but the problem is when you try to combine a story or even any form of continuity in your game with the ability to do unscriptedc action(do anything) chances are the payer will "Break" the system very quickly

If destory a house that playes a part later will it affect gameplay, will a npc that uses it later walk into a non-existant house, will it effect that npc in any way, will the other villager realize that it is destryed and comment on it or talk about as if its not destroyed, will you get a misson to meet the npc in the house that dosent exist. The more possible actions there are the more possible problems. I know this sound like obiouse problems but ther are too many to sort out by hand and too complex for AI to relize that a misson is imposible or can be accesed.

Ooooooooooh!

VERY good point. It will be rather difficult to process so many different responses to a random scenario... Hmm... perhaps if I only make certain ways the house could be destroyed... Fire, sure. A falling tree, only for those with trees around them.

AH HA! I will make it so that, though possible, it will not be allowed to chop trees or start fires in town. I mean, thats pretty much random chaos, right? Guards wouldnt stand for that. :D

But still, I have to make sure that NPCs arent affected completely by player actions, and Im sure this will be one of my biggest challenges. Thanks for the heads up!

Before I got married, had kids, and started a respectable job, I was an RPG junkie. Last one I invested much time in was Daggerfall, so perhaps my perspective is dated.

However, the biggest shortfall to me of RPG games is "copy and paste." That is, game designers create a huge world, but NPCs, buildings, cultures, are copied and pasted. In Daggerfall, you could go from one end of the game to the other, and all the people were the same. This is lazy and unrealistic.

My suggestion -- create a world not unlike our own. People spread across large geographic areas are different -- different language, different dress, different architecture, different values, different beliefs. Additionally, the will react to the PC differently. PC behavior in one place may be acceptable, but in another, it's not.

Create this world, then build a story around the people differences. We all killed Wernda back in Wizardry I -- no more killing the big bad wizard/monster as the endgame. Make it flexible -- stop a war (or start one), unite the kingdoms and become king. Make the PC psychotic (as opposed to the NPCs, which is usually the case).

If memory serves, probably the best RPG in doing this was the Ultima spinoff (I can't remember the name), where the PC ends up in the "Land of the Lost," and has to bell dinosaurs, explore a deserted, technologically advanced underground city, and unite disparate tribes, all in an attempt to return home. Diablo II is pretty good at this as well, though I hesitate to call this an RPG.

Wonderful.

Oh, yes. One other key. ixnay on the ombatcay. Sure, it's part and parcel of the genre, but it should be meaningful, not random. Excessive combat was the main reason I stopped playing RPGs.

Amen, brother. AMEN.

My original intention was to give each enemy a name and give them a specific purpose. At the time though, I decided it was too involved. My storyline wasnt that put together yet. And even now that my storyline is complete, I still dont know if I could involve monsters into the story. You never know though.

But meaningful combat. I agree with you 289% man. Random battles are the death of the RPG, I swear it. I does the job, but without any meaning it kinda kills the thrill. People only put up with them because they want to play the RPG story, or to level, and just button-mash their way through the battles.

But giving names to enemies and making them part of the story would definitely cut combat out of the leveling picture. There would need to be something to replace it. Some way to make the game have a leveling mechanism that is as fun as battling. I could work on that. :)

Thanks for the feedback! :D

Quote:

Original post by Omegavolt But meaningful combat. I agree with you 289% man. Random battles are the death of the RPG, I swear it. I does the job, but without any meaning it kinda kills the thrill. People only put up with them because they want to play the RPG story, or to level, and just button-mash their way through the battles.

Don't count out all your customers. I and quite a few others enjoy the tactical thrill of using disparate means to accomplish our objectives. I and others I know also are sick to death of the story because either it railroads you or it can't hold a candle to a good book. You're never going to please everybody, but its important to explore the idea of market segmentation, I think, and look at who really likes what, if only to know whether you're designing something to sell or to self-gratify.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Before I got married, had kids, and started a respectable job, I was an RPG junkie. Last one I invested much time in was Daggerfall, so perhaps my perspective is dated.

You should give Morrowind and its expansions a try. Made by the same people, but the environments are all handmade. One thing I do miss is because the environments are hand-made they are (because of simple labor costs) of necessity smaller. But it does address many of your complaints.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Don't count out all your customers. I and quite a few others enjoy the tactical thrill of using disparate means to accomplish our objectives. I and others I know also are sick to death of the story because either it railroads you or it can't hold a candle to a good book. You're never going to please everybody, but its important to explore the idea of market segmentation, I think, and look at who really likes what, if only to know whether you're designing something to sell or to self-gratify.

I see what youre saying. I never meant to imply that everyone thought the same way as I did about random battles (guess I shouldnt have said 'people' :P).

But I dont plan to make this game to appeal to the masses. Its a game for myself. And if others like it, cool. :D

I didn't find Morrowind to be that interactive. It's above your average RPG but something better can be done.

Especially if you're going to make your RPG in 2D, i'd recommand to have a look on the Ultima serie - particularly chapters 7 and 8. These are the most interactive RPGs i know of, although they are very old now. I find that extremely interesting that a game that is 10+ years old has a lot more interactivity/complexity (with characters living their own life) than basically everything you find in today's RPGs. Interactivity is what differenciates a game from a movie. Why is no developper emphazing it, especially since teams are becoming larger and larger ?

Y.

Im with you on that one. And I honestly think its why we hear so much about leveling treadmills and the like. I would love a game where you have fun running a shop one week, then the next week, strap on your boots and go adventuring, then the next, learn how to bake a cake that will give you extra speed in battle. That kind of game will never be boring for me, and thats the game Im trying to make.

Ive tried UO and it was probably the closed Ive seen to interactivity, so Ill definitely check out Ultima 7 and 8 if I can find them, thanks!

problem, who wants to run a shop in a single player rpg? Unless you make running the shop something engaging and not important to the game. For instance zelda: windwaker had many mini games that were not required unless you wanted some extra items. Also realize that player interacting with npcs in a shop scenario is difficult since npcs cant hold conversions well, nor will they need anything you have to sell. You could give the npcs fake needs, but unless it somehow affects the world the player may not care about selling to the npcs (except perhaps just for the treadmill money making it provides).

Interactivity is not always about what the player can and cant do, its more about giving some diversion form the main story so it seems like the world is somewhat more immersive. Mini games provide this immersion assuming they are half way decent and are not poorly put togther. If they have a purpose (ie get some cool item) they you can be assured players will attempt them. Keeping the items got from mini games from being required to beat the game will make the mini games somethgin the player will do if they find them fun. Though the mini game items can be items that make some parts of the game easier (ie more life, more magic, gold, better equiment, etc).

just realize that rpgs with other human players and single player rpgs have two very distinct goals. It is quite difficult to get the interactivity in single player rpgs since they are no ppl for the magic social factor that makes the much blander quests of mmorpgs fun. The exeption of course was wish which had quests run by employees of the game company, thus you had npcs that could hold conversations. to bad the game got canceled.