Quote:

The thing about leveling is that it gives the users a great way to choose their own difficulty levels.

No, that just makes the end product really hard to balance.

Quote:

Original post by Aethix The thing about leveling is that it gives the users a great way to choose their own difficulty levels. If you want an easy game, grind, if you want more of a challenge, don't grind.

So your choice is to mindlessly repeat the same actions until you catch up to the plot? That isn't allowing the player to 'choose their own difficulty', it is punishing the player for not playing exactly as the developers intended.

Your ideas are all fine to me if implemented well. However for many of your points the issue is whether you gain enough benefits form implementing them. Game development planning is about spending of your limited resources (time/money/caffeinated beverages) to best impact. Choose the features you want to include wisely. [wink]

#1 - removing mini-maps; this could work if the act of finding your objectives is an important part of the gameplay. The problem is if your RPG consists of a lot of quests where you need to find some random Bob in the random town of Spielburg and the way to do it is to check with everyone to see if they're Bob. You could get around this by implementing some extra feature such as asking people for directions or whether they know Bob, but that's a lot more work than just sticking a big ol' marker on Bob in a minimap. Is that trade-off worth it? Maybe - depends on the game.

#2 and #4 depend on what trade-off you want to make between traditional storytelling and a big open world. A strong story generally requires stronger limitations on the player so they stay within the narrative path. You can get around this if you plan the story exceedingly well, but that requires extra time and testing.

#3 - hiding numbers depends on the game. I don't mind having all the stats hidden on nearly everything if that's the way you want to go; it's a good way to tell me as the player that I don't need to sweat about the stats.

#5 - again, the liveliness of the world comes down purely on the resources you've got to spend. [smile] It would be really neat to have, and if you're doing a more open world simulation than a story driven RPG then it's a good idea to go down this path. But it will take a lot of time to set up; if you're doing a more plot driven RPG then might not be worth it.

Quote:

Original post by TheBuzzSaw exploration must be an option

I love (the idea of) exploration in games, but I'm usually let down by it in the end.

Some games do a good job of showing me uniquely interesting or beautiful locations that are enjoyable to wander around and explore, but all too often I find an interesting place and think "wow, this place is interesting, I wonder what its story is" only to find out its another unexplained, unscripted, pointless place in a large but ultimately empty world. (Oblivion was the worst of all for this - massive world with a huge amount of places to explore that could have been interesting but ultimately ended up being copy-paste crypts/ruins/tombs with no depth - no background, no story, no point. For example: "interesting ruins, I wonder why they're here.. and why the place fell into disrepair.. and why are there vampires living here??")

Its a pity really, because it would add a lot of depth and replayability to games if there were background stories to discover and long-lost mysteries to uncover hidden around the game world so that exploration becomes fun.

Some games do manage, but all too often exploration is empty and (besides for some potential eye candy (not in the case of Oblivions dungeons, since they all look the exact same)) pointless.

Quote:

Original post by TheBuzzSaw the world needs to feel more alive

This is another area where I feel games (especially RPG's) could really expand on. I like to feel like I'm playing as part of a living breathing world, but of course in almost all games, if I stand still then the entire world does too.
I want to see a world live on without me, so that I can become part of it, not have the world revolve around me and only me. Why am I the only adventurer actually doing anything (even though, for example, theres big powerful factions who could deal with "ultimate evil dude #1" so much better than I (for example, why am I the only one who can save the world from Big Evil Demon, yet the average villager can easily kill me without being armed if I attack them?)

Quote:

Original post by issch I love (the idea of) exploration in games, but I'm usually let down by it in the end. Some games do a good job of showing me uniquely interesting or beautiful locations that are enjoyable to wander around and explore, but all too often I find an interesting place and think "wow, this place is interesting, I wonder what its story is" only to find out its another unexplained, unscripted, pointless place in a large but ultimately empty world. (Oblivion was the worst of all for this - massive world with a huge amount of places to explore that could have been interesting but ultimately ended up being copy-paste crypts/ruins/tombs with no depth - no background, no story, no point. For example: "interesting ruins, I wonder why they're here.. and why the place fell into disrepair.. and why are there vampires living here??") Its a pity really, because it would add a lot of depth and replayability to games if there were background stories to discover and long-lost mysteries to uncover hidden around the game world so that exploration becomes fun. Some games do manage, but all too often exploration is empty and (besides for some potential eye candy (not in the case of Oblivions dungeons, since they all look the exact same)) pointless.

I love this idea, but I'm a bit leery of the implementation. Would I need to come up with a way to tell the story of each location? Would each location have an associated townsman who knew its history? Would books be left in the rubble explaining what happened? What other ideas are there? I would love to brainstorm this concept.

Quote:

This is another area where I feel games (especially RPG's) could really expand on. I like to feel like I'm playing as part of a living breathing world, but of course in almost all games, if I stand still then the entire world does too. I want to see a world live on without me, so that I can become part of it, not have the world revolve around me and only me. Why am I the only adventurer actually doing anything (even though, for example, theres big powerful factions who could deal with "ultimate evil dude #1" so much better than I (for example, why am I the only one who can save the world from Big Evil Demon, yet the average villager can easily kill me without being armed if I attack them?)

Well, this is why I am a strong believer in multiplayer RPGs. I never want to deprive anyone of a rich single player experience, but I really think that RPGs are better when other players can jump in and help out. However, I like the focused party approach (a la Diablo) much more than the endless crowd approach (a la WoW). Generally, I do NOT think that the lone player should be able to defeat the #1 Boss of the World. This is why I love games like Final Fantasy: even while playing alone, you control a group of distinct individuals with unique abilities and roles in the party.

Given the choice, though, I prefer controlling a lone warrior (even if it "doesn't make sense" to me) and having multiplayer fill in the gaps.

Though, it would be pretty friggin epic if there was an MMO built in the spirit of the old Final Fantasy games (parties of 5 warriors would open up sooooo many possibilities). :P

Quote:

Original post by TheBuzzSaw I love this idea, but I'm a bit leery of the implementation. Would I need to come up with a way to tell the story of each location? Would each location have an associated townsman who knew its history? Would books be left in the rubble explaining what happened? What other ideas are there? I would love to brainstorm this concept.

I think the idea of having books left in the ruins could work. That's what Dungeon Siege did.

I wouldn't expect every single area to have a complex history which can be descovered in game, but some brief history should exist (ruins shouldn't just be thrown into the world randomly). In fact, it may even be more fun if some areas are left as a mystery, as long as its only some here and there. The ones that are explained could also be explained to varying degrees: a book, someone could mention a places history when asked about it, skeletons with weapons and armour to show there was a battle (though then I'd wonder why there was a battle and it could be fun to explore that more). I'm sure theres plenty of other possibilities. If you want to brainstorm them, perhaps start a new thread?

I agree that (in theory) a multiplayer game solves the issue of the world revolving around you and this is exactly what I like to see in games. Unfortunately, I don't like (or play) MMORPG's because, imho, the best thing about the game (the "multiplayer" part) is also the worst - once you have more than a small group of players, other people ruin the fun of the game on me.

Ignoring grief players, for example, if I'm playing a medieval fantasy game, I don't want to constantly see characters with names like "I_ownz_u" yelling stuff like "OMG GUYZ I GOT UBER SWORD LOL!1111!!!1". Single player games are much more consistent that way - so I still want to see a single player game which feels alive.

As an aside, in my opnion, single player games generally have a deeper atmosphere and more gameplay depth than multiplayer games do. Perhaps because they can focus on the one player and not worry about how they interact with others.

Would it be too much of a cop out to have a MASSIVE city/civilization be wiped out by a volcano or something? That way, one piece of history explains tons of exploring. :P

And I agree. I am not a huge MMO fan. I much prefer small parties and controlled groups. I love LAN play to death. I love playing with actual friends.

If we're discussing MMO systems, I have to say I like the Phantasy Star Online/Universe. way Drop-in and drop-out teams of players, it forces co-operation, teamwork and spontaneous socialisation. Or you can password the group and solo-play, your choice.

I found on Xbox and Xbox 360 (voice chat is a big plus), back in the day at least it made for quite fun play and an added an actually enjoyable social element, since most people had voice chat and weren't too annoying XD Of course this only really works with relatively linear gameplay.

And ya-know, MMOs and Single-player are vastly different: MMOs have more of a social element, whilst single-player tends to be more about the story. Of course some MMOs lately especially try to mix story and social with....varying success.

Back to that removing numbers idea, I wonder how effective fuzzy logic for description generation could be implemented...

Weight: Light
Minimum Damage: Very Weak
Maximum Damage: Very Strong.
Enchant: Deals weak fire damage when striking.

If you want a way to tell the Lore of the place, then why not have a bard character? Someone that can tell tall tales of a place around the camp fire.

Quote:

Transparent overlay mini-maps, go-here-now markers in the HUD, etc. all need to go. Map overlays can, for instance, be replaced by paper map items (in the case of a fantasy RPG) that the player must find/buy and periodically refer to while traveling. Quest-givers can offer reminders and guidance on where an objective is or how to deal with it, but the player should ultimately be responsible for locating the objective.

I have a life, and can only really play games for a couple of hours a night. Between play sessions I have more important things to think about than trying to remember what NPC X said about NPC Y. Having a map item that I need to check instead of having a mini-map is pointless, as if I have a map then you're not really adding much by hiding it away. Reminders and guidance are good, but I don't want to trek back to the quest giver every time I need to do something. An in game journal that has a quest list and rough directions is a great addition that takes some of the chore out of RPGs.

I do admit that the quest markers shouldn't be more specific than the original quest as said by the quest giver. If a quest says that an NPC is in a general area, the area should be highlighted, not the NPC. If a quest says that an item is in a box in the bedroom of Tom's house, then I should only have Tom's house highlighted if I've been told where Tom's house is. Once I know where it is, Tom's house should be highlighted and a journal entry should say "I was told to look in the bedroom for a box". This way I get the fun of exploring the location, but none of the pointless wandering around lost.