Landfish, try outcast to see how they find a solution to include the savegame feature into gameplay.


I NEVER, EVER thought of a game that as no central theme, chapters moralities, story...

I think my game, write the story, think about the gameplay, thereafter look @ what can be done.

And then I change some gameplay and story elements to have a playable (read more than 20fps) game.

I don''t think that I''ll do like that game use that dunny tech or anything.

I think I do it that way cause it''s about 10 year I''m a GameMaster (RPG) and that I don''t have any problem to do what I want.
(Their aren''t to hard AI to program, to slow 3d effects...)

I even find strange that you may think of YOUR game as a one thing like game with a Quake like 3d engine...

-* So many things to do, so few time to spend *-

Another trippy thing that occurred to me as I was reading this thread:

How many times would anyone have thought of a game concept, a story, and a central theme, and THEN thought "Hey, this might be good as an RPG!"?

My first guess: never.

I wish I''d think of my games that way, but I KNOW I''m currently going against my own judgement again and designing the number system before even THINKING about game setting etc..

Probably a professional hazard, I''m always working on Graphics Engines, never really on designing stories/scenarios for applications or games.
( though I DO write stories, just the paper kind of stories ).




Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

Yeah, I think the original post is a little short-sighted, Fishy. It''s not like you to forgo philosophy and deep-thought in favour of a rant!

Most people who want to make games do it for fun. They do it for themselves, for the glory of making something, of seeing the things they do come to life on their computer screen. They do what -they- think is fun. They chose an RPG because they love RPGs. They love RPGs because of the things that RPGs contain: goblin genocide, stats, alignment, random encounters. (Kylotan dons his flameproof suit.) Writing a game for the market, or as some sort of mould-breaking genre-stretching masterpiece is not only far from most new developer''s minds, it''s also beyond their abilities. It''s hard enough to make a game (I''ve still not finished one after 12 years of trying), never mind making a good game, and never mind making a truly great -and- original game.

And sadly, at the other end of the spectrum, the few people who have the budgets, ability and foresight to make these steps forward, are often limited by commercial concerns. In an industry where only 5% to 10% of commercial games actually makes a profit, the people who fund you like to know that you are doing something ''tried-and-tested'' with their money.

Let the new guys make their clichéd RPGs. They can concentrate on getting the traditional methods actually working, rather than sitting here philosophizing forever about new and radical ideas which will probably never get implemented. It doesn''t matter how good the ideas are, if it''s not made, it''s not played. (There''s a maxim for you all.) So get making the game first, before you get discouraged about how difficult it is to make a percentile skill system with attrition and diminishing returns etc etc.

I may be wrong, but I think that Landfish''s call for a revolution in RPG design was directed more towards experienced game designers rather than the hobbyist who is trying to complete his first game.

If anything revolutionary is going to happen to the RPG genre, it will most likely not come from an established gaming house (like Kylotan says, commercial concerns). I think that it will come either from some small company that is sufficiently new as to not have lost its idealism or from a group of independents.

Mikyyf said:
"I think that it will come either from some small company that is sufficiently new as to not have lost its idealism or from a group of independents."

Like us? Eh, Landfish?

And yes...I am deathly afraid of my evil master...the fish that walks...*shudder* I would never even *think* of crossing him or differing in opinion!

-Matt

Jebus!!! Someone actually replied to me!!!

I totally see where you''re coming from, Landfish, but the reason why I chose that particular example is that it is mostly visual. Most games these days are almost totaly visual, so that''s where most of the impact is for the player. So logically, wouldn''t that be the ideal way to introduce or set a theme for the game (until smell-o-vision comes out, maybe)?

Also, if you have a humanity v. mechanical tyrant, the two very different images would be more like team uniforms than out-of-place images to the theme. And, again, I could be wrong here, but I think that it would ultimatly become something to this extent.

Pretty much what I was saying was that, if you do it right, things that totally go against the central theme can be not only effective, but philisophically stimulating (isn''t that your ultimate goal?)

God be with you.

Nic

/*initiates shouldn't have signatures*/

Kneel, Slave boy! Kneel!

[I’ve read this thread and I’m not going to quote yet]

Quick joke: I think that there’s probably a lot more role-playing in these threads than there is in all the CRPG’s I’ve ever played. 
But, but there is a lot to be learnt by this joke I think. If I may carry this on…
I believe that there is a lot in common between writing a post here and playing a RPG. RPG and Game Design are both Genres/Topics that we want to contribute to so we get involved. People will not get involved also if there is no theme/subject but everyone will interpret the theme their own way so… this is where the power of interaction (game design) really has its problems. If the theme is so/too strong that everyone “must” interpret it in the way the writer wanted, then they will be forced into a linear line of comprehension. This can turn people off especially in a game or thread where they want to have an impact via a creative sence of thinking. That’s the risk of going purely linear in theme.

The problem I’m seeing is that if you remove the linear element you remove the desire to have an impact. As in, “I like to stuff things up and stir the pot” but “if the contents of the pot are completely abract then why would I?”. So you have to give the player the desire to have an impact on the game and theme is the tool/yes? So does theme = linear? LandFish has argued since the beginning of time that it is and I say no. haha-har 

So here I go to prove it again from a new perspective that theme does not equal linear (at all). Firstly, as I noted above a theme can be interpreted differently as in “Jay thought the movie meant this but I thought it meant this”. So if the messages can be interpreted differently then “a” message becomes “these” messages. “These” messages can be tools for a game design to allow a completely non-linear game that still contains messages. The only reason’s why this hasn’t been done sucessfully is that the ending’s to games kill the muiti-message concept, as follows… all games that contain a muitiple ending tend to emphasis one ending as the “correct” ending. In other words the developer simply puts more work into one ending than they do into another ending. If the “Badie” ending was just as glorified as the “Goodie” ending then people would feel the they have received a message that they are happy with.

Moral of my story: Message =linear, Messages = Non-linear.

P.S. If you make a game that has an exrememly strong message that it’s not open to interpretation then your best making the game as linear as possible. Otherwise, well the choice is yours.

…I think we need a lot more stats in RPG’s in order to make them more fun and enjoyable for everone! Hmm definitly.



WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

The only reason’s why this hasn’t been done sucessfully is that the ending’s to games kill the muiti-message concept, as follows… all games that contain a muitiple ending tend to emphasis one ending as the “correct” ending. In other words the developer simply puts more work into one ending than they do into another ending. If the “Badie” ending was just as glorified as the “Goodie” ending then people would feel the they have received a message that they are happy with.

I agree with you totally there. After watching a ( pretty crappy ) tv movie last night on asteroids, with a rather unhappy ending ( the extermination of all mankind ), I agree, that sometimes a "bad" ending can give just as much of a message as another. It may be highly unsatisfying, leave a bad taste in your mouth, wrench your sense of morality, and those would ALL be good things.

I think I follow Ernest Adams when I say that I believe games should make people think; You can make them think we''re invincible whatever happens ( just about every Hollywood Disaster movie ), or that sometimes things just don''t go the way you want them to ( many English movies, Remains of the Day, anyone? ).




Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important functions will be disabled from now on.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV

Another trippy thing that occurred to me as I was reading this thread:

How many times would anyone have thought of a game concept, a story, and a central theme, and THEN thought "Hey, this might be good as an RPG!"?

My first guess: never.

Guess again! That''s how I ended up on GameDev actually - I was sitting in front of my computer brainstorming worldbuilding ideas (I generally write science fiction/fantasy novels), and I came up with one that was something like genetic vampirism and I thought "Hey! That would make a great alternative to that dumb get-a-new-sword-and-sell-the-old-wimpy-one-every-15-minutes method of getting stronger. Maybe I should write this as an RPG." Now my problem is that I don''t know of any way to sell just the script for an RPG, so I''m trying to resist writing it because I don''t want to risk wasting my care and energy... Sigh.