enemies in the game or something? There should be differences in play style, but they should be subtle
Author
Why would the story line stop if you play as good player? That makes very little sense. That's just forcing people to play as a bad character. And why would there be more enemies if you bad? Are there no bad enemies in the game or something? There should be differences in play style, but they should be subtle
It was an example.
However if I used a moral system, you would go either way.
If you kill too many enemies in a short time- the game will react to that.
If you do too many NPC quests in a short time- the game will react to that.
Its a design idea that in some ways control the player.
However each extreme will also be enjoyable if the player so chooses.
Modern games may react to that, altough without paying attention to that you might not notice at all. Oblivion had that most likelly, when you "by accident" overhear some people talking about a quest. Games are much more sophisticated than a player may think -- what happens under the hood, I found out, is quite baffling. It not so much as controls the player, but throws new challenges and stimulation at him, which is good.
A player does not want to be controlled -- that is why callig a game linear isn't a good thing. That is why we have sandboxes and games that don't have any story, but are fun to screw around with.
A player does not want to be controlled -- that is why callig a game linear isn't a good thing. That is why we have sandboxes and games that don't have any story, but are fun to screw around with.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
