Hah! I've played that! Hero of Allacrost right? Seemed rather nice and something like I was planning to do yes :). It was a quite early demo though, if I have a look at your battlescreen right now.

Quote:

- Design the game such that the major focus is on gameplay and story, not advanced 3D graphics and physical simulations. - As much as possible, remove the tedious, meaningless, and micromanaging aspects of many historical and modern RPGs. - Require a high level of strategic thinking and planning from the player, and less mindless "button mashing" found in many RPGs.

Ok, I'm gonna write those down, save them up in a .txt file and memorize them for the rest of my life. I think you're absolutely right, especially on the first one. I'm gonna focus on the music too (since I'm after all a composer, and programming is just a hobby).

Quote:

Longer battles, fewer battles Battles that last less than a minute are not very interesting or fun; they're mostly annoying IMO. So we decided to try to make battles last a bit longer than most RPGs, but have fewer of them.

I think I'm gonna go with that one. 'Sgonna take a hell lotta programming, if I'm really gonna do what's spooking around in my head right now, but it's worth it.

-Stenny

Glad to be of service. Also happy to hear that you've played our demo before. [grin] Yes, it was a very early demo, but we needed to get something out the door to help our momentum. We actually have another demo that should be ready to be released by the end of this month, or sooner, which will be a significant improvement over the first.


I'm also glad to hear that you feel so strongly about our three "mission goals". [smile] If only more indie game developers out there would focus more on these, and less on the latest greatest MMORPG they want to make, it would be a better world. [lol]

Quote:

Original post by Roots Multiple Attack Point System (MAPS) This is one of our main features. Basically, both enemies and players can be attacked in multiple locations (head, torso, arms, legs, tail, etc.). Each attack point has different strengths and weaknesses, so the player has to continually seek out weaknesses in their opponents to exploit (and the opponent may notice this, and cast a spell to protect the particular weakness being exploited). In one word: strategy. That's what we wanted from this feature. Along with that idea, when the player finds a weakness to an enemy (for example, by casting an ice spell when the enemy is weak against ice), we inform the player of the new weakness discovered and retain it in a little box on the bottom right of the screen. That way the player doesn't have to "guess" on whether he or she found a weakness or not by looking at the damage dealt.

interesting...

So basicly all you did was increase the number of targets players have in battles? And what happens once players figure out how to exploit those weak spots? How would the game keep battles from being just more of the same mindless exercises?

Quote:

Enemy levels match player levels This is a feature that was present in FFVIII, where enemies would be as strong as the player was. We're building on that idea by allow enemy levels to be within a certain range of the player's average level (a Gaussian Random Distribution, actually). The idea is to not let the player become a demi-god later in the game capable of mowing down anything in his path, but to provide a continual challenge instead.

So what is the point of leveling up the characters then?

Quote:

Eliminate the "Fight" command Player's would often abuse this command in other RPGs, and simply button-mash it until the battle was won. That's boring, so we got rid of it altogether.

So instead you require players to go through the process of picking out those pesky enemy weakpoints time and time again?

Quote:

If only more indie game developers out there would focus more on these, and less on the latest greatest MMORPG they want to make, it would be a better world.

Why? Why bury yourself with all that compitition?

Hi, I've been thinking about this stuff for the last few days, ever since a game idea started to sprout in my head.
What i'm thinking of is this:

-Strategic "free movement" combat system (like in FF Tactics and Fire Emblem).
-Active battles with "energy" bars: different attacks take up different amounts of energy, but unlinke the "mana points" type thing, the energy bar recharges quickly. (I think I'll also have the mana points-type thing, however.)
-No distinction between "the world" and battles; when enemies are encountered, you can avoid them or attack them at will, and other enemies can come along and join in the battle if they so desire.
-I've always thought special environment conditions are nice because they add variety to battles, such as different terrain features (cliffs, trees, rocks...), or conditions that affect certain types of attacks like someone mentioned before about fire not working underwater but electricity being very damaging.

So my idea is kind of a hybrid between tactical and real-time systems (sort of like Chrono Trigger, except your team members are able to move around).
The main thing I'm unsure about is the movement system; to make the world and battles "in the same realm" I would have to make the movement system the same, and that means allowing team members to pretty much move at will during battles, which would make it less tactical and more like a real-time type of thing.

Sorry if I'm kind of vague-sounding, it's just that I decided to try to design and make a small rpg a few days ago, so I'm still thinking of new ideas and changing old ones...

Quote:

Original post by MSW interesting... So basicly all you did was increase the number of targets players have in battles? And what happens once players figure out how to exploit those weak spots? How would the game keep battles from being just more of the same mindless exercises?

The enemy AI will be smart enough to figure out that the player is repeatedly casting ice spells to afflict their ice vulnerability, for example, and it would react by using a skill of its own that enhances its defense against ice elemental. Or, if it is more of an aggressive type, it would instead focus on the weaknesses in the character party and attack them, forcing the player onto the defensive if they don't want to sacrifice a lot of damage.

I admit that we won't quite know for sure until we put theory to practice, but you have to admit that its less mindless than executing the same action over and over again, with only the occasional healing spell in-between.

Quote:

Original post by MSW So what is the point of leveling up the characters then?

Characters gain more skills as they level, and they gain more skill points allowing them to use high-level skills more often in battle. The player won't be able to defeat boss characters (or even normal enemies) if their level is too low (ie, you wouldn't be able to turn off XP gain and cruise through the game on level 1).

An analogy to your statement might be "Why should I study and make myself smarter? The smarter I get, the smarter the people I'll be surrounded by (in university, research lab, etc) and I won't feel very smart around them so what's the point?". Not the best analogy, but hopefully the point comes across. [smile]

Quote:

Original post by MSW So instead you require players to go through the process of picking out those pesky enemy weakpoints time and time again?

Two words: cursor memory. [smile]

I admit that it does sound a little bit tedious though. But its a better alternative than having the player brainlessly select "Fight" every turn IMHO. And whoever said that the player had to always exploit weaknesses? They can choose to fight their battle whatever way they want; just because an enemy has weakness A and B doesn't mean that the player can't attack the enemy with a high-level skill X that doesn't exploit either of those weaknesses.

Quote:

Original post by MSW Why? Why bury yourself with all that compitition?

I don't make games to make money. I make them because I enjoy making them, and I also enjoy playing them. If a gamer was hoping that there are not any great games out there so that his/hers can shine above all else, I'd say that person is not a real gamer; they are a business person in the business of making game.

Simply put: I just want to play more games that I truly enjoy. [smile]

I admit I'm not much of a RPG player. I find most of the games in the genre dry, dull, and go out of thier way to make things needlessly overcomplicated.

I'm not trying to put your game down or anything like that...Just trying to show that some of your solutions to RPG design issues can be seen as yet more of the same.

Which is why I pointed out that multi point targeting thing...If a game offers you a particular choice that is better then the rest, then its not really much of a choice.

If players discover that the left thigh of a monster is a weak point, they will exploit it whenever they can...which negates even allowing the player to target any other body part.

Really if you want to add real depth (and not just illusionary complexity) then every player choice has to have consequences. No choice can allways be the right one.

for example:

1)If you are takeing on a wolf. your fighter can hit the wolf in the head for twice the normal damage, however the wolf will automaticly do four times the damage in its next attack plus has a 30% chance of calling another wolf to battle...
2)however the fighter can hit the wolf in the tail for regular damage, but the wolf then has a 80% chance of calling up to three other wolves into battle...
3)or fighters can hit the mid section of the wolf doing only 10% damage, but causeing the wolf to forefeit its next turn and thier is still a 50% chance the wolf can call a brothern into battle...

Which would you choose?
Obviously your choice would depend on a number of other issues. But if you are going to allow players to target particular body part then I highly encourage you to find a way to balance each of the body part choices against each other in interesting ways...then present situations where players can exploit certain choices in non-obvious ways (example: say that when you hit a certian monster in a particular body location, it then moves back two map squares before chargeing forward four...On normal battle maps the forward charge could be devistateing...but on maps that take place high in the mountians, those 2 squares back could send the creature over a cliff)

And don't leave the player characters out of this either...the choice to use a health potion should have more consequences then just haveing one less in inventory.

Most RPG developers don't do these sorts of things because such a system doesn't require giveing the players tons of options (won't require lots of armor and weapon equipment choices, etc.)...it actualy can work better with fewer yet focused options (a healing potion that restores 50% health can work better then haveing a number that restore 10 hitpoints and some that restore 50)...Plus such a system can be a pain to balance because it isn't as dependant on number crunching stats.

But you can do what you like...just throwing in my $.02

@MSW

You dó have a good point there. For some reason I've never been a real fan of multiple hit targets, and I think that's the problem (or rather solution). I like you're two cents[lol].

@Roots

Quote:

Characters gain more skills as they level, and they gain more skill points allowing them to use high-level skills more often in battle. The player won't be able to defeat boss characters (or even normal enemies) if their level is too low (ie, you wouldn't be able to turn off XP gain and cruise through the game on level 1). An analogy to your statement might be "Why should I study and make myself smarter? The smarter I get, the smarter the people I'll be surrounded by (in university, research lab, etc) and I won't feel very smart around them so what's the point?". Not the best analogy, but hopefully the point comes across.

Sure, and let's not forget. Although monsters dó level, in FF VIII there was still a huge difference between a ruby dragon (amongst the strongest of foes), and a Bite Bug (one of the weakest, they're on of the, if not thé first foes you battle), both of level 40.

Quote:

I don't make games to make money. I make them because I enjoy making them, and I also enjoy playing them. If a gamer was hoping that there are not any great games out there so that his/hers can shine above all else, I'd say that person is not a real gamer; they are a business person in the business of making game. Simply put: I just want to play more games that I truly enjoy.

I thought I couldn't agree with you more on the previous statement, but now I like you even more[smile]. Wow, never thought more people like us existed[lol].

@epilef

Quote:

Hi, I've been thinking about this stuff for the last few days, ever since a game idea started to sprout in my head. What i'm thinking of is this: -Strategic "free movement" combat system (like in FF Tactics and Fire Emblem). -Active battles with "energy" bars: different attacks take up different amounts of energy, but unlinke the "mana points" type thing, the energy bar recharges quickly. (I think I'll also have the mana points-type thing, however.) -No distinction between "the world" and battles; when enemies are encountered, you can avoid them or attack them at will, and other enemies can come along and join in the battle if they so desire. -I've always thought special environment conditions are nice because they add variety to battles, such as different terrain features (cliffs, trees, rocks...), or conditions that affect certain types of attacks like someone mentioned before about fire not working underwater but electricity being very damaging. So my idea is kind of a hybrid between tactical and real-time systems (sort of like Chrono Trigger, except your team members are able to move around). The main thing I'm unsure about is the movement system; to make the world and battles "in the same realm" I would have to make the movement system the same, and that means allowing team members to pretty much move at will during battles, which would make it less tactical and more like a real-time type of thing. Sorry if I'm kind of vague-sounding, it's just that I decided to try to design and make a small rpg a few days ago, so I'm still thinking of new ideas and changing old ones...

Yes! That's sorta what I was looking for! I think I'm still gonna let the players enter battlemode though, but that doesn't mean the screen/state changes. It's just another way of travelling.

-Stenny

A timing based reaction system would make battles a little more random and fun.

Little warnings could pop up when the enemy is attacking, and give the option to quickly press a button to guard against, or counter the blow. Whether or not the warning pops up can be based on a "Perception" stat, and a counter blow based on another quick press after the initial guard, and whether you can or not based on a "dexterity" stat.

Could go into any game, really, if you're willing to take the time to code it.
(And I either missed this in the previous posts, or I'm just spacing it, but is this a 2d or 3d game? You said it was tile based, but you also said its using height in the maps as well. So is it drawing anything from 3d games, or is it strictly 2d?)

Quote:

Original post by H4rb1ng3r A timing based reaction system would make battles a little more random and fun. Little warnings could pop up when the enemy is attacking, and give the option to quickly press a button to guard against, or counter the blow. Whether or not the warning pops up can be based on a "Perception" stat, and a counter blow based on another quick press after the initial guard, and whether you can or not based on a "dexterity" stat. Could go into any game, really, if you're willing to take the time to code it.

This feature is present in Super Mario RPG. We considered putting it into our game too, but unfortunately its not very palatable with a real-time system, because when an enemy is attacking the player could very well be selecting an item in a menu, and we thought that trying to force the player to do menu selection and "reactions" was a little too much. Works great for a turn-based system though.

Tactical bits in RPGs are great as games on their own. Tactical in more traditional RPGs is great too, and common in pretty much any PC (read: D&D) RPG. Though alas, not so many of those in recent memory...