• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

131 Neutral


  • Rank
  1. This is a little off-topic I think ('cos it's not related to strategy games).    When I think on great story in games I remember Okami, Zelda, Metroid, FFVI/VII, Fragile Dreams and other games like that. Where there is actualy little to no interaction with the story itself. I think it is even stupid when on the dialog box they ask things and the only way to progress through the game is saying the "right answer" (ocasionaly Y or N). No player decision "affects" the outcome of the story, but they are great stories anyway. The point is there are two approaches to story one is a linear, compelling, fun, sometimes melancholic story where the player has no interaction (in the cases above the gameplay is great either). The alternate approach is the sandbox-like gameplay. When i think of that I remember the Fallout and Elder Scrolls series, and even some MMOs. But on those cases the gameplay kind of turns into a "do quests, get stronger, so you can do more quests". Think the game looses a lot with that, also does the replay factor. You don't feel you are into the story of the game, politicaly and socialy immersed. You ally with this or that faction so you can become more powerfull or win some items or access to another area, etc... Think games today are very hard to implement if you think on those possibilities. Say Minecraft (the king of the sandbox): lots of gameplay, no story at all. Think it is very difficult to do that on an electronic gaming experience. Is it possible to create a unique (and great) experience to every single player?
  2. The idea of actualy affecting the outcome of the game is very interesting. That is just what made me a fan of table-top rpg games and so. I think it would be very fun and easy for that to be implemented in a strategy game. In a stage, for instance, you could have lots of possibilities: saving a village, killing all enemy troops, loosing. Destroy this or that enemy base (or both) in a given time. That actual choice could influence the story of the game and open diferent "ways" of interacting with it. The point is this kind of development of a game would be huge work for a reduced time in the player's experience. If you give the player 2 or 3 choices it is 2 or 3 times more work for the level designer to do.   Story in Starcraft/Warcraf of whatever has no players choice at all. The campaings are all "one after another" just a "tutorial" for you to learn how to play that race. I think it is very hard to integrate story on the game mechanics. And in some way it is impossible to do that in strategy games, because strategy games are all about cunning and ability and logic thinking and the outcome must happen in one match. Think you could do a "can't save" the game between matches or so. Dunno if that's  what you were thinking... lol
  3. What kind of "Quests" would you like in an MMO/RPG, etc?

    [quote name='JigokuSenshi' timestamp='1347847329' post='4980762'] Thanks Xoyo for replying so much [img][/img] . It's nice to talk about these kinds of topics. I do agree with a lot of what you have said. One thing though that I still have to argue with is the fact that yes, the player that choses to take a player posted quest might have a lot of fun going through the quest. It won't be fun at all for the person posting the quest though. The only way to get around that would be to give the players incentive to create quests, but in a way that is forcing them to do that in order to have the full game experience. It would be much better to find a way to create player quests that would coexist with many of the basic game mechanics in games today instead of removing a lot of game mechanics just to get one mechanic to work. I think thats why this type of system doesn't exist yet, because no one can find a way of placing it in the game without making it worthless, unless they get rid of some other game mechanic. [/quote] Be welcome, I like talking about these things... ^^ I think the quest-posting issue can be adressed in other ways. Asking people to do things to you may be not fun, and sometimes even when they do it may be not fun. But I believe the point is making the player so occupied he can't manage to do it by himself, or design the quests in a way the player asking it can't do it anyway. I think the whole point on RPG (pnp) is the ability to do whatever you want whenever you want, and the feel of coerence and truthfullness. MMOs, most of the times, can't deliver that just because when I go to the NPC giving the quest there are lots of people around him, asking for the same quest, and when I go to the field kill the monsters there are lots of people doing it and the monsters never end and it feels like "I am just one more player, not the hero". Once I played this game Wakfu, which is the sequel to Dofus. One nice implementation it had was the "ecological" one. When you kill too much beasts, or harvest too much, one area can end up having none of them. You can see monsters "copulating" all around and there are the "puppy" version of the monsters. I can be remembering things wrong since there is a while I played this game. But the point is it feels real. Item finding, looting or finding gold on monsters is not real never...
  4. What kind of "Quests" would you like in an MMO/RPG, etc?

    [quote name='JigokuSenshi' timestamp='1347687991' post='4980297'] Back to player given quests though. Even if the in game market is removed like I said before people will just resort to player to player trade and people will set up forums to post items and prices instead of taking the long route and questing for it. Also if you really want something in game wouldn't you just go get it yourself since it would take up the same amount of time for you minus the expense. People will almost always go for the fastest route to get things done. [/quote] No my friend people will look into the most fun way to do it (I would). Giving several options is not about giving a mandatory one or a easy and a hard one, but giving lots of fun ways to do it. You need to think on money sinks and economic issues too. The economy needs to work as this: the income of an [b][i]adventurer[/i][/b] needs always to be = 0. Means that the difficulty level of the game needs to match the player income at the level he is. So his gear (and repair) and items (like potions/scrolls/food) needs to be as expensive as the money he gets. Maybe a little more, a little less, depending on playstyle. Money on these games needs to feel as another way of character improvement, so a player that does not goes into combat don't needs to focus on lvling (because money by itself is a kind of xp). You can't have a balanced gameplay if the players who want to be traders/crafters get "phisicaly/magicaly" stronger as well as they progress. So here you will have three kinds of progress: xp, money and crafting skills. And all those three can revolve around item/loot design.
  5. What kind of "Quests" would you like in an MMO/RPG, etc?

    [quote name='JigokuSenshi' timestamp='1347679570' post='4980277'] [quote name='MichaelRPennington' timestamp='1347679140' post='4980276'] I'm not saying it would be easy by any means. Something like this would be extremely complex, and balances would have to be put in place, but as it says in my signature, nothing is impossible. You can always find a way to do something. I know the way I posted it was kind of restrictive and lack luster, but it was just an example. [img][/img] Oof, I don't know how to make it any better for people that don't want to get involved in the game at its core... I've always been one to get immersed. [/quote] Yeah there is ALWAYS a way. Just saying why do an action that takes 30 minutes to get a specific item when you could do a different action that would only take 1 minute with the same end result. Paying for something in the market would also probably be cheaper than paying someone to take the 30 minutes to go out and find it. [/quote] Just eliminate the non-players market for that item because then every player will need that 30 min to get that item (even the seller so the item will be "30min" expensive), but then a player can manage to get that money in other ways if he wants to. Every way to win a quest needs to have its pros and cons. I believe here you should think your design of the game backwards. What is your game about and what you want your players to accomplish? What is the hardest ever quest you want a "maximum size" party (or groups of parties) to accomplish? You have to think on that limit and limit every economic issue and character development into that. The game must have an end, after that maybe you can have a PvP or something like that, but the game needs an end that makes the game fun and nice.
  6. What kind of "Quests" would you like in an MMO/RPG, etc?

    [quote name='JigokuSenshi' timestamp='1347683093' post='4980285'] Yes this is how it should be, but paying someone to find it is just the same as buying it at the market no matter how rare an item is. Also if everyone can post quests there will be thousands upon thousands of quests available probably with many of them being very similar. [/quote] I belive this comes around the character customization you can deliver in your game. Even if the game is designed around item hunting (what would make players quest giving easier) there could be several stages to accomplish that. An armor is different from a dragon scale, and if someone will craft the dragon armor he will need tools and a forge. So these tools can be hard to find too, and the forge extremely expensive. A player with a forge will need wood or coal, fresh water and lots of resources and time so he can manage to build up his dragon armor piece. Finding the dragon scale can be a very fun quest too, players could go around some dragon's lair to pick them scattered on the ground (but very few of them at a time). The dragon could have some kind of behavior, like getting out to hunt once in a week (what would give players some 30 min to get into his lair and get his scales there (the greedy ones would want to steal his gold/treasure too) but on a very danger management kind of play, with a very time consuming dungeon to explore. But some gnomes or goblins npcs could be on that business too, selling those scales at a very expensive price. A good party of players could even try to lure the monster out of his lair, while another party enters it (what could give players dungeon crawling the exact 30 min). (so here you have two quests in one) So a quest like this would be a vey complex one, needing lots of player skill and coordination, character improvement, teamplay an even some luck. That would be fun... ^^ Would be fun even to do some thousands of times maybe (needed to complete the full dragon scale set). The killing the dragon quest could be an entirely different quest, hardest one ever, needing some traps setting, magic management, a very well balanced and level capped party.
  7. What kind of "Quests" would you like in an MMO/RPG, etc?

    [quote name='JigokuSenshi' timestamp='1347678602' post='4980273'] Yes I totally agree with what your saying, but based on people it wont work as well as you think. (Awesome that you brought up contracts because thats exactly how I picture everything. Every deal, trade, quest, etc). Lets say I post a quest asking another player to gather specific items from a specific monster. Again this brings up "items" and with items why not just go to the market and buy it instead of paying someone to go get it and have to wait when you could get it instantly. It would only work if it was out of stock or something. Lets say a player chooses to participate in the quest. Is that the only player that can participate in that quest? Is it up to the player that gave out the quest to choose the player amount? Okay lets say the player that took the quest begins the quest and then stops halfway and logs off the game. Does the quest automatically becoming void? Will every contract need to have a time limit? Lets say that every player given quest will require a time limit. What if 3 players all fail before they finish, they player that gave out the quest will have to wait for the 4th player to finally finish to get what he wants. What if you give out a quest and a player takes it and then you find out halfway through that you don't want those items and don't want to pay the player for finishing the quest. Will you be able to cancel the quest halfway through making the player that took the quest angry that what he did was for nothing? Will the player that gave the quest just be screwed and have to pay the player anyways? I've thought this through a lot and the only way to do it is to make it simple like I said before. A way to make it work better would be to not have an in game market at all, and I'm sure players would hate that. Even then players would just trade personally and go onto forums and the like in order to trade instead of dealing with quests. Everyone wants instant satisfaction instead of having to wait for what they want. EDIT: I guess I'm not saying that there isn't a way it could be implemented in game, just that there is no point in implementing it when there are much easier and quicker ways of getting the item. [/quote] I believe here the point is make the item, and economy of the game, as coerent as possible. One fun implementation I just saw on the MMO Path of Exile, is that there is no money/gold in this game. Every piece of loot has a price in scrolls and some new kinds of items that have the ability to empower your gear. I can't say yet if that economic model works, but seems fun and true enough in a fantasy enviroment. Another point is, quest giving and time. One game that has a fun loot system and great quest design is Monster Hunter Tri. There is no trading though, because it would make questing/looting pointless, since the only way to "get stronger" in this game is loot (there is no character level progression), one thing that Diablo 3 failed to accomplish. In MH3, for instance, quests, all of them, have time limit. Every single quest has a 50min time limit, and that feels just great. While some quests need no more than 5-15 min, many times you can fail at the time limit or finish the quest at 45-49min. And that quest design is good in many ways. When you log in to play it feels like a "round" of game, so if you have less than an hour to play you can just make some short quests. If you have an hour make one hard-long one, and you feel you accomplished something on that time. That quest design just fits into a "player as quest-giver" enviroment and also gives players the feel of fullfillment for a short ammount of time played. I believe most MMOs fail at this point with it's repetitive quest design and grinding of level (or loot) at high levels of the game. And even if you have a good "arc" or linking between quests you can give players a feel of "campaing" (MH3 delivers that also on the single player campaing) with this time limit. As player I even have this problem when logging out-in. Sometimes I get like "wut quest was me doing anyway?" ¬¬ Maybe that is because of the repetitive design of quests. But again I don't think the flaw is in the design of the quest anyway. I think the flaw is in the way quests can be accomplished, most item quests are designed around the kill-and-loot concept while that can be fun sometimes it becomes boring after you've done it a thousand times. An item quest could be designed to be accomplished in various ways, that would customize gameplay. Let's think about real life for instance, If I am hungry I have several ways to accomplish that quest. I can go to a pub/snack house or restaurant. I can go to the market, buy some materials and cook my own food. I can order food at home. I can look into the fridge and eat whatever is there. That is what gives me personality and meaning, the fact that I can choose the way to do some thing. I can choose a cheap way, a quick way, a delightfull way of doing that and all of them can be fun to me for different reasons. I can even train some skills (like barter and cooking) while doing that "quest". An item quest could be designed the same way. I can steal that item from someone, kill and loot, craft it (maybe even craft a cheap version or fake version of the item), buy it from some vendor (maybe even steal it from the vendor), but all that needs to be meaningfull. If the item is too cheap in the market the quest doesn't even make sense, since in a "real" enviroment the vendor would already have reached the quest giver (or that would make the "buying from the market" option mandatory). But the point here is giving player roles (or playstyle) some meaning on the task. What classes have your game? What kind of resources they have to accomplish the quests? In this enviroment it wouldn't even hurt to have some quests being impossible for some classes or too easy for others. While most MMOs focus on combat that quest design would give players the option to never get into battle if that is their playstyle (and that is an option I'd like to see implemented on MMOs).
  8. being realistic

    [quote name='igna92ts' timestamp='1346789810' post='4976562'] I wanted to know if it is possible for a single person to make a game in sdl and or opengl and with this i mean a big game not just a pong or something like that. Should i use a game engine instead?? I want to make a nice looking game, i prefer 2d but i dont dislike 3d. I also like to code so I wouldn't like to use one of those engines where you don't code at all. I feel that even though engines help a lot they also limit what you can do and also even though I like the flexibility that using sdl and opengl gives you but it seems to hard [img][/img] and maybe I just can't find any good one but everytime I try to look for projectsmade in sdl, sfml, opengl and directx they all look horrible and boring. [/quote] Most of books/texts I saw on game design were like: "The first ten games you design will be crap, so do them quick and as soon as possible..."
  9. What kind of "Quests" would you like in an MMO/RPG, etc?

    Hi, I have this idea that I would love to see implemented. Players as quest givers! What do you think? Let's say my character is a merchant and crafter, that can post quests regarding real items he will be creating once he gets the material? The place where are the resources or animals for crafting are in another big area. This area is property of another player, that can't protect its place on his own. So this player needs to to hire other players to help him protecting it. I believe it is a very crude idea, that needs a lot of polishing to work, but if ever will I make a MMO I would try do make an enviroment where players are the true makers of the story in the game. Let's say it is a war between several factions (as most MMOs are) but the Leaders of factions would be players instead of NPCs.
  10. Tutorials - How to Learn a Game's Mechanics

    Hi, didn't readed all the posts but watched the video. Another great game from capcom with writen tutorials is Monster Hunter Tri (I only played this version). This game is huge and in many ways the whole single player experience (that can be around 60 hours) is its tutorial. And in the very beginnig it has its own kind of "intro stage" where the written tuts get place. But anyway they kind make it part of the game, so it doesn't feel so intrusive. Tomorrow maybe I can read and answer better the thread.
  11. How items should work in MMOs?

    I have not that experience with MMOs but been thinking very much on itemization on rpgs lately. Items are very important part of MMOs simply because special ones are the only way a character can progress after level cap (and that is one of the aspects that gives MMOs longevity). So in fact you must have two items systems one before lvl cap, and one completely different after it. In fact I cant think of a way Items will develop without knowing how does they affect the character design. That is a great issue especialy if you want items to be relevant on the end-game. [quote name='cronocr' timestamp='1346938486' post='4977185'] 1. Quest items: should this work in serial? the player that finds it first keeps the object until it's released by solving the quest; or should this work in parallel? there is a unique copy of the item for each player; should it be timed? the quest object is reset each X (how much?) minutes so another player will have to come back later. [/quote] Well that depends on the quests design. And on the numbers of players doing that quest at the same time. Do you want that quest do affect the enviroment? Once a player ends it something changes on the scenario or on the npcs behavior? If yes then definitely it is finder's keeper's. If someone is doing that quest it shouldn't even be available to others maybe... But if it is a main quest with no influence, let them all have that item, for main quests it is mandatory since the player needs to do it... For all the other points I wanted to hear more about the character design. What is the influence of gear on the character? Does a skilled player can live without gear? Does the items influence skills? or just armor + attack? Do you want basic sets of items to be mandatory? Can some powerfull gear open up new areas to low level characters? How much time do you expect a player to be on certain levels? Lets say your level cap is 50. Then players will spend most of their time grinding on lvl 40-50, there you will need some more items to keep them going more than on the previous levels... So the randomness of droping an item needs to be atuned with that. At every level past lvl 40 heroes will need one or two new good gear pieces, because the time spend between leveling needs to compensate somehow. Are items rewards from quests? Etc...
  12. Turn Based Games - Initiative

    The point is, do you want every unit to be important? Let's say your group is a group of heroes, everyone with it's roles and all, so it is important as a way to individualize them to give them this autonomy. You want the duel to occur between the Players (like in a card game) or between the units? The problem here is balance I think. I've been playing recently a card game called shadow era. In a card game there is no battlefield, no moving, so every creature on the table can immediatly (or on the subsequent turn) attack the adversary. That is a huge advantage. How does the player deploy the units? When the battle begins are they all on the field? or the player must deploy them one by one? What is the size of the battlefield? If in the first turn all melee units can reach and attack the adversary the group initiative can be a big balance issue. But if they need to move one turn at least to be able to attack, I believe there is no big problem with it because the first player to move is also the first player to be fully attacked (if he moves all his units foward). In fact in this way you are giving one more strategic element to the players, because the first player can halt some of its units, or make them move less, in order to secure them one more turn.