quote:

---

Original post by Zeblar Nagrim
There is more interesting and scary if there is a small amount of monsters in the game. Let´s say that you have been hired to search for a old tombe in a house somewere. You wait for the ordinary monster to show up but nothing happends. You walk around inside the house, find notes and clues and some are intereesting but most of them are crap. But suddenly when you are least expecting it to happend the horror strike you. And you can´t beet it beccause you have not found the clue that you must have to survive this terrible, strange creature! You must run away or you are going to die! Then on your way out when you are in the garden you meet an strange old lady. She is ghost in fact but you don´t understand that. You talk with her and she tells you the she is the owner of the house. She gives you the clue you need to find the passage to the dungeon under the castle so you don´t have to fight the monster.

---

oh, i know, a game can be made by finding clever ways of avoiding combat, and solving puzzles... but then it isn''t much of an action/adventure game is it? adventure game, yes; action? running away and finding clues isn''t really action.
i would probably play and enjoy the game you just described; i just don''t think it fits in with what punkphreak is trying to do.

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

No one else here played chex Quest. It was a fps based off the chex serial. I might have spelled chex wrong, who knows.

Anyway, in chex quest you didnt kill the bad aliens, you zapped back to their home planet with a teleporter gun of some sort, they called it zorching.

I like killing the enemy though, your gonna end up just having a nice "death" scene and then some story as to why they are not dying. Less you want to convert the enemies or something, or liberate them and then no one dies at all, there isnt even a death animation.

quote:

---

Original post by Mayrel
Fully Thrashable Environment:
You can do this in Hexen II, virtually anything wooden can be destroyed, as can trees, statues, windows and sheep. Many of the game''s secrets are hidden in this way.

---

Yeah, but it was a Really Bad Idea. Why? Because the game became a case of Routinely Break Everything You Can Find, Just In Case Something Useful Is There. Very tedious. Sure, it might be realistic, but players feel compelled to do it. I hated it.

Have you ever played Metal Gear Solid? This might go for all Metal Gear games, but I can''t be sure. In that game, you can''t just go around shooting everyone. Sure, you''re armed enough to take out everyone in the room. But one of them will sound the alarm, and then guards will start pouring in the room by the dozens. You''ll soon be outnumbered and shot to death.

So from the looks of it, this is the kind of game you''re looking for. I hate remakes. Try to add something original, if not a whole new concept. But if a remake is what you''re after, I can''t stop you.

Anyhow, Metal Gear Solid forced you to sneak around most of the game. Of course you always had bosses to fight. You could try an espionage game like Metal Gear. The suspense always makes the game more fun.

Seriously, the only non-violent games that ever sold well were strategy games. There''s not many other options.


Control ... the storm...
Danny (Array Master)

Ill be quick, when I make long posts I go off topic, I can however reply to further questioning.

1. Keep the violence, keeping the killing is up to you. I say keep the killing to.
2. Depending on the game it may be better to ''put a story on top of the gameplay'' so to speak. There are two options in creating a game. A:Create a story, then make a game out of it, B:Make a game, then explain everything with a story. Most of the time bad story makers(heh) do the second choice to get done faster, it can be just as good or better than the first choice, even worse at times.
3. Also in metal gear(all versions I''ve played) the alarm stops when you change rooms. You have 50 guards running and firing at you, boom open and shut a door, they go back to posts and drink their amnesia coffee.
4. Give lots of details, just nothing that can define you as not being close to being done. The less they know about your failures, the less posts will become the topic of it. If you didn''t say "I don''t have a story for this game" people wouldn''t have hit on it. Saying "I have a story that fits perfectly, and just need help with the gameplay aspects" would work a little better(so I think).
5. Games where something dies are more profitable than games that don''t(in most cases). Furthermore, they are profitable because it is more of a game(in the sense that it lets us do stuff that we are possible of doing, but restricted due to laws), or otherwise couldn''t do.
6. Anyone here think a realistic 3d dbz-based action-mmorpg would be possible(im looking for a yes or no answer only). That is my current project. See me for possible details.

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

Forgot about sports games in my post up there, but I don''t consider half of those games, hehe. I did play harvest moon however. I do play sports games too, just, like I said, half of them aren''t games to me.

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

There are a gazillion subjects from which to base an action game without includeing violence...but you must "think outside the box" to discover them...

For insperation take a look around you...see what sort of activities people are doing...the vast majority of them involve some simple base action elements...don''t think so much in terms of what features you like in games...start with a "clean sheet of paper"...figure out what the ''object'' of the game is all about...then build up a list of actions the player AND THE ENEMY can take inorder to complete the game objective...then remove all actions from these lists that won''t be used for at least 30% of the time players spend with the game..example:
In most typical FPS games players can usually crouch and walk..neither of these actions are used very often...sure giving the player these actions is "realistic"...but if the game objective is to "run around shooting things"...then players shouldn''t need to walk much, should they? And if players arn''t going to spend 30% of each level crawling around in air vents and such, then whats the point to giveing them the ability to have thier charactor crouch?...think in terms of designing a game...not a simulation...realisam need not be included...

Some kids are playing "freeze tag" outside right now...how about useing that as the baseis for a non-violent action game? A guy on up the street is washing his car...another is rakeing leaves...more fodder for game ideas...sure they may not seem that exciteing on thier own...but combine elements of them together and yo''ve got a start.

on a side note...action games do need tension and conflict...but if you believe that combat is the best or only way to include such elements...then you are firmly "thinking inside the box" (and prolly should get out more)

quote:

---

Original post by Array Master[/i

Seriously, the only non-violent games that ever sold well were strategy games. There''s not many other options.

---

Not true...Many, many older action games were non-violent...some examples:

Paperboy - object was to deliver newspapers to houses...the violence was limited to breaking things when you miss threw the newspapers into windows...that and getting run over by some car

Q*bert - object was to hop around changeing the coloer of the blocks under you while avoiding various enemies...violence limited to falling off the pyramid of blocks

Zookeeper - object was to keep animals from escapeing the zoo...a forgotten classic

Marble Madness - object was to get your fragile marble from one place to another without it falling or brakeing againts various obsticals.

Pong/breakout - and other various ball paddleing games

Heck there was even a "barkeep" action arcade game where you searved customers while trying to catch the root beer mugs they eventually dropped...

There was another action "platform" game where the player was suppost to perform circus acts useing different charactors.

Another game involved the player controlling a bubble and trying not to get it popped...another game had the player controling a clown while juggleing various object thrown to you...

There were lots of non-violent action games made years ago that were popular...you might have to go back 20 years to find them...but they were there...and if you combine some of their gameplay design together you could have a very cool game

on your so called "Strafe v2.0", it has been done already. Back in 1990 in Smash TV (a very violent game) by midway. The arcade unit had two joysticks, one for controlling yoru movement direction and one for controlling your shooting direction. Let me tell you that game was a blast even though the difficulty was out the window. In the nes conversion they allowed using two controllers to simulate the arcade settup. However i think most ppl used the one controller setup in which one button woudl lock your shooting to the direction at which you were facing when you pressed the button ill you let go, and the other button simply shot in the direction you were facing.

Heck i think zombie ate my neighbors (snes) may have also used this, though not sure about that. Loaded (psx/saturn) and Reloaded (psx/saturn?) definatly used this, but since it was for psx it had the 4 buttons for shooting and the pad for movement. (used the top buttons for extra stuff)

Also this type of freedom was included in basically all the mech games (for pc and psx), where you had indepent controls of the moving the mech, and rotating the torso. (now you finnally know why they made that monstorous dual analog joystick for psx back before the dual shock was created). I think there may have been other games that took avantage of the dual shck controller when it was released in this type of method as well. not sure baout that though.

Just realize one thing, the main reason many games dont include this method is due to the high difficulty in adjusting to it. As well as the increase in the number of buttons required for control. For instance, since this i presume is a pc game and will be a keyboard/mouse combo type game, you will have to decide on whether to use the mouse for rotating the players movemnets or for controlling only body movement. I suggest adding this feature as an option (since it really is not a required thing unless you are getting attacked from multiple angles by hordes of enemies like in smash tv and loaded/reloaded) since it really can take awhile to get used to.

also multiplayer while nice, may be better suited for co-op instead of using replacing the ai enemies. Dugeon explorer (tg16) did multiplayer action/adventure well.

Also action/adventure games by defination will have some level of violence. This is do to the fact that many solving dugeons alone is quite boring.

I also agree about the smashing of objects. dont include it unless it really helps with the gameplay (face it that is quite violent unto itself) mainly because most players hate having to destroy every pot/mow all the lawns/pick up every rock just so they dont miss some special item. Of ocurse you could stipulate in the game story/manual that you only find low common items like the world''s currency/extra life energy/other stuff not too needed. Maybe even include a special randomizer that increases the likness of finding energy when the player is on that 1hp left facing hordes (see how nicly many enemies increase tension).

also not to be a stickler or anything (ok maybe a little , but if you mention a game like zelda: orcania of time. Please call it like that instead of just zelda and then refer to the the legend of zelda as original zelda/old zelda/regular zelda. Also dont call n64 nintendo, since nintendo either refers to the company or nes (ninetendo entertainment system). too many younger game players are calling n64 nintendo and nes as regualr nintendo. It truly is crazy and confusing. Too many people also mislabel zelda/zelda orcania of time/zelda majora''s mask.

- groof