collecting gems and coins...cheap?
Author
what do you think about collecting in games?
i mean, collecting coins, gems or whatever you have to collect in order to open new areas in a game.
I think it is overused and in some recent games like Jak and daxter the situation is horrible. you have to collect 100 gems in order to be able to start collecting 1000 blue gems but to get 1 blue gem you have to collect 5 yellow gems.....
so, is collecting a cheap and unimaginative gameplay technique?
http://www.amiganr1.com
You can make it fun in the way you present it. The danger is in making it a tedious time-consuming exercise - an artificial way of making the game take longer.
Now, I have no idea how to improve it, but maybe you do
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]
Now, I have no idea how to improve it, but maybe you do
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]
Yeah...I dont know...ever played ''Tarzan'' on Game Boy Color?
I think that its an excellent way of showing how collecting
things can be annoying sometimes. Basically you must collect
all the bananas in the level to continue...so if you missed
one in the beginning somewhere you have to go all the way back...
I uhm like collecting things as long as it doesnt restrict you
from going anywhere or doing anything...For example, Super Mario
Brothers! Now that was fun, you get 100 coins you get a new
life so theres some incentive to go a little out of your way to
get coins. Maybe you could have it so that if you collect
X amount of gems you get some special power or something.
-=Lohrno
I think that its an excellent way of showing how collecting
things can be annoying sometimes. Basically you must collect
all the bananas in the level to continue...so if you missed
one in the beginning somewhere you have to go all the way back...
I uhm like collecting things as long as it doesnt restrict you
from going anywhere or doing anything...For example, Super Mario
Brothers! Now that was fun, you get 100 coins you get a new
life so theres some incentive to go a little out of your way to
get coins. Maybe you could have it so that if you collect
X amount of gems you get some special power or something.
-=Lohrno
I think I mostly agree with the last post.
Collecting, in my experience, really isnt that fun unless you get something. At the very least, extra lives. But you could go beyond that. Say you get 50 red gems, and you can throw fire balls, or you get 50 blue gems and you can freeze things, or something. Mabye you can even use that to progress. Instead of getting 100 red gems to open the red door, you could get 100 red gems to gain the ability to destory the door. Or you have to freeze a river, or something like that.
Collecting, in my experience, really isnt that fun unless you get something. At the very least, extra lives. But you could go beyond that. Say you get 50 red gems, and you can throw fire balls, or you get 50 blue gems and you can freeze things, or something. Mabye you can even use that to progress. Instead of getting 100 red gems to open the red door, you could get 100 red gems to gain the ability to destory the door. Or you have to freeze a river, or something like that.
I think how the collection of item X relates to gameplay is the most important thing. I remember one of my old favorite video games, "Super Boulder Dash", on the Commodore 64. In it, you HAVE to make your quota of gems- by reaching that goal, you unlock the exit to the next level. If too many gems get lost in explosions or you run out of time... too bad, you lose.
Boulderdash did a really good job with it... I remember saying to myself many times "ooo... where is it whereisitwhereisit..." when I had a single gem to find and 30 seconds to find it.
Another possibility is to make the collecting "optional worth". A good example of this is the later Final Fantasies. You don''t HAVE to run around the forest, but if you do and your attacked by three Whadyacallems and you get a few gil out of it... well, you might be able to buy yourself another phoenix down. This is what I''m planning in my game- simple economy. General rule of thumb IMHO- EVERYONE loves money.
Go take a look over at the articles and resources section here. (I love that place!) Do a search for "player reward"- you''ll probably find lots of good reading. My personal favorite is "Motivation in Games". Have fun!
---email--- Tok ----surf----
~The Feature Creep of the Family~
I remember one of my old favorite video games, "Super Boulder Dash", on the Commodore 64. In it, you HAVE to make your quota of gems- by reaching that goal, you unlock the exit to the next level. If too many gems get lost in explosions or you run out of time... too bad, you lose. Boulderdash did a really good job with it... I remember saying to myself many times "ooo... where is it whereisitwhereisit..." when I had a single gem to find and 30 seconds to find it.
Another possibility is to make the collecting "optional worth". A good example of this is the later Final Fantasies. You don''t HAVE to run around the forest, but if you do and your attacked by three Whadyacallems and you get a few gil out of it... well, you might be able to buy yourself another phoenix down. This is what I''m planning in my game- simple economy. General rule of thumb IMHO- EVERYONE loves money.
Go take a look over at the articles and resources section here. (I love that place!) Do a search for "player reward"- you''ll probably find lots of good reading.
My personal favorite is "Motivation in Games". Have fun! ---email--- Tok ----surf----
~The Feature Creep of the Family~
Yup, everybody loves money.
I''ve always been of the school of thought that says collecting stuff should be optional, a fun way to max out your character''s power or see secret areas and different endings. If you''re going to make collecting X amount of something mandatory, make darn sure you don''t go overboard. For example, I think Rare''s Donkey Kong 64 went too far in this respect. There''s just too much stuff to collect and it gets redundant after a while.
jon
I''ve always been of the school of thought that says collecting stuff should be optional, a fun way to max out your character''s power or see secret areas and different endings. If you''re going to make collecting X amount of something mandatory, make darn sure you don''t go overboard. For example, I think Rare''s Donkey Kong 64 went too far in this respect. There''s just too much stuff to collect and it gets redundant after a while.
jon
I never played DK 64, but I agree. Most collecting should be optional. I like Super Mario 64 as an example. You didn''t have to collect all 121 stars (yes, there is a secret 121st star), and, in fact, you could beat the game with only 70 stars. Still, people spent hours upon hours working to get ALL the stars, my self included.
-OOProgrammer
virtual void life() = 0;
-OOProgrammer
virtual void life() = 0;
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
