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)
[POLL] OTHER TRAVELERS
Poll
Do you like this idea? - Results
|
Yes
|
|
20
|
90%
|
|
No
|
|
0
|
0%
|
|
Indifferent
|
|
2
|
9%
|
Posts
bahlete442456234996
View playlists
Close
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
Mmm, it seems like the only difference between this idea and the Shinra dudes in FF7 is that you deleted the plot out of it, though. Which isn't an improvement. I'd rather have explanations for the NPCs' presence than not, all other things being equal.
Though I guess you're also implying randomizing it? But unless the entire game is randomized, to the point where we're gonna be playing through it a dozen times, I don't think anyone will care or even realize when a few certain encounters are randomized. If I'm only gonna see something happen once, it doesn't matter if it had a random chance to be different. Because that chance didn't happen. If your game isn't designed to be replayed, you might as well just put the NPCs in a specific spot.
I could totally see it working in a roguelike, though. Or in a game like Seiken Densetsu 3, or Romancing SaGa, where you have to play through several different characters stories but they all use the same world and many of the same towns and dungeons.
Though I guess you're also implying randomizing it? But unless the entire game is randomized, to the point where we're gonna be playing through it a dozen times, I don't think anyone will care or even realize when a few certain encounters are randomized. If I'm only gonna see something happen once, it doesn't matter if it had a random chance to be different. Because that chance didn't happen. If your game isn't designed to be replayed, you might as well just put the NPCs in a specific spot.
I could totally see it working in a roguelike, though. Or in a game like Seiken Densetsu 3, or Romancing SaGa, where you have to play through several different characters stories but they all use the same world and many of the same towns and dungeons.
TheNecromancer
3160
These NPCs would give you options for how the interaction goes. You can decide for yourself if they are friend or foe or ignored, and the story changes slightly because of it. If at all. Removing the plot isn't the only difference. They could even still be part of the plot, but it's not set in stone how it plays out. Maybe you are thinking of it being implemented in a way that isn't an improvement, where they have no explanation and it's just random for the sake of being random.
This, like any other gameplay element, can be done in a way that works. And honestly, it's just the kind of thing that needs to happen to breathe new life in the genre. That and multiplayer! I want a fucking multiplayer RPG. One where I can go online, and my friend goes online, and we can both walk separately around the map and fight the same random/touch/boss battles.
The only reason the Shinra guys are in multiple places is because of the plot. That's just part of storytelling. You are the one moving around the game world, so when it comes time for them to be a part of the story, it has to happen where you are, so they show up there. The alternative is them always remaining at the Shinra building and every time they are needed, you have to go there. This idea could possibly change that, to where it's more of a dynamic story instead of on rails the entire time. That in itself could make the game replayable. Obviously you would tell the player. There's no point in having that kind of thing without making it clear.
But you are right, it would have to be more than just a few things randomized to make it worthwhile.
Yeah, it's metric fuck-tonne of extra work, and writing a walkthrough wouldn't be an easy task. But if it's a good game on it's own, then having this kind of thing would be the reason why a person would want to play it again. I've played early FF games more than once and it's the same shit every time.
This, like any other gameplay element, can be done in a way that works. And honestly, it's just the kind of thing that needs to happen to breathe new life in the genre. That and multiplayer! I want a fucking multiplayer RPG. One where I can go online, and my friend goes online, and we can both walk separately around the map and fight the same random/touch/boss battles.
The only reason the Shinra guys are in multiple places is because of the plot. That's just part of storytelling. You are the one moving around the game world, so when it comes time for them to be a part of the story, it has to happen where you are, so they show up there. The alternative is them always remaining at the Shinra building and every time they are needed, you have to go there. This idea could possibly change that, to where it's more of a dynamic story instead of on rails the entire time. That in itself could make the game replayable. Obviously you would tell the player. There's no point in having that kind of thing without making it clear.
But you are right, it would have to be more than just a few things randomized to make it worthwhile.
Yeah, it's metric fuck-tonne of extra work, and writing a walkthrough wouldn't be an easy task. But if it's a good game on it's own, then having this kind of thing would be the reason why a person would want to play it again. I've played early FF games more than once and it's the same shit every time.
Geekman
0
author=Backwards_Cowboy
One of the best examples I can think of for random travel by NPCs is Bethesda's open-world RPGs like Fallout and The Elder Scrolls. There's just something a little soul-crushing about seeing a merchant in the distance when you're in need of supplies, only for a powerful enemy to run in from nowhere and take him out in seconds. Same with monsters getting into populated areas and killing somebody you needed to talk to for a quest.
As for implementing it in RPG Maker or another similar game engine, you could probably do it using the current Play Time mixed with other factors. Maybe have an NPC who will find somebody else to do the quest if you decide to walk off for three hours without helping him, or have a merchant who travels to the next town after a couple hours. It seems like it would be hard to make complicated NPC interactions without a lot of variables, switches, or a really fleshed-out script.
Oh my. Those two words give me so many ideas...
Avee
5794
Source Code, the game: You have X minutes to interact with people and do stuff to solve a crisis. NPCs do something different every now and then and your actions will alter their behavior. When you fail, you start over until you find the solution.
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
I just remembered how much I really really really hated, in Romancing Saga: Minstrel Song, all the events that happened in different cities and dungeons after you'd been playing the game for a certain amount of time. It was based on a combination of how long you'd played, how many quests you'd done, how many battles you'd fought, and how many times you'd stayed at an inn. There were probably at least 30+ different events like that, and every single one of them could be (and almost certainly would be, without a walkthrough) permanently missed. If you didn't get to the area while the event was happening, it would end without you.
In theory this was designed to increase replay value, but in actuality it just made me super pissed because I wanted to get to all those events in one playthrough. And I could... if I kept track of all those variables manually on a piece of paper, and new exactly when every event was triggered, and followed a very specific play order in what was designed to be a very nonlinear game (and this play order involved skipping damn near every single battle). But the game didn't even explain that this system existed, really. Certainly not how it worked beyond "Things can happen all over the world. You may miss them, so be careful!" So yeah, le suck. It turned into a strategy guide sales tactic, I think, whether the game designer originally meant it to be or not.
In theory this was designed to increase replay value, but in actuality it just made me super pissed because I wanted to get to all those events in one playthrough. And I could... if I kept track of all those variables manually on a piece of paper, and new exactly when every event was triggered, and followed a very specific play order in what was designed to be a very nonlinear game (and this play order involved skipping damn near every single battle). But the game didn't even explain that this system existed, really. Certainly not how it worked beyond "Things can happen all over the world. You may miss them, so be careful!" So yeah, le suck. It turned into a strategy guide sales tactic, I think, whether the game designer originally meant it to be or not.
TheNecromancer
3160
I personally would never design a game just so completests can do everything in a single run. You can't please everybody.
Avee
5794
In any case, voters seem favorable to the idea, but we haven't got a lot of examples of how to implement it.
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=Link_2112If everything were impossible in a single run, I'd have been fine with that.
I personally would never design a game just so completests can do everything in a single run. You can't please everybody.
The problem was that everything was possible in a single run, but doing so ruined the rest of the game.
