Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Warsong

An ultimate game or just too much for you?

Recommended Posts

If a game had all or one of these. 1 A game that has every item, weapon, options, etc. from all other games? (Castlevania S.O.T.N. has a lot but not all) ------------More options more fun? 2 Would people like a game where it has every type of game play in it? Meaning level 1 is a side scroller level 2 is a racing 3 is a strategy, 4 is a sport, etc..? (Kind of like a variety game like Mario party) ------------More types of skill level in a game better challenge? 3 Or games where you can select type like side view platform/ top view, 3rd person, 1st person, and isometric? (Adjusting view in a racing game or, like Teken how it is 3d in a side view and 1st person with a code) ------------More views better control and experience? Well some games do this, but would it make the game more appealing and fun. I think an ultimate gamer would appreciate it more but not an average gamer. I think it’s good to a certain degree. take care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
no.2 & no.3 are what all new-developers try and do to make up for a lack of design skills.

The number of times I''ve heard no. 2 come up is rather amazing!!

Just focus on one gameplay style and do it really well.. trying to inflate the games worth by offering everything is silly, oh, and you''d probably fail to finish it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What would be the point of this? You create a game with defined rules and goals and then list out what items, weapons, etc. are needed to achieve them. Would you have one player carrying a sword and another carrying a BFG 9000? Plus, the work involved in creating each item and it''s programming would be a nightmare.

2. For a second I thought you were making sense, and then ya proved me wrong. =) Now, if the object of the game were to somehow require this then I could see it POSSIBLY being fun. What if there were no levels and you put every type of gameplay into one massive type. Hmmm, perhaps something like Mad Max. You''ve got a car that you race around in from city to city but you have to use strategy to configure your car (and your team?). Perhaps, one of the cities has an arena where you may compete (sport). This mixes a lot of elements of role-playing, strategy, racing, etc. But seperate game types on different levels is excessive in design AND implementation.

3. Many games use different views. I''ve always liked this feature as different players like to take different perspectives. Depends on the game tho.

Design a game system first and worry about how it should look and play later. Even if your design would require all of this, the completion of it would require a LOT of man-power. If you''re independantly trying to create a game, start small. If you aven''t already, write pong =)

- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Requiring different game types in the context of a single game / purpose would ruin any chance your game has for success.

Explanation: Almost all gamers only like (or are good at) 1-3 types of games, and they would have NO INTEREST in playing through other types of levels just to get to the good stuff again. Also, all the really classic games are shining examples of exactly ONE game type, with complete internal consistency, even though when they game comes out it may look like blending 2-3 genres or styles, the ones that become classics really embody no more than 2 styles (such as diablo ... it looks like and action game and an rpg ... but it has ONE play style ... a simple decision based (not skill based) action game interface). And Civilization 2 may look like it is a tactical game, and a strategy game - but the game is won solely on the basis of long term strategic progress, and almost all successes or mistakes will be overshadowed by the long term strategic elements of the game.

Backpedling: I will admit that a few good games have been improved because they found a great connection between 2 games play types ... where the user is primarily witing one style, but often is allowed to play through certain elements in a different style ... the absolute BEST example of this was "Sentinal Worlds" ... it combined 3 distinct game interfaces - but the FEEL of the gameplay was relatively similar ... and the skill set and enjoyment focus were the same.

Notes: Also, interlocking game systems .. where multiple people have purchased and are playing completely different games, but affecting the same game world ... this is a GREAT idea ... and one day soon massive multiplayer games are going to figure this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you have a really extreme case there, you certainly can''t have all games in one because it won''t fit in a storyline, and would be like too unstable to play (ie you not always play the same game).

However, its good to combine genres or have abit of others. Warcraft 3 is an RTS that has some small RPG elements in it and makes it fun.

- ZeroX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. That''s just silly. Having "every" item is a)impossible, b)unbalanced, and c)weird. Like coderx75 said, having a sword vs BFG? If you mean a heck of a lot of items, like Diablo 2, then it''s a plus, but there are better things to do with your time IMO.

2. There are times when this can be appropriate, but not in the way you said it.
Personally, I would find it appealing if a MMORPG had several different play styles to it. We tossed around that idea in a thread a couple weeks back. Having chariot races and such.
But it shouldn''t be made so obvious that passing a level means you are essentially playing a new game.

3. Being able to change the viewpoints is nice sometimes. C&C Renegade for example, you can change from first to third person views. So in a heated firefight you''d be in first person so you can aim better. But in a more stealthy situation there was third person, so you could see exactly where you were, look around corners, etc.

These things are all limited though, by time, funding, and sanity

------------
aud.vze.com - The Audacious Engine <-- It''s not much, yet. But it''s mine... my own... my preciousssss...
MSN: nmaster42@hotmail.com, AIM: LockePick42, ICQ: 74128155

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey just asking a question, think out of the box.

I am not saying I am making a game like that I am talking about the game design aspect of that.

Personaly i think a game could have (1) a lot of abilities and variations. (look at star control 2, the more ideas the better)

on 2 i dont care for multie variations when i want to play a fighting game i want a fighting game not one level a fighting game then a racing and so on like some games do. But a game where the main this is about only variation then maybe like mario party or the amusment park in Final Fantasy 7. But generaly I want 1 type of game type.

on 3 I prefer 2 or more views to switch or at the same time. For example metal gear solid was a cool view but it would have been good if it gave you the option to select 1st person view sometimes. Or have 2 views at the same time in a 3d game so one u see in front and the other to better interact on the screen around you.

Take care
--------------------
Don''t say something is great by compairing it to other thing, but by what technology can do.
may i help u?i am the sane one, he is not

[edited by - warsong on June 7, 2002 11:12:09 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well making mulitple generes in a single game good ahs been done well exactly one time (too my knowledge), and that was die hard trilogy for psx. it was 3rd person action game, virtua cop style shooter, and race to the bombs game. ALL of them could have been released as seperate games (they were that well done with that many levels). the only way to do something like this is to not spread yourself too thin. i konw i would hate a game in which 1/3 of it sucked becasue i hated the style of gameplay, even if that 1/3 is considered 1/3 more levels then other games have. fortunatly i liked ALL the games for die hard trilogy.

more items and options dont make a game good. gameplay make a game good. an "ultimate" gamer would appreciate it less, since they tend to enjoy certain genres and perfer the "pure" game not filled with gimmicks that add nothing to gameplay.

suggestion 1 is plain stupid, so stupid i only have one thing to say. Castlevania SOTN does *NOT* for this catagory by any measure. it had many items, but they are relevant to the gameplay, and not just items from other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I dunno...a sword vs. someone with a BFG might be kind of fun.
However, they''d have to be balanced. Say, a BFG takes a long
time to aim and the spot you''re aiming at can''t be changed until
it fires. That way, the guy with the sword has to be quick so he
can run away or attack the BFG person. Balance is the key here.

2. Yes, however it is VERY hard to implement it all correctly.
Die Hard Trilogy was great fun to play. So were Rebel Assault 1
and 2, Shadows of the Empire and the Star Wars Arcade Game(the
new 3d one, not the kickass vector gfx one). I also believe
there were some alternate levels in the Crash Bandicoot and
Donkey Kong Country games. It''s all about the transition from
one mode to another, I suppose. It needs to flow correctly.

3. Unless there are a lot of sprites and you''re not going for a
cinematic feel(say, certain angles in different rooms) cameras
should always be configurable.

-Hyatus
"da da da"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another example (and this is showing my age) is Super Mario 3. It was a great game and mainly a side scroller but there was a lot of variation. You had sky levels, swimming and those ships at the end of a world that forced you to continue moving. In between levels, you had goofy little games that rewarded you with power-ups.

Rather than trying to blend several different genres, how about taking one genre and really extending what can be done with it? Let''s say you have a fighting game where you jump out of a plane on one level and you and your opponent are spin kickin'' in mid-air as you''re falling. You''re opponent has the parachute and you don''t. If you ease up on him for too long, he''ll just open the parachute so you gotta kick is a$$ fast until he''s unconscious so you can take his chute.

That''s interesting... having various interfaces (each of which have already been done) isn''t.

- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with the idea of #2, but only if you''re careful. If people are going out and buying a fighing game, they don''t want to have to drive to the tournament arena.

However, in certain circumstances - for example, movie spinoffs, or dedicated single-player games - it could be brilliant. As long as the player is expecting the game to change from time to time, then there''s no problem. Having it as an RTS for the entire game, and then right at the end turning it into an FPS would not be considered fair play.

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates
- sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
You seem to think that more is always better. "Every item", "every type of gameplay", "more views". Well, simply having more will not improve an already flawed game, and adding too much to game will actually make it worse. You want to do like Goldilocks and find what''s "just right" for your game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Empire Earth sort of went for the "every item" point. For those who havn''t seen it, Empier Earth was a strategy game where you could advance through many ages of human advancements, from cavman to space explorer. The thing that kept this game from being totally unbalanced I think was the gradual process.

I have to admit, the thought of Every Item sounds kind of weird though. I mean, what are the boundaries you are talking about. Like every item that youve seen in common games, or like everything you could possibly think of?

An item system needs to be structured, otherwise you end up with a whole lot of redundant and totally useless items, which are basically just going to be content which takes up hard drive space when installing the game, and will be ignored by the player anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites