I am not a programmer (although I have done some Basic mini-games stuff) but am thoroughly interested in the realm of video games (console), more specifically, game designing. Especially when it comes to making innovations in game designs (although I still have years to wait and ways to go before even wanting to enter game designing). Now, when The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time was released, with it was not only questionably the best camera system of all time, but also a targeting system which was cloned many times by lesser games. I sometimes design 3D levels (by drawing) and try to think of new and better ideas for games as a pastime, and I came up with this somewhat interesting idea when I thought about the way the gameplay of a certain project I had been thinking about for a long time was going to work (I am pretty sure that it won''t ever be developed, but I thought what it would be like anyway) with the control scheme (by the way, the game is similar to Zelda, I suppose, but with a different feel outside of battling). There are points in the game where whatever place that you''re in gets invaded by up to thirty creatures simultaneously, each with a different yet predetermined course in their AI (all in real-time). For example, let''s say one creature is supposed to go up to a mailbox and start attacking it, and then moves on to something else. No matter how many times you play the part of the game over, that specific creature will always go up to the mailbox and follow a pre-programmed path (which loops after a while) until it really really notices you (it sees you, which usually involves you being very close to it, or when you attack it or target it), and then you would fight it, similarly to Zelda, but... different. Now, I was thinking of how I would make such a control scheme for this game using a Nintendo Gamecube controller (my personal favourite). I thought about targeting, and how it was pretty much required in most 3D games, at least ones I like anyway (FPS is not my style ). Zelda used a system where you could target one thing at a time; the way my game would work is that you can target three things, and not with triggers or shoulder buttons, but instead with the face buttons. Here is the control scheme invented for the face buttons: X - Target Creature, once targeted, attack using samurai-like blade Y - Target Creature, once targeted, attack using samurai-like blade B - Target Creature, once targeted, attack using samurai-like blade A - Attack all three (or the closest, depending on the weapon) using secondary, selectable weapon Basically, you don a sword (but much more Kung-Fu ish than Link''s) and a secondary weapon (it''s basically the equivalent of one of the C buttons from OoT) and can attack three things simultaneously in targeting mode. An arrow similar to that in Zelda appears over an enemy when you want to target it, and then you can press whichever button you want to target it with (X, Y, or B) and the letter will appear over the enemy''s head instead of the arrow once targeted (to help remind which one''s which). To untarget, hold down the button that you used to target for about half a second to a second (or you can just untarget all with L). Each of the targetee''s health is also visible upon targeting, in bars on top of the screen (except for mini-bosses and bosses). I hope you got all that. I think that it''s pretty complex and hope I explained it well. Now, this whole multi-targeting thing, IMO, seems to suit the Gamecube''s controller, with the way the face buttons are laid out. But, would it become second nature to handle? Or would it be a chore? And would it suit the next Zelda (even though, judging by pictures and the trailer, it will be nothing like the control scheme I described)? I think that it''s safe to agree that storyline can make a game, yet new, better game ideas are truly what make the difference. Please tell me what you think of this idea, and feel free to post your own gameplay innovation ideas. -Other One

Not a bad idea...but a bit over complicated for such a direct and simple weapon as a sword...the sword couldn''t be in 3 places at once...so the player can''t actually attack all three at the same time either...

A problem will develop I think where players become used to haveing lots of attack targets with the sword...but only have one with the secondary weapon...you''ll need to work up some way for the player to chose which creature the secondary weapon will be used on anyway...may as well put the design effort into the ability to switch targets quickly and easily then just use one attack button for each weapon...also, If there are 3 creatures in the area...but only one is close enough to attack useing the sword...what happens when pressing the attack button for for a distant target...would the player''s charactor run up and attack it reguardless of the danger between himself and the monster? (you wouldn''t want to frustrait the player by haveing the character rush head first into a pool of lava in an effort to attack a monster on the other side)...then of course if a given creature is to the left of the player (say attack button ''Y'') but then it moves over to the right side...would the attack button change (say to ''X'') while the monster moves? what if there was only the one monster? or only two, and they keep switching sides while attacking the player?...haveing multiple targets could even get confuseing as 30 monsters or so start attacking...all those little ''Y''s and ''X''s and such could get lost in the sea of swarming creatures...just some stuff to think about

quote: Original post by MSW
Not a bad idea...but a bit over complicated for such a direct and simple weapon as a sword...the sword couldn''t be in 3 places at once...so the player can''t actually attack all three at the same time either...

A problem will develop I think where players become used to haveing lots of attack targets with the sword...but only have one with the secondary weapon...you''ll need to work up some way for the player to chose which creature the secondary weapon will be used on anyway...may as well put the design effort into the ability to switch targets quickly and easily then just use one attack button for each weapon...also, If there are 3 creatures in the area...but only one is close enough to attack useing the sword...what happens when pressing the attack button for for a distant target...would the player''s charactor run up and attack it reguardless of the danger between himself and the monster? (you wouldn''t want to frustrait the player by haveing the character rush head first into a pool of lava in an effort to attack a monster on the other side)...then of course if a given creature is to the left of the player (say attack button ''Y'') but then it moves over to the right side...would the attack button change (say to ''X'') while the monster moves? what if there was only the one monster? or only two, and they keep switching sides while attacking the player?...haveing multiple targets could even get confuseing as 30 monsters or so start attacking...all those little ''Y''s and ''X''s and such could get lost in the sea of swarming creatures...just some stuff to think about

You make some very good points, and I appreciate the criticism. Let''s see what we got here...

"A problem will develop I think where players become used to haveing lots of attack targets with the sword...but only have one with the secondary weapon...you''ll need to work up some way for the player to chose which creature the secondary weapon will be used on anyway...may as well put the design effort into the ability to switch targets quickly and easily then just use one attack button for each weapon..."
Heh, this is where I think I confused you. A isn''t a targeting button, instead it is a secondary weapon button, and you don''t target with A, just select a weapon on one of your pause subscreens and use it with A. As a matter of fact, A reacts exactly like the C buttons would in Zelda (they attack anywhere when not targeted, and they attack your target when targeted).

"also, If there are 3 creatures in the area...but only one is close enough to attack useing the sword...what happens when pressing the attack button for for a distant target...would the player''s charactor run up and attack it reguardless of the danger between himself and the monster? (you wouldn''t want to frustrait the player by haveing the character rush head first into a pool of lava in an effort to attack a monster on the other side)..."
If a targeted creature is out of your reach in Zelda, and you use your sword, you swipe it in their direction. I would assume that that''s how it would react here. Good criticism though. I can see how the situation that you pointed out would suck major balls, and it''s the type of thing that developers let through everyday.

"then of course if a given creature is to the left of the player (say attack button ''Y'') but then it moves over to the right side...would the attack button change (say to ''X'') while the monster moves? what if there was only the one monster? or only two, and they keep switching sides while attacking the player?"
This is something I thought about. Having played percussion before, I know that when you''re playing bongos/timpanis/other drums with only two drums and the lower of the two is on the right, it really screws you up. But, I realized, that your eyes would be on the screen all the time (because the GC controller has a way that makes you not have to look at the buttons) and you would see which one is which... I have no idea whether it would work or not, but instinct tells me that when you know which one''s which button, it works.

"?...haveing multiple targets could even get confuseing as 30 monsters or so start attacking...all those little ''Y''s and ''X''s and such could get lost in the sea of swarming creatures...just some stuff to think about"
Another good point. I guess I didn''t make it clear that you can only target three things at a time, one for each target button. And most of the environments would be about at least twice as large as Clock Town from Majora''s Mask (sorry I''m making all these Zelda comparisons) so I think that there would be some headroom and that the monsters would be more spread out.
But thanks for your constructive criticism. I think people will understand it better now that I sorta cleared some stuff up.
-Other One

quote:
Heh, this is where I think I confused you. A isn''t a targeting button, instead it is a secondary weapon button, and you don''t target with A, just select a weapon on one of your pause subscreens and use it with A. As a matter of fact, A reacts exactly like the C buttons would in Zelda (they attack anywhere when not targeted, and they attack your target when targeted).

No...I''m not confused...I just screwed up when I wrote the question...basicly what I was trying to point out is that if your secondary weapon can only target one monster at a time (and then just be used normaly when there is no target)...why not make the sword (or primary weapon) work the same way? by useing a more complex set-up for the main weapon it could confuse the player (and over complicate the game code in an effort to keep the player from being confused)...look at it this way...For how much of the game will the player absolutely NEED to use the ability to target 3 monsters at once?...I meen if the game is suppost to last 100 hours and the player is only useing the full power of such a tragerting/attack system for less then 10 hours (thats fighting 3 monsters for 10 hours all within weapon range and seperately targeted)...it becomes hard to justify such a control system if the player isn''t fully useing it at least 10% of the time he/she is playing a game...and you already said that the monsters should be spaced out far enough that the little ''y''s and ''X''s and such shouldn''t dissapear...which leads me to believe that there wouldn''t be much need to have three targets at once...

quote: Original post by MSW

Heh, this is where I think I confused you. A isn''t a targeting button, instead it is a secondary weapon button, and you don''t target with A, just select a weapon on one of your pause subscreens and use it with A. As a matter of fact, A reacts exactly like the C buttons would in Zelda (they attack anywhere when not targeted, and they attack your target when targeted).

No…I''m not confused…I just screwed up when I wrote the question…basicly what I was trying to point out is that if your secondary weapon can only target one monster at a time (and then just be used normaly when there is no target)…why not make the sword (or primary weapon) work the same way? by useing a more complex set-up for the main weapon it could confuse the player (and over complicate the game code in an effort to keep the player from being confused)…look at it this way…For how much of the game will the player absolutely NEED to use the ability to target 3 monsters at once?…I meen if the game is suppost to last 100 hours and the player is only useing the full power of such a tragerting/attack system for less then 10 hours (thats fighting 3 monsters for 10 hours all within weapon range and seperately targeted)…it becomes hard to justify such a control system if the player isn''t fully useing it at least 10% of the time he/she is playing a game…and you already said that the monsters should be spaced out far enough that the little ''y''s and ''X''s and such shouldn''t dissapear…which leads me to believe that there wouldn''t be much need to have three targets at once…

I understand what you mean now. I think that this is a good point, and that the three targeting buttons, like the A button, can have a weapon selected from a subscreen, similar to the C buttons in the 64 Zeldas but you must lock on to an enemy before being able to use these targeting buttons. Maybe in a subscreen there can be an option to turn off their targeting functions in more puzzle-like situations or at times when there is no need to fight.
And let me assure you, there is a need to have three targets at once. That''s sort of what makes up the gameplay - I think it would also gives a sort of cool effect to the player, like Devil May Cry. The characters may be spaced out, but we''re not talking about five or ten here, it''s more like twenty to thirty. Like, maybe twenty feet tops away from each other.
And about the little Xs and Ys… there would actually be only one X and one Y and one B at the maximum. If a fourth creature attacks, then there''ll be trouble, but it could be put in the AI that if the player is dealing with 3 creatures, then the others ignore the player in the meantime.
Thanks again for your critique. As you can see, I''ve made some changes based on it.
-Other One

quote: Original post by Other One
I am not a programmer (although I have done some Basic mini-games stuff) but am thoroughly interested in the realm of video games (console), more specifically, game designing. Especially when it comes to making innovations in game designs (although I still have years to wait and ways to go before even wanting to enter game designing).

You might want to check out this thread.



---
Make it work.
Make it fast.

quote: Original post by CaptainJester

Original post by Other One
I am not a programmer (although I have done some Basic mini-games stuff) but am thoroughly interested in the realm of video games (console), more specifically, game designing. Especially when it comes to making innovations in game designs (although I still have years to wait and ways to go before even wanting to enter game designing).

You might want to check out this thread.



—
Make it work.
Make it fast.

Let me assure you, I''ve checked it out. I am referring to level and gameplay design (for CONSOLES, mind), and if I have to become a programmer to do such, then that''s what I''ll have to become. That is, if I still have interests in the video game market.
If that quote really really really bugs you, though, I''ll be sure to edit it.
-Other One