Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

733 Good

1 Follower

About ShiftyCake

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hey everyone. I was hoping for some insight on what others think works for monster types in monster catching games (such as Pokemon), and how much they agree/disagree with my own thoughts. I was originally going down a design hole where I was just imagining as much as possible and then deciding what to cut, but as I was developing the monster types I had someone mention that one of the reasons they loved Pokemon was for its simplicity, and I realised what I was developing was the opposite of that. I had a rough design for something like this: Standard (single-type monsters i.e. Air) Dual (two-type monsters i.e. Air-Electric) Archetype (unique two-type monster combined into a new type i.e. Storm (Air-Electricity)) Legendary (same as Archetype but for more significant concepts i.e. Harmony (Fire-Water)) Unique (man-made monster types i.e. Taint) And the way I was gonna showcase it is provided rather poorly in this example (The two types Fire-Water combined into Radiant - ignore that not making sense): I thought including all these different types would be fun and add some variety. However on further thought I was looking at things backwards. Types in Pokemon were originally used to give monsters strengths and weaknesses via a damage buff/debuff. Over-complicating this formula makes the reason for them lose value, and players will start to feel overwhelmed just keeping track of the different monster types. Instead what gave Pokemon individuality was their design itself, and adding a new type isn't necessary for this design. So I thought of following the same concept, but only showing it on the design side rather then the player side. For example, the Archetype 'Storm' will be a monster based on the concept, but the type will still be Air-Electric rather then becoming a new type. Same with Legendary. Unique would stay because they have reasons for existing, for example Taint is the corruption of monsters via a scientist experimenting on them and so they become outside of the norm. So the new version would look like this: Standard (single-type monsters i.e. Air) Dual (two-type monsters i.e. Air-Electric) Archetype (two-type unique monster based on a concept i.e. Air-Electricity (Storm)) Legendary (i.e. Fire-Water (Harmony)) Unique (man-made monster types i.e. Taint) I had even more silly ideas beyond this like having the Archetype as special Mythic monsters. Or throwing in a variety of standard types like Soul and Plasma. However I believe types should be instantly understandable to the player, and they should be able to correlate weaknesses and strengths using common sense. It wouldn't be fun to have to constantly figure out what is weak to what, juggling a bunch of different types in your head. In a way the Dual and Archetype categories are both the same, and I have had the thought of combining the two. I'm just not sure if the idea of a combination will restrict what types of dual-type monsters can be created. If I focus on keeping a short and simple amount of types in the Standard monster types, I shouldn't have any problems in terms of complexity as the rest will be based on the standard types. As far as I've thought anyhow. I'll think on it some more but I'd appreciate any thoughts on the subject. If you have any ideas yourself I'd love to hear them.This is a passion project that I'm working on by myself so I don't really have other people to bounce ideas off.
  2. ShiftyCake

    Lore & Mythology to RPG SIM:

    You're far too aggressive. You came to this forum to get opinions, so we're giving them. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, but have the courtesy to treat us with respect. To me, there are some fundamental flaws with your idea, but it isn't impossible: 1. What you have described so far is player-driven lore. Not game mechanics, which is where player retention will be. When you open up an MMO, are you there because the story is interesting? No, that's just a bonus (a very rare bonus). You're there because the game mechanics are fun. You'll go pick up a book if all you want is a good story. The idea of the player driving the lore of the game is 'interesting' but not inherently 'fun'. Not to mention that if you did implement such a feature, players would want it two-fold: player-driven lore and mechanics. Which is a bit of a bastard to build, but rare enough that you have a high chance of people being interested in it (with, again, the bare minimum that the player-driven mechanics is fun). 2. You're making the game change genres in different stages of its progress. People who want to play an RTS aren't looking for an RPG, and vice versa. Your promise to the RTS players who get through the first stage is 'you can now play an RPG'. How would that interest them? Perhaps you can advertise a model where you separate the two types of players. The RTS fans will shape the world and when they're finished, the RPG fans can come in and enjoy it. However, this does make gathering enough players harder, and the marketing more confusing. 3. No-one wants to pay any money for the 'limited' version of a game (a single payment/subscription base would work much better), especially if it isn't backed by a respected company or approved developer. There are so many well crafted, complete multiplayer games that are drafted and failing because they didn't get enough player retention (either through bad marketing or bad luck). You need to be sure that your game isn't too niche to fall flat. Unlike other games, your game needs to be populated at its beginning otherwise the rest of it will spiral into oblivion. This is much harder then other types of design models. I'm not saying you can't make this game, or it won't be successful. All I'm saying is it is a massive time investment, a very niche market, and the only way it will succeed is if you provide quality player-driven mechanics alongside your player-driven lore. A follow up thought for this is to have your game be time-limited, and have the server start again every say 6-12 months. This would let new people experience the entirety of the game, and let old players implement new ideas and theories in the next iteration. Then you can have a progression system outside of a single 'game', and implement new mechanics over time.
  3. ShiftyCake

    Tower Defenses: Best features?

    For me, a tower defense game can really stand out in three ways: 1. Interesting tower design. Although this one should be obvious, there are too many TD games that follow a generic tower design. The reason Bloons TD is so successful is that it has a good variety of towers and features. It's fun to test out new tower combinations and, most importantly, the towers feel satisfying. 2. Tower evolutionary paths. You feel invested into your towers when you get to evolve them, seeing their characteristics change as you make choices on how they progress. To be honest, for me I think TD's are very limited in their evolutionary paths, even Bloons TD falls rather flat. Tower evolutions should give two things: more power, and more fun. However it's rare to see a TD to take risks in this area, since you can't go wrong with traditional-based tower evolutions. I get that, but I'd still love to see someone go wild one day with the evolutionary paths. 3. Progress. A good TD will be taking you somewhere, not just having you build towers. Whether this is done through a campaign-based narrative, unlocking further events (maps) and combat variety (features/towers/evolutions) or providing competition with players through co-op, versus or leaderboards. Or a combination of all three, which is, again, what Bloons TD does (minus the narrative). Progress makes you feel involved, and it makes you want to continue to play even after the game becomes stale and predictable. And that's the thing. A tower defense game is never infinite. The player will, at some point, put it down and stop playing. A good tower defense game doesn't try to prolong this. They try to make that period of time before the player stops as fun and interesting as possible. try Kingdom Rush on the app store, which focuses on a campaign-based narrative for progress. That's a good example of a TD that provides a large satisfaction in its gameplay, but isn't an extensive and time-consuming TD. People love it because it gives a great experience, even though it's considered a far shorter game compared to bloons TD (but that concept is very artificial since bloons TD focuses on competition and event/combat variety).
  4. Hey guys, I've been doing some research on this question but I'm not really understanding enough currently. I'm slowly working on an old-school style turn-based RPG (it's a 2D top-down style like final fantasy I-III), and I've been thinking of setting up a long-term contract with an artist where I commission him for different parts of the game's art as I work on it (mostly at his own discretion since I would be putting him out without a clearly defined time-frame). While I'm on it, is that a bad idea? However, my main question resides on the creation of the game art. When it is being created, do you need to take into account that some of the assets will be animated, and does that affect how the art is made? Before I go any further, I really want to understand this. Forgive me if it's a stupid question, but I'm mostly at a loss on all this. I'm very much a beginner hobbyist.
  5. I also had thoughts on going in that direction, but I'm still a little tentative as I don't want to over-complicate the gameplay. The type of old-school turn-based gameplay I'm designing leads to a lot of grinding (fast and repetitive battles for basic monsters), so either I need to not impact the time it takes to finish a basic battle, or I need to make each individual battle more impactful. Currently I'm leaning towards making the battles more impactful, so less but harder battles that offer greater rewards for completion. This way I can also make more interesting and varied enemies instead of 'cannon fodder' so to speak. I think this is leading my game toward a good direction, but I'm also leaving the roots of those types of old-school turn-based RPG's. I'm not sure how this will impact my game in the long-term. To include the environment, I'm thinking of expanding the 'hit boxes' and leading toward a simplified grid-based environment as per my example (with the game having three characters/enemies at one time): With 1 being friendly, 2 being neutral (further separated by enemy neutral and friendly neutral) and 3 being enemy 'hit boxes'. It is further seperated by sky, field and ground (underground) environment levels. Is that easy to understand? Sorry if I made it confusing, I'm not good at explaining things. The idea is to define an environment effect by quantifying what type of grid it impacts. For example, an ability can impact the 'sky' 'friendly' (so top 1's) environment. Or another ability can impact the 'field' 'enemy neutral' environment (so left middle 2's). or it can impact all environments. This way I can decide on an effect and quantify its relationship to the battle zone. Do you think this system is a good idea? I can always fiddle around with what grid layout works best, but I thought the general concept was a good direction. The only thing I'm worried about is taking things too far and turn it into a pseudo version of the isometric field-based gameplay that games like final fantasy tactics use, which I definitely don't want to do. It isn't the type of gameplay I want for this game. As for art/animation, it would definitely be a large increase but I don't believe it would be too overwhelming. Just because the animations and art will only need to be drawn once because of the style of game it is, but I'll take it one step at a time.
  6. ShiftyCake

    Let's make something amazing

    Oh, that's great! Hope it works out
  7. ShiftyCake

    Ideas to make more action

    Can you add further details? What type of 'action' are you looking for? just saying action isn't very helpful, because it can be taken in many extreme directions. Judging from what you said, your problem seems to be that you have an end-goal, but no middle-goals. Another way to say it is that the end-goal is not the main goal. For example, a game's goal may be 'defeat the dragon and save the princess!'. However, is defeating the dragon the main goal of the game? It isn't. The main goal is to become powerful enough to defeat the dragon. Therefore, 'to become powerful' is what you must make fun, not 'defeating the dragon'. To do this, 'to become powerful' must be satisfying. You accomplish this through middle-goals. For example, a strong narrative can be considered a middle-goal. Boss battles can be considered the same. Hell even side-quests, varied classes, evolving combat and loot-based equipment can be considered middle-goals. To define it simpler, a middle-goal is anything that increases the 'fun value' of the game's progression. Does this make sense? I'm really not good at explaining things.
  8. I'm slowly working on a turn-based RPG hobby project based on the early final fantasy games (especially final fantasy I-III). I've had an idea on adding a dynamic to the game through the manipulation of the combat zone's environment. To start, here's an example of the combat zone: Essentially the four player-controlled characters act as a separate 'hit box', where an enemy can either choose to attack one hit box (one character) or, if the attack allows it, multiple/all hit boxes. The combat doesn't evolve any further then that. You can only attack the hit box's and the rest of the environment only acts as aesthetics. So I was playing nier recently (no don't leave! this is relevant) and from the very first boss battle I was completely enraptured. I loved the strange fluidity to the battles that treated the boss battle as a living event, rather than a singular instance. The environment, perspective and goals changed constantly throughout the different stages of the battle, creating this weirdly wonderful gameplay. After playing it, I realised that my game has so much potential in this area. Especially because it is turn-based, it allows me to separate environmental changes into events that can constantly shift between one turn to the next. For example, a character may be able to change the environment to different elements buffing that element and weakening the polar element. Perhaps changing to a water environment increases lightning damage as well, or adds a stun effect to it. Or an enemy could drag one of the player characters into the air, shifting the viewpoint and creating a hit box (character) up in the air. If that character doesn't use an ability to safely land in 1-2 turns, he slams into the ground and takes fall damage. However perhaps he has an ability that could increase exponentially with gravity added to it, doubling the damage in the air and sacrificing his health for the fall in return. If I let my imagination free, I can imagine all sorts of crazy ideas in relation to the environment. Especially with boss battles, adding some crazy environment changes would liven them up. The dynamic gives freedom and variety to an otherwise methodical type of gameplay. At the moment, I'm still in the 'I love this idea!' stage and I haven't done any testing or serious thought. I was just curious on other people's thoughts about it, and hoping to receive some feedback on the idea before I develop it further. An outside perspective is much better to give an objective viewpoint on the idea. I think one of the potential problems with it is that it may change from 'variety' to 'randomness' if I'm not careful, becoming more of a frustration to the player then fun. I should definitely focus on including clearly defined rules on how the environment affects the gameplay if I include it. Hopefully I don't sound dumb here. I've just came back to game design after an extended break, so I'm very much naive in many areas.
  9. ShiftyCake

    Let's make something amazing

    Not many people will join a project they know nothing of, as people have different interests. You don't need to explain your game's details, but at least include a brief description on the type of gameplay and expected focus. As for me, I've only just started programming so I'm too inexperienced if you're taking it seriously. Still, I wish you luck
  10. ShiftyCake

    Need help to decide certain itens for my game

    Dark souls was built around a dark world-setting. The game really only followed one rule: be true to the setting. Difficulty naturally came about from following this rule. The setting was gruesome, cold and cruel. The game had to be the same. Customisation only went as far as the natural differences between people and races. I know I'm diverging from writing here, but from your survey, I feel you currently have fundamental flaws. Anything that takes from the setting is a flaw in a dark souls-esque game. You want your player enthralled into your world, not to bring them out of it. Minigames would just be a gimmick. The main objective shouldn't be either of the ones you mentioned. You shouldn't start with a powerful weapon simply because it lacks progress for the player. You can start with a weapon that can grow stronger as your character does, but never start at a high point. Your player wants to reach that point through their own effort. To move onto your story, there isn't much there. There is nothing wrong with it, but there isn't anything great about it either. It's more of a starting point for you to begin writing from. As for mechanics, the fighting style won't separate you from other games. Don't try and change that too much. Try and perfect it for sure, because dark souls fighting style had many flaws. But to do that, you have to decide on what direction you want to take it. Do you want it to be fast and fluid? Or slow and careful. Or somewhere in the middle. It's better if you choose only one direction for the fighting style, otherwise it'll be too much work. I also recommend balancing it around either melee or ranged weapons. Have you played Salt and Sanctuary? Great game, but using the bow literally breaks the game, and the gun is too overpowered. They wasted development time on something that adds no value to the game. And the game has too many flaws for them to justify that. Keep the monsters and bosses fair. Every attack they do must be able to be countered. If a player ever feels that they can only beat an enemy or boss through luck, rather then their own skill, then you have failed. Finally, the places in your gameplay where you can make a difference is the weapons, magical abilities and progression system. Though dark souls method for all of these are tried and true, it doesn't mean you have to follow it. Innovation may lead to failure or success, but that's ultimately up to you.
  11.   Okay that's fair enough. I've spent some time having a go at it, and I've got it mostly figured out. I've sacrificed a bit of the look but I think its turned out nicely. I only have one real problem now, but I'll post that separately if I end up needing to.
  12. Hey guys, I'm in the process of configuring a custom HTML tab for my facebook page. problem is I only know some very basic coding and am a complete dunce at it.   however I want to create a tab like this one: https://www.facebook.com/littlejayneycakes/app/536426523079089/   The differences being that I would be displaying an image only (rather then a sound file), and the button would link directly to a website.   Now, I have no clue how to do that and then get it to look as smooth as hers is. I just feel way out of my depth here, but I really want something similar to it. It looks great.   i was hoping someone would be able to help me, or at least point me in the right direction.
  13. Hey! Unfortunately I'm only 20 years old. I know you're looking for someone older, but I thought I'd post just in case since I really think I'd love to work on your project. I can see the dedication you have for your game by watching your introduction, it looks fantastic.   I'm currently attending university for a writing course, and I'm interested in expanding my portfolio, so I'm definitely happy to work for free. When I saw this project my eyes instantly lit up.   I will be up-front on the fact that I am mostly inexperienced. I have done a few minor item descriptions, and I have written a small number of characters for a university game. If you'd like to see what I wrote for those characters, the link is here   I have also written a couple of online serials in the novel format. So if you would like to see some of my more detailed writing, my current online serial can be found here   I would love to put my heart into the game you're crafting. If you'd like to contact me, just reply here or send me an email at: andrewj_varela@hotmail.com   I understand if you're not interested in taking me on, and wish you the best with your game.
  14. ShiftyCake

    Do you ever have to worry about your stories being stolen?

    Not to mention that an idea is just an idea, and means absolutely nothing. It is your execution, your writing itself, that will determine a stories success or failure. Games are the same. Really anything is the same. Good ideas with poor execution will fall a lot faster then bad ideas with good execution.   Much further into development you can be worried that someone might steal your idea, but again it's a very very VERY small possibility. Backup your work on external drives and online. Keep a record of the work you do. That'll  cover you for the most part.   And to me, I wouldn't care even if someone did steal my story (or game). Sure, they're now making money off of it. But it would mean my game had what it takes, and if that's true I can make many more - because the one stealing it cannot replicate you, and you are what made that story or game. Though I have an odd perspective on things, so I doubt saying that will help you.
  15. @Scouting Ninja   Thanks a ton for all your help :) I really appreciate it! You've cleared up a lot of things so I can prepare for the future now. I think I'll remove the idea of hiring an artist and sound designer and look for a mix of store assets/my own simple work/hiring temporarily for some niche jobs. I won't hire an artist as a hobbyist, but I'll see if I can look for a sound designer. Otherwise I'll pay for them temporarily as well.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!