• Add Review
  • Subscribe
  • Nominate
  • Submit Media
  • RSS
VERSION 1.3.3
(Current version in development: 1.3.3)

Annabelle finds a strange visitor in her room, bearing some bad news: Beasts are destroying a world under her bed. If Annabelle does not defeat them, they will do the same to Earth. She has two choices: Risk death, or be helpless against it when it comes.

As she fights her way through the four biomes of the “Domi” she will meet four survivors. She needs their help, and they need hers. Your choices will decide their fates.

Adventure, puzzles, turn-based battling, multiple endings. Custom and unique graphics and music. Your actions and dialogue choices decide the fates of the characters you meet.

Sample Soundtrack:
https://soundcloud.com/caitikoi/sets/qui-domi-sample-audio

(Background image by dragol)

Latest Blog

4 Years Later

The Kickstarter failed, backers were refunded, and Qui Domi has gone into a state of indefinite hiatus. However some interest has come back to it from my current audience in other fandoms. I'm releasing the current full copy of the game, including the alpha carnival world. There are unfinished assets, incomplete game mechanics, but, you are free to test it out.

Keep in mind there are a few hours of gameplay before that, as the carnival is the 4th world, there are three others to traverse. I hope you enjoy!
  • Hiatus
  • Koi
  • RPG Maker VX Ace
  • Adventure Puzzle RPG
  • 02/28/2015 11:32 PM
  • 06/17/2022 10:54 PM
  • N/A
  • 184815
  • 137
  • 102

Posts

author=CashmereCat
However I still kind of feel like it would be nice if the game didn't punish you for something it allows you to do. (avoiding monsters.)
I think it's obvious enough for RPGs that if you flee too many battles you might not be strong enough to defeat later ones.


Well that's what I'm hoping.
CashmereCat
Self-proclaimed Puzzle Snob
11638
However I still kind of feel like it would be nice if the game didn't punish you for something it allows you to do. (avoiding monsters.)


I think it's obvious enough for RPGs that if you flee too many battles you might not be strong enough to defeat later ones.
author=unity
You have a good point. Though, the amount of EXP any one player needs to pass any given battle isn't a static value. Given that fact, I'd generally agree with you that you want to keep things fair and manageable.

But at the same time I still have a lot of fun in games that don't always hold my hand and let me take chances. They don't have to be super cheap about it, but I respect a game that does something like say, at the start of the game, go "Here's the last boss, you can go challenge him now. It's probably not a good idea but you can sure do it." Then the game allows you to wander the world, take risks, and learn about what gets you killed and what allows you to keep living.

I certainly don't think all games should be like that, but I don't think games like that should be deemed inherently "bad" either. I also think allowing players to experiment in ways that might get them killed can also be a lot of fun, if it's done right.

I get the sentiment you're going for, and I think it's going to do well for you if you stick to that. A lot of people love that. I do, most days, as well, especially if you throw me in an interesting world with characters that connect with me. But I'd honestly be pretty disappointed if we only had games like that. I think we'd lose something, something that could potentially be pretty interesting.

To be honest, throwing around the phrase "bad game design" does irk me more than it probably should. I think you've provided a lot of great food-for-thought in this discussion. Even so, I feel like if you didn't cast down judgement like that then it would foster a lot more useful discussion.


Yeah, that makes sense. I'm not a fan of hand holding games either. However I still kind of feel like it would be nice if the game didn't punish you for something it allows you to do. (avoiding monsters.)

Also, when I say "bad game design" I don't mean that the whole design of the game is bad. I mean that, the one particular design decision that was pointed out was bad. I'm not trying to pass judgment or trash talk Qui Domi in any way. It's a really good game, much better than my game for sure.
I'm just gonna say this: I'm going to make the monsters drop more EXP, making grinding less of an issue. I expect players to battle perhaps at least half of the monsters. If a player runs away from every monster in a game that tells you it's your job to go down there and kill them, that's the player's fault. I mean that's the very first conversation you have in the game, you're told to fight the monsters.

I'm going to consider the stat boost after boss fights. I'm not hopping on that idea immediately because I'd have to spend a lot of time retesting and tweaking the stats of the monsters and the amount of items found in each area... just a lot of tedium.

Red_Nova is helping me with making the player a step away from monsters after escaping, so running away is not so difficult.

And lastly, I'm trying to design more monsters to appear in each biome to add variety. The truth is I am really not good at making monsters so those are gonna have to wait to debut in the final release.
unity
You're magical to me.
12592
author=Pancaek
If you have to have a certain amount of EXP to progress in the game, it's forced-fed EXP either way. The only difference is one of the options tricks the player into thinking they have a choice when they really don't.


You have a good point. Though, the amount of EXP any one player needs to pass any given battle isn't a static value. Given that fact, I'd generally agree with you that you want to keep things fair and manageable.

But at the same time I still have a lot of fun in games that don't always hold my hand and let me take chances. They don't have to be super cheap about it, but I respect a game that does something like say, at the start of the game, go "Here's the last boss, you can go challenge him now. It's probably not a good idea but you can sure do it." Then the game allows you to wander the world, take risks, and learn about what gets you killed and what allows you to keep living.

I certainly don't think all games should be like that, but I don't think games like that should be deemed inherently "bad" either. I also think allowing players to experiment in ways that might get them killed can also be a lot of fun, if it's done right.

I get the sentiment you're going for, and I think it's going to do well for you if you stick to that. A lot of people love that. I do, most days, as well, especially if you throw me in an interesting world with characters that connect with me. But I'd honestly be pretty disappointed if we only had games like that. I think we'd lose something, something that could potentially be pretty interesting.

To be honest, throwing around the phrase "bad game design" does irk me more than it probably should. I think you've provided a lot of great food-for-thought in this discussion. Even so, I feel like if you didn't cast down judgement like that then it would foster a lot more useful discussion.
Congrats with transforming into buzzing game, lvlup'ed Koi ~
And with KickStarter.
If you have to have a certain amount of EXP to progress in the game, it's forced-fed EXP either way. The only difference is one of the options tricks the player into thinking they have a choice when they really don't.
unity
You're magical to me.
12592
author=Pancaek
No, I personally happen to love the RPG genre. Nothing I'm saying is based off of my personal feelings. I'm talking in response to another player who saw that the game allowed them to get through it without having to fight, and then was told that they're not playing the game right.

If you allow a certain play style, and then tell the player they're wrong for playing that way, it's bad game design. It doesn't matter how many other games do it.

You can easily get around this by having key monsters that are impossible to escape, and give you the bare minimum EXP that you need to survive the game. If you choose to fight more monsters than what the game makes you to, then you can, and it'll make the game easier. But at the same time, you don't have to fight monsters unless the game says so. Similar to how the "escape" option is only available at certain times.


You certainly can, and in many games, that works just great. But do you really feel that all players have to be force-fed EXP this way in every game, without exception? I feel like that's a very limiting way to look at the issue.

Again, the truth of the matter is that any game has strategies that work well and others that don't work so well. A player can, in fact, make mistakes. We can, in fact, have games where part of the challenge is to find the best way to play the game. We can, in fact, have situations where players have to go out of their way and put in effort to prevail. Some players in fact very much enjoy those types of games.

You may find it distasteful when a developer tells a player that they're wrong for playing that way, but you are telling the developer that they are wrong for developing it that way, and I find that very distasteful, especially given your inflexible definition of "bad game design." No doubt there are various ways that the game could be improved, and your solutions are great if that's the direction the developer wants to go in, but as someone who has played and enjoyed games that employ what you'd "bad game design," I think you're making some pretty flawed assumptions here.
author=unity
Touch encounters are nothing new in RPGs. Raising your level to be able to take on higher level enemies is also pretty common sense in RPGs. Whether you do it by walking around until a random encounter shows up or by engaging monsters you can see on the map, it's mostly the same.

If you touch a monster and take damage, that should tell you "don't touch monsters." If you touch a monster, are taken to a separate screen where you can fight them, and then get rewards like EXP and items for doing so, then it should be clear that the developer put them in for a reason and that maybe, just maybe, avoiding all of them might have consequences.

If you don't like that, that's fine. But to call it bad game design is irresponsible. An entire genre has been built on that foundation. And you may not like that genre. But a lot of us do and are trying to make games a certain way.


No, I personally happen to love the RPG genre. Nothing I'm saying is based off of my personal feelings. I'm talking in response to another player who saw that the game allowed them to get through it without having to fight, and then was told that they're not playing the game right.

If you allow a certain play style, and then tell the player they're wrong for playing that way, it's bad game design. It doesn't matter how many other games do it.

You can easily get around this by having key monsters that are impossible to escape, and give you the bare minimum EXP that you need to survive the game. If you choose to fight more monsters than what the game makes you to, then you can, and it'll make the game easier. But at the same time, you don't have to fight monsters unless the game says so. Similar to how the "escape" option is only available at certain times.

author=eplipswich
I don't know anything about this game, but if what unity said is true about touch encounters, then I have just this to say:

You can't be new to touch encounters, right?


No, I'm not new to them. I use them in my own game.
author=Pancaek
Koi stated that they made the monsters free roaming, and not random encounters, so you could get away from them if you want to. The 'escape' option is a completely different story, as you often can't escape from monsters, and you can't choose when you hit a random encounter anyways. In the free roaming monster system, the player is encouraged to try and avoid monsters if they don't feel like fighting them. Simply saying "yeah you can run from them if you want but you're not suppose to all the time" doesn't make any sense. How is the player suppose to know when they are and aren't suppose to avoid a monster? What's the point of avoiding monsters in the first place if you're not suppose to be able to do that?

I don't know anything about this game, but if what unity said is true about touch encounters, then I have just this to say:

You can't be new to touch encounters, right?
unity
You're magical to me.
12592
author=Pancaek
author=unity
While I get where you are coming from, there are plenty of problems with that statement. If people are employing a poor strategy that is getting them killed, then, yes, even though that's something the game allowed them to do, that doesn't mean it has equal weight as a "correct" way to play the game. In a particular game, it can indeed be "wrong" to, say, turtle and stay on the defensive, even though the game allows it, for example.

The escape command exists to allow the player to get out of battles when they aren't going well. That does not mean a developer is obligated to make running away from every single encounter a valid game strategy. They could, certainly, and come up with a different and possibly interesting alternative kind of game, but if they don't, then they are in no ways guilty of "bad game design."

You can say "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty. It's my personal preference" and that's fine. Start saying "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty, because otherwise that's bad game design" and you are both speaking nonsense and trying to push your own preferences above the developers. If you don't want to have to fight battles then perhaps an combat-centered RPG isn't for you.
Koi stated that they made the monsters free roaming, and not random encounters, so you could get away from them if you want to. The 'escape' option is a completely different story, as you often can't escape from monsters, and you can't choose when you hit a random encounter anyways. In the free roaming monster system, the player is encouraged to try and avoid monsters if they don't feel like fighting them. Simply saying "yeah you can run from them if you want but you're not suppose to all the time" doesn't make any sense. How is the player suppose to know when they are and aren't suppose to avoid a monster? What's the point of avoiding monsters in the first place if you're not suppose to be able to do that?


Touch encounters are nothing new in RPGs. Raising your level to be able to take on higher level enemies is also pretty common sense in RPGs. Whether you do it by walking around until a random encounter shows up or by engaging monsters you can see on the map, it's mostly the same.

If you touch a monster and take damage, that should tell you "don't touch monsters." If you touch a monster, are taken to a separate screen where you can fight them, and then get rewards like EXP and items for doing so, then it should be clear that the developer put them in for a reason and that maybe, just maybe, avoiding all of them might have consequences.

If you don't like that, that's fine. But to call it bad game design is irresponsible. An entire genre has been built on that foundation. And you may not like that genre. But a lot of us do and are trying to make games a certain way.
author=unity
While I get where you are coming from, there are plenty of problems with that statement. If people are employing a poor strategy that is getting them killed, then, yes, even though that's something the game allowed them to do, that doesn't mean it has equal weight as a "correct" way to play the game. In a particular game, it can indeed be "wrong" to, say, turtle and stay on the defensive, even though the game allows it, for example.

The escape command exists to allow the player to get out of battles when they aren't going well. That does not mean a developer is obligated to make running away from every single encounter a valid game strategy. They could, certainly, and come up with a different and possibly interesting alternative kind of game, but if they don't, then they are in no ways guilty of "bad game design."

You can say "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty. It's my personal preference" and that's fine. Start saying "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty, because otherwise that's bad game design" and you are both speaking nonsense and trying to push your own preferences above the developers. If you don't want to have to fight battles then perhaps an combat-centered RPG isn't for you.


Koi stated that they made the monsters free roaming, and not random encounters, so you could get away from them if you want to. The 'escape' option is a completely different story, as you often can't escape from monsters, and you can't choose when you hit a random encounter anyways. In the free roaming monster system, the player is encouraged to try and avoid monsters if they don't feel like fighting them. Simply saying "yeah you can run from them if you want but you're not suppose to all the time" doesn't make any sense. How is the player suppose to know when they are and aren't suppose to avoid a monster? What's the point of avoiding monsters in the first place if you're not suppose to be able to do that?
author=Red_Nova
Yeah, that wouldn't work for this game :/ The monsters roam about the map so if you escape, they're supposed to still be there.
I've got a system in my current project where, if you run away from monsters, they will back up one space, wait a set amount of time, then resume chasing you. If that's what you're looking for, let me know and I'll be happy to show you how I did it. You can edit the process to not chase the player if you want.

This IS a really good point. There's no combat tag, and the only tags I think that could work would be "action" or "RPG." Which one should I use...?


An action game's core revolves around some sort of physical challenge, like quick reflexes or hand/eye coordination. Since that's not the core of this game (based on what I've read, I've yet to play it myself even though I want to), then the action tag wouldn't work. If this is an adventure RPG, then I'd recommend using the RPG tag.


Okay, thank you! :} And yes please, could you PM me?
Red_Nova
The all around prick
9200
Yeah, that wouldn't work for this game :/ The monsters roam about the map so if you escape, they're supposed to still be there.

I've got a system in my current project where, if you run away from monsters, they will back up one space, wait a set amount of time, then resume chasing you. If that's what you're looking for, let me know and I'll be happy to show you how I did it. You can edit the process to not chase the player if you want.

This IS a really good point. There's no combat tag, and the only tags I think that could work would be "action" or "RPG." Which one should I use...?

An action game's core revolves around some sort of physical challenge, like quick reflexes or hand/eye coordination. Since that's not the core of this game (based on what I've read, I've yet to play it myself even though I want to), then the action tag wouldn't work. If this is an adventure RPG, then I'd recommend using the RPG tag.
author=Marrend
The way I do it is to use the Erase Event command after the Battle Processing command. That way, the event will be erased from the map (until it's revisited) regardless of whither or not the player wins the fight, or runs. I'm not sure how viable this tactic is for this game, though, as I've not played it.

Yeah, that wouldn't work for this game :/ The monsters roam about the map so if you escape, they're supposed to still be there.

author=unity
Okay, good point. Though I don't see why you can't have an adventure puzzle RPG that's also serious about the combat aspect, but yeah, players will probably want to know about that going in to the game. Perhaps that's an issue with tagging. Is there a "Combat" tag or do you think "Action" would work?

This IS a really good point. There's no combat tag, and the only tags I think that could work would be "action" or "RPG." Which one should I use...?

author=unity
tl;dr: unity takes people using the phrase "bad game design" way too seriously XD;

I don't think you take it too seriously, since "game design" is literally the #1 job of a game dev.
unity
You're magical to me.
12592
author=Corfaisus
author=unity
If you don't want to have to fight battles then perhaps an combat-centered RPG isn't for you.
Well, to be fair, "adventure puzzle" doesn't really scream combat-centered RPG.

Okay, good point. Though I don't see why you can't have an adventure puzzle RPG that's also serious about the combat aspect, but yeah, players will probably want to know about that going in to the game. Perhaps that's an issue with tagging. Is there a "Combat" tag or do you think "Action" would work?

It's still very uncool in my opinion to throw around the phrase "bad game design" like Pancaek is doing. The way Qui Domi works may not be optimal for everyone, but telling the developer that not letting them avoid every encounter with no penalty is bad game design is really missing the point and not helpful.

Having no save points for fifteen hours is bad game design. Having to actually fight battles in RPGs is really, really not bad game design. If the battles aren't fun or aren't working, then they can be tweaked. Some games do in fact work better without battles at all. But having battles and asking that they be completely inconsequential is another thing altogether. It's an idea that could work (especially if its an optional setting for people who want to just enjoy the story) but to say that not having it is bad game design is more than a bit of a stretch.

tl;dr: unity takes people using the phrase "bad game design" way too seriously XD;
Marrend
Guardian of the Description Thread
20932
author=Koi
author=Corfaisus
And I think you should disable the monster's ability to reengage you after a battle for a few seconds. If you escape, you'll just immediately hit the same encounter over and over again until you cave in and fight it.
You are not the first person to suggest this, and I actually would like to put it in! But I don't know how. If you can tell me how to implement this, then I will definitely do it.

The way I do it is to use the Erase Event command after the Battle Processing command. That way, the event will be erased from the map (until it's revisited) regardless of whither or not the player wins the fight, or runs. I'm not sure how viable this tactic is for this game, though, as I've not played it.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
author=unity
If you don't want to have to fight battles then perhaps an combat-centered RPG isn't for you.

Well, to be fair, "adventure puzzle" doesn't really scream combat-centered RPG.
unity
You're magical to me.
12592
author=Pancaek
author=Koi
I put in free-roaming monsters for a couple of reasons. One, so that you can run from them to go heal up and get prepared if you're in a bind. Two, I absolutely hate random encounters. And three, just to give you a chance to escape if you want to, but it's not intended for players to completely disregard them.

Also, another factor to consider is that if you don't fight, you can't save the game. Monsters are the only way to get candy wrappers. I did this on purpose.
I'm not trying to tell you how to make your game or anything, but giving the player an option and then saying that they're not suppose to choose that option at certain points without any indication, is kind of bad game design. If you give the player an option to not battle if they don't want to, that's great. But if you give them that option, and then say they're not playing the game right when they choose that option more often than not, then what's the point of it anyways?

As a game designer, you can't tell people they're not playing by the games rules. (Unless they're hacking.) The rules of the game are what you allow the player to do an not do. If they can do it in the game, they're playing by the games rules. You can't try and force people into a specific play style and expect them to be fine with that.

While I get where you are coming from, there are plenty of problems with that statement. If people are employing a poor strategy that is getting them killed, then, yes, even though that's something the game allowed them to do, that doesn't mean it has equal weight as a "correct" way to play the game. In a particular game, it can indeed be "wrong" to, say, turtle and stay on the defensive, even though the game allows it, for example.

The escape command exists to allow the player to get out of battles when they aren't going well. That does not mean a developer is obligated to make running away from every single encounter a valid game strategy. They could, certainly, and come up with a different and possibly interesting alternative kind of game, but if they don't, then they are in no ways guilty of "bad game design."

You can say "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty. It's my personal preference" and that's fine. Start saying "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty, because otherwise that's bad game design" and you are both speaking nonsense and trying to push your own preferences above the developers. If you don't want to have to fight battles then perhaps an combat-centered RPG isn't for you.
author=Corfaisus
And I think you should disable the monster's ability to reengage you after a battle for a few seconds. If you escape, you'll just immediately hit the same encounter over and over again until you cave in and fight it.

You are not the first person to suggest this, and I actually would like to put it in! But I don't know how. If you can tell me how to implement this, then I will definitely do it.

author=Corfaisus
Then you get to the second region with the prickly grass at Lv.2 and run into an encounter with two bees that deal 20 damage per hit and the only thing that heals more than that is your one dino band-aid that heals for 50. Fighting them is pointless because the jacks don't work and you only do like 6 damage to them (assuming you even hit), while they beat the living bejesus out of you.

I haven't played those battles in a while so I just went into the database to battle test. The bouncey balls hit about 24-26, pencil around 12, spinning tops 53-55, and the bees hit with a 19-21 with their buzz, and 16-18 with their sting. This is all at level 3.
Again, I work very hard to try to balance the difficulty curve but after every playtester I've seen I expect that the player will be at least level 3 by the time they reach biome 2.

Something I think I should do is make the monsters drop more EXP, that way it'd be easier to level up and wouldn't require a lot of grinding.