Jump to content
  • Advertisement

GalvonicBond

Member
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

298 Neutral

About GalvonicBond

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. GalvonicBond

    New take on Conversation in Video Games

    Your system reminds me a lot of Fallout 1 & 2, OP. Disposition, speech skill, intelligence stat, and topic all matter in the Classic Fallout dialogue.
  2. GalvonicBond

    Barebones of Quests

        Perhaps you're right in that I shouldn't have been too subjective and anecdotal in my first paragraph. I'm going to get instant hate for this, but I prefer modern games over the classics because of the level of immersion that I feel from them.   Not only do better graphics and higher resolutions already give video games a small head start in realism, but I believe they also create demand for a more flexible system that you simply couldn't achieve with retro graphics. The world could visually explain itself through tiny details. The superior hardware also meant more room for more side-quests with even more complex sequences.   Of course, this is not to say that earlier games were lacking in side-quests. Like you said, Arena and Daggerfall had plenty of "complex" side-quests, but despite their complex systems, they were definitely lacking in immersion for me.   Most of that was subjective and relied on graphical fidelity, so I'm not going to argue about what makes video games immersive.   Thanks for the feedback.   - Gavyn
  3. GalvonicBond

    Barebones of Quests

    I'll go ahead and start with the obligatory "I've been gaming for as long as I can remember". Around 14-15 years ago, games evolved from being just fun and exciting challenges and finally something that players can use to escape from reality. You had great titles such as Morrowind that were rich in lore and story. Sometimes the history of the world you're in would explain itself through quests. And of course, it's very hard to pull off a progressive story without some variant of quests or missions. It's just one major question that a lot of designers ask themselves: What's the character's incentive for going on this quest? The overall structure of quest design is surprisingly simple. Let's take a look at what most quests in video games are made of. Don't worry about the story Well, not yet, anyway. After all, the #1 priority in the creative side of games should be the challenges players have to go through. Before we go any further, let's put ourselves in a position where a designer cares more about progressing his story in a scenario as opposed to making a fun quest. Jonas was a powerful Battlemage. He had unlocked all five sacred runes and was fully prepared to enter the Dark Wizard's lair. Except a Stone Guardian stood in front of the entrance. Jonas fought the Stone Guardian, who shattered to pieces. When he went inside the lair, the Dark Wizard decided to absorb the Stone Guardian's soul and grew stronger than ever. Okay, not my best work, but you get the idea. This sounds like it'd be really enjoyable to go through because the story's so deep. Hey, even from a gameplay perspective it's pretty neat. The Dark Wizard has new powers in the final boss battle! Except, there's one thing missing. The depth. Not the kind of depth you look for in a story, either. I'm talking about the sequence of actions the player must take in order to complete his mission. When you think about it, the final quest really just boils down to the player going to the lair and killing two people. He should have built his story off of the barebones of a fun quest. Barebones of quests I think you've seen them in games before, too. You've played enough mediocre and just plain awful RPG games to see that all quests have this skeletal structure of blandness that's added on to by story. These barebones often include basic quest structures such as: Go find this item. Go kill this mob. Bring this mob to this location safely. Go kill X amount of mobs and bring me their substance. The sad thing is that many games out there do not add "meat" to their structure. Instead, the quest-givers will often say something along the lines of "Go to this cave and find this because it's important to me. I will give you gold." . Sound familiar? How about, "Those thugs stole my stuff. Go to their camp and bring it back for me." ? Of course, a few "simple" side-quests here and there don't hurt, but it's when they outnumber the good stuff and sometimes even take place in the main plot that it gets out of hand. A good way to avoid "skinny" plots is to always ask, "Why?" when adding another part to the sequence. Like this: Go kill those spiders and bring me their venom Because they've been kidnapping children and it's too dangerous to step directly into their lair. We need to know whether or not this venom is instantly lethal. Sneak into that abandoned house and steal this journal Because that house isn't abandonded, these spiders are possessed by a witch living in there. We need her notes. Try not to startle her, will you? Go into their lair and bring this little boy to the Castle Because that's the Prince and we just found out that he might just still be alive. We went over the witch's notes, she wants to extract his youth and live for eternity. We also found out that the reason these spiders didn't eat her before she attempted magic on them was because she mixed their venom with Vampire Dust. This renders you invisible to these spiders, so drink this. So, now you have a somewhat interesting quest about this evil witch trying to possess nearby spiders to bring children to her lair so that she will be young forever. This was all from expanding the "Why's" of a pretty basic quest sequence. Conclusion Now we know how to give a quest both an interesting story and a fun sequence of action. Basic tasks can be expanded into something really deep with a bit of effort, and it's up to you to either conform your stories to your quests, or the other way around. This method can be used for those who aren't good at coming up with stories and need to create an incentive to play the game, or for those who are great with stories and need to create quests that can also stand as a fun and challenging experience.
  4. GalvonicBond

    How Do Terraria Animations Work?

    It's all just a matter of preference. You can have each "part" of your sprite rigged so that it can act like a ragdoll (would require extra software), or you can do spritesheet animations.
  5. GalvonicBond

    Thinking of a game idea.

    What games have you made in the past, and have you ever had to handle networking that's actually applicable to multiplayer games?
  6. GalvonicBond

    Where to go next?

      I'd like to also add that the more advanced your game is, the more low-level code you should work with. C# will do you well in smaller projects, but you might eventually find yourself working on a project where managing your own memory is necessary.
  7. GalvonicBond

    Portal gun Source COde

    Hi.   There is no publicly released code for the Source Engine that will handle Portals for you, but there is currently an Open Source project out there called "GLPortal", which is an engine that handles Portals in a way similar to Valve's game in OpenGL C++. While you can't copy and paste, you can take a look at the syntax and learn how to implement a similar system for yourself. Keep in mind implementing this in your Source Mod won't be easy, because Valve's rendering code is all over the place. Gmod's Portal Gun runs via a lua script and the way it functions is very different to how Valve handles the ASHPD.
  8. Sounds to me like the bones belong to your skeleton class. If it's a flappy bird clone, the arrows should be constructed in a list belonging to the scene, not the individual skeletons.
  9. GalvonicBond

    Unity Unity or C++?

    Bit of an apples and oranges comparison, IMO. It's hard to publicly gather opinions regarding Unity without starting a debate because some people prefer freedom and control, while others just want functionality. I haven't used Unity that much, but here's a somewhat objective analysis from what I've gathered from my own personal experience.   Unity has more of a "socialized" game structure of reusing assets like scripts and models on new entities. So, basically if peaceful civilians have something in common with cave smugglers and you don't feel like reprogramming their common features, you'd divide them into separate scripts. So, it's one script for a health system that they share, another one for a pathfinding system that they share, and then they'd both have their own unique script for processing AI.   C++, on the other hand, handles it a bit differently. As opposed to a socialized system, you have a system of inheritance. It looks something like this.     So, it really all comes down to personal preference.
  10. You're not being very descriptive. Are you making an online turn-based strategy game using Google Maps? If you're making a full 3D game that takes place in real life, that's going to be about a terabyte worth of level design unless it's procedurally generated (in which case, it's NOT real life, and you'd still have to get a server big enough to host that big map).   Also, what if only 2 people in my area play the game? It'd feel really empty. Plus, those two people over the internet would know where I live. In fact, ANYONE playing the game would know where I live.     Now, I'd totally play a turn-based strategy game that uses Google Maps (or something similar), but I wouldn't want to give away any personal information like where I live.
  • 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!