Hello all together

first the contents of this post

• Info about myself
  
• What I want to accomplish
  
• About the game idea
  
  
  About myself
  I am 22 years old and studying computer science. I worked as a programmer before and did business software in C# and Java. And I never fail to set ambitious goals . Sadly, I have no talent what so ever drawing pictures with any software.
  
  
  What I want (or wanted) to accomplish
  While I was digging deeper in C#, I realised that I would only learn more about how .Net is working under the hood. I was more interested in the low-level stuff of the Computer and the OS than that of the Framework.
  So it was clear, my next project should be in C++, and so it came to me again: "Hey, why not make a cool game. It will be fun and easy, what could possibly go wrong?"
  
  Now, after having so much fun thinking about the game design, story, lore, I really want to put my ideas into "reality", it isn't a learning project anymore.
  
  About the game idea
  This idea is very rough. The lore resembles "Hellgate London" a bit, where the humans have resolved to guerillia warfare against the monsters. The player takes control of one, or a group of four humans, I haven't decided yet.
  The gameplay revolves around setting up basecamps,planning attacks, traps, emergency retreats and eliminating priority targets.
  
  The player should plan his strategy in an overworld type of map.
  
  I have two Ideas about the fight system:
  1. Round based like jagged alliance. In this system, the user would take command over a group of Humans. This fight system seems very straight forward. I only have to think about a good "chance to hit" and a "can see/cannot see enemy" algorithm. Plus I like the choice you have to make to shoot for the head, body, legs, arms...
  The bad side of it is that the whole gameplay is solely on strategy. It isn't that exciting I think.
  
  2. real time fight system like "Alien Swarm".
  I really like the simple but exciting gameplay of alien swarm. Here I would let the player control only one human. It also would have potential multiplayer fun.
  But with this system i have the problem of bringing longer range combat into 2D space. In Jagged Alliance, you just move your view to the enemy, you have the time.
  
  
  
  E: Removed questions that do not belong in this section

I don't really have time to post at the moment so will cut this post short and add another one further down later, but I did want to leave you with one thought.

One of the more common reasons people work in teams to create games is because each of those people brings a skill set to the table. What I mean by this is that your having a lack of skill in a particular area is not a barrier, you have the options to take classes and learn art and while you may not become a sublime artist you would be over a period of time develop enough technical expertise to be competent. However returning to the team aspect -- There is nothing stopping you from finding someone else whose strength is on the art side of game making and forming a partnership that utilises both your strengths i.e. programming plus art assets. Alternatively if you decide to go the opensource route there are a number of places on the web that offer free downloadable art content (note that this is done under open source licence and as such you would need to ensure compliance). There are a number of other aspects that you can explore but I unfortunately have run out of time.

Hope this helps

first the contents of this post

• Info about myself
  
• What I want to accomplish
  
• Problems with what technology to use
  
• About the game idea
  
• On textures and animations
  
  

Blue, you should post your questions on various topics in targeted forums. This game design forum is where your topic "about the game idea" can be discussed most effectively.
Your question about technology should be asked in the For Beginners forum (after you read the answers others have gotten to this same question there).
Your question about textures and animations will get better answers if you ask it in the Visual Arts forum.

Hey man, so a fun 2d game? Believe it not, about 5 months ago I made a C# game that layed out Zen Cards. There would be a hidden Zen card that you must predict to be the right card. If not then a sound effect would be play like a BOO. You had amount of guesses for each level, if you passed a level - depending on the accuracy of course would allow you to have more challanges each level progresses. So, what if a player won, a label control would say, "Not too bad, but you could do much better!" then onward to next level. Say if player loses, then the label writes, "You'll have to try harder, you're psychic skills are weak."

My friends played this game and he absolutely loved it!

So let's break down some things on why the game was fun and maybe you can figure this out clearly. A game could have snazzy effects and what nto - but if there's no motivation to beat that just one level, or one bad guy or win an achievement then the game isn't fun-right?

I find myself consistantly going back to a facebook game and wonder to myself, "Why am I playing this?" Next time you play a game - ask yourself why makes you wanna play that particular game. Analyze the components about what makes the game so intriguing. Is it the sparkles when the knight kisses the princesses or is it the overall feeling of accomplishment? When someone is in face with a challenge then they overcome that challenge there's a lot of pride in themselves, right?

So, in my C# Game I created challenges and taunghing messages. Ever played Batman Arkham City when batman dies the enemy shows up on screen saying, "You can not never beat me, Batman!" Right there is a taunt and it literally made me more compelled to beat the game.

I'm still doing more research in Game Design Documents and learning more about story telling and story sensing in games. But if this points you in the some what right direction then awesome!

About the game idea
This idea is very rough...The player takes control of one, or a group of four humans, I haven't decided yet.
The gameplay revolves around setting up basecamps,planning attacks, traps, emergency retreats and eliminating priority targets.

The player should plan his strategy in an overworld type of map.

I have two Ideas about the fight system:
1. Round based like jagged alliance. In this system, the user would take command over a group of Humans. This fight system seems very straight forward. I only have to think about a good "chance to hit" and a "can see/cannot see enemy" algorithm. Plus I like the choice you have to make to shoot for the head, body, legs, arms...
The bad side of it is that the whole gameplay is solely on strategy. It isn't that exciting I think.

2. real time fight system like "Alien Swarm".
I really like the simple but exciting gameplay of alien swarm. Here I would let the player control only one human. It also would have potential multiplayer fun.
But with this system i have the problem of bringing longer range combat into 2D space. In Jagged Alliance, you just move your view to the enemy, you have the time.

My apologies for not being able to carry on before. Take into account what Tom has told you. The forums here are very individuated in terms of the information provided. For example while I can provide advice (replace advice with: my overegotistical opinion ) I could not for the life of me tell you what programming language you should use to best service your needs.

With regard the lore aspects you could also separate that into a post and throw it into the Writing for Games Forum asking for feedback, ideas for improvement etc.


At this point you really need to define whether you are going to use a turnbased system or a real time system. You have already starting noting the strengths and weaknesses of both systems in terms of your fighting. But given that this will be such a core part of your basic gameplay, you need to make a decision. Once you have done that then you can establish a path upon which to build your game. Don't forget if you decide for example to choose a turnbased system, progress two months into it and say I chose wrong I really need to implement it as a real time system. You have the ability to backtrack. The lessons you learnt while going up a false path are still valid and moreover in future decisions like this you are more likely to recognise similar wrong paths in the future. It is not failure to go backwards and start again.

I like the idea you are playing with regards setting up basecamps (or forward fire camps) and emergency retreats and I think if you can incorporate this successfully into an ebb and flow of warfare design it could be quite powerful. What might be interesting is that, as you progress through each level you are literally building on the preceding level and when at a point the enemy counter-attacks in such a way as to push you back (possibly several levels) that the camps and retreats you have built are there for your support. Implementing some sort of resource system to limit how many camps etc you build could ensure that you don't overdo it at the same time delaying to build camps could also provide the enemy time to build their own troop (monster) levels up.

I would like to see more of your idea expressed though, to gain a better understanding of what it is you want and where you want to go with it. Try and avoid using other game's mechanic to describe your mechanics, because not everyone who reads these forums may have played the same games, rather describe your mechanics in your own words.


Hope this helps

Thanks for the replies so far.

I want to go kinda Opensource. I will put my whole project online, I just don't let anyone submit codechanges.


To the fight mechanics
I am leaning towards realtime, here is what I came up with(by the way, the game should be isometric):

• The Game view supports three zoom factors, for long range the player zooms out.
  
• The player has a "sight" sector, where he can see enemies. This sector has a limited length and radius.
  
• By aiming down for example a scope, I decrease the sector to a small "tunnel", but the length of the sector increases dramatically and so does the accuracy.
  
• As a sharpshooter, each shot without leaving his position, he gets an additional accuracy bonus.
  
  With this I want the player to balance out two decisions: 1. what accessories he wants on his weapon. 2. Choose his sniping position carefully
  What do you think, could it be fun?
  
  
  
  To the strategy and overworld gameplay
  The gamer has first his overworld map, where he sees the position of his soldier/squad. supply routes and the positions of the evil force, i call them monsters until i have more on the lore ;).
  The gamer has a base, where he can choose his soldier, his 7 privates and all the equipment and supplies he wants to take on the journey. The group travels more slowly, with all that stuff. Then he chooses where he puts his basecamp, here he has his main stash of weapons, accessories and supplies. Then a squad of 4 soldiers can set up 1 preliminary camp with a small stash of supplies and some extra weapons. From these camps, they attack, do reconaissance, quickly resupply, change weapons for a different tactic...
  If the monsters find a camp, they destroy it with eveything in it. So when they get attacked, the player should make a decision to, run away, get his equipment and try getting away slower, or fight.
  
  Now after his reconaissance, he can plan his moves direct in the level. The player sees the patrols, outpost and gathering of the monsters. He can plan path of the soldiers, escape route and who shoots at what. The paths and alleged enemy positions are also marked when he really starts the fight. There is also a chance for change (player planned to move him and soldier 2 to position x and kill the overseer, but the overseer isn't there!) and the player has to improvise.
  I don't want to force the player to plan, but I want to punish him for making mistakes. And the planning should be powerful enough to reduce his mistakes.
  
  I thought of a ressouce system, each monster kill gives the player ressouces for buying supplies and new items. I plan to make High Caliber ammo, high power explosive... expensive, so the gamer has to use less powerful equipment for less powerfull enemies.
  
  I'm not sure if the monsters should drop anything or not.
  
  
  The Monsters fortifications have attributes like "organisation","troop strength", "awareness" and "aggression"
  
  
  
  • By eliminating Monster "overseers", the monsters are less well organised. If the monsters have a low "organisation" level, then they do not attack in groups, do not know how to counter attack or in what direction to send hunter-troops after you.
    
  • By eliminating Monster convoys on supply routes and by defeating large amount of Monsters in the level, you decrease their numbers. when the lower it is, the fewer monsters are defending the level and the hunter-troops are smaller.
    
  • The longer you stay in the area and plan attacks, the higher the "awareness" level of the Monsters. They fortify their partrols and increase their outposts.
    
  • When you do "loud" attacks (with Power weapons like Machine guns, demolition...), the aggression level rises of the Monsters, they are more likely to send hunter troops after you and they send stronger troops, which can be a strategy as well ;).
    
    here is a bit of a problem, the ultimate goal is to destroy the powersource of the monsters, freeing this part of the map from them. I want it to be very hard, but rewarding. But I have no intermediate goal yet.
    I also like the suggested idea (thanks stormy) that you build up on your previous successes, but you may also loose some again. Now you simply have 'something less to worry about' if you defeat a position. And you have something more to worry about if the monsters retake it.
    
    
    I noticed, now its more a multiplayergame, it's not such a cool singleplayer game anymore, only with intelligent companions.
    
    

    
    I think if you can incorporate this successfully into an ebb and flow of warfare design

    
    I'm sorry, english isn't my native language, what do you mean with ebb and flow?

I'm sorry, english isn't my native language, what do you mean with ebb and flow?

ebb and flow of the tide

i.e. as the front lines of a war change - back and forth - as each sides mounts an offensive against the other.

This is advice that has been given many times but no newbies seem to want to follow:

Since this is your first game, start very very small and work your way up. Strip out all the features from your game except for a very basic shell. Then finish it. After that, slowly add features after features until you get the complete game.

The problem is that this is your first game. It is not going to be good. I see newbies planning and planning and planning and write 2000 pages design documents without writing a single line of code. Imagine trying to cook a gourmet competition winning dish when its your first, or being able to do all those racing stunts when its your first time driving - its not going to happen.

This is advice that has been given many times but no newbies seem to want to follow:

Since this is your first game, start very very small and work your way up. Strip out all the features from your game except for a very basic shell. Then finish it. After that, slowly add features after features until you get the complete game.

The problem is that this is your first game. It is not going to be good. I see newbies planning and planning and planning and write 2000 pages design documents without writing a single line of code. Imagine trying to cook a gourmet competition winning dish when its your first, or being able to do all those racing stunts when its your first time driving - its not going to happen.

I think you misunderstood my intension. I know I won't make the game of the year at the first try. I will make mistakes and bad decisions, that's why I will keep iterating over it.
To make your cooker analogy, I know my first steak I do won't be good, it may even be garbage. But I keep on making steaks until they are.

I expect to have some demo in a year's time. I don't expect to ever be done with the project .


I have one last question: It is very motivating to get feedback from other people, posting my new thoughts about the project would spam the thread and the forum. What would be a good medium to post more thoughts, questions and get people's feedback?

It is very motivating to get feedback from other people, posting my new thoughts about the project would spam the thread and the forum. What would be a good medium to post more thoughts, questions and get people's feedback?

• If you have specific issues that you are trying to obtain understanding of, or resolution to, then post a thread in the forums.
  
• If you are simply looking for feedback on your project or critical advice regarding your project, then start up a Developer Journal on the GameDev website.
  
• Or a combination of the above two points.