Yeah, that's pretty much why I stopped posting on this subject. Seems there are those who are unwilling to think outside of preconstructed rules and stereotyped genre functionality.

Oh well, thanks Coder, and whoever was willing to talk it over, for being at least open to the idea, even though nobody really came close to what I was trying to explain.

But it's obvious to me that I never will be able to convey my idea without having a million people lynch it for being different. So I'm just going to think about it alone. Perhaps someday I'll have a full blown design document of concept written up, or better yet a proof of concept demo done up. Until then, I'll just work on my current projects.

Continue the debate if you wish.

[edited by - bandecko on June 20, 2002 10:04:15 PM]

Final Fantasy Tactics.

I will repeat that fragment:

FINAL FANTASY TACTICS.

It HAS been done. Someone just has to make a multiplayer equivalent.

mlylecarlin

quote:

---

Original post by Bandecko
Oh well, thanks Coder, and whoever was willing to talk it over, for being at least open to the idea, even though nobody really came close to what I was trying to explain.

---

I can''t say that I see EXACTLY what you are getting at, but I understand what element you are trying to add to your game. It''s definitely much needed. I enjoy exploring worlds and solving puzzles but if the combat system bores me (and all of them do) then I can''t play it for more than 10 minutes. In the old days, you just hit the A key until the fight was over... and it was over quickly. Then you were off once again to find that damn key to get into that dungeon so you can slay some monster for the king that lives in a castle on the other side of the damn world. This was all well and good but it too got very monotonous.

I''d love to see an RPG style game that has balanced adventure and combat. By this I mean that you spend most of your time in the adventure but because the combat system is so good, you get excited when you go into combat. After playing FF# for more than a week, I''m sure I''d be in tears at the start of every battle. Perhaps if they supplied a free bottle of Prozac with every FF game? Hmmm...

- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!

Ok I admire your idea, but its not without flaws.

1). Without numbers(even though you have to use numbers to accomplish the game, they are just hidden to the players) all we can use to rank people are the good old hiscore tables/charts. We could rank kills, deaths, money... whatever you wanted.

2). Without stats there is no distinction between newbies and veterans other than details, most of which don''t matter. A newbie that is more skilled than a veteran(as long as he doesn''t have a trick) could very well win. Someone mentioned equipment might be rarer, or something, but that will most likely make a veteran win all the time again and I will explain why later.

3). What it all boils down to is an action type game, multiplayer(nice feature for lots of games, I agree with the "I like other people possibly affecting my game" person) that has no stats, no levels... basically no numbers. A newbie is as strong as a veteran from the start. With all the walkthrough sites out there, it would be easy to find something that tells you "Hey dummy, hit people in the head" because its hard to be both realistic and fun. Flaws in design would have to be absolutely non-existant. If I was level 99, killing a rabbit should be easy, but if I am constantly equal with that rabbit... small stuff leaks out. I imagine it would boil down to equipment configuration... I take the sword and shield, and a helmet... guy #2 takes two axes and a chest-plate. This reminds me of another game... combat turns into 1 of 3 things. One of those being whoever hits first wins, because by now everyone knows how to beat the game(design). Two is the battle is pre-determined thanks to your equipment(Guy with axe chops through my armor, I can only beat them with luck). That and the third one(which is only on group games...you know multiple people fighting at once) which includes me fighting and winning, then immediatly dying before I can heal/get away, or me dying first because I was ganged up on, and with a smaller team... the team I was on is doomed to lose out to the others. All the above statements are of course barring the -random- occurance of lucky breaks.

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

quote:

---

1). Without numbers(even though you have to use numbers to accomplish the game, they are just hidden to the players) all we can use to rank people are the good old hiscore tables/charts. We could rank kills, deaths, money... whatever you wanted.

---

Quite the opposite. Without numbers, we can use character performance to rank people. If I can outrun you, I'm faster. If I can outswim you, I'm a better swimmer. If I can outlift you, I'm stronger. The abilities of your character and how they compare to those of other characters replace the current denominator called 'level'.

[edited by - Silvermyst on June 22, 2002 11:58:42 AM]

While that is true, many people will yearn for numbers. They will seek them out, finding out how much damage is done when it shows 4 pixels of blood flying away from their opponent, or when it makes a certain sound, or from a weapon period. Even in non-competative stuff like swimming they will say, "I can swim across big river #3 in 49 seconds." With no huge statistical difference between things it takes a perfect(flawless) design to accomplish a good game, as each tiny little flaw is seen as a huge thing(think about it, having 100hp and taking +5 damage for every hit in the head you notice, level up and get 10k hp... you don''t care anymore).

Even still yet it leaves no room for improvement for your character(or little room), only room for your own skill to improve. That makes it a static game... and static games are less likely to succeed, blah blah... I am sure you know the rest.

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

quote:

---

Original post by KingRuss

Even still yet it leaves no room for improvement for your character(or little room), only room for your own skill to improve. That makes it a static game... and static games are less likely to succeed, blah blah... I am sure you know the rest.

---

Too true, which is why nobody plays Chess, CounterStrike only sold 15 copies and Street Fighter 2 was a collosal bomb...

Yes that is sarcasm.

Skill based games are no more "static" than stat-based games. Each grows in one dimension. In stat-based games the only thing to improve is stats. There isn''t any difference between mastering "Ultra-Fireball" and mastering rocket jumping, other than one takes just time, while one takes both time and some effort/ability.

The notion that skill-based games don''t sell is OBVIOUSLY false, drop it already people.

Some people can''t see past their private circles.

I do play chess... Millions of people play chess, but its not likely that many will pay more than 2-10 dollars for any type of board, be it a video game or a physical board. You will get some that will pay any price, but that is hardly a market to go after.

Chess is more of a strategy game than anything. It is not really an rpg, and it draws in strategic people. When you call something an Rpg, people tend to think that you have something to improve upon in-game(a small few tend to think you are playing a -role- in an rpg, but you do so in so many games the definition has changed widely).

About that circle comment, who is that to and what did it mean exactly. The only reason I reply the way I do is so people know that its not a perfect idea, and that it has many flaws. I myself could find... myself playing the game, but I know so many others around me that wouldn''t(actual game players). This idea has also been pitched before by other people and shot down in various ways.



"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

I like the idea of an rpg that your strength is not based only on the amount of time you have played. I do not play rpgs. I like them for about the first hour of playing them but the reapeated tapping of a single button doesent appeal to me. Most rpgs iv played have allmost no options. It is like walking on a path through the forest. the only thing you can do are take the next step foreward until you are through the path. And when you are playing the rpgs it is barely any harder at the end than it is at the start because as the enemies get stronger you do to around the same rate. Then when your just thinking youll have to stay wher you are and level up thers some new items sitting in front of you so ul be stronger for a while. Allmost everyone will finish the RPGs in the same amount of time because ther is no skill at all involeved. Even most of the people i know who play RPGs get bored of them because ther is so little that you actually do. The only reason they keep playing them is the story. I think thats enough said on what is wrong with RPGs so il start talking about what i like about this idea. Or what i think i like like about it because the idea is not totaly clear. Since ther is no levels or HPs the only 2 things that are really going to effect how strong you are is how Good your strategy is and what equipment you are using. Of course somone who has played for 5 hours is going to be stronger than somone who has just started 10 minits ago. But thats not to say that somone who has played for 2 hours could not be stronger than somone has played for 4. A good example of a game that has a very good strategy based system. Lots of the low end skils would be better than higher ones with the stat point system. And you wold try to make a charecter with a good combonation of skils could eisily beat somone with a bad one. I was a level 84 but lots of level 70s could beat me 1 on 1 because i chose pretty bad skils. Another thing was you could not line the special items up in order from best to worst because they all had their pros and cons. And just because you got to one point in the game did not mean you would get this certain item. Thats not to say its a perfect game. it was horribly repetitive and didnt have much of a story but just all the different strategys you could try would keep me playing. Lots of you people are saying that the rpg people wouldnt play it but i think the would if it had a good story but i think lots of people would want to play somthing like that. Most of the people who play rpgs would probably find it funner if they got to make choises. And lots of people who dont play rpgs would want to play it because it would be a little more exciting, like me. Its not like its totaly some new and crazy type of game wher you wander around and when you go into a battle its like a tekken fighting match of wwf wresteling mach, who knows that could be fun but i dont think thats what bandecko is thinking. Just because it is different doesent mean it wont work.