Our team''s (all 2 of us) favorite genre is the rpg. That''s why we chose it as our first game. This was a bad move among many that ensured that our development time was 3 times longer than it should have been. This time around we''re doing a 2D sidescrolling platformer like we should have done in the first place. I know we should choose projects that are short because otherwise they''ll never get done. (You guys who talk about how you want to make mmorpg as your first game make me laugh until my internal organs burst out of my ears.) Platformers are a good choice not only because their fun value has nothing to do with game length, but it''s longer than other games because you repeat sections over again until you get it right. Many many many games use this fact to make their games longer to my extreme annoyance, but even when you''re level is littered with save points you''re gonna come across areas you''ll have to go through more than once before you get past them. An rpg is the most demanding on a developement team. Especially it''s artists, level developers, and those in charge of game balance. I know, I''ve been all three. If you''re smart about it ( this includes, among other things, making your art and level design count,limiting your items and equipment to really cool stuff that means an actual choice to the player) then an rpg becomes manageable. There is still one thing that makes an rpg need to be long though. If it''s too short character developement won''t amount to much. You need enough time--and enough levels--to start out as a small nothing and end up as a godly hero that defeats the big bad baddy boss. My question is, how short can you make an rpg but still make character developement worthwile?

quote: Original post by Rochnarand
If it''s too short character developement won''t amount to much. You need enough time--and enough levels--to start out as a small nothing and end up as a godly hero that defeats the big bad baddy boss.

You know, you don''t HAVE to use an exponential experience curve..you actually don''t need to have an experience curve at all.

-Luctus
Statisticly seen, most things happens to other people.
[Mail]

I think the reason games tend to have exp curves is that people like getting more xp from a dragon than a lowly slime, and therefore if all levels are equally far apart, they''ll be leveling up 3 times after killing a dragon or something. Sure it *could* work if there were like 1000 levels in the game and gaining a level barely increases your stats, but then you have players going gee there''s not much difference between my level 496 guy and my level 458 guy. So thus were created vastly inflated level systems like D&D where it may take millions of xp to get between higher levels.

As for the actual topic of this thread, I think the game length requirements probably depend on how replayable it is. If it''s a game that''s the same time every time you play it, an average player would probably be willing to waste 80 hours or more on it, knowing that if they ever play it again it''ll become more boring. If the game is capable of being a totally different experience each time you play, an average player might be satisfied with 20 hours or so, knowing that the next time they spend 20 hours on it the game will be totally different. That''s just from the bang-for-your-buck perspective though...I personally wouldn''t mind spending hundreds of hours on an rpg if it was worth playing for that long.

If a squirrel is chasing you, drop your nuts and run.

My system is essentially the same as D&D''s, but just to make things simple, it takes one thousand XP to level up, in all cases. The twist is, the amount of XP you get from killing a monster changes depending on how powerful it is in comparison to you and how much of the total work required to kill it you did.

And no, healers and wizards and like are not penalized in this system. They get liberal shares of XP for casting Heal Wounds or Hasting the fighter.

It works something like this:

For each point of total HP damage done to the monster, you recieve one share.

For each point of HP healed by you, you recieve one share.

For each status effect you successfully use on a foe, you recieve Z shares X the extent/duration of the effect as modified from the base.

For each point of damage inflicted on you by the monster, you recieve one share. This is, of course, cancelled if you fall unconscious or die.

Base XP for an individual upon monster death: (200 * ((FoeLevel-YourLevel)^1.5))*(YourShares/TotalSharesGiven)

The number 1.5 may be subject to change, by the way. I haven''t yet figured out exactly how I want the invisible curve to work.

This doesn''t really change anything, but it makes things a heck of a lot simpler for the player. And by the way, I never got past about seventh level in BG1, I don''t think. You don''t need to have tons of levels to have a fun game.

And believe me, I know what a living hell RPG design can be. I''m balancing the skill-based ability system right now, and it''s NOT fun. (well, it sorta is, but it''s mentally draining, too...)

Rpgdx.net often has 48 hour RPG development contests, and these games usually don''t last for more than an hour. That means you can make meaningful "mini-rpgs" of any length, you may want to try that out.

Show me a good example one of these hour long rpg''s. I can''t imagine the character developement being worthwhile.

In general, my position on game length is that it always better to make a really good short game, than a so-so long game. One of my favorite games of all time, Jet Grind Radio, can be finished in a few hours, especially if you''ve played it more than once like I have.

I''m not sure I understand what is meant by exp curve. But if I play an rpg, I''d better be able to get stronger, or more skilled, or what have you by killing bad guys or doing some other task. And the bad guys or tasks had better get progressively harder to justify all my hard work getting exp.

Laugh my friend, laugh. But realize that some people have successed where you actually failed.

Umm.... Why are you being a jerk?

I''m asking legitimate questions, there''s no need to be rude.

It just dawned on me. Are you talking about my comment about the people who dream of making an mmorpg as their first game? Dude, that''s never happened. That will never, ever, ever happen. They''re just too darn hard. Make a complete text adventure rpg, or a tetris clone on your first try. That''s plenty challenging.

quote: Original post by Rochnarand
Show me a good example one of these hour long rpg''s. I can''t imagine the character developement being worthwhile.

Why does that sound so impossible? Many good movies are only 90 minutes long. Sure, you can''t do Lord of the Rings in 90 minutes, but I doubt anyone would say otherwise.