• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

Towns in an "Adventuring" Game

This topic is 1079 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

My current project centres around the part of an adventurer or wandering hero, with the meat of the game resting in the levels, which are explored in first-person, with challenges including traversal (leaping gaps, finding routes, etc.), puzzles, and a bit of combat. Levels are connected by an "overworld" of sorts, which takes the form of a Myst-like panoramic view with hot-spots for levels, other overworld nodes, and so on. As part of the experience I intend to allow the player to visit towns and cities, in which they might gather information, buy supplies, and perhaps even find one or two small "levels" to explore.

 

The question, then, is that of how I implement my towns and cities.

 

Ideally, I would like to convey the sense of being in a new town or city while travelling: at first the place is unfamiliar and strange, but one can ask directions to find places of interest. If one hangs around for long enough, the city may start to become a bit more familiar, and places visited often become easy to find. However, if this is infeasible within my parameters, I'm willing to scale down or set it aside.

 

As towns are not part of the "meat" of the game I don't want to invest too heavily in them; for one thing, I don't intend to represent them in full 3D, as I do the levels.

 

At the moment I have two main ideas:

 

1) Towns are represented by static screens with hot-spots, one for each location of interest. This should be fairly easy to make, but seems rather limited.

 

2) Similar to the above, but with rather more screens, including unimportant locations, and thus allowing for some degree of exploration. The resource-cost of this could be reduced by employing reusable images for common elements (such as houses)--but it could still be rather resource-expensive for the likely result achieved. Additionally, I'm concerned that players might find the static screens somewhat counter-intuitive to navigate, beyond simply being unfamiliar with a given town.

 

In both cases new locations can be discovered by asking passers-by for directions.

 

Finally, I could use a simple map-representation, with icons appearing on the map to indicate new areas. I don't find this to be a terribly satisfying idea for this game, however.

 

(I would rather not represent my towns via panoramas, as used in the overworld: I'm concerned about the resource-cost of having too many such panoramas, and I feel intuitively that it's worth differentiating the towns from the overworld.)

 

So, does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Maybe the town could be like a series of those dumb hidden object games. It could be like an image of the main street, and when you hover your mouse over the main buildings, they light up so you can easily see what shops are available to you. But if you pay a little more attention, you may find that there's an alley you can go down, leading to the thieves guild or whatever. Or maybe you find a tiny little gem or quest item that was hidden.

 

 

While I generally have no respect for hidden object games, that could be a pretty fun mini game for a town, allowing simple shopping for any player, and extra quests or whatever for people that choose to explore. Interactions with different characters might be another way to unlock different areas in the town, so you have more access to the town, the more you do there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Finally, I could use a simple map-representation, with icons appearing on the map to indicate new areas. I don't find this to be a terribly satisfying idea for this game, however.

Combining this with static screenshots could work, especially if you used a layered approach with points of interest at front and fillers at the background.

 

Example.

The player is in town and a map appears, thy can now select a point of interest. Pub, Market, Temple and Barracks these are clearly displayed so the player know thy can interact with them.

The player selects Market.

 

Now in front of the player is a screen shot of a bazaar like market, this tells the player that in this town there is no order among the merchants.

The player can now select a merchant, these are more screenshots layered over the others. Other layer things can be used like people walking around, birds, flowers waving in the wind and any other thing that moves.

 

When the player selects the merchant a easy to use buy and sell menu pops up. Keeping the menus simple will allow players to quickly do what thy want allowing them to spend more time taking in the background.

 

With this kind of town you can reveal small things to players through the images, allow players to see for them self what is happening. A town is about to be attacked, no one is roaming the streets, unattended window shutters bang against buildings in the background and only a few merchants are around.

 

 

Pre-rendered backgrounds used to be popular you should be able to learn useful tricks from older games.

 

Is this a linear or open world like game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the town could be like a series of those dumb hidden object games.

... Not the most enticing start to a suggestion... tongue.png
 

It could be like an image of the main street, and when you hover your mouse over the main buildings, they light up so you can easily see what shops are available to you. But if you pay a little more attention, you may find that there's an alley you can go down, leading to the thieves guild or whatever. Or maybe you find a tiny little gem or quest item that was hidden.

Ah, I think that I see what you mean; to be honest, this reads rather like my first "main idea" above: sparse static screens with hotspots, albeit with the addition of "hidden" hot-spots (which is worth considering...)
 

 

Finally, I could use a simple map-representation, with icons appearing on the map to indicate new areas. I don't find this to be a terribly satisfying idea for this game, however.

Combining this with static screenshots could work, especially if you used a layered approach with points of interest at front and fillers at the background.
 
...

 

Hmm... I like this idea, but I'm still not entirely happy about the map: it's not as immersive as I'd like, and, more concerning to me, I worry that it will feel a little odd to move from first-person levels and a more-or-less first-person panoramic "overworld" to city gameplay that centres around a top-down map.
 

... a bazaar like market ...

This, by the way, is an idea that I want to keep in mind. happy.png
 

When the player selects the merchant a easy to use buy and sell menu pops up. Keeping the menus simple will allow players to quickly do what thy want allowing them to spend more time taking in the background.

Actually, I think that I can do one better: This game isn't an RPG, and so the player isn't expected to buy five weapons, three suits of plate armour, several scrolls, dozens of potions and a handful of wands. Instead, merchants might provide items of more specific use, whether plot-related, alternate solutions to puzzles, or whatever. (In short, think of a merchant in a gamebook, selling you items that may or may not be of use in your adventure.) As a result, objects for sale might be placed directly in the player's view of the shop, where the player might simply click on them to buy. Similarly, since I don't intend to give the player lots of vendor trash to flog off, when selling is called for it might be little more complex than selecting an item from the inventory and clicking on the relevant merchant--which might make use of some of the exant gameplay code.
 

Is this a linear or open world like game?

No. tongue.png
 
To answer more seriously: The immediate project is intended to be quite short, and thus perforce somewhat linear. However, I also have in mind potential subsequent projects, at least one of which would lie somewhere between "linear" and "open-world", lacking the enormous directionless traversal of a true sandbox, but with less railroading than a linear game: not all levels would be necessary, and the player might visit in arbitrary order (and indeed may well not discover all).

 

For now, however, it's perhaps wiser to design for the shorter, fairly linear game, as that's the most immediate concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


As a result, objects for sale might be placed directly in the player's view of the shop, where the player might simply click on them to buy.

I personally like this in games, it keeps things clean and easy.

 

If you plan on a short linear game, you could give it a popup book feel. This will help players accept strange things without breaking immersion, although it will spoil any seriousness of the game.

The only real advice I can give on a game like this is keep your text short and informative, having to read long text in this kind of game can really aggravate players.

 


The resource-cost of this could be reduced by employing reusable images for common elements (such as houses)--but it could still be rather resource-expensive for the likely result achieved.

Strange I wouldn't think a game like this is resource expensive, what game engine are you using for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1) Towns are represented by static screens with hot-spots, one for each location of interest. This should be fairly easy to make, but seems rather limited.
Sounds perfect to me. I would not spend time on features that are not important anyway (players won't care and you would invest a lot of effort on pretty useless stuff).

 

BTW, if you are an indie/solo you should cut on everything you can. In the end it makes your game better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds nice. Show some scetches if have smt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I personally like this in games, it keeps things clean and easy.

That's encouraging to read; thank you. ^_^

 


If you plan on a short linear game, you could give it a popup book feel. This will help players accept strange things without breaking immersion, although it will spoil any seriousness of the game.

I'm really not going for a cartoony feel with this; I don't think that it would suit what I have in mind.

 

It is an interesting idea, I will admit. ^_^

 


The only real advice I can give on a game like this is keep your text short and informative, having to read long text in this kind of game can really aggravate players.

Honestly, I'm not sure that I entirely agree: well-written, interesting text can really improve a game, such as by supporting the tone of the experience, I feel.

 

The best comparison that I have for the flow and feel that I have in mind for this game is, again, gamebooks. (This is not a coincidence: gamebooks, and especially the Fighting Fantasy series, were a significant inspiration for this project, as I recall.) This isn't a straight action game (indeed, combat encounters will likely be rather fewer than in most action games), nor is it a straight adventure game. That doesn't mean that I intend to outright describe each scene--this is a visual medium, after all--but rather that I feel that a degree of writing beyond "just the facts" might be called for.

 

(It might be worth mentioning that two of my favourite genres are adventure and RPG, genres noted for their writing.)

 


Strange I wouldn't think a game like this is resource expensive, what game engine are you using for it?

Oh, sorry, I perhaps didn't word that very clearly! ^^;

 

I don't mean that it would likely be expensive in terms of computer resources, but rather in terms of my resources: time, content-creation, etc. I'm already investing in 3D levels, so I'm concerned about over-extending myself in other parts of the game.

 


Sounds perfect to me. I would not spend time on features that are not important anyway (players won't care and you would invest a lot of effort on pretty useless stuff).

Hmm... You do make a good point--although the towns aren't useless, I don't think, and the experience of being lost in a new town is something that may be worth expressing, even if it doesn't serve the mechanics of the 3D levels, I do feel. Atmosphere and immersion are important, I think. That said, that experience of being in a new town while travelling is something that I'm willing to cut back on, if I don't find a good way of expressing it within my means.

 


BTW, if you are an indie/solo you should cut on everything you can. In the end it makes your game better.

I only half agree with this--depending, admittedly, on what you mean by "everything you can". I could cut pretty much all of the project, leaving it as something like a visual novel, but that makes no sense and I doubt that this is what you mean: I presume that you're recommending cutting elements that aren't important to the project. So, what can I cut? Which bits are fat to be trimmed?

 

I could cut my overworld, replacing it with a simple menu, but I suspect that I would lose immersion and atmosphere; I could cut my towns entirely, but would likely lose some depth, not to mention flavour; I could cut the puzzles from this game, but again, I would likely lose depth. Any of these losses results in a lesser game, I feel.

 

That said, I do think that--especially as a solo indie developer--it's worth keeping in mind one's available resources when selecting a game idea, and trying to work within one's means (hence, in this case, my selecting this shorter, fairly linear project to start with). Additionally, I think that it's worth having some idea of what one is willing to cut in a given game, and what compromises are acceptable. I do very much think that it's worth being very wary of letting a project become too large.

 

And I have cut back--for example, my earlier ideas for the "overworld" were rather more expansive.

 


Sounds nice. Show some scetches if have smt!

I don't have sketches of the town mechanic at the moment, I'm afraid--in part, I suppose, because I haven't yet settled on what mechanic that is! I am in the process of putting together a prototype of the game, including a few levels, an overworld hub, and a town, however, which I hope at some stage to post in this sub-forum for comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


and the experience of being lost in a new town is something that may be worth expressing
Nope. Dungeons are the places where you can be lost, towns are to buy healing potions and you don't want to get lost there :)

 

If you are to make "lost in town" then obviously you should move towns to standard level (town being just another location it just won't have a ceiling). That would be a consistent approach.

 


I could cut my overworld, replacing it with a simple menu
That was my first idea :) Some nice menu to buy potion, buy equipment, talk with an NPC to move forward the story. Come on, does longish walking around town to reach the only destination you care about (potion shop) sounds fun? Leave these overbloated & boring things to AAA studios...

 


I could cut pretty much all of the project, leaving it as something like a visual novel
Why not? If the core gameplay and fun can be conveyed in a form of a visual novel then by all means you should try it...

 

To clarify, I'm not talking only, not even primarily, about your dev resources or the project becoming too large. The game would be simply better if you get rid of all the bloat. Trust me :) I have cut the fat in my games many times and it NEVER made the game less fun (usually it was opposite). And yeah, simetimes I even end up removing features that work and are playable (not to mkae the game simplier, to make the game better). And my worst games are those where I forgot to cut the fat or was too merciful :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we have very different tastes in games, and very different ideas of what this game is. ^^;

 


Nope. Dungeons are the places where you can be lost, towns are to buy healing potions and you don't want to get lost there smile.png



If you are to make "lost in town" then obviously you should move towns to standard level (town being just another location it just won't have a ceiling). That would be a consistent approach.

Why need there be only one place, or one way, to get lost? The experience of being lost in a new town seems to me at least a little different to that of being lost in an ancient crypt or ruined city.

 

As to portraying towns as I do my standard levels, I have considered that, but full-3D levels are somewhat resource-intensive, I fear.

 


That was my first idea ...

But is that really worth the loss of immersion and atmosphere? It doesn't seem so to me.

 


Some nice menu to buy potion, buy equipment ...

Remember, this isn't an RPG: the player doesn't buy new armour, or twenty potions of healing. There is exactly one point at which a new weapon is acquired, and that's plot-related and done in a level, as I currently envision it. There isn't likely to be a potion shop in each town, and if there is one then the potions available to buy are likely to be plot- or puzzle- related than mana, barkskin and stamina potions.

 


Come on, does longish walking around town to reach the only destination you care about (potion shop) sounds fun?

Have been travelling, yes, it does.

 

The idea is less to have the player trudge around pointless scenes, but rather to convey that feeling of being in a new city: you don't know where things are, but you can find out. Everything is new, each place a little discovery. Little by little you get to know the place, and how to get around easily.

 


Why not? If the core gameplay and fun can be conveyed in a form of a visual novel then by all means you should try it...

I wasn't suggesting that they could be expressed that way, but rather that it's possible to cut an element regardless of whether it's important or not.

 

For example, let's step away from this specific game for a moment. Let's say that I was designing a first-person shooter, with procedural levels, various enemies, several weapons, etc. That's the core of the game.

 

Now, I could cut the shooting, and just let the player walk around. I could cut the procedural levels, and have the player walk around the same levels each time. I could cut the enemies, leaving nothing to challenge the player. The player would then walk from level-start to level-end, and then repeat until there were no more levels. (Of course, there might be a story to save the experience--but I could cut that, too...)

 

In short, the fact that it's possible to cut something doesn't mean that it's advisable.

 

I do very much think that it's possible to oversimplify.

 


The game would be simply better if you get rid of all the bloat.

But as I said, which bits are bloat?

 

One thing that occurs to me is that supporting mechanics can very much help to build of the "feel" of a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm not sure that I entirely agree: well-written, interesting text can really improve a game, such as by supporting the tone of the experience, I feel.

 

The best comparison that I have for the flow and feel that I have in mind for this game is, again, gamebooks. (This is not a coincidence: gamebooks, and especially the Fighting Fantasy series, were a significant inspiration for this project, as I recall.) This isn't a straight action game (indeed, combat encounters will likely be rather fewer than in most action games), nor is it a straight adventure game. That doesn't mean that I intend to outright describe each scene--this is a visual medium, after all--but rather that I feel that a degree of writing beyond "just the facts" might be called for.

 

(It might be worth mentioning that two of my favourite genres are adventure and RPG, genres noted for their writing.)

 

Yeah, I'm not even a fan of the sword-n-sorcery genre, but I really enjoy the writing in the Sorcery! gamebooks.  It just nails that tone so confidently that I get swept up in it.  

 

It's not even that I care what happens to the protagonist or whether he finds the magic MacGuffin at the end, it's just refreshing reading game writing that knows what it's trying to be, without compromising.  It's like, there was no point in those books/games where the author went, "Oh, no, maybe I'm not a very good writer, and what if the reader thinks this is too nerdy, maybe I should nervously break the fourth wall to say LOL GAMES AMIRITE and make a pop-culture reference?"  Nope, it's all "We're doing some Crom-damned sword-n-sorcery here and we're doing it 100%."

 

Anyway, that aside, but still thinking of text... what about implementing cities as scrolling/panning scenes, sort of like an overworld node, but making the scrolling/panning/zooming automatic based on the player's interaction with the words/options in the text?  So say they walk into the city, and they see the city scene, and at the left there's the text description and maybe four options of things to do.  You don't move around the scene yourself, but when you hover over an option, it pans and zooms to the relevant part of the scene.  (Like if you're considering visiting the shopkeeper, it zooms to make the shop the center of your vision.)

 

I mention this because it makes for an interesting contrast with non-city overworld nodes.  Out in the country, your interaction of the world is visual and experiential, and you can view, interact, and move more freely.  In the city, your interaction of the world is mediated by words, names and concepts, and your choices of what to do are constrained by what is conventional (visit markets, taverns, temples, etc.).  Replicating this dichotomy in the interface would be interesting: if in the country you literally interact with objects and places, while in cities you interact with the words for objects and places.

 

(It'd also be neat if, as you got further from your home culture, the words in cities start to become stranger.  (Like the market starts out as a market, but in further places it's a bazaar, and even further it's a souq.  Eventually it becomes second nature to go to the souq, but when you first get to the city it'd be disorienting, since words are your way of getting around.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... but I really enjoy the writing in the Sorcery! gamebooks.

Ironically, Sorcery! is one part of the series that I never really got to, aside from watching a Let's Play of the tablet version.

Speaking of which, I rather liked what they did with that adaptation: the base "choose an option" gameplay seems to have been translated well, the interface is pretty, there's a decent little spell system (with an appropriate and eye-pleasing interface), and the combat manages to do away with the dice-based combat of the books while nevertheless seeming appropriate to Fighting Fantasy, especially in including text to some degree, if I'm not much mistaken. It's not what I'm going for here, but I do think that it was well done.
 

... what about implementing cities as scrolling/panning scenes, sort of like an overworld node, but making the scrolling/panning/zooming automatic based on the player's interaction with the words/options in the text?

Hmm... That's an interesting idea, and the dichotomy that you describe is an interesting one. I'm not yet sure of how I feel about it as a mechanic for this specific game, but I do mean to think on it further. Thank you! happy.png
 

(It'd also be neat if, as you got further from your home culture, the words in cities start to become stranger. (Like the market starts out as a market, but in further places it's a bazaar, and even further it's a souq. Eventually it becomes second nature to go to the souq, but when you first get to the city it'd be disorienting, since words are your way of getting around.)

Hmm... I don't think that this game is likely to be long enough to support that, but it is a very interesting idea. I may well keep it in mind for a potential future game--thank you again! happy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I do very much think that it's possible to oversimplify.
The danger of undersimplifying is much more serious :)

 


But as I said, which bits are bloat?
I have a trick for it. I give myself unrealistic/difficult deadlines, then one day (in the middle of my time budget usually) I start to panic and look franticly what I can cut down. So far it ALWAYS resulted in a better game. The thing I decided to remove in my panic mode (usually combined with redesign) always, always was the thing that was not needed and was making the game less fun (which is kind of logical, in panic mode you stop thinking about your ego, plans, ambitions, etc and start thinking in terms "what part players will find the least fun and forgive me to remove", so the most ugly, unneeded, lame, funbreaking feature is out :D) It's sooo refreshing for the rest of the game!

 

Of course it might be just me (but I doubt).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The danger of undersimplifying is much more serious smile.png

I'm not convinced, honestly. Either could result in a worse game, oversimplification by removing elements that improved the game, and undersimplification by leaving in elements that are holding it back. Which is more likely may well vary from person to person.

 

I give myself unrealistic/difficult deadlines, then one day (in the middle of my time budget usually) I start to panic and look franticly what I can cut down. So far it ALWAYS resulted in a better game. The thing I decided to remove in my panic mode (usually combined with redesign) always, always was the thing that was not needed and was making the game less fun (which is kind of logical, in panic mode you stop thinking about your ego, plans, ambitions, etc and start thinking in terms "what part players will find the least fun and forgive me to remove", so the most ugly, unneeded, lame, funbreaking feature is out biggrin.png) It's sooo refreshing for the rest of the game!

The thing is, I have an analogy in short-term game competitions (like the "Week of Awesome" competition that we had here a little while ago): as in your suggestion, such competitions provide rather limited time in which to make design decisions, and can thus produce the sort of hasty decisions that you recommend.
 
In short, I seem to seldom do well in them, and tend to do rather less well than I expect.
 
For example, in the last Week of Awesome competition, I seem to recall that I cut several elements, including additional enemies, items and room types (any of which might have improved the game, I suspect). One thing that I didn't cut, however, was the combat, and that seems to have been an element that rather dragged my game down in the judging. Combat was never meant to be the player's primary means of dealing with enemies, and with the benefit of hindsight I think that I might have been better served by not including it at all. But, making decisions under pressure in the thick of the contest, I chose poorly and left it in.

Even then, in the midst of the competition I honestly thought that I had something decent in my entry and expected to get a rather better score than I did. (I didn't manage to get a prototype out for testing, so I didn't get feedback to tell me otherwise.)

 

Haste doesn't work for me, I fear.

(After the last Week of Awesome I made a (soft) decision to stay away from such competitions.)

Admittedly, my experience of such competitions is probably not helped by the fact that very simple games (such as seem to often be entered in such competitions due to the time constraints) seem to seldom hold my interest as a developer for very long: I become bored of them, I find.
 

... which is kind of logical, in panic mode you stop thinking about your ego, plans, ambitions, etc and start thinking in terms "what part players will find the least fun and forgive me to remove" ...

I'm not sure that I respond in the same way.
 

 

... what about implementing cities as scrolling/panning scenes, sort of like an overworld node, but making the scrolling/panning/zooming automatic based on the player's interaction with the words/options in the text?

Hmm... That's an interesting idea, and the dichotomy that you describe is an interesting one. I'm not yet sure of how I feel about it as a mechanic for this specific game, but I do mean to think on it further. Thank you! happy.png

 

Thinking about this more, I realised that I actually have some word-focussed puzzles in mind for my levels. While it's possible that two of the three that I have in mind won't make it into the final game (although they're used in my test-levels), the third likely will be, and it's possible that more will turn up. As a result, I'm not sure that the dichotomy that you describe is actually all that strong in my game.

 

[edit]

 

I am, admittedly, toying with the idea of cutting towns entirely, especially as they may have been more important to the larger game that I was originally making (and still have in mind as a potential future game), and of which they are a vestige, than to this shorter, more linear game. But making that decision would, I think, call for sitting down and plotting out my game's narrative in a little more detail than I have thus far in order to determine how much of consequence happens in a town, and how much of that could be stuck into a cutscene...

 

For the moment I'm leaning towards the option that I labelled (1) in my first post above: sparse static scenes with hot-spots.

Edited by Thaumaturge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


For example, in the last Week of Awesome competition, I seem to recall that I cut several elements, including additional enemies, items and room types (any of which might have improved the game, I suspect). One thing that I didn't cut, however, was the combat, and that seems to have been an element that rather dragged my game down in the judging. Combat was never meant to be the player's primary means of dealing with enemies, and with the benefit of hindsight I think that I might have been better served by not including it at all. But, making decisions under pressure in the thick of the contest, I chose poorly and left it in.

Even then, in the midst of the competition I honestly thought that I had something decent in my entry and expected to get a rather better score than I did. (I didn't manage to get a prototype out for testing, so I didn't get feedback to tell me otherwise.)

Haste doesn't work for me, I fear.
I was thinking about timescale like 3-9 months :) Not one week...

Plus, a competition is not the same type of pressure. Did you call your gaming friends for emergency ideas? Asked your family members how to solve some mechanic? You don't make such things (wasting other people's time) when you merely make a game for a competition. It's not the kind of stake we talk about (for example when I fail to make a decent game I have no tasty food for breakfast :D and believe me, this changes how you approach game dev :))

 

Anyway, I don't want to drag this "discussion" too long since I kind of went off topic. Just to finish, I would suggest you start with a generic topic about your game (not only design but also your schedule, marketing plan, etc). These help overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, Acharis, I think that our minds simply work differently.
 
Please don't think that I don't appreciate your advice--I do, indeed thank you for it--but I suspect that we simply differ in these matters. (It is, of course, possible that I'm wrong.)
 
Simply put, what works for you won't necessarily work for me, and vice versa. (That's not to say that I'm claiming some great uniqueness, but rather that different minds may work in different ways, and that what aids one might disadvantage another, and vice versa.)
 

Did you call your gaming friends for emergency ideas? Asked your family members how to solve some mechanic?

I'm not sure that I'm likely to do either; I think that I'd more likely post either here or on another forum if I had a game-design issue that I wanted advice on.
 
I'm more likely to ask friends and family members for player feedback or advice on non-game-design issues (such as mathematical difficulties).
 

Just to finish, I would suggest you start with a generic topic about your game (not only design but also your schedule, marketing plan, etc). These help overall.

That's... somewhat antithetical to the way that I do things, to be honest. ^^;
 
(For one thing, I don't like setting a concrete schedule. I do have some ideas regarding marketing, but it seems to me to be far too early to set anything in stone.)
 
However, as I posted above, I am working my way towards putting together a test-scenario--it doesn't use the plot of my game, and there are a few elements that remain from the original design and that likely won't be in this shorter game, but it should allow me to get some general feedback.
 
(Indeed, it was coming to build the town for my test scenario that prompted me to realise that I hadn't settled on that matter, and thus to post this thread, as I recall.) Edited by Thaumaturge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement