PDA

View Full Version : Video Game Ideas



Evil_Cake
04-14-2011, 10:19 PM
If you have any cool ideas for video games post them here.

GunZet
04-14-2011, 10:26 PM
Another Call of Duty...oh wait.

Well. Here's an idea I posted somewhere else.

There should be a shmup but reversed...You play as a giant disembodied hand that's jutting out from the sky with god-rays galore. And your attacks include swatting the shit out of anything, or dragging your index finger across the land destroying anything in its path. Or, or. Special attacks where you turn your hand into a gun gesture and shoot a giant laser.
The enemy tries to do anything they can do destroy said "god-hand" but can't. And your goal is to rack up as many points as possible in a set amount of time.

ClockHand
04-14-2011, 10:33 PM
A super hero rpg with puzzles.

A medieval rpg beat'm up with change between character and with tactical capability to move troops in a battle field (press select and you enter in the battle field tactics to move the units and gave order while the game is stopped).

A beat'm up that sue analog sticks and other buttoms to move and do attacks, also that the movement and fight are more close to parkurt.

Hayashida
04-14-2011, 11:03 PM
online open-world game in japan with samurais where you get armour and customize your guy like monster hunter and basically you make clans with other people and fight other clans etc. Basic idea but it'd be sweet.

jubeh
04-14-2011, 11:12 PM
Did you put all those periods on the end of the title so we couldn't get past page 1.

Evil_Cake
04-14-2011, 11:13 PM
yeah

GunZet
04-14-2011, 11:16 PM
online open-world game in japan with samurais where you get armour and customize your guy like monster hunter and basically you make clans with other people and fight other clans etc. Basic idea but it'd be sweet.

Hayashida Warriors 8?

Evil_Cake
04-14-2011, 11:31 PM
sounds like a game where its all world pvp

jubeh
04-14-2011, 11:31 PM
A medieval rpg beat'm up with change between character and with tactical capability to move troops in a battle field (press select and you enter in the battle field tactics to move the units and gave order while the game is stopped).

Did you ever play the kingdom under fire games.

ClockHand
04-14-2011, 11:32 PM
nop )= is like that? )=

jubeh
04-14-2011, 11:34 PM
Um you have a bunch of units and you can direct where they go and you can switch over to them and help them fight sort of like a dynasty warriors type thing. Look up videos for it because its hard to explain. Think a lite version of total war where you can zoom in and fight alongside your dudes.

ClockHand
04-14-2011, 11:40 PM
damn, well the super heros rpg with puzzle stages is still on.

jubeh
04-14-2011, 11:41 PM
If its any consolation the kingdom under fire games had a lot of problems. They were supposed to make a current-gen sequel but I guess it never happened.

ClockHand
04-14-2011, 11:44 PM
yeah but making a better version is not a new idea )=

jubeh
04-14-2011, 11:46 PM
I don't know. I've always wanted a game similar to that but without the problems and the weird lore. I'm guessing the problems with the game are inherent to the concept because there haven't been any released that are similar aside from Kessen 3.

ClockHand
04-14-2011, 11:51 PM
That and also because companies don't like to take risks.

jubeh
04-14-2011, 11:52 PM
Man I'm just gonna make it myself

ClockHand
04-14-2011, 11:54 PM
Go for it. If you need someone to do horrible monster characters art, call me or call someone with talent.

Lucy
04-15-2011, 05:49 PM
I was working on programming a roguelike-ish thing where you were sort of like a captain of a spaceship and you'd go round being a pirate and swashbuckling in space. When you were on the ship it would be Dwarf Fortress style management which eventually ends when something fucks up your ship beyond repair or everybody gets very upset and murders each other to cheer themselves up. When you encountered a planet it's sort of like IVAN or a similarly brutal roguelike. I am not a good programmer or anything so I gave up, but I thought it would be cool to make a game that was sort of like a Star Trek or Red Dwarf space opera thing.

jubeh
04-15-2011, 05:51 PM
Lucy that sounds badass please make it come true ):

Lucy
04-15-2011, 05:57 PM
Lucy that sounds badass please make it come true ):If I ever work on it to the point where it is a playable game, I'll post it on MT. You guys can tell me what to improve and all that. I didn't get very far with it before I realised how clunky my attempts at programming were, but I'm still coming up with ideas and stuff I can use if I do work on it.

jubeh
04-15-2011, 05:59 PM
What were you using to make it

Lucy
04-15-2011, 06:01 PM
What were you using to make it
I was programming it in C++. I was gonna mock it up in ASCII and maybe eventually make a version which has graphics rendered in OpenGL.

jubeh
04-15-2011, 06:05 PM
Have you considered python and libtcod

http://doryen.eptalys.net/


libtcod, a.k.a. “The Doryen Library”, is a free, fast, portable and uncomplicated API for roguelike developpers providing an advanced true color console, input, and lots of other utilities frequently used in roguelikes.

Lucy
04-15-2011, 06:06 PM
Yeah, I was thinking of learning Python because it's supposedly really easy to program games in. I'm not so fussed about the format or whatever. I might even just try to throw it together in Game Maker or something. The thing is I don't really have a lot of time to work on it right now.

jubeh
04-15-2011, 06:09 PM
If you do it I do pixel art and know a little gml

LVUER
04-15-2011, 06:26 PM
Um you have a bunch of units and you can direct where they go and you can switch over to them and help them fight sort of like a dynasty warriors type thing. Look up videos for it because its hard to explain. Think a lite version of total war where you can zoom in and fight alongside your dudes.

I think Battalion Wars 2 for Wii is similar to that.

jubeh
04-15-2011, 06:30 PM
I'm looking at videos for battalion wars and it looks pretty cool. Btw you know you can edit posts so you don't have to delete them.

Edit: Hm apparently the game I am envisioning is just ogre battle with beat'em'up combat instead of turn based combat. Seems doable.

jubeh
04-17-2011, 01:14 AM
OKAY

So those inherent flaws I was talking about in strategy/beat'em'up hybrids.

I made a quick prototype where you could draw a line for a unit to follow, and if they bumped into an enemy it would take them into a room where you could punch shit.

THE PROBLEMS

1. Where da tactics at

Since combat is dealt with through BEM fighting, there's no easy way I see to including flanking bonuses and stuff like that. The only way I can see it working is if the game takes into account if there are units near the attacking unit, but I'm not sure if I could program a way to test their positions against the enemy since I'm not that good at programming. All I can think of is if two guys are close to one enemy, both those guys get to fight or something. Iduno.

Then what about ranged attacks mannnnnn.

2. Sudden control change

On the overworld map you are primarily using your mouse. I made a play/pause button to start and stop units which can also be done by pressing space. The problem is that once you switch over to BEM the controls change. You're now using the keyboard to move and fight. Even if I found a way around this I think it would be way too awkward.

3. Difficulty

I feel like it would be really hard to manage difficulty here. If you could just manually beat up the enemies why even position yourself on the map. I could make the enemies stronger but how fun would it be to continuously walk into a wall of arrows or something.

So yeah the only way I see this working is in 3D. That way you can just zoom in when its time to fight instead of switching over to another room. ):

jubeh
05-02-2011, 11:45 PM
Okay so I have this idea I've been throwing around for a few hours after watching this bible adventures game. Yeah anyway.

The idea is that you play a "karma clerk" who are basically intergalactic mailmen that deliver parcels people deserve. Every stage would have you braving dangers and solving clues in order to find the person sent to receive the package. Since most of them are in hiding for dubious reasons, this isn't always easy. Luckily, every karma clerk is trained in a special fighting art called BOXING and can punch people in order to defend themselves. Also they can jump or whatever.

So every stage you would receive a package from hq and then go to the planet in question. Sometimes finding the recipient is as simple as braving obstacles and whatnot, but sometimes you would have to ask around for clues as to their whereaboots.

I want to implement ledge grabbing which I've failed at pretty bad in the past. But hopefully I can change that! Combat would be pretty simple. Whenever karma clerk engages in combat, the enemy will either jab or straight. You would simply block the jabs and hit them during the windup of their straight in order to dizzy them. After that you could perform your own SUPER STRAIGHT to knock them out. I was initially going to make a more complex fighting system but I want to focus on simplicity and atmosphere.

So graphics would be fake-8bit with 16x16 sprites and Iduno about the music. Any suggestions or feedback?

Evil_Cake
05-03-2011, 12:08 AM
sounds cool would most of the enjoyment come from dialogue or what

jubeh
05-03-2011, 12:09 AM
I cant remember the game that inspired me but it was this one where you were this neat dwarf dude who climbed mountains. Anyway just jumping around and exploring was really fun but yeah you could also talk to dudes and that was fun too.

Most of all I want it to be atmospheric.

Evil_Cake
05-03-2011, 12:45 AM
can u make it so u can throw boxes also? at least at one point

like to win the game u gotta throw a box at something

jubeh
05-03-2011, 12:45 AM
Man Iduno but I can try.

CypressDahlia
05-03-2011, 03:06 AM
Tales of Phantasia w/ detailed fighting game mechanics.

LVUER
05-03-2011, 03:21 AM
Too detailed and each battle will become like a chore. There is a game like this in SNES (forget the title, it's been ages ago), RPG games that when in battle, it suddenly becomes 100% (well, not really 100%) fighting games. With exception that that life bar is carried over to the next battle. The problem is I was shaking in each battle since it's hard and tedious... and fighting every several steps (just like any other RPG) is simply a waste of time...

Fighting game fans doesn't always like RPG and RPG fans doesn't always fighting games. Mixing them up without proper balance will only scare away both game fans.

BTW, I'm pretty sure there are lots of RPG games out there that have battle system that mimics fighting game mechanics way more detailed than Tales series.

CypressDahlia
05-03-2011, 03:53 AM
I want to play these games.

EDIT: the game you're talking about is Endeavor, Jubeh.

jubeh
05-03-2011, 10:24 AM
Aw yeah endeavor. Such a good game.

Fenn
05-03-2011, 09:46 PM
Hey Jubeh (and others interested) I built a "support" system to replace killstreaks in COD, using BOps as an example.

Each player picks one support option from the available to define their role. Each option includes a mix of the following:
- Free support (F): given at the start of the game
- Level 1: given to the player after 2:00
- Level 2: given to the top 2 players on each team after 4:00
- Level 3: given to the top player on each team after 6:00

The options are:
- Recon: Spyplane (1), Counter Spyplane (2), Blackbird (3)
- Support: SAM Turret (1), Sentry Gun (2), Valkyrie Rockets (3)
- Captain: Napalm Strike (1), Mortar Team (2), Rolling Thunder (3)
- Specialist: RC-XD (F), Attack Copter (2), Chopper Gunner (3)

In addition, each player gets to choose one of the following:
- Ammo (F)
- Gunship (Level 4: given to the top player with 2:00 remaining in-game)
- Attack Dogs (4)
- Care Package (1)
> note: only support items whose level has already passed in game will appear in a care package i.e. after 4:00 you may get free, level 1, or level 2 support. You cannot earn level 4 support from a care package.

Since both teams get equal amounts of support (with the exception of potential level 4 support), neither team gets a straight advantage; it depends on which team chose which support and how they are used. It still rewards the best players on each team, AND gives lesser players a chance to help their team. The best player will pick a level 4 support, while the lesser players will take ammo and CPs.

jubeh
05-03-2011, 09:50 PM
The top player being rewarded the most still causes a positive feedback loop even if the losing team gets it. Then it's just a blue shell.

Evil_Cake
05-03-2011, 09:51 PM
god i hate blue shells so much

Outcast
05-03-2011, 11:11 PM
Blue shells are so fucking useless and getting pelted by 6 in one is such bullshit. T_T

Fenn
05-07-2011, 12:06 PM
The top player being rewarded the most still causes a positive feedback loop even if the losing team gets it. Then it's just a blue shell.

Huh? Are you sure you understood that? BOTH teams get equal amounts of support, but the better players on EACH TEAM get to utilize the stronger support.

jubeh
05-07-2011, 05:57 PM
Yeah so the best players who are killing the most mans now have more opportunities to kill mans.

Fenn
05-07-2011, 07:37 PM
Yeah so the best players who are killing the most mans now have more opportunities to kill mans.

So? It's team deathmatch! Isn't the point to kill the other team, not to compete with your teammates for kills? Would you rather they be dished out randomly so your level 3 support goes to a noob with no clue how to use it, while the other team's level 3 goes to their most experienced player?

That reminds me of an idea for a shooter game mode (for any game): rival deathmatch. Since the average gamer jumps online and plays team deathmatch for K/D and individual skill, why not make a mode for just that?

The rules:
- Two teams.
- The goal is to beat your rivals (the players on your team) to X kills against the other team.
- So, in a five on five match, you are competing against four "rivals" (who you can't hurt) to kill the remaining five players
- Your targets are also competing against each other to kill you guys.
- First player to reach X kills wins the match.
- Rewards are also handed out to the top scoring player on the other team and the top team.

jubeh
05-07-2011, 07:52 PM
So? It's team deathmatch! Isn't the point to kill the other team, not to compete with your teammates for kills? Would you rather they be dished out randomly so your level 3 support goes to a noob with no clue how to use it, while the other team's level 3 goes to their most experienced player?

Um how about no bonuses ever and the better players just naturally do better instead of gaining rewards that give them even more dominance. That's like if some dudes were racing and you gave the guy ahead everyone else a steroid shot.

Delphinus
05-07-2011, 10:21 PM
An online game where all content is created by players out of parts in a similar way to games like LittleBigPlanet. The raw materials would be harvested somewhere in the game world and sold either to NPC shops or to other players for currency. These raw materials could be used to make things like motors etc. or parts of a game level. Likewise they could be used to create new equipment which would run on a vaguely physics-based model.
Players could then have others pay for the right to play their levels and set some sort of reward for the winner of a level which would vary in value depending on the resources used to make the level - normally some sort of piece of equipment with a value a fraction of the level's. The currency they gained from charging players to enter their levels could then be used to purchase more resources, etc. - the more popular or useful a player's creations are, the richer that player becomes. Levels themselves could have a price tag on them, with each player starting out with a single, smallish level to work on, and being able to buy additional level slots or expand the size of their level by paying in-game currency.

ClockHand
05-07-2011, 10:27 PM
That reminds me of an idea for a shooter game mode (for any game): rival deathmatch. Since the average gamer jumps online and plays team deathmatch for K/D and individual skill, why not make a mode for just that?

The rules:
- Two teams.
- The goal is to beat your rivals (the players on your team) to X kills against the other team.
- So, in a five on five match, you are competing against four "rivals" (who you can't hurt) to kill the remaining five players
- Your targets are also competing against each other to kill you guys.
- First player to reach X kills wins the match.
- Rewards are also handed out to the top scoring player on the other team and the top team.

Worst idea ever. What if your team let themselves to be killed by you? what if the other team does the same?

It only good if every player goes as individual, but this has no team work, ergo has no competitive base. And even if play for individual matters, the other team might not, and they could win as a team (and they can take most advantage of the situation).

I hope you never develop (as director) a game for a big company. Or at least if that happens I'm pretty sure I will not buy it.

Bardic-Dragoon
05-08-2011, 02:04 AM
Worst idea ever. What if your team let themselves to be killed by you? what if the other team does the same?

It only good if every player goes as individual, but this has no team work, ergo has no competitive base. And even if play for individual matters, the other team might not, and they could win as a team (and they can take most advantage of the situation).

I hope you never develop (as director) a game for a big company. Or at least if that happens I'm pretty sure I will not buy it.

I don't think you read th idea fully, i mean the first thing you say ("What if your team let themselves to be killed by you?") is already addressed in that you cannot kill your rivals/teammates, only the other team.

Also what your saying about teamwork makes no sense, the whole idea seems like throwing teamwork in a team death-match away; this is not Red Team VS. Blue Team but Blue VS. Blue with Red being nothing but marks on the scoreboard.

That said my personal opinion of the idea is meh... It feels hampered by the whole 'two player teams' system. Something akin to Horde Mode from Gears of War or Nazi Zombies from Call of Duty (i.e. player team vs near endless army of NPCs) with some kind of mechanic to drive the idea of individual over co-op in (lowest score at end of round is eliminated?) seems like it would work much better

ClockHand
05-08-2011, 02:09 AM
OH, then I understand it wrong and I apologize.

Now that I understand the concept is still a bad idea. It force players to camp even more.

Fenn
05-08-2011, 12:10 PM
OH, then I understand it wrong and I apologize.

Now that I understand the concept is still a bad idea. It force players to camp even more.

That's perfectly fine, I wasn't sure how it would work TBH. Don't be fooled into thinking I've planned this idea for months; I like to throw things out there as they come to me. I have the feeling that if we were at a table with other devs at a concept design meeting, and I threw that idea out there, you (hopefully) would not have jumped up and yelled your previous post at me...

That being said I'm not sure how it promotes camping. If you camp, your rivals are going to kill the other team way faster than you will. Not to mention that the other team will go after your rivals who are acting easier to find. You basically pull yourself out of the game.

The whole goal of the mode is to reduce the uncontrollable chaos and luck factor of FFA matches in shooters by only having half the other players targeting you. Perhaps remove the reward for the top "team" since it's technically a FFA mode.

Lucifer
05-08-2011, 03:44 PM
So basically Free-For-All Team Deathmatch where you must be the top scorer of your team.

Basically you're trying to get rid of team cohesion completely (something which is already apparent in COD games).

Fenn
05-08-2011, 05:58 PM
So basically Free-For-All Team Deathmatch where you must be the top scorer of your team.

Basically you're trying to get rid of team cohesion completely (something which is already apparent in COD games).

On the contrary, I'm promoting it by luring away all of the "lone wolf" gamers who are currently infecting TDM, so you can enjoy team-based gameplay with others who used teamwork.

ClockHand
05-08-2011, 06:24 PM
You don't get it. If the competence is to be the first in your team then working on team has no point at all. And even more camping and stilling others kills is going to be the main goal for every player.

Lucifer
05-08-2011, 06:59 PM
I'm willing to bet this stimulation of egocentric behaviour in your proposed game type is going to carry over into TDM, making the lone wolf problem in TDM only worse.

Fenn
05-08-2011, 09:57 PM
You don't get it. If the competence is to be the first in your team then working on team has no point at all. And even more camping and stilling others kills is going to be the main goal for every player.

Like I explained, it isn't really teams at all; I'm even going to stop using the term. It's more like "group of rivals." It's not supposed to promote teamwork; it's supposed to take an FFA game mode, where every player has his or herself in mind, and use the "rivals and targets" mechanic to lessen the randomness factor by reducing the number of players attacking you. It is not a replacement for standard TDM.

Kill stealing would definitely be an issue, but as I explained camping would not. If you camp, the four rivals you are competing against will find and kill your targets first, and no one will fall for your traps because they will prefer to go after your rivals who are out in the open.


I'm willing to bet this stimulation of egocentric behaviour in your proposed game type is going to carry over into TDM, making the lone wolf problem in TDM only worse.

A fair argument, albeit purely speculative. The best way to assure this does not happen is remove all individual rewards from TDM, so winning and teamwork are the most rewarding and desired traits, while putting numerous individualistic rewards into my new mode.

But your prediction is certainly fair and valid.

Arashi500
05-11-2011, 12:19 AM
Brink is trying to get people away form the lone-wolf mindset by making the benefits of victory(which requires teamwork) outweigh the benefits of individual action by up to hunreds of xp points, and still people would rather just lone wolf it. It's actually kind of depressing. I don't even know if teamwork on the ideal level is possible w/ complete strangers at this point.

Fenn
05-11-2011, 02:21 PM
Brink is trying to get people away form the lone-wolf mindset by making the benefits of victory(which requires teamwork) outweigh the benefits of individual action by up to hunreds of xp points, and still people would rather just lone wolf it. It's actually kind of depressing. I don't even know if teamwork on the ideal level is possible w/ complete strangers at this point.

I used to dream of creating a project like that too. But then I realized something: why is everyone trying to change the mindset of gamers to fit their games, instead of the other way around?

Games like COD and Halo have made it clear most online matchmaking gamers don't give a care about teamwork, so why are all shooters still team-based? If gamers want to play like lone wolves and individuals, why isn't FFA more popular?

Because all FFA modes, that I've played, face the unavoidable truths of spawning, camping, backstabbing, and kill stealing. There is no way to organize a standard FFA, regardless of the maps and gameplay, without it boiling down to who happens to find who where and when.

My suggestion for a new mode is trying to fix that.

ClockHand
05-11-2011, 04:12 PM
In Halo is impossible to win against a team who work together (unless they are retarded) so the lone wolf is not a big issue. But what it is a problem is the fact that you never use the entire map, most of the conflict takes place in only one part of the map and the game always become in some kind of king of the hill game, and obviously people camp (lucky in halo you have power ups which make campers look retarded or smarter).

As in Halo you have infinite respwans and there is no other goal that kill more and be killed less, people play safely, this mean they are going to try to catch specific points on the map to "camp" (is weird to call this camp, because you know they are there... its more like protect), this make the game a constant fight for this places and you never use the entire map (some maps you do, when you have a sniper).

But this happens a lot in fps games, where all the time some points on the map become strategically more important, but obviously in Halo as you only have to kill and not be killed, your strategy is gonna be stay with your team and by in a place of control. Different to CS, where you there are many strategical points, but are made depending of the goal of your team (plant bomb or protect place).

Is something hard to fix this thing of the strategical points on the map, because no matter what players are going to play to win (camp in COD, by in groups in Halo). Maybe the only way to change this are small missions on stages (as I said, what if you play until your respawns run out, but there are small tasks on the map that can gave you more respawns?) or making in the map some kind of aggression against players, forcing them to move (maps that changes structure every 10 minutes?) or a mix of both (the entire task on your map is to survive and accomplish the a full change on the map that let you reach certain object, this make team work and change constantly the map structure).

But well is not my job to gave ideas or fix problems, is just to play games and see if they work or not. At the moment I stay with my good friend Halo Reach, which is not perfect but at least is fair and it keep the game play "simple".

Arashi500
05-11-2011, 08:52 PM
In Halo is impossible to win against a team who work together (unless they are retarded) so the lone wolf is not a big issue. But what it is a problem is the fact that you never use the entire map, most of the conflict takes place in only one part of the map and the game always become in some kind of king of the hill game, and obviously people camp (lucky in halo you have power ups which make campers look retarded or smarter).


Proof (http://www.bungie.net/Online/Halo3UserContentDetails.aspx?h3fileid=32646126) for or against it, not sure which.


Anyway,I just want to see less CoD class customization in so many games Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 didn't work with them because they tried to deviate, hell Black Ops, a CoD showed us that deviatian from the strict cut paste assortment of perks is a bad idea with that system. I think my only good FPS expectations for this year are Battlefield 3 and RAGE(this ones iffy).

Fenn
05-11-2011, 09:54 PM
Good point Clockhand. My point, though, was that perhaps devs need to stop pushing for teamwork when most players frankly don't want it.


But well is not my job to gave ideas or fix problems, is just to play games and see if they work or not.

But, but...its the video game ideas thread... :cat_huh:

Arashi500
05-11-2011, 10:15 PM
I just think the mentality of the majority needs to change. By making lone wolfing extremely beneficial then people who are best at, and enjoy supporting roles get pushed aside completely. where as not doing anything will make the same problems persist. And as long as we make games revolving around teamwork without changing the mentality, those games will flop.

ClockHand
05-11-2011, 11:58 PM
I say there are 2 ways to work this. The passive doing multiplayer options (you can choose to play both team work or lone wolf) or the aggressive where you just take away the lone wolf type game and do only team work.

Devs need to take away options for the players, if I gave the option to play one of those, players are obviously going to play alone (most people play games alone), but if I force them to play as a team, then the players have no option to adapt their mentalities (I force adaptation).

Now, this is a radical concept and no company would do that, because its mean they are going to sell less. So what they can do is use the Halo credits or a reward system (that doesn't affect the balance in the game). You gave exclusive challenges to the team work type of game, which gave more points to the players to level up and trade stuffs for their characters (again, doesn't affect game balance), this motivate hardcore gamers to play as a team and not as a lone wolf.

The devs need to: A) do a team work base games that can be flexible and friendly (important, because you don't want to be blamed for losing, and neither having to do complex tactics), B) force players to adapt their mentalities (don't gave players the option, motivate them to the option you want them to chose) and C) make players to stay in game (motivate players to keep playing to the end).


Aya@ Yeah, I have also won matches against teams. But as I said, unless your opponents are retarded is pretty impossible to win against a team playing alone.

Nyarlathotep
05-12-2011, 12:08 AM
Bad Company 2 rewards people for doing a lot of team-based things - spotting enemies, healing people, repairing stuff ... and if you perform an action for a squad member, then you get double points. Very often medics and engineers with not all that many kills will lead the team in points... Not a bad system, though 80 points for a Squad Revive is ridiculous and seriously stop bringing me back to live I WANT TO DIE!

Delphinus
05-12-2011, 04:35 AM
Or you could make the game realistic enough that a single bullet sends you into shock/kills you instead of using a regenerating health meter. The only way to survive would be to stick to the group.

Fenn
05-12-2011, 11:59 AM
I say there are 2 ways to work this. The passive doing multiplayer options (you can choose to play both team work or lone wolf) or the aggressive where you just take away the lone wolf type game and do only team work.

Devs need to take away options for the players, if I gave the option to play one of those, players are obviously going to play alone (most people play games alone), but if I force them to play as a team, then the players have no option to adapt their mentalities (I force adaptation).

Now, this is a radical concept and no company would do that, because its mean they are going to sell less. So what they can do is use the Halo credits or a reward system (that doesn't affect the balance in the game). You gave exclusive challenges to the team work type of game, which gave more points to the players to level up and trade stuffs for their characters (again, doesn't affect game balance), this motivate hardcore gamers to play as a team and not as a lone wolf.

The devs need to: A) do a team work base games that can be flexible and friendly (important, because you don't want to be blamed for losing, and neither having to do complex tactics), B) force players to adapt their mentalities (don't gave players the option, motivate them to the option you want them to chose) and C) make players to stay in game (motivate players to keep playing to the end).


Aya@ Yeah, I have also won matches against teams. But as I said, unless your opponents are retarded is pretty impossible to win against a team playing alone.

That's not fair to the majority. Listen to the logic you just posed: Most people want to be lone wolves, but because a minority of team-based gamers want everyone to play using teamwork, we need to change the mentality of everyone else so they play the way we want them to.

How does that make sense? I'm not even suggesting to get rid of online shooters that promote teamwork. I'm saying that if so many people want to play like lone wolves, all it would take is one or two online shooters which cater to this individualist mentality to get them out of the teamwork gamer's hair.


Or you could make the game realistic enough that a single bullet sends you into shock/kills you instead of using a regenerating health meter. The only way to survive would be to stick to the group.

I've been thinking of a similar idea where damage is based on the affected body part. Legs slow your movement, arms throw off your aim, stomach causes you to flinch/fall, and headshot kills. In addition, you take bleeding damage which, if not treated, will kill you. It would make for some cool moments online:

"Damn! My knee!"
"Crawl to cover! I have a medic kit. Someone give me suppressing fire!"

I also think there is too little fear of death in these games. I was thinking of a world wide war server with a queue system. You enter into the queue and then go into unranked matchmaking with whichever faction you are on. When a space is available in the battle, the next person in line gets dropped into the war. If you die, you have to go to the end of the queue. Maybe then people will actually want to use teamwork. Camping would be an issue though.

ClockHand
05-12-2011, 12:21 PM
Is not unfair actually, because if you don't like it you don't play it, if you like you do and if you are neutral you might like it or not (depending if the game is good). And also you need to think that this is a strategy used by companies, is not like I'm being anti-ethic, I'm just stating a strategy that is always used (remove the option for the consumers, and force them to what it left to sell).

If you want a one shot kill game play AA. It's a realistic game, this mean no over jumps, over speed, over endurance or anything that is beyond human capability. This force skills in the players but also makes the game extremely boring (if you don't like to die and have to wait to the next round).

doghateburger
05-12-2011, 12:37 PM
there should be a game, where you are a zombie, and you have to eat the entire worlds brain to return back to human. that would be epic. I can only imagine the ending....
"NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! I ATE THEM ALLLLL!!!!!"

Sylux
05-12-2011, 01:06 PM
Hey I have a cool game idea okay here goes well you can make your character's face and give him a first name but everyone will call you by your predestined last name or your military rank okay and you can also pick your character path right and you go explore space and scan planets in other systems for like gas and minerals and stuff and sometimes you can land on terrestrial planets and hey sometimes their moons haha know what I mean. :)


there should be a game, where you are a zombie, and you have to eat the entire worlds brain to return back to human. that would be epic. I can only imagine the ending....
"NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! I ATE THEM ALLLLL!!!!!"

My idea puts you mommy to shame. Good idea, actually, but there would be almost zero conflict, since you're just fighting humans. Unless you're battling other zombies or specially mutated infecteds for supremacy and the right to human life once again. But then, at the ending, wouldn't another zombie just eat you, the last human, become a human, be eaten by a third zombie who then transforms into a human again like a giant zombie Beauty and the Beast party?

Nyarlathotep
05-12-2011, 04:52 PM
I've been thinking of a similar idea where damage is based on the affected body part. Legs slow your movement, arms throw off your aim, stomach causes you to flinch/fall, and headshot kills. In addition, you take bleeding damage which, if not treated, will kill you. It would make for some cool moments online:

"Damn! My knee!"
"Crawl to cover! I have a medic kit. Someone give me suppressing fire!"


I think Arma II incorporates location-based damage, but Arma II is reaaaallly boring. Too bad.

Project Reality,a realism mod for Battlefield 2, has a similar system, though, but it doesn't do location-based wounding (though a headshot will make you unrevivable).

GunZet
05-12-2011, 05:20 PM
A game where you play as a guy playing a game where you have to work together. And the goal is to get everyone to work together as a team to beat the other team. If you don't, you lose.
Except when you lose, the player's computer overheats and explodes.

Delphinus
05-12-2011, 06:41 PM
A game where you scoop up children and put them in the back of an ice-cream truck. You have a quota of children to reach in a certain time and you earn bonuses for certain types of children - your 'employer' one day might prefer blonde-haired 4-year-old girls, another might want 12-year-old boys. You earn points that you can spend on upgrades to your van, like making it more attractive to the kids and attaching a larger scoop to grab more children at once. Later on though you get chased by police cars and have to outrun them while still collecting children. The aim of the game is to rack up the highest amount of wanted money before you get caught.

This seems like a cool idea to me, and its relatively simple gameplay has a nice arcade-like feel to it. Not sure about whether it might cause controversy though...

Fenn
05-13-2011, 10:10 AM
Is not unfair actually, because if you don't like it you don't play it, if you like you do and if you are neutral you might like it or not (depending if the game is good). And also you need to think that this is a strategy used by companies, is not like I'm being anti-ethic, I'm just stating a strategy that is always used (remove the option for the consumers, and force them to what it left to sell).

From a developer/industry standpoint, no of course it's fair It makes no sense, because they are hurting their sales just to promote a certain type of gameplay they consider "superior", but it's fair.

For you, another gamer, it comes off as a bit elitist.


If you want a one shot kill game play AA. It's a realistic game, this mean no over jumps, over speed, over endurance or anything that is beyond human capability. This force skills in the players but also makes the game extremely boring (if you don't like to die and have to wait to the next round).

That's pretty cool but I do hate waiting. That's why I loves MK64 Balloon Battles: when you ran out of "health" (balloons) you got to drive around as a little bomb and attack other racers.

Hell_Baron
05-19-2011, 04:45 PM
A game where you scoop up children and put them in the back of an ice-cream truck. You have a quota of children to reach in a certain time and you earn bonuses for certain types of children - your 'employer' one day might prefer blonde-haired 4-year-old girls, another might want 12-year-old boys. You earn points that you can spend on upgrades to your van, like making it more attractive to the kids and attaching a larger scoop to grab more children at once. Later on though you get chased by police cars and have to outrun them while still collecting children. The aim of the game is to rack up the highest amount of wanted money before you get caught.

This seems like a cool idea to me, and its relatively simple gameplay has a nice arcade-like feel to it. Not sure about whether it might cause controversy though...

*cough*newgrounds*cough*

Fenn
06-01-2011, 10:45 PM
I always wanted an online multiplayer game where you never die. The objective could be score the most points. And it has to have fully destructible environments, ridiculus ragdoll player physics, and a taunt feature.

General_Marmalade
06-02-2011, 12:15 AM
I've always wanted a fantasy game that has an expansive environment like World of Warcraft and something like an never ending story like WoW. It would have features from the Fable series...like, being able to buy houses and shops, NPC's interact you about your pass deeds(good or bad) And the choice through out the game to be good or bad and this affected your character, physically, socially and story wise. It would also have some things from the Witcher II.....the ability to have sex with NPC's or PC's lol.....so I guess this would be a MMORPG then...which I think would make it even cooler. Oh and it is as violent as the Witcher II aswell.......and thats my ideal game..

LVUER
06-03-2011, 06:18 AM
I think in several years, there's going to be a MMORPG game like that. I think we're just stuck because of technology (internet that fast enough to do all that). But I don't know about the sex thing... If it's just a marriage, some MMORPG already did that.

Delphinus
06-03-2011, 09:31 AM
So basically you want Second Life: Fantasy Edition?

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 10:03 AM
What's with indie developers and "too hard" games these days? Ever since I Wanna Be the Guy there is an increasing trend of too hard platformers and such. I've been playing a LOT of indie platformers lately and some of them are just plain unfairly difficult. And in a lot of reviews I read for non-commercial platformers, the difficulty is always noted. Most of the time, it's not even like it's fun and challenging, it's more "just grit your teeth and take it until you reach the end."

Now as much as I love difficult games, it becomes annoying when developers make games just for the sake of being difficult. If the whole game is built around just being a huge "fuck you" to the player, it's generally unentertaining. What is the mentality behind that, though? Does it give a game more "prestige" or notoriety to be extremely and unfairly difficult? Is it like some kinda bragging rights for who has the "most hardcore" game? I think it derives a bit from video game elitism, where a lot of people get virtual big balls for completing difficult games, and developers feed off that ego boost.

Fenn
06-14-2011, 10:29 AM
What's with indie developers and "too hard" games these days? Ever since I Wanna Be the Guy there is an increasing trend of too hard platformers and such. I've been playing a LOT of indie platformers lately and some of them are just plain unfairly difficult. And in a lot of reviews I read for non-commercial platformers, the difficulty is always noted. Most of the time, it's not even like it's fun and challenging, it's more "just grit your teeth and take it until you reach the end."

Now as much as I love difficult games, it becomes annoying when developers make games just for the sake of being difficult. If the whole game is built around just being a huge "fuck you" to the player, it's generally unentertaining. What is the mentality behind that, though? Does it give a game more "prestige" or notoriety to be extremely and unfairly difficult? Is it like some kinda bragging rights for who has the "most hardcore" game? I think it derives a bit from video game elitism, where a lot of people get virtual big balls for completing difficult games, and developers feed off that ego boost.

You're pretty spot-on. Since big-name devs have taken a turn towards the more casual side of gaming, I speculate indie devs are taking the opposite approach and trying to appease the challenge craving gamers. The issue is the method of difficulty. If the difficulty boils down to having to memorize the level, it's very artificial and less gratifying.

jubeh
06-14-2011, 11:42 AM
Not really. A lot of shmups boil down to memorization and nobody gets upset about that. In japan they have a word for this type of game which I can't remember. Just games where you do it over and over until you get it right.

Nothing wrong with unfair platformers. If you're looking for something where you don't have to memorize stuff don't play them.

And I can't speak for every developer but kayinn made iwbtg as a practice game. Every room has a ton of shit going on that all needed to be programmed. It's not just levels with platforms.

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 12:34 PM
I don't think SHMUPs work without the trial-and-error gameplay, though. I can't imagine them being challenging without that type of gameplay. If a SHMUP were randomly generated each time, it would have to be fairly easy to beat, otherwise it would be nigh impossible. Whereas platformers should have some method to them, like one of my favorites: Poyo (http://db.tigsource.com/games/poyo)

At first, the warping skill will hurt more than it helps. The game's difficulty curve works in a way that early levels are easy on the platforming aspects, but challenge the player to adapt to the game mechanics. As the player gets better at warping, the difficulty of simply adapting decreases, so the platforming difficulty is increased in proportion. It's a smooth transition, and there is an apparent method to the madness.

The method is what makes it "fair". Some games are just run and jump, with no real method, but the hurdles they make you jump are ridiculous for no reason.

jubeh
06-14-2011, 12:39 PM
That's fine but its not what unfair platformers are about. It might be hard to relate to people that find this kind of game fun but it goes against traditional game design and creates a fairly unique experience. I mean I know dudes that wasted quarters upon quarters on Dragon's Lair. Unfair platformers are for guys like that.

In this new age of gaming where we start to wonder what the point of "lives" are, you can afford to die over and over again and conquer a game due to sheer perseverance and its not a big deal. If it's fun it's good.

Also I don't even really see it as a trend. Aside form IWBTG and Aban Hawkings how many actual good ones have you played.

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 12:46 PM
I've probably played 60+ indie platformers, a lot of them contest finalists and such.

jubeh
06-14-2011, 12:58 PM
That's fantastic cype do you have some examples

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 01:55 PM
N, La Mulana, any platformer made by Ikiki minus Nikujin, any platformer made by Lazrael, the Jumper series, the Meatboy series, L'Abbaye des Morts, Tower of Heaven, Ninja Senki, Sword Calibre, Eternal Daughter, Gear World, Mighty Jill Off, the Punishment series and many more.

Most of these are famous in the indie community, too...their difficulty being one of the most commonly acknowledged features.

jubeh
06-14-2011, 01:57 PM
Almost none of those are unfair platformer just really difficult ones. Meatboy really?

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 02:09 PM
I guess we're not reading each other correctly here. My definition of "unfair" is difficulty without a method ie. a game that forces the player to repeat levels over and over in order to win. Whereas there are platformers with methods--specific game mechanics--that, when mastered, can make the game significantly easier for you. These give the player a chance to avoid repeated trial and error attempts and instead use their mastery of game mechanics to lower the difficulty for themselves.

The games I listed were games with no such method. At best, Meatboy and N had walljumping, but that's hardly a method so much as it is compulsory. There's hardly a commercial platformer out there without some form of double or wall-jump.

jubeh
06-14-2011, 02:13 PM
Unfair platformers are called the because they are literally unfair. Like you won't get past the apple room in IWBTG the first time unless you know whats going to happen. Aban hawkins is unfair because traps pop up without warning.

Those other games are just balls hard. What your describing is just... I don't even know. Meatboy is the ultimate refinement of the platformer genre. It's incredibly simple but rewarding in its challenge. It doesn't need unique mechanics at all but it chooses to include them through secret character just for fun.

I don't know what you're asking for here. Are you saying every game needs some sort of gimmick that you can master?

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 02:35 PM
Ideally, yes. Ideally, all games should allow players to master them.

When it comes to something like Meatboy, it's simply about perseverance. At the end, you haven't gotten "better" at the game, you just memorized it. I guess what I'm saying is: games shouldn't be a test of patience, but mastery of the mechanics. Games like IWBTG are just tests of how frustrated you can get before you quit.

jubeh
06-14-2011, 03:31 PM
Ideally, yes. Ideally, all games should allow players to master them.

You mean master the gimmick. You realize that every game is going to have trial and error right. The first time you played mario did you run into the goomba or jump on him. How did you know it would kill him?


When it comes to something like Meatboy, it's simply about perseverance. At the end, you haven't gotten "better" at the game, you just memorized it.

I wasn't even going to respond to this because it's so wrong but I'm gonna do it because I just love you so much. Jumping is a mechanic. Sprinting is a mechanic. Wall jumping is a mechanic. Mastering these is mastery of the game. When you play meatboy the majority of the time the level is layed out before you and you know how it's going to play out, so yes you are objectively wrong here in the case of super meatboy.

There aren't any surprise razors, or secret traps and shit.


I guess what I'm saying is: games shouldn't be a test of patience, but mastery of the mechanics.

Man am I talking to fenn talking about all games need to do this or that.


Games like IWBTG are just tests of how frustrated you can get before you quit.

Well that's the point of that particular game.

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 06:36 PM
How did you know it would kill him?

I read the manual. Yes, there is going to be //some// degree of trial and error in games. But for a game to be //about// trial and error is what I'm against. You only need to jump on a Goomba once to realize that jumping on Goombas will kill them, but you might have to replay a single level of N 20-30 times before you get the timing down just right.


Jumping is a mechanic. Sprinting is a mechanic. Wall jumping is a mechanic.

These things are all so standard in games that I would hardly call them a "gameplay mechanic". Actually, I would call them "the game" as far as most platformers are concerned. And it's not like SMB handles it in a particularly unique way, either.


...the level is layed out before you and you know how it's going to play out.

Yes, and it takes immense amounts of trial and error to realize that you can't wall jump that gap, or you can't reach that ledge that way, etc. The game is built around you dying and trying again--there is no gameplay outside of that.


Man am I talking to fenn talking about all games need to do this or that.

There is a standard that all games should meet, otherwise we consider them faulty. Being frustrated is something very few people enjoy.

jubeh
06-14-2011, 07:06 PM
I read the manual. Yes, there is going to be //some// degree of trial and error in games. But for a game to be //about// trial and error is what I'm against. You only need to jump on a Goomba once to realize that jumping on Goombas will kill them, but you might have to replay a single level of N 20-30 times before you get the timing down just right.

I don't see why you couldn't look at a stage and make a reasonable assertion as to how to go about it. Whether you thought you couldn't make the jump or not is based on your experience and how good you are at the game.

You can look at a stage and decide how you're going to do it. Trial and error would be stepping on a platform and suddenly it vanishes and you fall to your death, or any other random thing beyond your control. Since jumping is completely under your control in N, its your fault if you mess up a jump.


These things are all so standard in games that I would hardly call them a "gameplay mechanic". Actually, I would call them "the game" as far as most platformers are concerned. And it's not like SMB handles it in a particularly unique way, either.

WOw just no. They are definitely mechanics. And considering that games are composed of mechanics then yeah jumping is what makes the game for platformers. You don't have to have "unique" jumping. What does that even mean.

You could even go as far as to say that sprinting in the air is a unique spin on jumping. Half of becoming good at SMB is knowing when and when not to sprint.


Yes, and it takes immense amounts of trial and error to realize that you can't wall jump that gap, or you can't reach that ledge that way, etc. The game is built around you dying and trying again--there is no gameplay outside of that.

Um the gameplay in platformers is jumping on platforms.

Trial and error only comes into play when you encounter a new mechanic or something beyond your control. There's nothing unfair about jumping too far or too short, because it's your fault.

An example of something that I felt was unfair in an otherwise well polished game was when you'd jump to a new room in VVVVV and instantly die. How were you supposed to know there were obstacles in that room?


There is a standard that all games should meet, otherwise we consider them faulty. Being frustrated is something very few people enjoy.

This is a destructive attitude and I know that you're going to 100% disagree with me but thats no big deal. Its along the lines of the play to win stuff in that I feel that we just haven't gotten there yet.

First of all there need to be games for people that do enjoy frustration. I hope one day that there are enough games to scratch every unique itch. So if the very idea of a game is to just piss you off to no end that's fine if its what you're looking for.

Considering a game faulty because its not based around the mastery of mechanics does not and should not be applied to every game in a world where not everyone is interested in mastering them. You need to be open to the idea of a game where being good at it isn't a huge deal and maybe not even point of the game. For instance the games we play on the forum.

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 08:30 PM
The thing about N is that you will often see things like this:

http://www.arrowpointingdown.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/nscreenshot.jpg

I've beaten all of N, the community packs and a good amount of N+, and I still bet I would die 20 times attempting to traverse this room. Even though I have mastered running and jumping, it hardly constitutes mastering the game which involves memorizing where to be and when to avoid death. Not to mention that the allowed margin of error is so unforgiving that death almost seems inevitable. And it's also extremely context sensitive, therefore general mastery of running and jumping really doesn't matter so much as memorizatino. So yeah, that game is about trial and error.

So they're not really mechanics in the sense that they don't override the importance of memorization. Getting good with them is not going to make memorization any less important, or any less vital to progression. And it's safe to say that these odds are so extremely stacked against you that it's almost unfair. I know you and I have different definitions of "unfair".

But I do agree with you, actually, on the last point. Hardcore gaming is all about people who like to be challenged, even to the point of frustration. I'm one of those people myself. But I think it's equally destructive when devs take things like difficulty balancing and player enjoyment for granted and instead make games "uber hard" just for the sake of doing so. Even our commercial devs haven't mastered difficulty balancing, so that's something we should pay more mind to, instead of making these games that gain novelty through unbalanced difficulty.

jubeh
06-14-2011, 09:00 PM
I can't speak for N since I haven't played it since it first came out but If you're saying the same about SMB and Ninja Senki then you are simply nuts. I mean you could say that any game without randomness is about trial and error. Any corridor shooter, jrpg, racing game, or shmup like I said earlier. All genres that you can (typically) muscle through with sheer perseverance.

Okay stay with me on this example because its weird. Yesterday I found one of my old dungeons and dragons choose your own adventure books. I used to think those books were just random but there are a lot of clues in the text as to what you should do. For instance I had to escape these orcs and there was this strange fog. I had the choice to confront them or escape into the fog. That one seems kind of obvious because you could then ambush them from the fog but the choices got a lot more complex and difficult but I felt the book always gave you the clues you needed to get through.

You could totally go through this book randomly through trial and error and just start over when you died. But there is no way you could say that it was about that.

Also I disagree that memorization is more important than your actual platforming skills on most of the games you mentioned. I would submit that if I were to wipe your memories of the game clean but kept your muscle memory intact you'd clear rooms better than you did before. There is an inherent set of skills you pick up in games like that.

As for our definitions of unfair, Anna Anthropy likes to refer to these platformers as masacore games. Basically games for masochistic people that don't necessarily have to be unfair. IWBTG would fall into this category but so would Battle Kid* most likely.

Truly unfair platformers would be like the ones I mentioned. I doubt its the first game like it but I believe Owata (http://www.kongregate.com/games/IlIlIlIlIlIlIlIl/owata-i)kicked off the idea.


But I think it's equally destructive when devs take things like difficulty balancing and player enjoyment for granted and instead make games "uber hard" just for the sake of doing so. Even our commercial devs haven't mastered difficulty balancing, so that's something we should pay more mind to, instead of making these games that gain novelty through unbalanced difficulty.

That would be a fair appraisal if "player enjoyment" had some sort of metric. You remember that pigo guy that would always ask, "how fun is this game." That's so annoying.

Also saying that difficult indie platformers are unbalanced is a pretty outrageous claim. SMB has an almost perfect difficulty curve. VVVVV was pretty much the same. Those games were refined as fuck. I mean that was the whole idea behind them. Team Meat took a hard look at video game difficulty and asked, "How can we make this better."

*I've actually heard that Battle Kid was made in response to IWBTG. The creator wanted to prove that you could make a game that was just as difficult that didn't have to be unfair.

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 09:29 PM
Player enjoyment can be vaguely standardized by whether or not it frustrates the majority of people who play it. You and I both know that hardcore gamers constitute a very small percentage of the entire body.

Also, Ninja Senki has a lot of "firsts" where you'll jump into an offscreen enemy and fall to your death.

jubeh
06-14-2011, 09:40 PM
Player enjoyment can be vaguely standardized by whether or not it frustrates the majority of people who play it. You and I both know that hardcore gamers constitute a very small percentage of the entire body.

Well that ostracizes games that are fun because they are frustrating like demon souls and games made for niche communites like the spiderweb games. If we could measure "fun" then focus testing would dictate that half the shit we see never hits the market.


Also, Ninja Senki has a lot of "firsts" where you'll jump into an offscreen enemy and fall to your death.

Err I mixed up ninja senki with the one where you're the naked ninja that stabs dude in the head. My bad.

CypressDahlia
06-14-2011, 11:08 PM
It's okay. Sometimes we can't help but think about naked ninjas.

And I'm not saying eliminate frustration in games (because that would mean no challenge), but that the priority should be to maximize enjoyment (unless it's one of the "niche" games you mentioned), accessibility and //most importantly// make sure a game is more fun than it is frustrating.

Lucy
06-15-2011, 12:58 AM
Memorization is one way of aiding yourself in overcoming a particular obstacle. If the player chooses to remember how to overcome a particular obstacle, then it will be easier for them, however in most games it is still possible if they don't. If a game is very difficult, it will probably be required to supplement their raw skill. Memorization is only ever strictly required in games that are designed in such a way that they trap a player if they don't know what to do (Otawa, IWBTG, Karateka's infamous post victory decapitation, etc). I'd argue that if you were taught N as a core subject in school and did it for hours a day as a fundamental part of your life, then by the time you were about 35 you'd be so good at manipulating the mechanics that you'd be able to get through that room without dying once, however, you could do it on the very first day you ever played N but you'd die about 500 times learning how. You can approach things in multiple ways, and there is a sliding scale of how much your success is down to familiarity and how much is down to skill, and it's possible for that scale to slide to both extremes.

On the subject of frustration in games, you have to consider the effort=reward thing. You could play a shmup where hardly any bullets were fired at you and your hitbox was the size of a subatomic particle. You'd beat it first try and it probably would not be fun. Or you could play something with a lot of difficulty like DoDonpachi's 2nd loop, Mushihimesama Futari Ultra, Cho Ren Sha, or whatever. You wouldn't win the first time you played unless you were freaking godlike, but after a lot of work on improving your own ability and finding ways to overcome things, you'd eventually beat it, and I'm sure you know that when you do, my friend, it is goddamn exhilarating. Frustration can be a good thing because it enhances the sense of achievement the player gets when they finally win. On the other hand you have really hard games that most players won't beat; then the player is unlikely to ever get that satisfaction, true. However, if a player takes on IWBTG or one of the aforementioned screw-you-player-I-want-you-to-die-now shmups, then becomes obvious to the player that they're undertaking somewhat of an endeavor quite some time before they actually begin to get frustrated. A lot of the frustration associated with such games is down to the player expecting unrealistic performance out of themselves.

ram
06-15-2011, 01:32 AM
plants vs zombies >.< lol

CypressDahlia
06-15-2011, 07:43 AM
I doubt what you say about N, because the way it's designed is to create an environment where trial-and-error is the only method of success. And there has never been evidence of anyone truly "mastering" N to the point where they can complete an entirely unfamiliar level in one go, unless they get extremely lucky and even then it's rarely the case. The way obstacles and enemies work in N is so unforgiving that there is no real way to foresee how well you will actually do, taking into account margins of error and the fact that enemies react differently based on where you are, so each attempt has variables of randomness that are hard to reduce.

But yeah I agree on SHMUPs. I'd say all SHMUPs, even my favorite ones, are easy once memorized and 'getting good' at these games just comes down to how willing you are to memorize them, which can be tedious and boring IMO. But the SHMUP genre wouldn't work without trial-and-error gameplay because then it would have to be incredibly easy.

And overall, yeah I agree with you and Jubeh on the point of frustration, but I'm just saying it shouldn't be a popular objective to TRY to frustrate the player, to the point where enjoyment for the average person is diminished. If it was just the occasional platformer, I wouldn't mind as this can be considered a "niche" variety, but it's literally every other indie platformer these days. And that's highly destructive as it acts as a deterrent to casual gamers, which is like well over 90% of gamers I'd say.

Fenn
06-15-2011, 04:44 PM
I don't mean to interupt, but I had a cool idea for the next pokemon game I wanted to share. You can continue your conversation of course.

The goal of this addition is to create a greater sense of persistence to the game as well as increase replay value. I call it Pokemon LIVE (it's a terrible name really). Here's how it works: In short, the game creates an influx of "traffic" within the City, route, shop, or dungeon you are currently in. This "traffic" is simply people entering, interacting with, and exiting that location. Think of the pathways in Castelia City, just less congested.

Now for the details:

- The people walking (and running) through the area are interactable. When you press A next to them, some will simply have a random line of text. Others...
> will give you tips about secrets/legendaries/rare pkmn
> will give you an item
> will offer to trade (you can choose to go to a pkmn center first, and they will follow/fly where you go)
> will battle you . They will declare their number of pokemon, the average level, and the max level before battle (these can be declined).

- The generation of these people will be semi-random. Factors which influence the quantity and type of each person will include the area (is in between major cities or off the normal path, is it a major city, etc), time of day, and the level of your pokemon.

I don't think this would put much of a strain on the game, as these people would be erased when they exited the area--unless the border is visible on your screen, in which case they will be erased once they enter a building or get far away from you. Also, their animations: walking, running, getting into wild pkmn battles, etc., can be simple.

Think of the potential! An infinite number of trainers, with unique, unpredictable pokemon and movesets, roaming the world. It would be great for getting experience for pokemon, trying out strategies, and earning some cash. There are some other related ideas I had too:

- After battling a randomly generated trainer, you can choose to add them to your Pal Pad (you could have 4 slots for CPUs). With this...

> you can use the C-Gear to find out their location and trade/battle them.
> The first time you rematch them, they will have the same pokemon at higher levels (you can ask them their avg and max lvl before battling).
> After the battle, they will ask you which of their pokemon is your favorite. This pokemon will be guaranteed to stay on their team. The rest could be replaced by new pkmn they "caught" between your last battle and your next.
> If you ask to trade, they will ask what you have to offer (from your party or box). Depending on the rarity of the pkmn you show, they will offer you three randomly generated pkmn of a similar level. You can decline and ask for three new options up to two times.
> If you happen to pass by your CPU "friend" in game, an arrow will appear above their head.

- The return of the VS Seeker. When activated via the bottom screen (a la the Dowsing machine), any randomly generated people on screen with the "battle" option will stop and get an "!" over their head for 15 seconds.

- You can return to Gyms after beating them to fight randomly generated trainers as well. I had two separate ideas for this:

1. Trainers use pokemon of the type the gym is known for. I worry this would be abused to get easy exp by fighting pkmn yours is super effective against.
2. I like this better: when using a pkmn of the same type as the gym, that pkmn gets boosted exp. Opposing trainers can have any type of pkmn. For types without a gym rep, buildings scattered around the world could be dedicated to a certain type.

CypressDahlia
06-15-2011, 07:55 PM
I just want a Pokemon where you can actively command the battle in real-time, like in the show.

jubeh
06-15-2011, 07:56 PM
Become a ufc coach

LVUER
06-15-2011, 08:50 PM
@Fenn:
And then you'll get monster rancher. In that game, monster do their own stuff. You could give them command, but it's not like they will follow your command like a robot. Just like a real pokemon battle... which is not fun.

Fenn
06-15-2011, 11:43 PM
This had nothing to do with changing the way battles work. This was an enhancement of the overworld gameplay...

CypressDahlia
06-16-2011, 12:19 AM
He's talking to me, Fenn. I think he mistook our posts.

And if I wanted to get anywhere near the UFC from a gaming perspective, I'd play Gears of War. 'Roid heads ruffin each other up: the credo of Western art direction.

But yeah, I think Pokemon would benefit from a real-time battle system, as that's how the show is portrayed and, TBH, the show has always involved me more than the games, though it's chock-full of game-breaking anime tropes (the "last ditch" super attack) and there are discrepancies here and there.

Fenn
06-16-2011, 10:56 PM
He's talking to me, Fenn. I think he mistook our posts.

And if I wanted to get anywhere near the UFC from a gaming perspective, I'd play Gears of War. 'Roid heads ruffin each other up: the credo of Western art direction.

But yeah, I think Pokemon would benefit from a real-time battle system, as that's how the show is portrayed and, TBH, the show has always involved me more than the games, though it's chock-full of game-breaking anime tropes (the "last ditch" super attack) and there are discrepancies here and there.

Ooh okay then.

CypressDahlia
06-19-2011, 01:03 PM
So I've been playing around with an idea in my head for a puzzle platformer called Duality and I'm wondering what you think of the concept before I take it to TigSource or Daily Click to see if anyone is willing to develop it with me.

It's basically a single player co-op game (lol). You play two characters on a screen split horizontally into two 'realms', switching up between them to solve puzzles. These characters have the ability to teleport things within a limited range into the opposite realm and that will be the main gameplay mechanic. Long spoiler ahead:

The object is to get both characters to the exit of each level within a set time limit. Essentially there are two different maps (one for the upper screen and one for the lower screen) per level and both characters have to get to the exit of their respective map.

The story behind it is pretty loosely strung together, but explains the reasoning behind the game: One thousand years ago, an interdimensional demon called Marduk attempted to devour our world. The King of the Overworld, determined to save the planet, attempted to fight the demon, but failed. The King of the Underworld, for the sake of preserving his demonic empire, combated the demon, but failed. Only when working together did they manage to seal it away, banishing it to a pocket dimension where there is no time. After the battle, the two Kings formed a pact: if another force threatened to destroy the planet, the two realms would put aside their differences and work together to stop it.

1000 years later, a powerful warlock has removed the seal on the pocket dimension, unleashing Marduk's rage. Enraged, Marduk kills the current Kings of the two realms, leaving their young Princes to take up the crown prematurely. These Princes are your two characters. To ensure that his conquest is not interfered with, he condemns the Princes into their opposite realms. This is where the game starts.

The Prince of the Underworld, raised on the sulfurous gasses and intense heat of the Underworld, cannot survive for long in the Overworld. The Prince of the Overworld, unaccustomed to the sweltering climate of the Underworld, cannot survive for long, either. This explains why each level is timed. If the timer runs out on a level, the Princes succumb to the environment. The only way to extend their lives is to consume the souls of Marduk's demonspawn, which cannot be killed directly but can be teleported into hazards. But, because they can only teleport objects to the opposite realm, they have to help sustain each other. Once a demon is slain, the soul is automatically consumed by the character within that realm.

A mockup (forgive the shitty drawings):

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1541/gameplay1.gif

So this is a basic layout of the game screen. It's split horizontally into two realms. By default, every level begins with the player in control of the top screen. The other screen remains completely paused, but can be switched to by pressing, say, Shift. Then it becomes vice versa: the player controls the lower screen, and the upper screen is paused. Switching in mid-jump will cause the jumping character to freeze in mid-air and preserve their trajectory.

The paused screen will have a timer on it, which is the main determinant of score. The faster you complete a level, the higher your score. Time can be increased by killing demonspawn and harvesting their souls (explained above).

A basic puzzle would work like this:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9946/gameplay2.gif

Okay, so you have to get both of these guys to the doors on the left side of the map. Some obvious problems arise: Red (U. Prince) cannot clear such a high jump and there is a steam vent that threatens to push White (O. Prince) into a bed of sharp stalactites. The vent can cause various objects to levitate. We can use that to our advantage.

http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/2613/gameplay3.gif

If Red uses his teleport ability to teleport that rock to the Underworld, the steam will push it up into the stalactites, effectively cushioning the ceiling. The object won't materialize in the other realm until you switch control over to it, which is the next step now that White can clear the gap. The teleportation will send an object to approximately the same location on the opposite screen unless there is terrain or something else in the way, in which case it will react accordingly.

Now comes the task of getting Red up that vertical incline.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/698/gameplay4.gif

If we teleport the crate, it'll also be affected by the steam vent. This will cause it to levitate. Now if White teleports it again, it will appear in the Overworld at the same height, giving Red the footing needed to clear the vertical. Obv. this is not to-scale, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Just assume that the puzzle can't be solved otherwise.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4028/gameplay5.gif

Another problem arises, though. As soon as you switch control over to Red, the crate materializes and is immediately affected by gravity, causing it to fall rapidly. Red cannot clear the jump before it hits the ground. But recall that switching characters can freeze the unused character in mid-jump, so if we repeat the process but put Red in mid-jump before we switch to white, he can land on the crate just as it materializes--which takes a split second--and clear the vertical.

So this is how this game would work, along with some demon slaying and a couple boss fights. I'll make some legit mockups some other time.

jubeh
06-19-2011, 11:14 PM
I don't really have much to say about the idea other than that it's cool but I wanted to say SOMETHING so you didn't feel like you wasted your time on that long ass post.

CypressDahlia
06-20-2011, 06:58 PM
Dude, I waste my time on long posts all the time.

But really, that's all I needed to hear lol. I just wanted to see if anyone is interested in playing a game like that.

Fenn
06-23-2011, 04:31 PM
So I've been playing around with an idea in my head for a puzzle platformer called Duality and I'm wondering what you think of the concept before I take it to TigSource or Daily Click to see if anyone is willing to develop it with me.

It's basically a single player co-op game (lol). You play two characters on a screen split horizontally into two 'realms', switching up between them to solve puzzles. These characters have the ability to teleport things within a limited range into the opposite realm and that will be the main gameplay mechanic. Long spoiler ahead:

The object is to get both characters to the exit of each level within a set time limit. Essentially there are two different maps (one for the upper screen and one for the lower screen) per level and both characters have to get to the exit of their respective map.

The story behind it is pretty loosely strung together, but explains the reasoning behind the game: One thousand years ago, an interdimensional demon called Marduk attempted to devour our world. The King of the Overworld, determined to save the planet, attempted to fight the demon, but failed. The King of the Underworld, for the sake of preserving his demonic empire, combated the demon, but failed. Only when working together did they manage to seal it away, banishing it to a pocket dimension where there is no time. After the battle, the two Kings formed a pact: if another force threatened to destroy the planet, the two realms would put aside their differences and work together to stop it.

1000 years later, a powerful warlock has removed the seal on the pocket dimension, unleashing Marduk's rage. Enraged, Marduk kills the current Kings of the two realms, leaving their young Princes to take up the crown prematurely. These Princes are your two characters. To ensure that his conquest is not interfered with, he condemns the Princes into their opposite realms. This is where the game starts.

The Prince of the Underworld, raised on the sulfurous gasses and intense heat of the Underworld, cannot survive for long in the Overworld. The Prince of the Overworld, unaccustomed to the sweltering climate of the Underworld, cannot survive for long, either. This explains why each level is timed. If the timer runs out on a level, the Princes succumb to the environment. The only way to extend their lives is to consume the souls of Marduk's demonspawn, which cannot be killed directly but can be teleported into hazards. But, because they can only teleport objects to the opposite realm, they have to help sustain each other. Once a demon is slain, the soul is automatically consumed by the character within that realm.

A mockup (forgive the shitty drawings):

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1541/gameplay1.gif

So this is a basic layout of the game screen. It's split horizontally into two realms. By default, every level begins with the player in control of the top screen. The other screen remains completely paused, but can be switched to by pressing, say, Shift. Then it becomes vice versa: the player controls the lower screen, and the upper screen is paused. Switching in mid-jump will cause the jumping character to freeze in mid-air and preserve their trajectory.

The paused screen will have a timer on it, which is the main determinant of score. The faster you complete a level, the higher your score. Time can be increased by killing demonspawn and harvesting their souls (explained above).

A basic puzzle would work like this:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9946/gameplay2.gif

Okay, so you have to get both of these guys to the doors on the left side of the map. Some obvious problems arise: Red (U. Prince) cannot clear such a high jump and there is a steam vent that threatens to push White (O. Prince) into a bed of sharp stalactites. The vent can cause various objects to levitate. We can use that to our advantage.

http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/2613/gameplay3.gif

If Red uses his teleport ability to teleport that rock to the Underworld, the steam will push it up into the stalactites, effectively cushioning the ceiling. The object won't materialize in the other realm until you switch control over to it, which is the next step now that White can clear the gap. The teleportation will send an object to approximately the same location on the opposite screen unless there is terrain or something else in the way, in which case it will react accordingly.

Now comes the task of getting Red up that vertical incline.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/698/gameplay4.gif

If we teleport the crate, it'll also be affected by the steam vent. This will cause it to levitate. Now if White teleports it again, it will appear in the Overworld at the same height, giving Red the footing needed to clear the vertical. Obv. this is not to-scale, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Just assume that the puzzle can't be solved otherwise.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4028/gameplay5.gif

Another problem arises, though. As soon as you switch control over to Red, the crate materializes and is immediately affected by gravity, causing it to fall rapidly. Red cannot clear the jump before it hits the ground. But recall that switching characters can freeze the unused character in mid-jump, so if we repeat the process but put Red in mid-jump before we switch to white, he can land on the crate just as it materializes--which takes a split second--and clear the vertical.

So this is how this game would work, along with some demon slaying and a couple boss fights. I'll make some legit mockups some other time.

I would enjoy that game. Definitely. It seems suited to the arcade/PC game genre as well; good for some brief fun or to waste away the next 10 hours. Some random tips if you're serious about this:

- Introduce new challenges gradually. The puzzle you showed would be great early game to hook gamers. Throw in a couple of different types of challenge at the start, then work with those when designing puzzles for a level or two. Then one or two new puzzles get thrown in the mix.
- be creative; combine different types of obstacles.
- Either have a deep story, or hardly any story at all. Don't half-ass one for the sake of having one.

CypressDahlia
06-23-2011, 07:14 PM
Thanks for the advice, dude. I've never actually designed an entire game before, aside from small experiments so I could use any help I can get.

but yeah, the story really only exists to give reason as to why you do what you do and the timer. I don't like games that have timers for no reason, especially if they're in a fully illustrated setting. Puzzle games that take place in some nondestinct limbo, not a big deal, but things like Super Mario Bros are weird. Like...is there some kind of giant invisible clock tracking me, why and to what effect? You know what I mean?

jubeh
06-23-2011, 11:32 PM
Timers are good mechanically because without them the player will always choose the most boring option. For instance Rummikub without a timer is basically 4 player solitaire.

Thematically I dont know. Dont really care either way tbh. Though lost planet worked it in with the theme pretty well.

CypressDahlia
06-23-2011, 11:58 PM
Yeah, timers are pretty much invaluable in most games. especially puzzle games. Won't question that.

Fenn
06-24-2011, 05:18 PM
I hate timers because I personally feel they discourage experimentation and discovery. When the clock is pounding, I feel compelled to stick to the most streamlined, familiar route to make sure I don't run out of time. They also cause frequent continues and repeating the same level over and over, usually because I am .5 seconds off.

The only time I'm okay with a timer is escape missions like in Metroid: Fusion. First, it makes sense: of course you have to get out, its gonna blow up! And since those areas are less explorative and more about suspense and drama, the timer works well to get my adrenaline going.


I have an idea for an online system based around "clubs." The goal is to create smaller, yet expansive, online communities that are 1. optional and 2. player-run, to take pressure off of devs to moderate player behavior.

A club must consist of at least 50, but up to several thousand, online players of a specific game. It is created by a player, and that player is responsible for controlling the settings of the club and moderating its members. The player can, of course, assign admins with specifically allocated controls of the club. A club:

- Can have a certain theme, set by the creator. Themes could include: "Adult club (18+)", "kid-friendly", "Friday Night gamers," "competitive gamers," or even "hackers/modders." The theme is written in the description, and the creator also chooses classification(s) for each theme to help players searching (i.e. play style, age, date/time).

- Have options for admitting new players. Some could be open, and allow anyone to click and join. Others could be request, and still others could be invite-only (find fun players through randoms and invite them). The creator can decide which option, and which members can invite if that option is chosen.

- Have rules for maintaining membership. Rules include but are not limited to:
> Memberships: players can/cannot be members of other clubs
> Mature content: players can/cannot include mature content or use mature language.
> Activity: players have to/don't have to log a certain number of minutes per day/week/month.

- Players can report fellow club members for potential punishment. The creator (and admins if allowed) can ban players or deliver warnings. The creator (and admins if allowed) can kick a player from a club at any time, for any reason. They can also write a brief report about the reason the player was kicked. After 1 kick, the report is hidden. If the player is kicked from a second club before the first report expires, both reports will now show on that player's profile when joining or requesting new clubs. Reports will expire, but will take longer if they occur frequently or if the player has a habit of being kicked. Note: This is balanced by the fact that clubs must publicly display all kicked player reports on their page. Poorly run clubs, whether too strict or too lenient, will fail.

With the club system, it is easier to find similar minded gamers, and to avoid hackers , cheaters, and bad sports due to the more intimate nature of the system. Nevertheless, the large size limits of clubs mean there will rarely be a shortage of players to matchmake in larger clubs.

pablobair
07-15-2011, 03:52 AM
I played Project IGI.it's a nice game.