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)
MINIMIZING MAPPING: AN ABSTRACT EXERCISE IN GAME DESIGN
Posts
Max McGee
View playlists
CloseDisclaimer: While I describe this as an 'abstract exercise' I am obviously confining my thinking within the constraints of the locus of the RPGMaker program family.
So I'm looking to generate some ideas here with an abstract intellectual exercise in game design.
1) Pretend that like me you hate mapping and want to do as little of it as possible. Also, you want to make a decent sized game.
2) Also pretend that for whatever reason you don't want to make a game that's a visual-novel hybrid and doesn't have any maps at all, a la Essence Enforcer by LouisCyphre. (As a random shout out, I'd go ahead and recommend that game to any of you who haven't played it.) Obviously "solutions" like making a game with no graphics at all are also right out.
I'm not gonna put any more hypothetical constraints in play because two is probably enough to get people brainstorming without restricting too much.
So how do you design a decent-sized game to use the smallest amount of maps possible without being boring to play or boring to develop? How do you milk the most gameplay and/or story possible out of the smallest number of maps possible? Tell me as much about these hypothetical game designs as you can think of.
So I'm looking to generate some ideas here with an abstract intellectual exercise in game design.
1) Pretend that like me you hate mapping and want to do as little of it as possible. Also, you want to make a decent sized game.
2) Also pretend that for whatever reason you don't want to make a game that's a visual-novel hybrid and doesn't have any maps at all, a la Essence Enforcer by LouisCyphre. (As a random shout out, I'd go ahead and recommend that game to any of you who haven't played it.) Obviously "solutions" like making a game with no graphics at all are also right out.
I'm not gonna put any more hypothetical constraints in play because two is probably enough to get people brainstorming without restricting too much.
So how do you design a decent-sized game to use the smallest amount of maps possible without being boring to play or boring to develop? How do you milk the most gameplay and/or story possible out of the smallest number of maps possible? Tell me as much about these hypothetical game designs as you can think of.
SnowOwl
5188
I haven't played Essence Enforcer so I dunno how it works in that game, but you can always do what all the old dating sims used to do, and make a big "city map" where you choose where to go, and then have a single background for those locations (maybe two or three for the big ones, for example for a school: A corridor, a classroom and right outside the school). That would take very little mapping.
Yeah, that's the visual novel style basically and how it works more or less in EE.
Only EE cuts out the "city map" and just lets you pick which district you want to visit from a menu. It is an RPG Maker RPG which contains 0 maps. Very clever.
Only EE cuts out the "city map" and just lets you pick which district you want to visit from a menu. It is an RPG Maker RPG which contains 0 maps. Very clever.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
The only way you're going to make a game with maps but very few is to make a small game. Instead, I'd recommend simply getting better at mapping or put more thought into what these locations mean (perhaps that'll give you more incentive to actually create them). The only other alternative is weighing down your few locations with as many story-points as possible, which will undoubtedly result in backtracking out the ass, which no one enjoys. Or you could find a mapper, but that's just a crutch (and one that could very easily slip away, at that).
Maybe you're in this position because you don't make the most of what you have? Get real deep into the subject: why does this place exist? It might just be a matter of passion.
Maybe you're in this position because you don't make the most of what you have? Get real deep into the subject: why does this place exist? It might just be a matter of passion.
Corfaisus I think he's talking about representing maps with menus and other devices that replace locations. Technically it should be able to make a 8-hour long epic within a single small map. It would just take awesome design skills and it might be limited but it would at least be unique and awesome.
SnowOwl
5188
author=Max McGee
Yeah, that's the visual novel style basically and how it works more or less in EE.
Only EE cuts out the "city map" and just lets you pick which district you want to visit from a menu. It is an RPG Maker RPG which contains 0 maps. Very clever.
Ah, I see. That makes it a bit harder.
You could make the maps randomly generated. It takes a special type of game to do though.
Another option is to make it sort of like a board game, where you move along a grid. When you move along the grid at each grid point something happens. The grid can be linear or not, up to you.
Darken
3952
lots of backtracking and reusing locations. you could have a game take place in one town and one dungeon if you keep adding to event pages and such.
this seems like high concept development than design though. (then again thats like half these topics so w/e)
this seems like high concept development than design though. (then again thats like half these topics so w/e)
Epic Monster Dungeon Explore! 2 only uses one 17x13 map but it has excellent battles and balancing as well as the general minimal feel.
The way it does this is have a single map with standing encounter maps and shops. I have long thought about creating a game within a single map. I like the idea because minimalism really appeals to me. Only adding things you need makes things cool.
The way it does this is have a single map with standing encounter maps and shops. I have long thought about creating a game within a single map. I like the idea because minimalism really appeals to me. Only adding things you need makes things cool.
Avee
5794
Here's an idea:
Have one long vertical corridor with fixed touch encounters and events.
The starting point at the top lets you recover HP/MP. You must reach the other edge.
The game is about a character going ever deeper into his/her subconscious, trying to find out what lies in the depths.
Have one long vertical corridor with fixed touch encounters and events.
The starting point at the top lets you recover HP/MP. You must reach the other edge.
The game is about a character going ever deeper into his/her subconscious, trying to find out what lies in the depths.
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
What the developer did in Soul Shepherd, a game I'm helping with, was a twofold solution:
1) Instead of making it so that the player fights 20 battles as they're walking through the dungeon, make them grind out those 20 battles around the entrance. This was done by making level ups have negligible effects (they only increase your HP/MP), and 95% of your power comes from new equipment and so forth, which is mostly dropped by enemies and occasionally found in chests. Also, the number of healing items you can carry is very limited. So each zone is usually only long enough to get in four or five battles before you reach the end of it, a couple screens tops, but until you got the new drops in each zone, you aren't strong enough to last more than one or two battles there before you need to retreat to the inn.
Having this resistance to forward motion also gives the player a lot more control over how "long" each dungeon is. If a dungeon makes you get in 15-20 battles by having that much physical ground to walk across, the player has no choice, they have to fight all those battles. However, if a dungeon makes you get in 15-20 battles by having grind, then the player can decide when they're done, they can figure out alternate ways to gain power faster, and maybe skip through some of it if they're really good at the game.
2) He hired me to make about half of his maps for him. Lolz. He got one or two other people to help also with a map here or there. Don't be afraid to outsource map-making, it's something that a lot of people around here really enjoy.
1) Instead of making it so that the player fights 20 battles as they're walking through the dungeon, make them grind out those 20 battles around the entrance. This was done by making level ups have negligible effects (they only increase your HP/MP), and 95% of your power comes from new equipment and so forth, which is mostly dropped by enemies and occasionally found in chests. Also, the number of healing items you can carry is very limited. So each zone is usually only long enough to get in four or five battles before you reach the end of it, a couple screens tops, but until you got the new drops in each zone, you aren't strong enough to last more than one or two battles there before you need to retreat to the inn.
Having this resistance to forward motion also gives the player a lot more control over how "long" each dungeon is. If a dungeon makes you get in 15-20 battles by having that much physical ground to walk across, the player has no choice, they have to fight all those battles. However, if a dungeon makes you get in 15-20 battles by having grind, then the player can decide when they're done, they can figure out alternate ways to gain power faster, and maybe skip through some of it if they're really good at the game.
2) He hired me to make about half of his maps for him. Lolz. He got one or two other people to help also with a map here or there. Don't be afraid to outsource map-making, it's something that a lot of people around here really enjoy.
I would totally help in the mapping department if VXAce could work on my PC. >< One of my genuine loves when it comes to making games.
Smaller maps with more detail. Much smaller maps... like a board game.
Have something interesting happen on every square. Movement between map squares is slow, but accompanied by a scrolling graphic.
...Exploring each square of the map involves finding trinkets in the scrolling graphic. (Hold down a certain button to switch between moving the character on the map and moving a cursor inside the scrolling graphic.) Sometimes there is a monster encounter if the player moves the cursor carelessly.
Have something interesting happen on every square. Movement between map squares is slow, but accompanied by a scrolling graphic.
...Exploring each square of the map involves finding trinkets in the scrolling graphic. (Hold down a certain button to switch between moving the character on the map and moving a cursor inside the scrolling graphic.) Sometimes there is a monster encounter if the player moves the cursor carelessly.
author=corfaisus
Instead, I'd recommend simply getting better at mapping or put more thought into what these locations mean (perhaps that'll give you more incentive to actually create them). The only other alternative is weighing down your few locations with as many story-points as possible, which will undoubtedly result in backtracking out the ass, which no one enjoys. Or you could find a mapper, but that's just a crutch (and one that could very easily slip away, at that).
Heh. So now I feel like I gotta talk about me personally.
Me personally:
I currently consider myself "good enough" at mapping. I would describe my mapping ability right now as "solid/decent". Aside from the nitpickiest of perfectionists, I haven't gotten many complaints about my maps in the last six years. Could I get better at mapping? Definitely. And I probably am, at a fairly slow rate relative to how much I practice. But I don't see at all even a little how getting better at mapping is going to make me more motivated to map.
To use a rather extreme analogy: I could be the world championship toilet cleaner, but the satisfaction I get from having really cleaned a toilet well is not going to motivate me to clean more toilets if I don't like cleaning toilets in the first place.
But it goes further than that. Because honestly, the "better" I get at mapping the more I give a shit about how the maps look. The more I give a shit about how the maps look, the more time I spend making them "look nice". The more time I spend making maps "look nice" the less maps I get done per hour. The less maps I get done per hour, the more time I spend mapping, which is a tedious chore that I hate. If I could just switch off my critical faculties and make maps that were more "meh" to me, that would make mapping more bearable or at least less time consuming but I don't seem to actually be psychologically capable of not caring. The more I understand how to make pleasing aesthetics, the more obligated I feel to.
As for "thinking about why this area exists" actually I think I do think around that substantially more than most. Either that, or I'm not sure what you mean.
Anyway right now what I oughtta be doing in my current project is databasing, not mapping. That's my favorite part of game dev. But I feel too sick to even be doing that, right now, which sucks.
author=yuna21
I would totally help in the mapping department if VXAce could work on my PC. >< One of my genuine loves when it comes to making games.
What this thread was supposed to be about:
Ways to structure/design a game that uses maps to use the fewest maps possible. This isn't actually meant primarily to benefit me. It's meant to be a fun abstract game design exercise everyone can particpate in.
So like saying 'Make a game that just uses location backgrounds and menus like Essence Enforcer' is not what this thread is about, and while saying 'I would totally help you out with mapping' is awesome and thank you so much and I WILL PAY YOU ACTUAL MONEY TO DO THAT IF YOU CAN GET YOUR PC ISSUES STRAIGHTENED OUT it's also not strictly speaking what this thread is about. A few of you (such as Avee, CashmereCat, Darken, and Zachary_Braun) have actually answered towards engaging what the thread was supposed to be about and I appreciate that. For the rest of you I'm definitely not trying to yell at you or anything, just giving a gentle reminder/clarification.
So yeah, in essence if you want to create less maps it's all about increasing the density of interesting events. The more interesting, time-consuming events that take place in the same map, preferably those that you can engage repeatedly, the more replay value you can have out of a single location.
The Elder Scrolls has an Arena location where you can fight gladiators. It is a single location that presents many different fights. You don't have to create a new arena map for each monster -- they all re-use the same map. Yet it's still engaging.
This is probably one of the reasons why random battles exist in RPGs -- because you'd run out of maps more quickly otherwise! The reason why a lot of RPGs have a lot of maps is because sometimes you breeze through them like no one's business. In Essence Enforcer's case, you revisit the hub many times, instead of just going through the town once on your extremely linear journey. I know it doesn't use actual maps, but there are still actual background graphics that had to be re-used for the town.
In essence, it's basically up to re-use, meaningful backtracking and the concentration of interesting game nodes that makes a person spend as much time, on average, in your maps as possible.
The Elder Scrolls has an Arena location where you can fight gladiators. It is a single location that presents many different fights. You don't have to create a new arena map for each monster -- they all re-use the same map. Yet it's still engaging.
This is probably one of the reasons why random battles exist in RPGs -- because you'd run out of maps more quickly otherwise! The reason why a lot of RPGs have a lot of maps is because sometimes you breeze through them like no one's business. In Essence Enforcer's case, you revisit the hub many times, instead of just going through the town once on your extremely linear journey. I know it doesn't use actual maps, but there are still actual background graphics that had to be re-used for the town.
In essence, it's basically up to re-use, meaningful backtracking and the concentration of interesting game nodes that makes a person spend as much time, on average, in your maps as possible.
Do you mean TES IV: Oblivion? Because TES: Arena was the first game (spanning all of Tamriel), making your post a little confusing...
Anyway, yeah. Epic Dungeon Monster Explore! 2 is a pretty shitty game (definitely has a cult following here though, and I will always appreciate it for Czarina's I WILL PUNCH YOU INTO OBLIVION), and one that spawned a sequel that was about 10x worse (Saga Mara Talon). EMDE!2 was an experiment, and one I'd like to try again at some point, but definitely... experimental, haha.
I would definitely do a hub-based game for a low-map RPG. Instead of visiting towns, just have a central area (the Normandy, Skyhold, the Elsa, etc.) where everything else launches from.
Oddly enough, despite sounding contrary I'd argue that Etrian Odyssey and Persona Q are very similar to what LockeZ suggested about smaller dungeons that let the player determine their power level and proceed from there. The games are actually MUCH smaller than you might realize - only 25 maps for the story, and 5 for the post-game dungeon (for EO at least. PQ is set up a little differently). Every floor requires you to gain about 2.5 levels before moving on, and a large part of the gameplay is solving the floor overall. This is normally done by discovering shortcuts, finding the best ways to dodge FOEs, and getting phat lewt from chests/conditional drops. This allows for a LOT of gameplay for each relatively small floor. And, as long as you've found the stairs, you are free to move forward whenever you wish.
Part of the beauty of EO and PQ's design to ease the pain of grinding is that it includes resource spots. You mark them on your map, and whenever you foray into the dungeon you try to hit up as many as possible. EO3 ruined it with literal farmers, as EO3 did with everything good in the series (SIGH, it had SUCH POTENTIAL), but EO4 redeemed it and PQ continues the positive trend. Basically, you have the incentive of crafting materials to harvest every time you run the dungeon. These are what the bulk of your money comes from, and every player character can interact with them in some way. Later games/PQ also included the chance for special minibosses to spawn on them (which PQ handles the best but that's not the focus of this topic).
tl;dr: dungeons with interesting things to figure out that make life easier, and ways to gain power every time you enter, allow for smaller areas to Feel Good
Anyway, yeah. Epic Dungeon Monster Explore! 2 is a pretty shitty game (definitely has a cult following here though, and I will always appreciate it for Czarina's I WILL PUNCH YOU INTO OBLIVION), and one that spawned a sequel that was about 10x worse (Saga Mara Talon). EMDE!2 was an experiment, and one I'd like to try again at some point, but definitely... experimental, haha.
I would definitely do a hub-based game for a low-map RPG. Instead of visiting towns, just have a central area (the Normandy, Skyhold, the Elsa, etc.) where everything else launches from.
Oddly enough, despite sounding contrary I'd argue that Etrian Odyssey and Persona Q are very similar to what LockeZ suggested about smaller dungeons that let the player determine their power level and proceed from there. The games are actually MUCH smaller than you might realize - only 25 maps for the story, and 5 for the post-game dungeon (for EO at least. PQ is set up a little differently). Every floor requires you to gain about 2.5 levels before moving on, and a large part of the gameplay is solving the floor overall. This is normally done by discovering shortcuts, finding the best ways to dodge FOEs, and getting phat lewt from chests/conditional drops. This allows for a LOT of gameplay for each relatively small floor. And, as long as you've found the stairs, you are free to move forward whenever you wish.
Part of the beauty of EO and PQ's design to ease the pain of grinding is that it includes resource spots. You mark them on your map, and whenever you foray into the dungeon you try to hit up as many as possible. EO3 ruined it with literal farmers, as EO3 did with everything good in the series (SIGH, it had SUCH POTENTIAL), but EO4 redeemed it and PQ continues the positive trend. Basically, you have the incentive of crafting materials to harvest every time you run the dungeon. These are what the bulk of your money comes from, and every player character can interact with them in some way. Later games/PQ also included the chance for special minibosses to spawn on them (which PQ handles the best but that's not the focus of this topic).
tl;dr: dungeons with interesting things to figure out that make life easier, and ways to gain power every time you enter, allow for smaller areas to Feel Good
author=Darken
this seems like high concept development than design though. (then again thats like half these topics so w/e)
I'm interested in hearing what the difference is. I've never heard the terms used differently!
I would definitely do a hub-based game for a low-map RPG. Instead of visiting towns, just have a central area (the Normandy, Skyhold, the Elsa, etc.) where everything else launches from.
Word. I'd really like to make or play a game where the central area is a spaceship and you basically go on little space missions to different places. Kind of a Star Trek vibe, that'd be really cool.
Here's a pretty good RPG Maker game a bit like that: SYMA.
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
One time I avoided making maps by replacing an entire dungeon with a scripted gauntlet battle.
- Enter building, it's full of genetic tanks
- Friendly NPC joins your party temporarily, enemy NPC shouts some things at you and then vanishes behind a sealed door
- Tanks start opening and monsters pour out, resulting in 8 battles in a row
- A big tank opens and you fight a boss
- Door opens, the enemy cackles, your ally chases them through the door, then it closes behind them and you're left alone
- Tanks start opening again, fight 8 more battles, this time without your ally
- Door opens for real
- Enter door, have to fight your ally who went berserk
- Fight the enemy NPC, finally
- Fight the enemy NPC's second form, as if this sequence wasn't already long enough
So I worked an entire 45 minute long dungeon with four bosses into an area consisting of two tiny rooms. And the first room was already part of an existing area. It was kinda great. That many battles right in a row sounds potentially boring, but the gauntlet battles were high-tension the whole way, because if you took too long, the next group of enemies would join the current group and you'd have to fight them at the same time. You can probably only use that trick once or twice per game though.
- Enter building, it's full of genetic tanks
- Friendly NPC joins your party temporarily, enemy NPC shouts some things at you and then vanishes behind a sealed door
- Tanks start opening and monsters pour out, resulting in 8 battles in a row
- A big tank opens and you fight a boss
- Door opens, the enemy cackles, your ally chases them through the door, then it closes behind them and you're left alone
- Tanks start opening again, fight 8 more battles, this time without your ally
- Door opens for real
- Enter door, have to fight your ally who went berserk
- Fight the enemy NPC, finally
- Fight the enemy NPC's second form, as if this sequence wasn't already long enough
So I worked an entire 45 minute long dungeon with four bosses into an area consisting of two tiny rooms. And the first room was already part of an existing area. It was kinda great. That many battles right in a row sounds potentially boring, but the gauntlet battles were high-tension the whole way, because if you took too long, the next group of enemies would join the current group and you'd have to fight them at the same time. You can probably only use that trick once or twice per game though.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Make Zork or Shadowgate I guess?
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Max McGeeI would definitely do a hub-based game for a low-map RPG. Instead of visiting towns, just have a central area (the Normandy, Skyhold, the Elsa, etc.) where everything else launches from.Word. I'd really like to make or play a game where the central area is a spaceship and you basically go on little space missions to different places. Kind of a Star Trek vibe, that'd be really cool.
Here's a pretty good RPG Maker game a bit like that: SYMA.
Seems like you had your mind made up coming into this, so I'll just drop my 100% truth-bomb:
I'm not a lazy twat so I've developed the discipline necessary to see a project through to the end, regardless of length or what I'm "not comfortable with" (which is a list that's shrinking every day because I'm daring to step outside of my comfort zone constantly, and I've been fortunate enough to never be put into a position where I can fall back on previous successes). Regardless of using RTP, I actually put a lot of thought into all that I do and I'm not afraid to scrap a whole thing just to make it better.
The bottom line is that you've got to work. A small game takes a small investment; a large game takes a large investment.
