• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Cpt Mothballs

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Neutral

About Cpt Mothballs

  • Rank
  1. Quote:Original post by Bregma Hmm, back in the '70s we played Ogre. Of course, back then D&D only went up to level 3, and we had to use our imaginations instead of buying them from a vertically integrated conglomerate. Good to see old ideas can be new again. Actually, speaking of Ogre. There was a game released more recently called Demigod that had a similar style of gameplay. It might provide some inspiration.
  2. That's how it's meant to work. You can pat yourself on the back now, it's okay.
  3. Innovation has a lot to do with your camera angle. Do you think that in a game like Left 4 Dead, with so much player eye-level detail, would have done better as a third person game? Do you think GTA, a story based game centred around a specific character, would have done better in first person? It's a minor difference, but you have to build the game around an angle, not an angle around a game. It's all about what you want the player to see, not about the mechanics and needs of the player deciding what you want the game to be like. The additional perihperal vision of a third person perspective shouldn't decide what you want to use. Just like having an uninterrupted screen focal point to plant your crosshair shouldn't decide if you need to use a first-person perspective. Because the camera is where you bring the player into the game. The camera is how the player will see your entire creation.
  4. A system like this would work in a Fight Night style of fighting. Where you can counter and simply dodge attacks. No fancy aerial combos or supers. Just balanced, weight-classed, boxing. However, in your typical arcade style fighter, deep gameplay doesn't come from rewarding steamrolling, it comes from preventing it. Guard Breakers, Super Cancels, Parrying, Counter-Hitting, Ground Rolling... The list goes on. There has to be a level of mastery involved, a wide array of tactics available. More than one way to win, basically.
  5. There's no specific view for any given purpose. Perspective doesn't designate what a player can and can't do, just like it can't designate what a player can and can't see. In movies, you're shown what you're meant to be shown. Where you're shown it from is meant to enhance the scene. Any other angle could do it just as well, but it's not about what angle could do it, it's what angle that suits the movie. If you want a specific angle, innovate. If you want to copy everyone else, be prepared for the fallout. Thief was an entirely stealth based game in first person. Gears of War was a shooter entirely in third person. No view constitutes what a game can and can't do. You have to choose the view you like the most and be prepared to innovate. That's what makes a truly great design, as well as a truly great experience. So stop pigeon-holing yourself by listening to the people trying to tell you otherwise. Do what feels right, not what other games have done. That's how simple it is.
  6. Well, basically, without the top-down view, you're going to have some trouble with managing upgrades and points to take treasure back to. Like that old Game and Watch game with the octopus, really. I think what you need to do is just find out what you really want the game to be. Maybe something will come to you.
  7. The thing about 2D is that you can still make it look 3D. So just add a slight curve to the horizon on your overworld map and when you move it'll appear as if you're sailing over a little world. No walls, it'll just loop co-ordinates. As for diving, you could always just decrease the amount of grid points and just randomly seed maps every game day to replace the current ones. So nobody could know what's under the ocean every time they play, then just have a simple sonar system to detect basic wildlife, like sharks and whales, etc. I think a game like that could provide an interesting player experience if coupled with random events. Like oil spills and nuclear waste leaks etc.
  8. I think, the problem there is that when you combine both views, there's is going to be a decline in the quality of both. In animation and usefulness. If you go with a more Mirror's Edge style of first person animation, you can actually provide that level of environmental interaction as well as give the immersion that a first person perspective provides. Just a thought.
  9. I think this is a great idea. I'd like to see the game play out, watch the little people fight. I'd also like to be able to create disaster scenarios like in SimCity. Definitely would have to be able to customise the little people and watch them advance. And instead of directly manipulating the characters, let players manipulate the circumstances in which they find themselves in. As for the title, I'd probably call it Guildmaster.
  10. Gamers don't own gaming anymore. I'm pretty sure anybody confused about this should go and Google 'Wii'. Hardcore gaming isn't an appealing niche anymore, developers want to aim for higher figures and that means offering less intimidating titles. There are always going to be games with a balance between casual and hardcore gaming, or a strong learning curve. I'm sure there are even indie developers working on hardcore games (Urban Terror). But the majority of games aren't geared for that aspect for a reason. Money. I wouldn't say that hardcore gaming is dead, just you'd be hard-pressed to keep competitive AAA quality titles going. Fury was enough to prove to this to me. I think, piracy has a lot to do with this. It's pretty rampant on the PC and consoles aren't exactly a hardcore platform. So I guess, there's a lot of reasons for the decline in hardcore titles. It's not because developers hate gamers, it's just because they need to make money. They're not going to do that from 5-10% of the people most likely to pirate their game.
  11. I see no relevant train of thought between any of the ideas. What does the weather have to do with guns? And why is Michael's nickname Mikey? Why does that even matter at all, anyway? You're confusingly vague at best.
  12. So basically, to battle without breeding you buy the bred monsters, but miss out on filling out of the scorebook. Which is by your first post, the main goal of the game. So, really, you're giving players an option that betrays the original vision of the game in attempt to please everyone. Which is the first flaw I see. The next flaw I see is that by not allowing traded/bought monsters to breed, you're allowing breeders control of the marketplace. As their stock increases so does their potential income from materials. Meaning you're giving priority to what is an 'optional' exercise from the beginning. Because only breeders can make money. Then there's the obvious opening for gold farmers to exploit the game by supplying battle ready pets to people who are that lazy. So, just for a second, I think you really need to flesh out your design and just find what you want the game to be and stop worrying about anything else.
  13. I don't need to be either. I'm tired of always being the guy that gets ran around and does everything. I'd like to be able to pick a role, like turret gunner or pilot, foot soldier or special forces. Not to specialise, but just to pick an aspect that changes the way I play the game each time.
  14. Well the way I see, it punishing players for being social seems to be a bad idea. I understand you don't want 'power breeders', but the solution to this is either limiting breeding, in either amount or by species exclusion. Punishing players for actively seeking other players to extend their collections seems to defeat the purpose of it being an MMO. You can add breeder points gained through breeding as opposed to buying/trading, that designate who a player can trade with and who they can breed with and what monsters they can control. I mean, if breeding is just a mini-game then, why restrict it so harshly? I think balancing the battling and working on the logistics of monster raising should take priority in that case. I mean there are much simpler solutions to balancing the way breeding, trading and battling work together. Having trainers choose to allow traded/bought monsters in battle could just fix the whole thing. Even those traded in origin (parent was traded and not partner paired).
  15. Mix Master has a system in which you combine monsters to create new types. It's F2P, so you can try it out if you want some ideas for your design. I'm not sure if you can trade or sell monsters, but I'm pretty sure you can trade their cores. It's been a while since the last time I played, though. I don't really like the system you're proposing, to be honest. I'd much prefer that two players can choose to breed monsters with each other, with each player recieving a resultant 'egg' that is contained within an on-screen incubator, so that players can only have one egg at a time. This way the breeding process is more social, as you can breed monsters without owning monsters. The incubator could be powered by steps taken or battles, it's up to you. But punishing people for idling with incubated eggs by causing the egg to maybe hatch a weak monster or even cause it to die would be a good idea. If you're going to sell pets, just make them tier one. Like starter pets. Their evolutions and such stay tier one, but resultant breeding would change up their tier. And only monsters within their tier range (one above or below) would be breedable. Unbreedable pets would be tier zero. This could create enough possible breeding trees to keep players playing for a while. I guess there's also the consistencies, how can players hold hundreds of pets? Where can they breed them? How can you downplay the generally sexual theme of the game so it's suited for all ages? And what is the key to predicting successful breeds and incompatible pairings?