Gaming World Forums
Creativity => Game Design & Demos => Topic started by: Mikemc on September 09, 2010, 03:34:21 pm
-
I am designing a game where instead of battles, you simply walk through the monster event. If your strong enough to win, it will die, otherwise you have to return and pass through again. If you lose, you lose a 'life' though you will not Game Over untill all life hearts (for argument sake) are gone.
Opinions?
-
http://db.tigsource.com/games/tower-of-the-sorcerer
^this is a little more complicated than your proposal, but I think it's better than "live" or "die"
-
To me it sounds like it makes battles a waste of time.
-
You mean like chess? :P
-
I would at least make it so that the player needs to hit a certain key, or key combination to win the battle.
Using numbers would work well. Say, 1-5. An easy enemy would mean you would only need to press one random number in say, a 1sec time frame. A very difficult enemy might have a 5 number combination with a 3sec time-frame (ex only), say 34153. The numbers could pop up over the enemy.
This adds an element of actual game play and not just blind chance. Food for thought.
-
see this is what I was getting at in the 'free-roaming games' topic: i.e. there will never be a game like this because gamers hate themselves
I would like to see a game with absolutely no superfluous shit that is obvious GAMEPLAY like one second you're breaking into a castle the next you're strategizing about something or other deciding battle formations just the gameplay is always what makes sense in the moment it's not a point-and-click with millions of puzzles either like anywhere in real life where you'd have to be stealthy that part of the game is stealthy whether you're any good at the stealth or not. And next second you have to like FORGE DOCUMENTS but it's always a very natural depiction of doing these things it's never watered down into a rhythm DDR game or something
Edit: You have to make a quick escape on a raft then it becomes a sim game where you build the raft (after material collecting sequence) and if you're no good at the sim game you could die instantly
-
Not necessarily- you could make the game about puzzle solving rather than battling, even approaching monster encounters this way- for example, upon having your way blocked by a werewolf you could attempt to sneak past it, go back to previous rooms and get silver dust and a blowgun to shoot at the werewolf, or jump out a nearby window. You know, like Shadowgate and its sequels.
Mike, one question- if you do it the way you suggest, how is the hero going to get stronger? If it's not by battling there will have to be some other way, or the hero will never be stronger than the monster.
-
If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly, Backstage was an RM2k game with a battle system like that. It got pretty annoying because it really didn't tell you how much damage you had and then shit would walk up to you and you'd get killed without being able to do anything about it. So basically I hacked the shit out of it and put in way more healing stations.
-
To me it sounds like it makes battles a waste of time.
Actually it came up because I find battles in general to be a waste of time. They're often a bunch of flashy graphics (or just plain animations) but in the end it's you win or die. With my system, there would still be a battle but without all the loading, effects and then returning back to the map. - If I'm going to win, just do it already and let me get on with my quest.
If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly, Backstage was an RM2k game with a battle system like that. It got pretty annoying because it really didn't tell you how much damage you had and then shit would walk up to you and you'd get killed without being able to do anything about it. So basically I hacked the shit out of it and put in way more healing stations.
I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking that you would simply keep track on how much of your life bar went down, and gauge the monsters in the area like that. A thought came up once of giving the monsters a kind of difficulty meter above their heads that changed based on the current state of the player. I will look for that game and see what's up.
Mike, one question- if you do it the way you suggest, how is the hero going to get stronger? If it's not by battling there will have to be some other way, or the hero will never be stronger than the monster.
He get's stronger by, well... having more characters in his team actually, like cannon fodder :P. Each member contributes an amount of health and attack strength, along with spells. If that character leaves the party then they take their stats and abilities with them. Because there is no battle scene, I wouldn't have to worry about having more than 4 party members. And you could also buy weapons and armor, with varying types depending on your team makeup.
But all that is still being worked on. I am here to develop the basic idea of running around.
-
The idea certainly sounds interesting, but why even have battles at all if they're just walking into something and hoping you don't die? If you don't like battles, why not just make a game that has few battles or even none at all? It sounds more interesting to me than a game with battles that aren't battles.
-
then what will be the 'game' about
-
Actually it came up because I find battles in general to be a waste of time. They're often a bunch of flashy graphics (or just plain animations) but in the end it's you win or die. With my system, there would still be a battle but without all the loading, effects and then returning back to the map. - If I'm going to win, just do it already and let me get on with my quest.
See this is the problem though. I agree, I find battles in RPGs to be the most boring and useless waste of time. That's probably why I don't like RPGs. But see, the idea of 'let me get on with my quest' says something--it says that battles are in the game just to be irritating roadblocks. So why is a simplified roadblock any better than a complicated one? Shouldn't a game not have any roadblocks?
That's why I like the idea of puzzles better. It would be more along the lines of a point and click adventure game only without the point and click. I find that to be significantly more fun. You still get the story and exploration, only without having to do a bunch of dumb fights.
-
just make a full/completed version of Don's Adventures (still the best rpg maker game)
-
See this is the problem though. I agree, I find battles in RPGs to be the most boring and useless waste of time. That's probably why I don't like RPGs. But see, the idea of 'let me get on with my quest' says something--it says that battles are in the game just to be irritating roadblocks. So why is a simplified roadblock any better than a complicated one? Shouldn't a game not have any roadblocks?
That's why I like the idea of puzzles better. It would be more along the lines of a point and click adventure game only without the point and click. I find that to be significantly more fun. You still get the story and exploration, only without having to do a bunch of dumb fights.
Which is exactly what i Was suggesting. And BTW, I try to see RPG battles as part of the journey, as no story is without conflict. Don't forget, the heroes need opportunities to hone their skills and strengthen their bodies.
But if you don't like normal battles, why bother with stats? Why not make all the enemies deadly and have the heroes use their wits to avoid them instead, gong around them, getting them to move with monster bait, and so forth? Maybe the hero can charm the monsters to move out of the way, and his control area expands with more party members. Whatever you do, you'll need some element of challenge to test the player.
-
what about don't make an rpg in the first place
-
And BTW, I try to see RPG battles as part of the journey, as no story is without conflict. Don't forget, the heroes need opportunities to hone their skills and strengthen their bodies.
Monkey Island had tons of conflict, yet there were no battles besides the swordfights which were more of a WORD PUZZLE really. You don't have to fight a million monsters that have literally nothing to do with the story except for you to grind them until you can beat the boss to progress a story.
-
I try to see RPG battles as part of the journey, as no story is without conflict. Don't forget, the heroes need opportunities to hone their skills and strengthen their bodies.
I was just thinking about this yesterday. There's a dangerous and untamed world outside of town in these worlds. It's sort of like our savage wildlife on steroids as they have to do battle with giant insects, arachnids, birds, fish, grazing beasts, elemental entities and fiends formed from the corruption of the Void. To have a world devoid of struggling for survival, you might as well just stand around in a town all day. Leveling up, or gaining experience specifically, shows how they have become trained in the use of the weapons that they carry or their ability to focus their conjured spells onto their target, and should be considered as much instead of "I need to have X strength and Y agility to fight Z."
-
Leveling up, or gaining experience specifically, shows how they have become trained in the use of the weapons that they carry or their ability to focus their conjured spells onto their target, and should be considered as much instead of "I need to have X strength and Y agility to fight Z."
Yeah but when you're carrying around a 30 foot sword and can jump a million feet in the air with it, I don't think you need to much more practice.
-
You want to make a game without battles? Make Tetris.
Although seriously, going on what you said reminds me a lot of 'Castle of the Winds'. Although they did have battles, you just used the map and dialog screens rather than going into a separate cinematic whatever screen. I also remember that you died really quick early on so it felt a lot like what you described.
Although what you describe isn't really an "RPG without battles". It's just an RPG full of battles that the player is never allowed to fight himself or decide on anything whatsoever. Just take my word for it when I say that a system like that is decidedly worse than any derivative battle system you could ever come up with for any sort of cookie-cutter rpg game experience. I mean if your best idea for an "RPG without battles" is an idea that still involves your character battling, then it's a strong hint that you should be listening the suggestions that lead you to not making it an RPG in the first place.
Yeah but when you're carrying around a 30 foot sword and can jump a million feet in the air with it, I don't think you need to much more practice.
Well that's not hard at all, even for an untrained person. All anyone needs is to find is a 30 foot sword to carry around, and a cliff that overlooks a million foot drop. Jump off that cliff, and you could accomplish exactly what you describe without much practice at all.
-
Well that's not hard at all, even for an untrained person. All anyone needs is to find is a 30 foot sword to carry around, and a cliff that overlooks a million foot drop. Jump off that cliff, and you could accomplish exactly what you describe without much practice at all.
If you can LIFT a 30 foot sword.
Also yeah I think the point is that if you don't want to do RPG battles maybe you should just consider making an adventure game of some sort. You can still do all the same stuff RPGs do without the bits you don't like.
-
In my opinion, it sounds BAD for two reasons, and GOOD for one reason.
Bad: Not to be able to move on just because your stats are not high enough, would probably make a lot of players frustrated.
Bad: It might just be too easy or not challenging to simply "walk through" a monster, some people will find it boring, unless the story is really good.
Good: It might be a good change, if you have a good replacement... Perhaps you can turn that into Quest Points which you receive from side quests. Some people, like me, just hate the regular battle system; I find it repetitive and annoying, unless it's really really really good like in Balmung Cycle, or unless it's customized. In my game there is an option to 'Turn Battles Off and On'...
-
Also yeah I think the point is that if you don't want to do RPG battles maybe you should just consider making an adventure game of some sort. You can still do all the same stuff RPGs do without the bits you don't like.
Yeah, I see. It's sounding more like an arcade adventure than something in-depth.
-
Yeah but when you're carrying around a 30 foot sword and can jump a million feet in the air with it, I don't think you need to much more practice.
That's what equipment weight is for. Just take away agility depending on the weight of the weapon, requiring you to either purchase stat raising items (gold via battles) or battle to level up. Even if you could carry a 30 ft sword, would you be well trained in the art of swordplay to be able to use it? If not, then that's where training in combat comes in.
-
That's what equipment weight is for. Just take away agility depending on the weight of the weapon, requiring you to either purchase stat raising items (gold via battles) or battle to level up. Even if you could carry a 30 ft sword, would you be well trained in the art of swordplay to be able to use it? If not, then that's where training in combat comes in.
you're missing the point. the idea was that in a realistic sense, a person would have to train in small fights in order to take out a big boss. however, cloud blatantly starts off the game being able to carry a 30 foot sword and fly in the air with it so why does he need to fight a million dumb little monsters
-
I find it rather strange you even expect FFVII to be realistic, considering it has monsters and magic.
-
I find it rather strange you even expect FFVII to be realistic, considering it has monsters and magic.
I don't. But, Corfaisus was trying to say that it makes things more realistic.
-
Ah.. Right. And yes, that makes sense- it's somewhat more realistic than not. My apologies - I feel I've been rather argumentative these past few days.
-
Oh, you mean world map monsters, avoid them, good thinking. Doing that for Midas Force if I ever get it progressed though.
-
This "battle-less" (it's not really "battle-less" if you have battles) system sounds like "battles" between units in games like Civilisation. IMO, this kind of battle wouldn't work in an RPG.
In a strategy game, you have a wide-range of unit types, a large number of units and you get to deploy these units whenever you want. Because the strategy behind choosing the right time for an attack and choosing the right units based on the opponent makes up the bulk of the game, the simplicity of the battle system doesn't ruin the fun.
On the other hand, in an RPG you have a small number of unit-types (classes), a small number of units (characters). This means that there is a very small strategic element prior to entering a battle, even in games likes Final Fantasy Tactics were class progression/choices and equipment choices are a massive deal. Instead, all the strategic elements are found in battle (what specific spell to use, when to heal etc.), so excluding the player from this will ruin the fun (or, at the least, make their choices seem meaningless). Also, because you're forcing people into fighting in your game, you're removing the "timing of an attack" strategy too - you're basically giving the player nothing to do and this is bad!
Equally...
As you play as the "commander" in a strategy game, not having individual control over each unit makes sense - all a "commander" does is tell his "troops" where to go, he doesn't get to shoot the gun for them.
As you play as the individual units (characters) in an RPG, not having individual control over them makes no sense at all.