Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
ADDING THOSE LITTLE DETAILS - DO YOU DO IT?
Posts
Pages:
1
Essenceblade
19
Essenceblade
View playlists
CloseTheory
Basically, I've been talking to a friend of mine whom has been ill a few days ago, and therefore cannot continue their game for quite a bit. For the past few days I've decided to give them an insight on what ideas they'd like in terms of detail in a game. For example, things like towns and villages have a little history or setting to them upon entering the area for the first time. The question is; do you add any form of background or history to them?
I've played many games--commercial games at that--that totally miss the whole concept of what I'm talking about in terms of informal detail. I know that not all games need it, or even want it to be honest, but do you see it as a drag down rather than a helpful hint?
And I'm not just talking in terms of text based ideas either, I mean the whole concept. Do you like those seemingly pointless things in RPGs.
Mini-quests or Optional Fights which would otherwise set you offside the story?
Crafting systems which you have the option to do, and do them--or do you ignore them and only use them conditionally?
Pet systems as another instance, I haven't seen these being used as much as in older games, and that's mainly because they take a drastically long amount of time for players to adjust to and actually reap benefits out of.
Most people nowadays tend to ignore things like crafting systems which would otherwise bore the player to an extent, but most people do it to keep the player interested. What drives you into adding these things, and if you don't choose to add them, why?
Basically, I've been talking to a friend of mine whom has been ill a few days ago, and therefore cannot continue their game for quite a bit. For the past few days I've decided to give them an insight on what ideas they'd like in terms of detail in a game. For example, things like towns and villages have a little history or setting to them upon entering the area for the first time. The question is; do you add any form of background or history to them?
I've played many games--commercial games at that--that totally miss the whole concept of what I'm talking about in terms of informal detail. I know that not all games need it, or even want it to be honest, but do you see it as a drag down rather than a helpful hint?
And I'm not just talking in terms of text based ideas either, I mean the whole concept. Do you like those seemingly pointless things in RPGs.
Mini-quests or Optional Fights which would otherwise set you offside the story?
Crafting systems which you have the option to do, and do them--or do you ignore them and only use them conditionally?
Pet systems as another instance, I haven't seen these being used as much as in older games, and that's mainly because they take a drastically long amount of time for players to adjust to and actually reap benefits out of.
Most people nowadays tend to ignore things like crafting systems which would otherwise bore the player to an extent, but most people do it to keep the player interested. What drives you into adding these things, and if you don't choose to add them, why?
author=Essenceblade
For example, things like towns and villages have a little history or setting to them upon entering the area for the first time. The question is; do you add any form of background or history to them?
You have no idea.
I've spent the last 6 months writing everything I need to write for this one city.
Crafting systems which you have the option to do, and do them--or do you ignore them and only use them conditionally?These add more small goals for the player to reach, which is a bit more motivating then having longer goals that will take a while to do. Plus mainly, it adds 40 hours of gameplay and looks nice on the back of the box. Is it fun? I dunno, whatever gets the player playing for those 60 hours you promised them.
Pet systems as another instance, I haven't seen these being used as much as in older games, and that's mainly because they take a drastically long amount of time for players to adjust to and actually reap benefits out of.
Most people nowadays tend to ignore things like crafting systems which would otherwise bore the player to an extent, but most people do it to keep the player interested.
I think your topic is sort of talking about 2 different things though. Specific gameplay features, and then backstory to areas. I don't care about the other ones (other than the miniquests/optional battles) because should be more game dependent rather than "stuff them inside your game for more gameplay time!!" types of deals.
The backstory itself is a good idea. I don't think players will really go out of their way to read a book about the backstory to the town (hey, some might), but I think you better express it by knowing the backstory of the town and have some people in game allude to some of it, and have the town itself reflect it. You don't need to tell how this used to be a mighty town that had a super popular Colosseum but when the Colosseum was broken then the town fell into poverty and became a shadow of their former self in a huge 300 page in game book. You can show the broken Colosseum, have people tell you about it, have the town look poor and have some ruins around, and people constantly "living in the past" so to say.
I think it is good overall to have even part of an idea of the history of your games town and games world. It can really help flesh it out to be more interesting to the players than "Farm town" "Castle town" "RPG town # 5" "Last town".
I sort of thought this topic was going to be about adding tiny details where you think most people wouldn't notice or something like that, not about crafting systems.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
It depends, I guess. In some areas of the game I totally think about this stuff and implement it. But for the most part I consider this an indulgence on my part - I don't normally enjoy any of this extracurricular crap as a player. As a player, I like the game to be focused. I like it to stick to what it does well, both in terms of gameplay and story, instead of giving me mediocre sidequests and pointless lore.
In Vindication I tried to come up with backstory for a lot of locations and events. Some of it made it into the game and some of it was only ever implied and some of it was never mentioned but still affected my design. In I&V I'm mostly abandoning that method in favor of just setting up a mood and atmosphere. I'm coming up with the backstory I need for the game to make sense, but really I want to focus on what's happening now, on what the player is actively doing. My choice to abandon such minigames is based on a similar idea: I want the player to be engaged in the main quest, to care about the primary gameplay, instead of being sidetracked by things that don't really fit in.
You can probably tell I dislike open world type games. I don't think they're bad and I don't think sidequests and minigames and complex subsystems are bad to do, but I don't usually enjoy them personally.
However, when something is done so well and is so intricate that it becomes the new real focus of the game for me, then yes I absolutely hella appreciate it - like the job system in FF Tactics, or collecting pokemon in the Pokemon games, or item synthesis and game completion percentage in Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2. The stories in some games fall into this category too. These are all things that transcended being subsystems and sidequests and tacked-on additions to me, and simply became the game.
In Vindication I tried to come up with backstory for a lot of locations and events. Some of it made it into the game and some of it was only ever implied and some of it was never mentioned but still affected my design. In I&V I'm mostly abandoning that method in favor of just setting up a mood and atmosphere. I'm coming up with the backstory I need for the game to make sense, but really I want to focus on what's happening now, on what the player is actively doing. My choice to abandon such minigames is based on a similar idea: I want the player to be engaged in the main quest, to care about the primary gameplay, instead of being sidetracked by things that don't really fit in.
You can probably tell I dislike open world type games. I don't think they're bad and I don't think sidequests and minigames and complex subsystems are bad to do, but I don't usually enjoy them personally.
However, when something is done so well and is so intricate that it becomes the new real focus of the game for me, then yes I absolutely hella appreciate it - like the job system in FF Tactics, or collecting pokemon in the Pokemon games, or item synthesis and game completion percentage in Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2. The stories in some games fall into this category too. These are all things that transcended being subsystems and sidequests and tacked-on additions to me, and simply became the game.
author=Essenceblade
TheoryThe question is; do you add any form of background or history to them?
Good game design always means yes. History is not text as you stated therefore it is a clear case of add as much as you can.
What you don't want to do though is turn everything into an extended tour guide.
I've played many games--commercial games at that--that totally miss the whole concept of what I'm talking about in terms of informal detail. I know that not all games need it, or even want it to be honest, but do you see it as a drag down rather than a helpful hint?
It's in the quality. Good game design never drags down things so badly that it becomes a turn off.
If you have a PSX emulator, I recommend playing Front Mission 3 to get what I mean. The game is an entire drag down but tons of players keep playing simply because the overall game is designed well.
Do you like those seemingly pointless things in RPGs.
...but seemingly pointless things in RPGs are different.
Again look at something like random quest introductions. There's a game where you have to get a bread for a kid in a hard to spot space and it is the only place you can get bread for him and it doesn't add anything but because the game is interestingly designed, you barely notice it.
It's important to remember that no matter how many things you remove, there will be seemingly pointless things in RPGs. Too much pointless walking, too long of a backtracking, too boring of a quest...these all feel seemingly pointless to a player who feels this boredom no matter how valuable you think they are and it doesn't matter how they are part of the main quest.
The reverse just as applies. The great seemingly pointless quests can sometimes be the reason players think the main game is good.
Mini-quests or Optional Fightswhich would otherwise set you offside the story?
You don't have to narrow down to this concept. Just ask yourself: will a player love the game more if the game has more good content? Most of the time, yes.
Crafting systemswhich you have the option to do, and do them--or do you ignore them and only use them conditionally?
Crafting systems are used conditionally because they often suck. Even the better implemented ones can be boring because crafting is supposed to be game world impacting but designers often don't give them enough respect and instead it's closer to "match 3" mini-games.
Pet systemsas another instance, I haven't seen these being used as much as in older games, and that's mainly because they take a drastically long amount of time for players to adjust to and actually reap benefits out of.
On the contrary, all pet systems are essentially expanded teammate systems. Older games do have these but they are often disguised as the PC. When the technology finally came for more avatars, pet systems end up being more implemented because it gives the illusion that there's a relevant mini-game on hand even when there's nothing around the player.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=SnodgrassMini-quests or Optional Fightswhich would otherwise set you offside the story?You don't have to narrow down to this concept. Just ask yourself: will a player love the game more if the game has more good content? Most of the time, yes.
The trick is making these things be good content. If they're honestly that good, why are they optional? In some cases it might be to promote exploration or to add options for different play styles, but in a lot of other cases it's because they're not as good as the parts of the game that were chosen to be mandatory. I know I personally have changed parts of my games from mandatory to optional because I realized the quality was low but didn't know a good way (or didn't have the time) to fix it, and have similarly changed parts of my games from optional to mandatory because I felt like it would significantly hurt the game overall if someone missed them.
...I dislike pet systems and monster training systems for a completely different reason: I think they are just a cheap way for the designer to get away with not creating interesting characters. I understand why it's done (designer is more interested in gameplay than plot) but it still usually annoys me. I would rather have interesting characters who are linked to the game's plot with their own dialogue and backstories and personalities than wolves and slimes and behemoths. So I guess in this case I actually do appreciate the little things, if you consider character development a little thing.
They are optional because that's the design intended by the designer. Again this is what you're saying except from your personal preference. I don't really get what's so notable in my words that you have to state the obvious that designers have a choice.
Not all good designs are "so good" designs. Some good designs are only good because they are optional.
The idea of promoting exploration or different play styles is moot.
If an rpg doesn't promote exploration, you won't even download the game. You still have to do some little aspect of exploration to get further towards the main quest.
The same goes with play styles. It's like you're thinking of a specific mini-game or a specific design but you're transposing it to ALL mini-games and optional fights design and you just happen to think of your preferred reason for why you don't make different playstyles a part of your main game.
For example let's take the common concept of Game Over Rape games. (Not because I can't think of a non-adult designed game but because this is the easiest design to point out how the best parts may be optional but are still supposed to be the most awesome part of the game.)
The point of such games are simple. If you get a game over, you get a hentai scene of the defeated PC being raped.
The demographics of these types of games demand that the H-scene are the best part but most of them are optional. Why? Because the design is surrounded around the idea of "Game Over" H-scenes not Instant Loss H-scenes.
For many other design themes, it can be more subtle but many hold those same premise.
Many multiple character JRPGs are optional even though there's a risk that maybe you are skipping the best designed character or a true ending.
It's a poor example compared to Game Over Rape Rpgs because Game Overs are totally optional where as many players even non-completionist finish all character paths anyway for fear of missing a true ending or massive curiosity about the other alternatives. Still the premise applies there.
I won't even bother with even more subtle designs like optional teammates (because that depends too much on how those revolve around a plot) or optional areas (because those can revolve around a game's idea of making true endings a tricky thing to unlock) and so on and so forth.
Not all good designs are "so good" designs. Some good designs are only good because they are optional.
The idea of promoting exploration or different play styles is moot.
If an rpg doesn't promote exploration, you won't even download the game. You still have to do some little aspect of exploration to get further towards the main quest.
The same goes with play styles. It's like you're thinking of a specific mini-game or a specific design but you're transposing it to ALL mini-games and optional fights design and you just happen to think of your preferred reason for why you don't make different playstyles a part of your main game.
For example let's take the common concept of Game Over Rape games. (Not because I can't think of a non-adult designed game but because this is the easiest design to point out how the best parts may be optional but are still supposed to be the most awesome part of the game.)
The point of such games are simple. If you get a game over, you get a hentai scene of the defeated PC being raped.
The demographics of these types of games demand that the H-scene are the best part but most of them are optional. Why? Because the design is surrounded around the idea of "Game Over" H-scenes not Instant Loss H-scenes.
For many other design themes, it can be more subtle but many hold those same premise.
Many multiple character JRPGs are optional even though there's a risk that maybe you are skipping the best designed character or a true ending.
It's a poor example compared to Game Over Rape Rpgs because Game Overs are totally optional where as many players even non-completionist finish all character paths anyway for fear of missing a true ending or massive curiosity about the other alternatives. Still the premise applies there.
I won't even bother with even more subtle designs like optional teammates (because that depends too much on how those revolve around a plot) or optional areas (because those can revolve around a game's idea of making true endings a tricky thing to unlock) and so on and so forth.
Do you add any form of background or history to them?
Every good game should have backstory on every major character, NPC, place or area. Whether it's actually presented in the game is another thing. You might have a very detailed explanation as to why magic works in your games and sure, having a general outline with a few books that delve into the 'theory' is a good idea in the game, but the player doesn't want to hear about how researcher x found that using a certain type of skill in a certain way allows fish to think twice as fast.
Characters need background to feel fleshed out. Especially those you are going to interact with a lot. Major NPCs need their motives for being a part of the story. You don't need to spell it out, but dropping a hint about it here and there makes the character feel more real.
Places have reasons for existing. Someone didn't just plonk down a city in some spot and say 'here we be'. No, someone discovered the area, had to overcome issues with raising a place to live, deal with others joining the town. The city had to grow into what it is, with a lot of history behind it. That's not to say you give players a lecture on the 2000 year history of the place, but mentioning in NPC text about interesting spots and having mentions of the areas before you reach them... this helps flesh the game out more. It's more interesting, too.
Mini-quests or Optional Fights
As long as they're thought out and add to the game then why not? That's not to say they're absolutely necessary, but it's a nice touch to add one or two things that you don't have to do but still can. And if you're a player like I am that enjoys taking a break from the story now and then, well, side quests and exploration is always a good thing as long as it's handled well.
Crafting systems
Really it depends on how useful they are. If they're a necessity to get certain items then I don't mind them. If they're not necessary, but you can get good items from using them, I'll give them a go. If they're unnecessary and don't have a benefit to them, why put them in the game in the first case?
I will admit to liking a good crafting system, though, as long as:
1) the system is easy to use and makes the items I need in high numbers or
2) there are other ways to get the items I need quickly.
For example: To continue the story I need to create a certain item. If the items needed are found at a reasonable pace and easy enough to know where to get, then that's fine. If you need to slaughter 20000000 enemies to get a rare drop just to create the item, then that's bad.
Pet systems
If by this you mean something like Chocobos in FF7, then it's a fun little diversion that can net you a few great rewards and give you some time off from the grind and story. If you mean something like having a pet that you lug around all over the place and have to feed all the time - like an in-game tamigotchi - then I'm not so fond of the idea. Of course, it's all about how the system works and whether it fits in with the game.
Ultimately it's all up to what your game is about and whether it fits in.
Every good game should have backstory on every major character, NPC, place or area. Whether it's actually presented in the game is another thing. You might have a very detailed explanation as to why magic works in your games and sure, having a general outline with a few books that delve into the 'theory' is a good idea in the game, but the player doesn't want to hear about how researcher x found that using a certain type of skill in a certain way allows fish to think twice as fast.
Characters need background to feel fleshed out. Especially those you are going to interact with a lot. Major NPCs need their motives for being a part of the story. You don't need to spell it out, but dropping a hint about it here and there makes the character feel more real.
Places have reasons for existing. Someone didn't just plonk down a city in some spot and say 'here we be'. No, someone discovered the area, had to overcome issues with raising a place to live, deal with others joining the town. The city had to grow into what it is, with a lot of history behind it. That's not to say you give players a lecture on the 2000 year history of the place, but mentioning in NPC text about interesting spots and having mentions of the areas before you reach them... this helps flesh the game out more. It's more interesting, too.
Mini-quests or Optional Fights
As long as they're thought out and add to the game then why not? That's not to say they're absolutely necessary, but it's a nice touch to add one or two things that you don't have to do but still can. And if you're a player like I am that enjoys taking a break from the story now and then, well, side quests and exploration is always a good thing as long as it's handled well.
Crafting systems
Really it depends on how useful they are. If they're a necessity to get certain items then I don't mind them. If they're not necessary, but you can get good items from using them, I'll give them a go. If they're unnecessary and don't have a benefit to them, why put them in the game in the first case?
I will admit to liking a good crafting system, though, as long as:
1) the system is easy to use and makes the items I need in high numbers or
2) there are other ways to get the items I need quickly.
For example: To continue the story I need to create a certain item. If the items needed are found at a reasonable pace and easy enough to know where to get, then that's fine. If you need to slaughter 20000000 enemies to get a rare drop just to create the item, then that's bad.
Pet systems
If by this you mean something like Chocobos in FF7, then it's a fun little diversion that can net you a few great rewards and give you some time off from the grind and story. If you mean something like having a pet that you lug around all over the place and have to feed all the time - like an in-game tamigotchi - then I'm not so fond of the idea. Of course, it's all about how the system works and whether it fits in with the game.
Ultimately it's all up to what your game is about and whether it fits in.
Pages:
1
