• Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

133 Neutral

About Eyra

  • Rank
  1. Quote:Original post by KulSeran Sounds like a laptop to me. And a laptop can do more. This is true. A person could go and pay for a gaming laptop, hunt down an enjoyable online game, do anything I mentioned in my original post, and much more. Or, they could buy the console, which would hopefully boast the same gaming capabilities at a lower price tag, have everything they need to enjoy that same game, and easy access to all the others. It's not a huge difference, wouldn't it be enough for people to choose it over the alternative? Quote:Original post by dysfictional One of the solutions to this problem would be to merge a service like steam with a cutdown/lightweight operating system that runs on consumer hardware and is created as a standalone partition. Somewhat like what google is doing with ChromeOS for the web. Thank you, dysfictional. I didn't actually know about Steam or ChromeOS, which probably shows how up-to-date on these things I am, if my original post didn't already. I'm not sure how companies usually handle a situation where their own success relies largely on another company. If steam had to shut down their operations, for instance, what would I do for users of my console? Quote:Original post by lmelior You can only make a power brick so large before people start complaining (*cough*360*cough), and people don't like when an internal power supply turns their console into a space heater (*cough*PS3*cough*). While the 360 and the PS3 have those issues, they're still more portable than a full-sized PC tower with the same capabilities, aren't they? I mean, everyone's bound to complain about something, but that seems like one thing that makes it a more desirable choice. No doubt, squeezing all that power into a smaller-than-average package would add to the cost, like you said. I guess cost is usually in the back of my mind when I'm brainstorming. Quote: I don't particularly like Steve Ballmer, but he got one thing right: it's all about the developers. It needs to be relatively simple to develop games on it. At least, early on it does. The PS3 got hammered for failing both of these checks: it was too expensive and difficult to develop games for it. I was aiming for the console to be similar to a Windows PC where development is concerned. If this console were to come out tomorrow, however, I would plan for it to have access to already existing MMOs as well, so waiting on developers for new games wouldn't be as large of an issue.
  2. I don't usually think about different ideas for consoles so much as what new types of games should be made for existing ones. I couldn't help but toy with a concept for a new console, however, and I thought since console development isn't really the job of my dreams, there wouldn't be any harm in sharing it with everybody. It would be specifically designed for massively multiplayer games, providing gamers several reasons to choose the console over playing on a PC or playing mmos on other consoles. Of these reasons, convenience would be the first - The console would operate on hardware capable of handling the requirements for the latest mmo's, perhaps being slightly more advanced than what is needed to accommodate for advancing technology. The operating system would show a comprehensive list of massively multiplayer games, monthly costs, and perhaps player ratings, any of which could be downloaded directly onto the system. Users could choose between downloading directly from the game's site or torrenting it, the other consoles with the game on their system acting as seeders. There would be programs to monitor and manage accounts, billing, and updates. The second would be security. Games played on the console could not be interfered with as easily as a program on a PC, and doing so would be made as difficult as possible to discourage hacking. Should the console become the more popular alternative for players of mmo's, perhaps hacking, phishing, and other undesirable behaviors might occur less often. The last would be versatility. Ideally, the console would feature a compact design, made to be taken from place to place with little hassle. In addition to a port for a wired internet connection, there might be a port for an external wireless card, or maybe the system would have an internal one. I considered omitting a disk drive altogether, as programs would be able to be acquired online with relative ease. I realize that companies might suffer if their game was also being sold on disk, however, and disks always make shorter the process of getting and installing a client. I would love to hear feedback, as well as any ideas any of you might have for a new console.
  3. There are many posts in the 'Consoles, PDA's and Cellphones' section about developing programs for different consoles, but what about ideas for developing new consoles altogether? It's not something I usually think about, but I had something of an idea for a console the other day, and figured there might be others frequenting GameDev with ideas of there own. I had little luck when searching for a thread of this sort, however, the only one I could find being a brief question in the Help Wanted category. I'm just trying to figure out where a post about a new console design would be appropriate, if there is a place for them at all.
  4. From Fighter to Rogue

    Quote:A good approach would be to think about why the player wants to change profession first. The old profession got boring? The only way to get a powerful weapon is to steal it? The NPC you want to marry loves Thief only? The game has balance problem? Certain areas are restricted to certain class? Well, I hadn't thought of anything so specific. One of the other reasons behind my wanting to include this was that one exactly: people, real and fictional, are often required to undergo changes to adapt to one change or another. Quote:For example, you never really forget how to ride a bike, but you do lose the ability to manipulate the skill at a finer level. Call that permanent/innate skill or in real world terms, and as mentioned above by Platinum_Dragon, muscle memory. This concept allows the players to feel free to dabble in other skills or different "career" paths without the fear of losing all their time spent in that skill or area. It also allows them a "preview" of what they could go into. I want to thank you for your responses so far, Nyight and Platinum Dragon especially - your input helped me to think of another alternative (not to say that the alternatives you've all suggested sound unreasonable to me; this is simply another idea I want to throw out there.) It would operate based on the similarities between skills or lack thereof. For the sake of example, say there are two categories of skills: combat and magic. These types would be considered opposites, and focusing on one field would mean degeneration in another. The degeneration of a skill would not be equivalent to the progress the player was making in the opposing category, however, perhaps subtracting one half of a point for each point gained. The result would be say, a master-level swordsman, who has become half the summoner he used to be due to his training. Or a character equally skilled in two fields, while not especially advanced in either. I guess the more complete model would involve a sort of spectrum of relating and opposing skills so they would all interact logically. I hope I haven't simply repeated what you meant to suggest.
  5. From Fighter to Rogue

    Quote:Original post by RealMarkP I personally am a fan of the degenerative skill point idea. As you use a certain weapon, you level up using that weapon - most likely by using it on enemies. However, you 'forget' or get clumsy with weapons that you previously used. It doesn't have to be a linear decline of the skill, it could have a square root decline to it, so that it has a big hit in the short term but does not decline more then a certain amount (say, 10 + sqrt(x)). With this idea, I'm worried about newer players losing interest as their hard-earned points go down the drain. When you put it that way, however, it doesn't sound that bad at all. If nothing else, it could encourage focus, and increase gameplay time for those who'd rather be a jack of all trades. Quote:Original post by Wavinator I think I need a bit more context: What's the major justification / value in letting players switch builds? To be honest, I haven't given it much thought. It was something of an afterthought as I was updating my documents, and I thought it might be a friendlier alternative to replaying whatever tutorial phase there might be. I can see how it might decrease the time a player might put into the game, though, and I suppose the issue could be fixed by making the tutorial phase optional. Quote:Original post by Wavinator B seems to open you up to exploits where a player levels low skills then uses that relatively easy work to boost higher skills. C may work but again you may cheapen the value of risk, allowing players to say garden their way to being an awesome dragon fighter (Horticulture points flowing directly to Swordfighting, for instance). I was thinking of the possibility of exploitation, and was thinking about assigning worth to certain skill points. It's a given that the first five points of swordfighting, for instance, would be earned more quickly and easily than the thirtieth. If a player wanted to boost their Lock-picking skill (Level 26) with points from their Sword-fighting skill (Level 7), perhaps the first five points would only be counted as a percentage of a whole point each, so the player couldn't become a Level 33 Lock-picker in an hour or so. It seems like there might've been an easier way to say that, forgive me if I made a meal out of a mouthful. [Edited by - Eyra on December 27, 2009 2:48:37 AM]
  6. Playing as a Dragon

    Quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage I like my dragons to be ancient, brooding creatures of legend, that spend most of their time in a sweet lair, sleeping on a hoard of treasure, and emerge once every few decades to kick butt, take names, steal additional treasure and generally rock out. If I was going to design a dragon game... I love how you really went to town with this idea. I was about to reply to this topic when I noticed you'd said all I wanted to say and then some. Quote:Original post by sunandshadow I like starting as a hatching egg and growing huge. I can imagine it being something like Spore's creature stage or E.V.O. The Search For Eden where you have to kill and eat monsters to get points for something or other. I could see part of your time as a hatchling being a tutorial phase, where you might learn the basic skills of the game from a mother dragon or your clutch-mates.
  7. Getting Bitten?

    Quote:Original post by Dasha Quote:Original post by GninjaGnome werewolves vs vampires is popular culture right now, not much you could do to keep it from being cliche' True. But by the time anyone could bring out a game with this feature well implemented, the craze should have died down by then. One would hope anyways. I don't know, I'd like to think there are certain things that have timeless appeal. Werewolves seem like they've continued to find their way into popular culture one way or another. Werewolf: The Apocalypse, Underworld, Twilight, etc... Not to mention their popularity with anthro enthusiasts, however small that population is among those that feed the game industry.
  8. In my design for a skill-based rpg, I'm now contemplating ways for players to change from one build to another, so to speak. I've thought of several ways to do this. Players could... A)..."forget" a number of skill points, and may then advance in a different skill B)..."forget" a number of skill points, and immediately be able to put them into other skills C)...directly exchange a number of the points under one skill for an equal number of points in another. I also considered a sort of degeneration that might happen to a skill over time, but that just seemed like a cruel, discouraging feature to me. Besides any other ways to do this, the other thing that stumps me is what sort of in-game explanation would explain the process, as skill points are directly related to a character's age. How would you do it?
  9. Getting Bitten?

    As long as there was a way to reverse the change, however difficult that process might be, I don't think I would have a problem with it. In fact, if there were advantages to being infected, I might even welcome it.
  10. I was afraid of that. Ho hum, I guess I'll just have to think of some other way for speech-related skills to find their way into a multiplayer setting. I suppose that's a subject for another post, some other time.
  11. Quote:Original post by sunandshadow Wait, replacing chat between _players_? That seems like it would really restrict conversation within the game. o.O I mean normally in an MMO, whether on region chat or in guild or party chat, you discuss all sorts of things from strategy for a dungeon to who can craft something for someone else, to external topics like homework, relationships, hobbies... Yes, it also strikes me as a bit extreme, and I'm grateful for your feedback. I was hoping players might appreciate it if it was included as a more immersing alternative to chat, at least. If chatting was present, however, I'm worried that the purpose of the option-based conversation would be completely defeated. I'm beginning to think it's just not meant to be, but I thought I'd better ask around first, just in case.
  12. I'm considering featuring option-based conversation, as seen in games like Neverwinter Nights, Fallout 3, and Mass Effect, in a design for an MMO. Similar to Mass Effect, your options in conversation (bluffing, persuading, etc) would depend on a number of statistics. I was also planning on mimicking Morrowind to a degree in that the topics a player could talk about would be limited to subjects they discover through listening, reading, or other means. The overall purpose of this feature would be to make communication more of a part of the game. I can't decide, however, if this feature would work best alongside chat, or if I could get away with replacing chat altogether. What are your thoughts?
  13. The Cerebral Side of Mining

    Quote:Original post by Servant of the Lord Theoretical knowledge could help the player know where to look to find materials. Increased chances of finding something - the player knows what the signs of plenty of minerals are. I have considered that, but I worry about how it might work in a multiplayer environment. Maybe certain locations would simply yield no results to players of a certain skill level, if only to prevent more skilled players from revealing all the good spots and defeating the point of advancement? I suppose players could still flag these areas and eliminate the need for lower-skilled players to search later on. Then again, maybe there's no harm in that. Quote:Original post by Cygnus_X With mining, practical knowledge could make your production rate faster. For example, a level 1 skill would let you dig 1 foot a day, level 10 lets you dig 10 feet per day. With theoretical knowledge, you could improve your success rate of finding precious minerals. For example, when you dig with a level 1 skill, you may have a 1% chance to find anything of value. With level 10, you can increase that change to 5%. With the above, the math works out such that practical knowledge is superior to theoretical. However, it would play out interesting if the total value of a mine decreased over time. For ever xxx feet mined, the minimum theoretical knowledge required to find anything would be raised. To the players who can figure out how to optimize their dig, they would gain the advantage. To the player that digs aimlessly, the mine's value would be ruined. Ooh, clever. I hadn't thought of limiting the amount you could mine per day, or depth being a factor. I also like the idea of decreasing value of a mine over time. I wonder how difficult it would be to have a system where deposits appeared in random locations after one lost all value...but I think I'm getting off topic. Thanks for all your responses :)
  14. The Cerebral Side of Mining

    Quote:Original post by Sneftel I think you've drawn a false dichotomy between theory and practice, then misapplied it to weapons skills in a way that conceals the false dichotomy. Isn't the ability do do special techniques a practical skill? Isn't damage part of the theory of weapon use? Yeah, I suppose you're right. Up until now, I've only really been dealing with myself as far as brainstorming goes, so I haven't really had to worry about denotation. I guess I've been focusing more on getting my ideas in writing...I'll find better terms for them. Feel free to make suggestions :s Anyhow, I guess the idea is supposed to be that a character would have perhaps practiced the motions of a technique described in a book, or at least understand the gist of how to perform it, but have not gained any of the functional muscle that might come from using it in combat.
  15. So, I'm working on a game design document, and I'm playing around with an idea for an advancement system. It would be skill-based, and players would have a choice to advance in two different types of knowledge concerning each skill: for now, I'm referring to them as 'practical' and 'theoretical' knowledge. Theoretical knowledge would be gained primarily from research and training, and practical knowledge would increase through actual use of the skill. A player's theoretical knowledge might determine say, what special techniques they can use when wielding a weapon, and practical knowledge might contribute to the actual amount of damage they can do when using said weapon. I've reached something of a road block, however, when it comes to resource-gathering skills, like mining. I can't think of a way that the two types of knowledge could effect such an activity. What are your thoughts? Any feedback on the advancement idea is also appreciated.
  • Advertisement