The point of the 3 modes is to allow people to play the kind of game they like to play. Its not a diffuclty setting since all 3 modes should be equivalently challanging. Its more of question of playing the game as an adventure game, rpg, or action rpg(diablo, D&D).

So it wouldn''t work being able to change mid game, since that would allow cheating and unbalance the game.

The 3 modes don''t effect the story, charcter development, path or gameplay those are all up to the player.

You can play a diplomatic character in all 3 modes, or an evil pure fighter in all three modes.


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

You could do it by eliminating the omnipresent "haze" of enemies that fills the world.

Why is it that monsters capable of annihilating a team of magical heroes don''t actually disrupt trade? I can''t even get to the next town without levelling three times, but when I get there, Save Guy/Name Change Guy/Store Guy are chilling at the bar. That''s been dumb since Dragon Warrior.

In Fallout, there were a few rats and the odd radscorpion rolling around, and if you were really into fighting you could take on deathclaws and mutants, but it was entirely possible to beat the game killing nothing at all. You could instead ramp up your intelligence and charisma to talk your way out of trouble, or just avoid the bad neighborhoods. I played the old version, where you only had like two months to win, and I could never get tough enough to beat the end guy, even with the best gear. So I finally had to talk him into killing himself. It was tough, but the fact that it was an option was a breakthrough.

So there''s a good example of a game that could be played in an infinite variety of "modes". You could go totally pacifist, or you could kill absolutely everything in every town and level (some beasties respawn, and there are always random waste-dwelling things), and all points in-between. You could slick your hair back and see how many chicks you could score with (1), or else amass an army of followers to back you up (you could have 4, I think). I loved that game, and it was undeniably an RPG.

Of course, there were things you simply couldn''t do in some modes. Muscle-bound jerks HAD to fight the boss, because the guys with the intel to smooth out the ride didn''t like you, and you were too stupid to figure out how to work the nuke. Likewise, the debonair intellectuals couldn''t get certain items, because there were pointy animals in the way. Some things you had to steal, or talk out of people, and the relevent skills were essential. Sometimes you couldn''t help a victim of violent crime because you lacked the combat prowess to intervene in time.

The sense I get from this thread, though, is that you don''t want that sort of thing to happen. You''d rather be able to go through the game as though navigating a DVD menu. Check out the sidequests, a few special features, a quick flashback sequence for character development, and then the ending FMV. I still think that is the sissiest imaginable way to handle an RPG.

BTW, I never claimed that Shadow of Destiny was an RPG. I said it was like an RPG with no combat, and that it sucked. I stand by both of those assertions.

PLaying the game however you want is something that will defintly be important to how you play an rpg, and I want o creat an experince where the mulitple solutions to ever problem and its possible to overcome things in diffrent ways. You can use steal, brains, brawn, charm, and so. Also its levelless game your skills instead improve with use.

But I also want it to appeal to diffrent styles of gamers for instead the game Lionheart has far to much hacking and slashing then I like to have in a game. I''m not interesting in going through screen after screen filled with enemies but some people are. By having multiple modes the player can adjust the game to there liking. If they want to play somthing more like fallout then they can play on normal, if they want something like Lionheart or diablo then they play on extreme, if they want to focus on story and exploration and not so much on combat then they play on key combat mode.


Also side note, to kill the master in fallout just shoot him 3 times in the eyes with the plasma rifle, that will kill him everytime, I''m not sure if the weapon matters but I''ve never had to shoot him more then 3 times to kill him.

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

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
The point of the 3 modes is to allow people to play the kind of game they like to play. Its not a diffuclty setting since all 3 modes should be equivalently challanging. Its more of question of playing the game as an adventure game, rpg, or action rpg(diablo, D&D).
So it wouldn''t work being able to change mid game, since that would allow cheating and unbalance the game.

---

I think I didn''t make myself entirely clear. My goal was the same (letting it be played as adventure, rpg, etc.), but I decided that it would not be good for my game to make the player choose the mode in the beginning. Instead the amount of combat for example would depend on what the player has done previously. If he has made no enemies at all then very few will probably attack him. If he played half the game peacefully and now wants some combat, he can go to an area filled with weak monsters and start attacking them.
This method is perhaps not as effective as your idea because it depends on the player''s actions and some areas are locked to him if he doesn''t fight at all, but my idea is not to stick with the current genre definitions but to create a whole new genre. Or even a genre-free game (well, it would be until a genre is defined for it )

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
You can play a diplomatic character in all 3 modes, or an evil pure fighter in all three modes.

---

But what is the point of playing a pure fighter in a combat-free mode? The pure fighter class is possible because your design originally had combat. Now if you hadn''t had combat in the first place (as it is in the combat-free mode), would there be a pure fighter class?

The problem I see with your idea is that if combat is based on the amount of previous combat. Won't that lead to some kind of expenitonal growth of enimies. and Cause players to farm enimies by avoiding earilier battles they can make is so that they can hack their way easily through the later areas. That just my opion but I don't see mixing the 3 modes into the same gaming experince being very effective.


I didn't say that that there would be much point in playing a pure fighter in combat free mode, just that you still have the option all be it would be rather unsatisfing gameing experince. But then again I'm sure conan the barbarian can find other things to fill his day if there are no enemies to kill....


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



[edited by - TechnoGoth on September 19, 2003 6:34:10 AM]

I think that the main idea is that the player can change the way he plays the game whenever he likes, without having to start a new game for that.

Combining all 3 modes in one, would simply imply letting the player choose his character career, rogue, warrior, mixed, and solving the problems with battle (warrior skills), stealth (rogue skills), discussion.... as he prefers at the time he face the problem, rather than ''forcing'' him to play the game in one way from the beginning to the end.

That also means that to each problem, there are at least 2 solutions planned in the game.


Having 3 modes would mean having 3 different gameplay mechanism for each to be appealing, meaning almost making 3 different games in one. If it''s only about reducing the number of ennemies, then it''s a difficulty setting, nothing more.


-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

no no... Sigh, The three modes have nothing to do with the games puzzles and challenges. You could use diplomacy, stealth or force in any of the three modes. Because those are methods to solve problems.


The 3 modes are purely about the amount of game time devoted to combat.

Example you have to kill Hertic Leader who is at the top of his citdal of pain.

key combat: the only enemies in the citdal would be the leader, and his 2 trusty body guards. Maybe a few other guards who run when they see you or capture, I'm not sure...

normal: There maybe a dozen or more enemies on each level of the citdal.

Extreme: each level has hordes of enemies maybe as many 50 per level, obviusly stealth would be far more difficult in extreme since it forces players to play a more hack and slash type game.

I wouldn't call them difficulty settings since diffuclty setting imply how hard the game enimies, challenges and puzzles are. For instance in a game on easy most of the puzzles are usully removed and enimes are all weaker while hard could mean that enemies are always 5 levels higher then your character and there are lots of puzzles to solve.



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



[edited by - TechnoGoth on September 19, 2003 7:42:43 AM]