Space emperor (the player) and noble houses (AI)

Recommended Posts

This topic is to gather various somewhat related ideas, so feel free to go offtopic :) I don't have a specific question, I just wanted to discuss something along the lines described below.


The player is the emperor (4X game), there are noble houses (3-8 of those, all AI controlled) and traditional aliens (AI controlled). I'm looking for a mechanic where the player wants to support noble houses (friendly AI) because he needs them (what for?) but not too much because if the noble houses become too powerfull they might want to overthrow the emperor (or do other nasty stuff). Also the player needs to keep in check alien powers (hostile AI), possibly using noble houses for this purpose (but not necessarily).

So, basically it's a single player game where you deal with various AIs (which range between friendly and hostile).


Especially I'm interested in:

- what's the source of political power of noble houses?

- do noble houses have an army? or only the empire has it?

- who controls the army/fleet? the player (emperor) or the AI (noble houses)? Or maybe a mix (like the player gives generic orders and the AI executes it, unless it does not feels like it and want to oppose the emeperor :D)

- what's the economic base of the houses (possibly charters to planets granted by the emperor?)

- I feel noble houses should somehow be a political elite of the empire (admirals? advisors?)

- why the player needs the noble houses?

- why the player does not want the noble houses to be too powerful?

- why the player wants the noble houses to be content?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - I think it depends on how empire is organized. If there are noble houses, they're expected to have some authority over some territory imo. And mere nobility is enough source of power :)

2 - Again it depends, noble houses have army in Game of Thrones :D , I think it's a bit work but logical to implement a mechanic with benefits and consequences of keeping power in one hand or distributing it :)

3 - It should be emperor commanding, noble houses might fight for getting office in army and senate (if any) like Rome

4 - Vast estates and trade privileges might be a good idea.

5 - Like houses fight for offices in Rome Total War, they should fight for political power for their own agenda

6 - Player might need noble houses in order to be able to govern a vast empire from single throne ( or may not as Ottoman empire didn't :) )

7 - It actually depends on the way mechanic works. If emperor comes from a noble house, it's obvious that Emperor prefers own house to be powerful but if it's directly hereditary , an overpowerful house may try to seize power

8 - An internal conflict between houses might cripple Empire and force Emperor to take a side which might have other consequences


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The houses may have influence in various sections of the empire (ministries?), especially without 1-1 relationship. I mean single house can have different influence in say... research, military and espionage. If you support a house it gains the influence in existing and new sections.

Now, if player wants to make decision "not in line" with influential house (i.e. cut all research funds in favour of army) then the research ministry will object and it won't happen. It may serve as a little hand holding at start for the player to not do anything stupid :). But if he supports the house so it "likes" him they can agree to that decision.

That way if player wants to explore more extreme path of the empire he will have to gain support of some of the houses to be able to make the decisions.

And I agree supporting single house should be stupid idea as too powerful one would end emperor's career.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how I might approach it: The noble houses rule baronies of planets. The emperor is the political leader of the empire, but lacks direct authority: he requests fleets, taxes, etc. from the nobility and they provide it (or don't).

The barons are mostly in competition with each other: they view themselves as the true source of power in the empire. They covet each other's planets and nurse secret ambitions to raise a large enough fleet to seize control over the entire empire.

As the emperor, you have a certain amount of discretion in doling out power. Newly settled or conquered planets must be granted to the barons. Internal migration and trade rules shift economic power. If you build a new spacestation the baron controlling it is strengthened. If a baron acts against your wishes (or more importantly, against the wishes of his fellow barons) you can punish him, giving away planets.

Possibly you can play the whole game this way, making sure no baron gets strong enough to seize control while keeping them happy enough to not just kick you off the throne. But more likely you'll want to strengthen your tenuous source of power. As you have successes, you can increase the imperial authority. First you might make military requisitions mandatory. Then you form an imperial fleet directly in your control. Eventually you claim direct authority over the fleet. You claim a capital planet in your control, then a whole imperial barony. If you act too rashly the barons will dipose you, but by keeping them focused on each other and slowly gaining power you can eventually abolish them and take sole control.

From a gameplay perspective, this also provides a natural feature gating mechanism. At the start the barons are powerful so you have limited tools at your disposal. By taking a power (I get to appoint the high admirals) you unlock a new mechanic, hopefully having figured out the basic ones by now.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A space empire lends itself very naturally to a feudal hierarchy: central government, star systems (almost isolated from each other), planets and asteroids in a star system, separate colonies or nations on the same planet.

As Polama suggests, federal bureaucracies are the natural "enemy" of feudal power, and they are supposed to be on the emperor's side; however, they might be defeated or intimidated or subverted. To avoid civil war, the feudal powers could be purposefully crushed by difficult tasks (e.g. defend your piece of the frontier from aliens) and competing for limited resources rather than directly conflicting with each other.

Also, the purpose of the emperor should be to remain in power and make the empire prosper, not necessarily to replace an explicit and healthy feudal organization with secret influences and plots to control bureaucratic organizations.

Depending on how the empire forms, the "nobles" might be:

  • recently appointed by the emperor, and possibly temporary (e.g. a military governor)
  • leaders (or more impersonal governments) of politically united planets or systems that join a federation and retain autonomy,
  • also, leaders of megacorps, crime syndicates, political parties etc.
  • various organizations that have (or once had) the resources to have a space fleet and "own" the particular planets they explored/conquered/colonized (maybe recently, maybe a long time ago)
  • inflated from small-scale origins (e.g. the brother-in-law of the first emperor became viceroy of an important planet, and centuries later his family is wealthier than many alien empires; two or three Earth nations, the only ones with space colonization programs, have expanded to fill tens of planets each while the others merely provide exotic foreign tourists)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe something like this:

Power of nobles comes from territory (estates). All nobles have estates on the imperial capital since they are the powerfull  people since the birth of the empire. Nobles own ground forces (fleets are under imperial control?) and since they have estates on the imperial capital planet they have armies there as well.

If a noble house is too unhappy they might start a revolt. In such case their armies on the imperial capital will attack the imperial palace. Imperial guards will stand to defend the emperor. Other nobles will have a choice: join the revolting noble house, join the emperor, do nothing. Also local population can form a militia to defend beloved emperor. Then armies are talled up and the outcome is decided. If the emperor loses he is disposed of, game over.

Each planet can have several estates, so technically nobles do not own planets. Nobles are supposed to defend the planet they are on (have estates) in case of alien invasion (using their ground forces), they also collect taxes from their estates. Part of that tax goes to the imperial treasury. Estates are granted by the emperor as new planets are colonized/conquered. The incentive to give out estates is that nobles are significantly more skilled at managing estates than imperial appointed officials and that the hatred of nobles increases rapidly if the imperial controlled estates exceed 20% of total available estates in the empire. Also, imperial controled estates generate "bureaucracy points" which can incur a penalty to efficiency of the empire as a whole.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but it doesn't make much sense for me. Why the nobles should have an army on the imperial capital? To defend from whom? Even if they don't really like each other or the Emperor, in theory they play in the same team. Also Emperor having just small loyal guard while everyone else around has full army is asking for trouble.

Emperor will hold his position only as long as no one dares or succeeds going aganist him. Showing off imperial force and forbidding any other helps a lot on capital.

As for the last part (the planets) I agree 100%.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Deflinek said:

I'm sorry but it doesn't make much sense for me. Why the nobles should have an army on the imperial capital? To defend from whom? Even if they don't really like each other or the Emperor, in theory they play in the same team. Also Emperor having just small loyal guard while everyone else around has full army is asking for trouble.

Emperor will hold his position only as long as no one dares or succeeds going aganist him. Showing off imperial force and forbidding any other helps a lot on capital.

As for the last part (the planets) I agree 100%.

How about this:

When nobles are upset one might want to revolt, such noble nouse is called "Usurper". Other nobles can support the emperor, usurper, or stay neutral.

All planets are set into "confused" state (kind of neutral/undecided/not knowing what's going on), the imperial planet will be set as "supporting emperor" while nobles homeworlds will be set as supporting the party their noble house supports. Then, each turn any confused planet neighbouring decided planet must decide too (armies on the planet start fighting and the planet supports the local winner; the side get +20% to combat power per neighbouring planet on same side). Then, after at least 60% of planets decided the side which accumulated 70% of support (planets not being equal, some are far more important) wins. If at any time imperial capital is taken over the usurper wins. If all planets decided the side with more planets win (even if won marginally by one backwater planet support).

(note: it would be fun if the player got additional options to impact the usurp attempt, ideas?)



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read Dune? (I think Dune and the "House" books in the series are possibly some of the best empire/political intrigue novels in Sci-Fi still.)

Crusader Kings might also be a good reference game to look into to get some ideas.


In my opinion some of the best games of this style have their game play and lore heavily intertwined. - What are foundations that society is built on? What technologies do they have, and what impacts does that have on society? If everyone and their dog has FTL as common as cars, then you're going to have a game and society that is different from one where only a handful of individuals control FTL along the lines of the Spacing Guild and Highliners. 


Start thinking about the problem from a storyline viewpoint: Who is doing what and why? - Does any of that translate into something that you find appealing as a player?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts based on posts so far:

- noble houses' power should be based on estates (territory), possibly combined with trade privileges, licences, charters and the like

- noble houses should have at least private ground forces (army) if not own fleets

- noble houses are responsible for fighting, at least defending the planets with their estates, they are "the defenders of humanity from ugly aliens"

- the player (Emperor) is the political leader of the empire, not representing any house, nominally in command of military forces (possibly with a lot of nobles autonomy and/or hands off approach)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Partner Spotlight

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Similar Content

    • By gdarchive
      Over the past few years I have had a growing feeling that videogame storytelling is not what it could be. And the core issue is not in the writing, themes, characters or anything like that; instead, the main problem is with the overall delivery. There is always something that hinders me from truly feeling like I am playing a story. After pondering this on and off for quite some time I have come up with a list of five elements that I think are crucial to get the best kind of interactive narrative.
      The following is my personal view on the subject, and is much more of a manifesto than an attempt at a rigorous scientific theory. That said, I do not think these are just some flimsy rules or the summary of a niche aesthetic. I truly believe that this is the best foundational framework to progress videogame storytelling and a summary of what most people would like out of an interactive narrative.
      Also, it's important to note that all of the elements below are needed. Drop one and the narrative experience will suffer.
      With that out of the way, here goes:
      1) Focus on Storytelling
      This is a really simple point: the game must be, from the ground up, designed to tell a story. It must not be a game about puzzles, stacking gems or shooting moving targets. The game can contain all of these features, but they cannot be the core focus of the experience. The reason for the game to exist must be the wish to immerse the player inside a narrative; no other feature must take precedence over this.
      The reason for this is pretty self-evident. A game that intends to deliver the best possible storytelling must of course focus on this. Several of the problems outlined below directly stem from this element not being taken seriously enough.
      A key aspect to this element is that the story must be somewhat tangible. It must contain characters and settings that can be identified with and there must be some sort of drama. The game's narrative cannot be extremely abstract, too simplistic or lack any interesting, story-related, happenings.
      2) Most of the time is spent playing
      Videogames are an interactive medium and therefore the bulk of the experience must involve some form of interaction. The core of the game should not be about reading or watching cutscenes, it should be about playing. This does not mean that there needs to be continual interaction; there is still room for downtime and it might even be crucial to not be playing constantly.
      The above sounds pretty basic, almost a fundamental part of game design, but it is not that obvious. A common "wisdom" in game design is that choice is king, which Sid Meier's quote "a game is a series of interesting choices" neatly encapsulates. However, I do not think this holds true at all for interactive storytelling. If choices were all that mattered, choose your own adventure books should be the ultimate interaction fiction - they are not. Most celebrated and narrative-focused videogames do not even have any story-related choices at all (The Last of Us is a recent example). Given this, is interaction really that important?
      It sure is, but not for making choices. My view is that the main point of interaction in storytelling is to create a sense of presence, the feeling of being inside the game's world. In order to achieve this, there needs to be a steady flow of active play. If the player remains inactive for longer periods, they will distance themselves from the experience. This is especially true during sections when players feel they ought to be in control. The game must always strive to maintain and strengthen the experience of "being there".
      3) Interactions must make narrative sense
      In order to claim that the player is immersed in a narrative, their actions must be somehow connected to the important happenings. The gameplay must not be of irrelevant, or even marginal, value to the story. There are two major reasons for this.
      First, players must feel as though they are an active part of the story and not just an observer. If none of the important story moments include agency from the player, they become passive participants. If the gameplay is all about matching gems then it does not matter if players spend 99% of their time interacting; they are not part of any important happenings and their actions are thus irrelevant. Gameplay must be foundational to the narrative, not just a side activity while waiting for the next cutscene.
      Second, players must be able to understand their role from their actions. If the player is supposed to be a detective, then this must be evident from the gameplay. A game that requires cutscenes or similar to explain the player's part has failed to tell its story properly.
      4) No repetitive actions
      The core engagement from many games come from mastering a system. The longer time players spend with the game, the better they become at it. In order for this process to work, the player's actions must be repeated over and over. But repetition is not something we want in a well-formed story. Instead, we want activities to only last as long as the pacing requires. The players are not playing to become good at some mechanics, they are playing to be part of an engrossing story. When an activity has played out its role, a game that wants to do proper storytelling must move on.
      Another problem with repetition is that it breaks down the player's imagination. Other media rely on the audience's mind to fill out the blanks for a lot of the story's occurrences. Movies and novels are vague enough to support these kinds of personal interpretations. But if the same actions are repeated over and over, the room for imagination becomes a lot slimmer. Players lose much of the ability to fill gaps and instead get a mechanical view of the narrative.
      This does not mean that the core mechanics must constantly change, it just means that there must be variation on how they are used. Both Limbo and Braid are great examples of this. The basic gameplay can be learned in a minute, but the games still provide constant variation throughout the experience.
      5) No major progression blocks
      In order to keep players inside a narrative, their focus must constantly be on the story happenings. This does not rule out challenges, but it needs to be made sure that an obstacle never consumes all focus. It must be remembered that the players are playing in order to experience a story. If they get stuck at some point, focus fades away from the story, and is instead put on simply progressing. In turn, this leads to the unraveling of the game's underlying mechanics and for players to try and optimize systems. Both of these are problems that can seriously degrade the narrative experience.
      There are three common culprits for this: complex or obscure puzzles, mastery-demanding sections and maze-like environments. All of these are common in games and make it really easy for players to get stuck. Either by not being sure what to do next, or by not having the skills required to continue. Puzzles, mazes and skill-based challenges are not banned, but it is imperative to make sure that they do not hamper the experience. If some section is pulling players away from the story, it needs to go.
      Games that do this
      These five elements all sound pretty obvious. When writing the above I often felt I was pointing out things that were already widespread knowledge. But despite this, very few games incorporate all of the above. This is quite astonishing when you think about it. The elements by themselves are quite common, but the combination of all is incredibly rare.
      The best case for games of pure storytelling seems to be visual novels. But these all fail at element 2; they simply are not very interactive in nature and the player is mostly just a reader. They often also fail at element 3 as they do not give the player much actions related to the story (most are simply played out in a passive manner).
      Action games like Last of Us and Bioshock infinite all fail on elements 4 and 5 (repetition and progression blocks). For larger portions of the game they often do not meet the requirements of element 3 (story related actions) either. It is also frequently the case that much of the story content is delivered in long cutscenes, which means that some do not even manage to fulfill element 2 (that most of the game is played). RPGs do not fare much better as they often contain very repetitive elements. They often also have way too much downtime because of lengthy cutscenes and dialogue.
      Games like Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead come close to feeling like an interactive narrative, but fall flat at element 2. These games are basically just films with interactions slapped on to them. While interaction plays an integral part in the experience it cannot be said to be a driving force. Also, apart from a few instances the gameplay is all about reacting, it does not have have the sort of deliberate planning that other games do. This removes a lot of the engagement that otherwise comes naturally from videogames.
      So what games do fulfill all of these elements? As the requirements of each element are not super specific, fulfillment depends on how one chooses to evaluate. The one that I find that comes closest is Thirty Flights of Loving, but it is slightly problematic because the narrative is so strange and fragmentary. Still, it is by far the game that comes closest to incorporating all elements. Another close one is To The Moon, but it relies way too much on dialog and cutscenes to meet the requirements. Gone Home is also pretty close to fulfilling the elements. However, your actions have little relevance to the core narrative and much of the game is spent reading rather than playing.
      Whether one chooses to see these games as fulfilling the requirements or not, I think they show the path forward. If we want to improve interactive storytelling, these are the sort of places to draw inspiration from. Also, I think it is quite telling that all of these games have gotten both critical and (as far as I know) commercial success. There is clearly a demand and appreciation for these sort of experiences.
      Final Thoughts
      It should be obvious, but I might as well say it: these elements say nothing of the quality of a game. One that meets none of the requirements can still be excellent, but it cannot claim to have fully playable, interactive storytelling as its main concern. Likewise, a game that fulfills all can still be crap. These elements just outline the foundation of a certain kind of experience. An experience that I think is almost non-existent in videogames today.
      I hope that these five simple rules will be helpful for people to evaluate and structure their projects. The sort of videogames that can come out of this thinking is an open question as there is very little done so far. But the games that are close to having all these elements hint at a very wide range of experiences indeed. I have no doubts that this path will be very fruitful to explore.
      Another important aspects of interaction that I left out is the ability to plan. I mention it a bit when discussing Walking Dead and Heavy Rain, but it is a worth digging into a little bit deeper. What we want from good gameplay interaction is not just that the player presses a lot of buttons. We want these actions to have some meaning for the future state of the game. When making an input players should be simulating in their minds how they see it turning out. Even if it just happens on a very short time span (eg "need to turn now to get a shot at the incoming asteroid") it makes all the difference as now the player has adapted the input in way that never happens in a purely reactionary game. The question of what is deemed repetitive is quite interesting to discuss. For instance, a game like Dear Esther only has the player walking or looking, which does not offer much variety. But since the scenery is constantly changing, few would call the game repetitive. Some games can also offer really complex and varied range of actions, but if the player is tasked to perform these constantly in similar situations, they quickly get repetitive. I think is fair to say that repetition is mostly an asset problem. Making a non-repetitive game using limited asset counts is probably not possible. This also means that a proper storytelling game is bound to be asset heavy. Here are some other games that I feel are close to fulfilling all elements: The Path, Journey, Everyday the Same Dream, Dinner Date, Imortall and Kentucky Route Zero. Whether they succeed or not is a bit up to interpretation, as all are a bit borderline. Still all of these are well worth one's attention. This also concludes the list of all games I can think of that have, or at least are close to having, all five of these elements. Links Here is some more information on how repetition and challenge destroy the imaginative parts of games and make them seem more mechanical. This is a nice overview on how many storytelling games give the player no meaningful choices at all. The Last of Us is the big storytelling game of 2013. Here is a collection of thoughts on what can be learned from it. Visual Novels are not to be confused with Interactive Fiction, which is another name for text adventure games.
      Thirty Flights of Loving This game is played from start to finish and has a very interesting usages of scenes and cuts.
      To The Moon This is basically an rpg but with all of the fighting taken out. It is interesting how much emotion that can be gotten from simple pixel graphics.
      Gone Home This game is actually a bit similar to To The Moon in that it takes an established genre and cuts away anything not to do with telling a story. A narrative emerge by simply exploring an environment.
      This article was originally published on the Frictional Games blog and is republished with kind permission from the original author Thomas Grip.
    • By ProfKrauf
      Hi. I've been struggling for a while to learn how to build and program on my own for about 8 or 9 years now. Going from articles and vid solo has not been working out for me. I struggle, or lose interest, but when I did work with people in the past before I felt like I was retaining the information and actually learning something and making progress. I'm going with what's worked for me so I'm looking for other people who are willing to learn with me or experienced people who are willing to teach. I'm currently trying to learn Pico-8. I've gone through the first four tutorials, but it's been a while since I last went into it. I'll go back to refresh my memory and then we can meet up on Skype, Slack, or Discord to go over these tutorials together. Most of my free time is on the weekends, but I can do weekdays as well but only at night. Eventually, I want to get started on a game. I had a simple platformer in mind. Run, jump, climb. Keeping it simple. If you are interested post in here or send me a PM.
    • By Lens of Truth
      I know of one really good YouTube channel that's all about game design. It's simply called Mark Brown, and he does two different series: Game Makers' Toolkit and Boss Keys. It's a great place for game designers to go and just pick up ideas. He's not really about entertainment, although the videos certainly aren't boring, but more about education. As in, how do existing games do clever things to stand out from other games?
      I myself created a YouTube channel with the intent of talking about game design, although I only have one video as of posting (working on the second). Are there any other really good channels like Mark Brown? I've seen other channels with the same intent, but lacking on the execution. Here's my video below.
    • By AromaticSponge
      As part of my university course I have been working on a trap and a puzzle to be used in a dungeon crawler style game.
      My initial thought for a trap is something that falls from the ceiling to damage the player, this can then be tailored to suit nearly any kind of map. Anything underground could have rocks and dirt, an ice cave could have falling icicles and a rocky cave could have stalactites.
      The first thing for me to consider is how to convey that this trap has been triggered and that something is about to fall on the player, for this I took inspiration from the MMO’s Final Fantasy XIV and Wildstar.
      These games both make heavy use of telegraphs as it is extremely important for the player to be aware of the mechanics during difficult encounters, these telegraphs are very visual and show the player exactly which parts of the area will be affected.

      I have decided to use this approach and create a circular telegraph to be projected onto the ground as the player triggers the trap, over time this will fill up red and once its filled the rock will reach the ground damaging anything beneath it.
      The GIF below shows my work to emulate the telegraph.

      Rather than create the effect of the telegraph filling up with a timeline I have instead chosen to use an interp function in the trap blueprint. This will allow me to easily set the speed for tweaking and testing, however I may look at switching to a timeline later on if it proves to be the better option.
      The next aspect to think about is the falling boulder, for now I have created a simple rock shape in 3ds max to use. Because of the speed of the falling boulder the player will not be able to see it properly, this means the boulder can be very simple and low poly. I have also added a sound effect and a particle effect for when the boulder hits to give the player some visual feedback that this trap is dangerous. These are currently just stock effects and sounds, but I can look into finding some more unique assets later that may make the trap feel more polished.
      Below is a GIF showing the finished trap prototype, all of this can be tweaked and modified easily enough if I find I need to later on.

       The puzzle is fairly straight forward, the player has to activate a number of platforms in the correct order to create a path. The platforms are activated using a bank of switches, with each switch corresponding to a platform. However when ever you activate a platform it will also activate any platform near it, meaning the player will have to plan a solution carefuly.
      This puzzle can be scaled up and down by adding and removing the amount of platforms involved, or perhaps even extending the line into a grid of platforms.
      My thoughts for introducing the player to this puzzle would involve using single platforms early on to reinforce the idea that these switches will activate platforms.
      The Gif below shows the puzzle prototype in action, I have also taken care to lock the switches when any of the platforms are in motion to prevent potential bugs that may occur from too many switches being thrown at once.

      Thanks for reading my post! If you have any feedback on ways I can improve these projects then i would love to hear.
      Thanks again!
    • By Baron Bale-Out
      As part of my environment design module, I have been tinkering with simple trap and puzzle ideas and have tested out some ideas in Unreal Engine 4. These traps and puzzles will hopefully be applicable in my dungeon crawler level designs.
      For my first trap, I have decided to create a version of a classic trap: the dart launcher. This is the first trap encountered in the original Tomb Raider that is not an enemy. This trap is usually intended to damage the player a certain amount per hit without outright killing the player. Darts can also be modified to apply different effects on the player such as poison, stun and sleep; just like real darts!
      For my own darts, I have created a dart launcher that can be edited by designers to fire standard darts or poison darts. The darts can also be given different life spans so they do not enter areas they shouldn't. The rate at which darts are fired can also be modified as well as how much damage the dart can do in one attack or over different lengths of time.
      Players know if they have been struck by a dart via sound effects. For poison darts, the player hears the dart hit them, then another sound effect combined with a particle system to show that the player is taking damage over time. The poison will eventually run out and the effects will disappear.
      The variables in the dart and the dart launcher could have been placed in structures to make the blueprints tidier. I could have also added the ability to edit the velocity of darts to add a new dimension to trap layouts. As for hinting to the player that these flying objects are dangerous, I could have indicated the danger beforehand by having a dart strike an unwitting NPC and kill them. This would alert the player about the potential danger before being put in a position to be hit by one. Currently, the only hint of the presence of darts is the sound of the cannon (standing in for a crossbow or some other dart throwing weapon) firing.
      The puzzle is a simple pressure plate that controls the lowering of a door. To make the puzzle more interesting I have added functionality that requires the player to lock the door in the lowered position. This must be done by remaining on the pressure plate to keep the door lowered and firing a dart at the switch beyond the door. The switch cannot be hit without lowering the door.
      To hint that the switch, represented by a statue with a torch on it, is interactable, I have added a lone version of the switch to the start of the level. This allows the player to observe the switch being struck by a dart and causing an effect. On reflection, it would have been more useful for the switch to be linked to a door or some other object in the wold to show that these can be connected to moveable objects. The switch’s presence is also not immediately obvious to the player on approaching the door and requires the player to advance right up to the door to see it. This may make it less obvious as the solution.
      I would appreciate any feedback on parts I could improve or have missed.
  • Popular Now