Iron Chef Carnage

Members
  • Content count

    3829
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1845 Excellent

About Iron Chef Carnage

  • Rank
    Contributor
  1. map borders in an open world game

    A-10 Attack! from the 90's had endless wasteland with a soft boundary at its edges, so you could fly for an hour past the map border, then when you turn around you're just a few kilometers away from the edge.
  2. map borders in an open world game

    Arma maps sometimes use water, but others have endless procedural wastelands beyond the edge of the map.  It's pretty obvious where the line is, since ground clutter like trees and bushes cut off, and all roads end, but nothing prevents you from driving or flying forever, and fights between aircraft often range far beyond the map boundaries.  I can remember a few times when I'd win a dogfight, but run out of fuel and have to ditch my plane 20km or more outside the map, which made for some awkward conversations with the rescue chopper crew.  "Where exactly are you down again?"   Basically, the terrain is endless, but incredibly boring, so people stick within the gamespace.
  3. The Most Dangerous Game (Concept)

    They make everyone read the story in grade school, which is why it works so well as a Simpsons joke.  Everyone knows it, everyone gets it.  The idea of hunting people for sport, however, is not exactly trademarked, so even if you get the idea from a specific work of fiction, your dystopian future man-hunting sport is probably safe in terms of litigation, since it would take an all-star team of Running Man/Most Dangerous Game/Hunger Games/Predator/Crysis/Ice-T lawyers to stand shoulder to shoulder and sue you instead of each other.   It's a good idea, but it's really just an asymmetrical adversarial gametype.  You can do a lot with it, but don't let yourself believe that the idea will be good all by itself.
  4. FPS Games, Recoil and Spread

    I hate view swim in video games.  It's pretty much the only option for sniper rifles, I suppose, but I despised it in Deus Ex and every game since then that features it.  If you're telling me that I can't hold my gun straight due to fatigue or stance or incompetence, tell me that by having the gun move, not my eye.
  5. Closing the loop: player death in a schmup?

    I like this idea very much, especially when combined with kseh's idea of a finite armada of ships.   I seem to recall that Wing Commander linked a branching story and player performance.  As went your sortie, so went the war.  Your success or failure in a mission to destroy an enemy freighter would result in victory or defeat for an allied battlegroup four systems away.  It worked well.   So link the player's performance in a level of the schmup to the persistent world's development and progression.  Assume that the player's ship is representative of the average skill and effectiveness of the pilots on his team.  So start out with kseh's 1000-ship force, and however well the player does in each engagement is reflected in the fleet's performance, which you learn about in the debriefing.  If you get killed by the first bullet, then the battle was a rout and your forces were decimated.  If you storm the level and kill the boss without taking a hit, then your aces swept the field and achieved victory with minimal losses.  If you get 75% of the way through the level, take damage to core systems, and retreat to base to refit your craft, then the level is incomplete, but the number of enemies you killed is reflected in the state of the battle, and when you "retry", the difficulty will have been adjusted accordingly.   You could even measure performance in more than one way.  Killing enemies and losing your ships would affect the ratio of good guys/bad guys, which would have an effect on how many enemies appear in the level.  Destroying minibosses or strategic facilities might activate shortcuts, remove threats or debuff opponents.  With your episodic format, persistent inventory and larger-scale consequences for choices made and actions taken, it might even become wise to skip a tough fight if the expected losses outweigh the benefits.
  6. How to make ww2 naval combat fun?

    How about turret rotation speed as a factor, so you can sail circles around an enemy boat so fast that his guns can't catch up to you?   Truth be told, it sounds pretty fun right now.  I don't know how the controls work, but if you're making it feel like an arcade game, could you have things like speed boosts in there?  What about "critical hits", due to either weapon type or a RNG proc, for hits that ignite the enemy's magazine or damage engines or weapons?   Naval warfare is often crazy long-range, so a distance fight might include some dodging or different mechanics to make it just as interesting as a close-up fight.   Can we cross the T?
  7. RPG: Level System or Fixed Point?

    "The Grind" as a pure time sink can be a very tedious element in a game, especially when the game itself is simple.  Rudimentary mechanics make the game feel flat and transparent.  If I, as a player, can see the strings and understand that a boss's DPS can only be withstood with the stat boost that only comes from reaching level 17, then the twenty minutes of grinding to get that level-up is like a punishment for me.  If I want to take a chance on a new strategy that requires me to up my swordsmanship to 13 and my magical resistance to 38% and my agility to "catlike", then I can spend those same twenty minutes training and feel like it's a good thing, something I'm doing so I can do a sweet backflip through a fireball and stab the boss in the scrotum, rather than just getting my green bar to grow longer than the red bar.  I know where to find cookie clicker, thanks.   Unlocking skills, abilities or stat boosts at key points in the game can be good, since it gives the developer some more control over the game's pace and prevents players from getting stupidly powerful early on with the help of a rubber band and a six-pack of PBR, but it can start to feel contrived, and undermine the sense of achievement from earlier gains.  I'm a big fan of Metroid-style character development.  When I get the hookshot in a Zelda game, I know that I'm getting a lot with it:  Mobility, combat maneuvers, item retrieval and--most of all--access to whole new regions that were off-limits to me before.
  8. Idea for a Evolution and Society driven game

    Go into a little more detail about what sets this apart from Spore, please.  This looks a lot like Spore, on its face, but you seem to be trying to accentuate the thing I hated about that game, which was the mishmash of different game modes and mandatory switches between them.   At each stage of Spore, you have a fairly small amount of content and an interface that differs somewhat from other stages.  It felt to me like every time I "got good" at the game I was playing, I was obligated to stop playing that game and start playing another game, at which I was not good.  Past success didn't translate into any appreciable advantage, since having cleverly placed spines or teeth had no impact on my critters' ability to fly a spaceship, so the player is in essence traversing a sequence of minigames to unlock the game's final form, which was kind of insipid.   So if you make a game that's similar, but more hardcore, then you'll have to have a more robust creature creation system, a deeper social interaction system, a sophisticated city simulation system and a compelling political system.  Each of these products would be a challenge for any team to produce, and the task of integrating them into a functional whole may well be insurmountable.  Is there a chance you'll get into a situation where your species is not competitive in global warfare because they don't have the thumbs needed to operate rifles?  Will your industry suffer because your cold-blooded workers only do two hours of work per day, spending the rest of their time basking on warm rocks?  Will a failure to nail down a central religious tradition render your civilization incapable of sustaining its social justice as it expands?   In short, will decisions from small-scale gameplay have serious ramifications when applied to large-scale gameplay?  If so, will you be able to "back up" and fix errors?  If not, aren't the early stages just one big stupid character creator for the "real" game?  Will each phase have its own interface for the player to master, or will they all use the same universal UI?   You need more than programmers, bub.  You need a better idea.
  9. Cool Gun Ideas!?

    I like a gun that sticks enemies to walls, like a spear gun.  Fire works on zombies in an amusing way.
  10. My MMORPG ideas

    Looks like a long shot.  If you're going to build a game as complex as this, from the ground up, you'll need a lot of tools and experience.   From what I see here, the most interesting element you describe is the PvP matches.  If you could nail down the balance and mechanics needed to make that game mode work, and to make it stand out from similar games, you'd really be onto something.
  11. Incentive or penalty ?

    Dead Rising has "cards" for weapon recipes.  You can built the thing without them if you know how, but the card helps you be more effective at it.  It works well as a buff to a weapon, but I'm not so sure it would work for tactical deployment of troops.   The benefit would be the ability to quickly set up a formation or maneuver, and the penalty would be that the units will be blocked out in a way that might be less than optimal for the specific scenario.  If you want your heavy gunner or your AT guy or whatever in a specific spot, and then when you play the "card" you get them distributed correctly, but sub-optimally, then you still have to tweak it a bit.  Using the cards as shorthand for roughing out your troop placement would be a handy mechanic for quick and dirty deployments, but won't totally obviate the need for battlefield awareness and micromanagement of resources.
  12. Alternatives for a 1-up icon?

    Holy Grail?
  13. Magic advancement system

    Having played Magicka, I'm worried about input mechanics for a spell-heavy action RPG.  If you're making the casting as deep as this thread seems to indicate, then you might frustrate players when they are called upon to whip up an appropriate magical maneuver in the time they usually use to swing a sword.  In Magicka, that usually leads to either long periods of kiting while deciding on a spell, or players just ignoring 90% of the possibilities and jamming out endless streams of identical spells, only changing their formula when they meet a hard counter for their primary weapon.   You didn't ask for input system advice, but I'm going to throw something out there:  How about letting players pre-fabricate certain spells that they use frequently, and keep them on a "hot bar" or something, to be used like Duke Nukem uses different weapons?  Instead of manually constructing and casting their spells, they could bottle them up and use them at will.   Going a little deeper down that rabbit hole, could you tie aptitude into that system as well?  Make a distinction between "memorized" spells and "improvised" spells.  In addition to being more convenient for the player to cast, a memorized spell might get a reduced cast time or mana cost, but the character's level puts a hard cap on the strength and complexity of spells that can be memorized.  An improvised spell is clumsier to cast, takes longer, can be messed up by player error and costs the full amount, but it can be customized for the circumstances and you can make bigger, beefier spells this way than any spell you could have memorized.   So give them three or five or ten spell "slots" to store their usual go-to spells in, and then give them the tools to whip up something creative, at their peril.
  14. Call for opinions: handling player death in a tutorial

    A flight simulator is a lot like a roguelike, though, in that you don't lose much when you die again and again and again in the early part of the game.  They're designed to teach you skills, and then give you scenarios in which to apply those skills, and then give you challenges to attempt with those skills.  Bizarrely, I think that flight sims and Minecraft fit together pretty well.  The first few times you play, you are terrible and you feel terrible and you do terribly, but once you reach a certain level of competence, the gameplay itself becomes almost trivial, and instead of getting a high score or leveling up your avatar, you're reading on wikipedia about Immelmann turnss or high-efficiency farm layouts and engaging the content on a whole new level.   Flight sim "tutorials" often take the form of either 700-page manuals (remember manuals?) or instructional videos (often supplanted in the modern day by YouTube Let's Plays)  These are often challenging to players, though.  I spent more time on the Dwarf Fortrees Wiki than I did in Dwarf Fortress for the first for months I played that game, and even now it's in my bookmarks toolbar, despite the hundreds of hours I've logged in that game.  If your seamless open-world experience needs an integrated tutorial, I have three recommendations:   First, consider scenarios.  Kerbal Space Program is a good example of this.  If I want to learn how to land on a moon with no atmosphere, I have two options.  I can spend an hour or two building a rocket that might get me there in a lander that might work, and I can try to guess when it's appropriate to quicksave, and I can throw myself against the task for two days until I figure out how it can be done, or else I can fire up a pre-made landing scenario that's 100% guaranteed to have a capable craft in an acceptable trajectory, and throw myself against that for about twenty minutes until I learn the mechanics.  Including little mini-games like that with your game that will let players conjure a situation and deal with it will be much easier for them than requiring them to risk their whole in-game career in each of the unlikely circumstances where that skill is crucial.   Second, consider after-action reports.  When the player dies or loses or otherwise fails, let the game assess what, exactly, wrecked them.  Then, offer guidance based on that.  You could have a few sentences explaining how fatigue works and why that caused them to lose consciousness and freeze to death in the woods, or you can tell them about how to build a fire, or you can even point them toward the handy training scenario that teaches the methods for avoiding that fate.   Third, consider loading screen messages.  More than once, my quality of play and enjoyment of a game has been boosted when a loading screen included a tip like, "Hold Right Control and press M to toggle your minimap between topographic and strategic modes."  Trickling little nuggets of wisdom into the player's experience of the game will do the work of manual perusal and trial and error, and offer a stream of "A-ha!" moments to your users.  Arma 2 uses quotes from Dslyecxi's excellent Tactics, Techniques and Procedures guide on its loading screens, and they are helpful to rookies and veterans alike.
  15. Call for opinions: handling player death in a tutorial

    What's the tutorial like?  If it's just a level that's structured to gradually introduce mechanics, then failure/death conditions can be the same as any other level.  If it's some kind of dedicated, "complete this level to get your videogaming certificate and get access to the rest of the product," then you can have it be a VR chamber or a flashback or a semi-interactive vignette and either lock out inappropriate actions or have a "checkpoint" every three seconds that'll back you up with a slap on the wrist when you fail.