I''m trying to decied how much mini game time to include in my rpg. I want enough so that its a good change of pace but not so much that it becomes boring and repetivitve. For instance your characters needs to gather wood, they could buy it from a store. Or chop it themselves, choppind wood, is free and increases the fitness stat but takes time. Now I could make wood cutting a mini game or just a few frames of animation. My main concern is that people will become annoyed if they have to play the game whenever they want wood. It wouldn''t be so bad if they only needed to chop wood 2-4 times during the entire game. So what do people think there should be mini games for uncommon or rare events? Or would people rather limit the number of mini games because they feel they detract from game play? I''d like to include min games as ways of improving stats instead of leveling, for instance "legend of black silver did this" but thats an old commodore 64 game. What do people think? ----------------------------------------------------- Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades Current Design project Chaos Factor Design Document

It depends on what the game as a whole is about. Minigames detract from a story''s sense of immersion or suspension of disbelief. However, if it''s an openended type of RPG (or collection of smaller stories that make up some kind of anthology), then Minigames are a welcome addition, as they give the player other things to do during the game, rather then just go from story to story.

As for the stat improvement, I think it''s a great idea. It''d actually be interesting to have a number of minigames all designed for stat improvement, however, I''d be careful about how you handled it. For example, if the stats are the logarythmic type where you consider 8 average and 16 godlike, and you award 1 point per minigame, the player has only to play it 8 times. In a case like that, I''d say giving each stat it''s own exp and award levels from a logarythmic/exponential scale. 1 STR point after 100 woodcutting points, then a second point after 400. Something like that.

well i think you''re mini games have to be fun

but they have to make sens in the overall gameplay
if the player is in a hurry did he have choice??
the wood ex is a good ex it can cut himself OR buy it, then it goes since the player will be boring to cut it (but it could have a quete (then other minigame) to keep the money to buy the wood)

zelda games provide a lot of minigames

there is a lot of game made by non-pro, hobbyist, on the net with a soft called rpg maker 2OOO with a lot of mini game (DELUSIVE CHOICE is fairly good) and even surpass pro-game (DARKSOUL is a GREAT crpg type,but''s it''s french, very good storyline, narratives, mood and lot of mini games that rythmes the game, definitly a masterpiece)

play games that is not exactly or not at all like the game you want to make and then think: how it could be a game in my game

do you ever play harvest moon?? it''s a farmer sim but with a role playing gameplay format, it''s an ex on how a game can turn with another genre format



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ya i think i''m going to have mini games for stat improvement. But now I''m torn between two ways of handling them.

1) progressive - You gain stat experince for playing the game, when you get enough experince that stat goes up a level.

2) Direct - You results in the mini game will determine your current level in a stat. So if you scored high in your stat would be high but if you played again and scored low your stat would be lower then before.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

I''ve never seen the direct approach before. Despite being original, I think it''s a bad idea. It would be frustrating to have high stats, then lower your stats through one mini-game. If you were having a bad day, it could take a while to get your stats back up. It''s also not realistic - if a basketball player has a bad game his strength, speed, etc do not go down.

Now that I''ve finished complaining, let me say that I like the idea of stat improvement through non-battle methods, especially if they compliment the character advancement from battles. That is, if you use the progressive approach for the mini-games, use a progressive approach for battles. Of course, this assumes that there are battles, and that a character''s stats improve by fighting...

In a way the direct approach make some sense, if you consider stats to be a measure of the characters abilities in comparison to others. Then the players performance would determine the stats. For instance if you have a group of runners competing in the 100m dash. the slowest would be considered a poor runner while the fastest a superb runner. The others some where in between.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I'm a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document



[edited by - TechnoGoth on August 24, 2003 8:19:51 PM]

It''s true that speed influences race time. That does not mean that race time influences speed. A fast runner can come in last if he is distracted. Does that mean that he suddenly becomes a slower person at the end of the race?

If you are using the race or the minigame to determine the stat for the purposes of display, then yes, the direct method makes sense. But remember that these stats then lead to calculations of damage and other rpg thingeys. Just because I scored a zero at the WoodChopping minigame, that doesn''t mean I''m worth a zero elsewhere.