Role Play a Game Developer

Dgaider said:

For one, even though there is a desire expressed by many RPG fans to see innovation, there is a simultaneous wish from many of these same people to stick to features of the genre that they prefer and NOT innovate. Include something truly new and you'll get cries in some corners that you're changing what doesn't need to be changed. Include nothing new and you'll get cries of "seen that!" from the other corner.

Click to expand...

This is so true. I missed out on a great game when I was a kid because I flately refused to play it, buy it, rent it or even look at it. I wouldn't play Ultima Underworld because it was so different from the other Ultimas and it pissed me off the LB went with this newfangled 3D thing. Turns out I missed out on some amazing games.

Oh and the same was true for SSI EOB. I wanted more goldbox less 3D. Once again missed out because I was too stuborn. Now I'm less stubborn (sometimes) but I'm willing to give something a try at least once. Oh sure, I might lament on the death of this or how they should of done that, but I'll still try most games that come out with an openmind.

Dgaider said:

I've no easy answers -- thankfully it's not my job to make most of these decisions. I'm just pointing out the perspective that might be needed if you're actually going to think like a developer. If what you're talking about instead is what innovations would make a game more interesting from a fan perspective, that's quite something else.

Click to expand...

Depends if your making an indie or AAA. AoD is a fan's dream made from a fan's perspective becoming reality. Armageddon Empires again dream made reality. No casual gamer would come within 50 ft of either of those games. Yet AE has had quite a lot of success, for an indie, and AoD is looking like it will be the next best thing since sliced bread.

So unfortuantly for me the main stream left me in the dust a long time ago. I'll adapt and try out the new stuff, but I haven't really played anything all that great since KOTOR 1 & 2 and Bloodlines. Even NWN 2 wasn't as good as those, but just my opinion. If the main stream totally leaves me behind (like all games becoming MMOs) there will always be indies. I'll be happy enough playing older games while waiting for a 7 year cycle indie game to be released

I would like to add one thing. I do try and enjoy a lot of the newer releases, but I would love to see games like Arcanum, TOEE, BG and Fallout (ISO TB) be given a little love and returned to the main stream. Dragon Age looks like it might be as good as BG2. Hope so anyways, would like to see the publishers drool instead of cringe when they hear about a RPG game.

I think we've been through the realities of business in several other threads

In my mind, this thread was more about dreaming than actually trying to be a developer, with all the pragmatic implications that inherently follow.

I might be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Anyway, I'm developing my own game as we speak - and since I have no monetary investment, I'm under no obligation to make it SELL - which is precisely how I want it to be.

Whatever evolutions I manage to incorporate will be there because I want them there, and only people who share my tastes will be able to appreciate them.

That's what I consider art - not because I'm talented (and in many ways, I'm not) - but because I do it with a fully subjective angle of approach. That's my definition of pure art - even if the result is the worst piece of crap you've ever seen or experienced.

That doesn't mean I don't HOPE people will agree with my choices, but if they don't - so be it. I don't expect my audience to exceed 5000 - if that.

Obviously, I won't ever get rich - nor is that my goal. I do dream of "surviving" doing this, but if it means I can't make the kind of game I dream of - even given the limitations of a solo project - then I'll just go on in the IT-support field.

At least I will have tried

CarcusRex said:

There was certainly no intent to mislead on my part, if that's what you mean by "deliberate move". Further, I beg to differ that my simple summation of his idea had nothing to do at all with his point... at least as I understood him.

He said "the key" for him, "was to keep the gameplay evolving as you progress..." He further when on to say while that could apply to story and visuals, it was GAMEPLAY MECHANICS he was really interested in seeing evovle. I got the distinct impression that he was talking about game mechanics evolving within a particular game, and not just the genre. Therefore, I contend I was not too far off on the points he made.

Click to expand...

Seems to me you got my point fully

An aspect of old school rpgs that I’ve always been fond of are the atmospheric text descriptions of objects and locations, and even sometimes in the middle of a dialogue... ie Eschalon. They always add a lot of ambiance for the player who doesn’t mind - or even prefers - reading in place of pure eye candy.

I don’t know if this has been tried before or not, because my experience with many old school rpgs is very limited, so perhaps this isn’t any real innovation at all, but I got to thinking if it would be plausible to somehow fit descriptive texts into the combat system.

What if, instead of whittling down your opponent’s hit points, the goal was to assess the weakness of the opponent, and then act on that assessment to dispatch him. You could even say goodbye to the health bar. Maybe a few new stat skills could be presented - say one that measures a character’s skill at assessing, or sizing up his foe in battle and determines the time it takes to comes up with an assessment of weakness. Another skill would measure, by combat technique and/or training, how well the character hides his own weaknesses during a fight. I imagine pitting these skills against the opponent’s same skills, adding in a little strategy to modify or enhance them during the combat, all to determine who assesses the other’s weakness first. So how would using cool, powerful weapons fit in if you’re just using these stats, you ask? How about the more powerful the weapon and its enhancement, the better the chance to bypass the assessment skill and cause a critical strike which wounds the opponent and creates it’s own weakness?

So imagine your in the middle of a melee fight, turn based, and all of a sudden, maybe after a few turns, there at the next pause appears this over your character’s head in floating text:

WEAKNESS DETECTED: You notice Goblin Warrior tends to be overly concerned with protecting the family jewels, often leaving his neck exposed.
ACTION:
1) Keep hacking away at his neck.
2) Faint a backhand slash to his gut, then apply Karate chop to his neck.
3) Faint a kick to the crotch, then apply an aggressive back-slash across his neck.
4) Taunt him as to how “small” a fighter he is, and endeavor to make his voice register in a higher note.
5) etc...

Only one selection would work, and if you judge wrong, you try again next round until you get... or something like that. So after selecting option 3, you’d get a Goblin kill in the next round of animation.

Weaknesses could come in all sorts and varieties. Examples:

- You notice a crack in your opponent’s armor.
- You notice a floor mount sticking up right behind your opponent.
- A slash on your opponents arm has led to a slippery puddle of blood at his feet.
- Your opponent is standing directly below a pallet of bricks on a hoist.
- Opponent’s counter thrust to your downward chops always leave his right shoulder exposed.
- etc...

The problem is the dev would have to come up with a database containing a $hitload of these descriptive weaknesses, not to mention an even greater list of solution choices with which to apply to the assessment. They’d have to conjure up literally hundreds of them to keep the game fresh... perhaps too daunting of a task for any dev.

Ah well, just a nutty idea.

DArtagnan said:

Seems to me you got my point fully

Click to expand...

Thanks, DArtagnan... I would have hated to misread and misinterpet such a cool post.

Magic. I'd put a lot of effort into magic. Not just making the gameplay feel right, but making the actual use of magic in the game setting seem realistic. Almost every game I've played does this wrong; magic is often used to throw around fireballs, but very rarely for practical uses. A world where magic was actually possible would be drastically changed due to it, and it would no doubt affect the world in many ways.

I'd also put some effort into how magic feels when used by the players. I like the idea of risk vs power (i.e Wheel of Time), where the casters are constantly struggling not to be consumed by the magic they wield. This is fairly hard to implement, however, but can be done by using debuffs on powerful spells, colour changes/earthquakes (the screen shaking a bit, and going more red-ish for example) when you're using too powerful magic, certain consequences of the magic you use (summon a demon with the risk of the demon breaking free - should not depend on time in my opinion, but the actions of the player), etc.

Also, I like practical magic. Why does a mage need a rogue around to open locks? He can just blast the whole door, or cast a spell that unlocks it. The whole "but the door is warded!" argument is pointless in my opinion, since any magic capable of warding a door from a powerful explosion, would also be able to ward it against lockpicks - or even better, remove the whole door, and simply create an opening in the wood itself with magic when entering.

I liked magic in Loom

But as for CRPGs, I think magic should definitely move beyond ways of dispatching foes. I'm not sure what system I can think of that handles magic with most success - but I do have a few favorites:

NWN - An overall decent implementation of the vastly complex magic system of D&D - and you actually have a lot of flavor in terms of practical and non-damage spells.

Hero's Quest - Adventure/RPG, but as with Loom - you use magic in a less systematized manner, but naturally this calls for extra resources during development. Much more effort if you're going to have scenario based magic, and again it will move away from the free-form structure that I'm so fond of.

Wizardry - Lots of schools and for some reason, magic feels good even if it's pretty basic stuff. I think it's all the neat icons and classes you have in that system - but in reality it's just acid ball vs fireball.

Might and Magic - Pretty flexible and certainly the later series had a lot of practical magic, as in flying and teleport etc. I love the implications of that sort of freedom.

Gothic series - Yeah, I like the idea of the rune system - and the ability to summon armies. The "oblivion" spell was a wonderful example of a flexible magic system.

Dungeon Master - I liked the symbolic rune system - and the idea that you had to experiment to find new spells.

Hmm - well, there are so many interesting takes on magic, and I forget so much. I know I've played a lot more that had a ton of neat ideas, but they simply slip my mind right now.

Anyway, I would encourage freedom and experimentation - and as such you have to create a strong underpinning that can support a large variety of magical effects - both offensive and practical in nature. This will not support "scenario-based" spells like in Loom/Hero's Quest - but you can compensate with a system that's flexible and generous enough. One thing to note is that you can't be TOO concerned with game balance - and it would be my advice to challenge the player with mental struggles and story-based quests, rather than combat. It's a very typical flaw inherent in most game designers - and regular PnP Dungeon Masters - that they struggle for that ever elusive balance of combat. Simply do your best, and challenge your players where their powers are to no avail. That's how I see it, anyhow.

I think that the indie market has some really great innovations coming up.

The Broken Hourglass has its wonderful idea for a magic system - no mana, no fixed spells / day, nothing to stop a mage chucking out the same spell over and over and over. But each player has a fixed (changeable through stats) capacity for concentration on magic, so they have to balance keeping a few buffs up with being free to chuck out some powerful other spells with keeping their equipped items working etc.

Frayed Knights has its concept of drama stars - every time you reload you lose your drama stars, but if you play fairly without reloading for the result you want you build up stars that can be used for attribute purchase or special attacks etc. Very, very interested to see how that will play out with the dynamic of wanting to save and avoid a poor result or loss.

Scars of War hasn't got any specific headline game mechanic that really stands out, but from his musing on game design has so many great ideas for making a convincing, immersive game world. Particularly on magic, making it a part of the world used in a realistic way (given the initial suspension of disbelief) rather than just another form of combat option.

Age of Decadence pulls together a lot of things that have shown up from time to time before but been badly implemented when done and rarely even done at all, along with a really interesting sounding setting. The Spiderweb games have great settings (although a new one is needed!), a vast cave civilisation and . . . . where even to start to sum up the geneforge world in a couple of lines.

And Dragon Age has . . . . some background stories . . . . and . . . uh . . . . bethesda had guns this time and . . . um . . . okay, guess it's just the indies who are coming up with the new stuff . . . .

Truth be told, I really feel that the Origin stories is a huge improvement over the classic "you start in a village as a kid" - huh? I picked DROW for crying outloud, I didn't grow up in a stinking village with a foster father - the whole village would've been burned to the ground if a drow was growing up there.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing that feature in action - hopefully it'll be one of those features that really add to the replayvalue of a game.

Other than that, I agree with both Benedict and DArtagnan that we've seen some good magic systems and innovations, but very rarely with any practical uses. I do like the M&M system though - it may still be mana based, but at least you get access to spells that do more than blow stuff up. Magic, in most games, is nothing more than a big gun with very limited ammo.

The system in the Elder Scrolls series did have a bit of experimentation (more in MW than Oblivion), which worked out fairly well. Unforunately the scaling in Oblivion ruined it a bit (you basically just increased the mana spent for more damage). I do like the idea of creating my own spells though, but I realize such a system takes a lot of effort to get right.

skavenhorde said:

Depends if your making an indie or AAA. AoD is a fan's dream made from a fan's perspective becoming reality. Armageddon Empires again dream made reality. No casual gamer would come within 50 ft of either of those games. Yet AE has had quite a lot of success, for an indie, and AoD is looking like it will be the next best thing since sliced bread.

Click to expand...

Sure, with an indie game you're relying far more on good word of mouth than you are on actually selling the game. Having devoted evangelists is the only way people are going to hear of you. I've often thought that if the indie gaming scene is going to make any real progress the media has to be more willing to provide exposure for games that aren't AAA... right now, as soon as there is a sense that you're making something that isn't the "latest and greatest" you're relegated to the industry equivalent of special interest features or reviews that dock you points for being old-looking even if they loved the gameplay and everything else about the game. Not great, but that's just the way it is.

Even so, I hope AoD and games like it do well. The sooner we can prove that games don't necessarily have to be event titles in order to turn a profit and receive industry acclaim the better, in my opinion.

Even an indie developer is going to have to put some thought towards the appeal of their features, however. Like I said, any feature that is truly unfamiliar to their target audience (ie. the hardcore) is going to be looked on with suspicion. Still, if you make something worthwhile and win that audience over, you'll have your evangelists right there (in theory).

Personally, if I was going to create an indie RPG I'd like to play a little bit with narrative flow. Right now there's a lot of focus on the "walking and talking" -- you follow the avatar's footsteps every single place they go and every single person they talk to. I'd like to see more games that instead spread over a long timespan, jumping to important events and encounters while still allowing for lots of plot branching options, rather than focusing on simulating an entire world that needs all the dead spaces filled in and every minute of the player character's existence accounted for. Might be interesting to try.

Dgaider said:

Personally, if I was going to create an indie RPG I'd like to play a little bit with narrative flow. Right now there's a lot of focus on the "walking and talking" -- you follow the avatar's footsteps every single place they go and every single person they talk to. I'd like to see more games that instead spread over a long timespan, jumping to important events and encounters while still allowing for lots of plot branching options, rather than focusing on simulating an entire world that needs all the dead spaces filled in and every minute of the player character's existence accounted for. Might be interesting to try.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of the great 'family saga' style novels or the James Michener approach of moving through the history of a place using successive characters over time. That may be taking your idea to an extreme, but I agree it could be interesting to see one's character evolve in the high points of his 'life' over time from birth to death, perhaps paralleling/participating in the shaping of the events of his world, even carrying on the narrative through his heirs or companions.

You could start as one character and class, meet the people who fit naturally in the story as NPC companions, then perhaps switch and play from the perspective of one of them, all the while just beginning a new chapter, with new goals and events reflecting a progression from one historical era or event to the next.

Could be fun.

DGs concept makes me envision a gamebook (is that the English term?)-like structure with different chapters (depending on your previous choices). Making large parts of the game unavailable during one single playthrough would be out of line with current design philosophy though, and might also be considered a bit uneconomical

EDIT: Regarding the selling point of the game one idea might be to use name recognition. Being a history buff I'd set a game in a time period that is well known and heavily romanticised, yet underutilised in RPGs. For a US audience there could be room for more western RPGs, or something set in the 18th century (the Last of the Mohicans, war of independence or somesuch). Maybe one could tack on the name of some no longer copyrighted classic (if that is legal?)...

magerette said:

You could start as one character and class, meet the people who fit naturally in the story as NPC companions, then perhaps switch and play from the perspective of one of them, all the while just beginning a new chapter, with new goals and events reflecting a progression from one historical era or event to the next.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would definitely be possible. It would open up the ability to do the "hand wave" that is possible in books and movies, where you cover a period of time with a scene or some narrative. Let the player be in charge of making the choices of which characters they assume the viewpoint of, and possibly even "zoom in" to the action when action is called for, but simply eliminate the need to walk everywhere and talk to unimportant characters. If the tale calls for a confrontation with a dragon, pick it up at the dragon's cave, or that mysterious fellow you meet on the way to the cave, without actually needing to walk there. This would, I think, allow for more branches in the plot and the world-- you could make it quite an interesting array of options, in fact, simply because the resources requirements for each individual "piece" are that much less. Following a player through their own bloodline into successive generations as you suggest would be kind of awesome, in fact.

Just a thought, anyhow, regarding a way to innovate RPG gameplay without simply dealing with rules mechanics alone. I bet you some game has already done it somewhere, however.

Zaleukos said:

DGs concept makes me envision a gamebook (is that the English term?)-like structure with different chapters (depending on your previous choices). Making large parts of the game unavailable during one single playthrough would be out of line with current design philosophy though, and might also be considered a bit uneconomical

Click to expand...

True, but uneconomical doesn't apply quite the same to an indie game... there's an order of magnitude of difference in the investment required. AAA games are risk-averse for a very good reason (whether you think that's a sound business judgment in the long term or not). If you're going to make an indie, however, there's no reason to stay within the lines unless it truly alienates the audience you're shooting for.

Dgaider said:

Personally, if I was going to create an indie RPG I'd like to play a little bit with narrative flow. Right now there's a lot of focus on the "walking and talking" -- you follow the avatar's footsteps every single place they go and every single person they talk to. I'd like to see more games that instead spread over a long timespan, jumping to important events and encounters while still allowing for lots of plot branching options, rather than focusing on simulating an entire world that needs all the dead spaces filled in and every minute of the player character's existence accounted for. Might be interesting to try.

Click to expand...

This might be a little annoying to some people here since I mention this website as many times as I can, but for me it has become THE guide to "How to Successfully Make and Market an Indie Game" It's an interview with Vic Davis about how his game took off.
Part One: Beginning, not that much interest.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/leve...-armageddon-empires-indie-success-part-i.aspx

Part TWO: Word of mouth, Vic's own advertising without really advertising, word of mouth spread to respected reviewers, it spread after that to even more respected reviews and then it steamrolled after that.

What I found interesting was the model. The traditional model for AAA for marketing an Indie doesn't work. You could spend billions of marketing dollars into an indie (no one would but for the sake of this point let's pretend ) and it still won't do that well. It can't compete with the big buys. However, Indies have one thing up their sleeves that the big guys dont. They can keep improving, fixing, and adding to their game months or even a year (like Vic did) after the initial release and it doesn't cost them nearly as much as it would with the big guys. His sales will increase the more attention it gets even a year down the road. Anyways, the second part is one the I found interesting. It deals with "infection" sales.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/leve...armageddon-empires-indie-success-part-ii.aspx

Thought this might help you if you ever do decide to go to the dark side and join the indies . All I know is I love it when the little guy makes it big and in the process brings a little bit of entertainment to some people. That's why I still hope one day Troika can make a come back or experienced devs and other talent decide to try something new on their own, in all likely hood that's not going to happen. But still a nice little wish

skavenhorde said:

Thought this might help you if you ever do decide to go to the dark side and join the indies . All I know is I love it when the little guy makes it big and in the process brings a little bit of entertainment to some people.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be opposed if not for the same reasons that no doubt stop many other people: I don't have the skills necessary to do it on my own, nor the money to to put together the team required (and where would I find such people anyhow?). Plus I have that job and everything.

But who wouldn't want to strike out and do something they're in full control over artistically, at some level? I just wonder how easy it would be to remain passionate about it when it's your money and livelihood that's personally on the line and you'll simultaneously need to have so much of your time taken up running the actual business (as opposed to doing what you love). Gives me stomach pains just thinking about it.

Dgaider said:

I wouldn't be opposed if not for the same reasons that no doubt stop many other people: I don't have the skills necessary to do it on my own, nor the money to to put together the team required (and where would I find such people anyhow?). Plus I have that job and everything.

But who wouldn't want to strike out and do something they're in full control over artistically, at some level? I just wonder how easy it would be to remain passionate about it when it's your money and livelihood that's personally on the line and you'll simultaneously need to have so much of your time taken up running the actual business (as opposed to doing what you love). Gives me stomach pains just thinking about it.

Click to expand...

The whole thing is based on passion, or it'd never happen.

I definitely don't think it's for people who're in the business to make a career or for financial reasons in general. If the thought of having complete control doesn't compensate for the stomach pains, then I think it's a pretty sure sign you shouldn't attempt it.

DArtagnan said:

The whole thing is based on passion, or it'd never happen.

I definitely don't think it's for people who're in the business to make a career or for financial reasons in general. If the thought of having complete control doesn't compensate for the stomach pains, then I think it's a pretty sure sign you shouldn't attempt it.

Click to expand...

No doubt you are correct. There are a certain amount of stomach pains that come with NOT having complete control that sometimes makes it six of one, half-dozen of the other as it is.

Dgaider said:

No doubt you are correct. There are a certain amount of stomach pains that come with NOT having complete control that sometimes makes it six of one, half-dozen of the other as it is.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt - which is probably why I never actively pursued such a position, not that I'd necessarily get one.

But at least you have the glamour and cash

Where Innovation has always lived and thrived as the purview of the Indie house, the established Corporate Gaming Machine is obliged, by the dictates of profit, to embrace the relative safety of Polish.

I don't see any problem with that... it's just the natural way of things, and if all goes well, we the gamers get the best of both worlds.

I shout out a big Good Luck to all game developers, be they big or small, rich or poor. I hope all your pursuits come to fruition.

CarcusRex said:

Where Innovation has always lived and thrived as the purview of the Indie house, the established Corporate Gaming Machine is obliged, by the dictates of profit, to embrace the relative safety of Polish.

I don't see any problem with that... it's just the natural way of things, and if all goes well, we the gamers get the best of both worlds.

I shout out a big Good Luck to all game developers, be they big or small, rich or poor. I hope all your pursuits come to fruition.

Click to expand...

The only problem I see, is that we're not seeing the combination of artistic control and technological prowess.

One my dream designs, for instance, which is sort of like the ultimate evolution of System Shock - won't happen with a perception like the current one.

No one with enough money to make it a reality will take that chance, and such a game won't work with indie production values, because it'll remove the essential aspect of total immersion.