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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsDAVE THE SHEEP'S PROFILE
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Why does dying have to suck?
I think Dara O'Briain makes a pretty good point (ignore the video title! I don't think Dara would go that far):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtJGKFq4DYk
I mean, in a story-focused game especially, it seems to me like everyone should be able to get to the end of the story one way or another. (I know no-one buys RM games exactly, so it's not an issue of "they paid for the content", but that just means people will give up instead of trying again). Most modern games have hard modes, 100% completion options, performance grading and so on, there are plenty of ways to make a game challenging without shutting out weaker players.
I dunno about retrying random battles, since in a lot of games dungeons are sort of long endurance tests where you have to fight like 50 small battles, and retrying would just be exploited. Depends on your game balance, pacing etc I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtJGKFq4DYk
I mean, in a story-focused game especially, it seems to me like everyone should be able to get to the end of the story one way or another. (I know no-one buys RM games exactly, so it's not an issue of "they paid for the content", but that just means people will give up instead of trying again). Most modern games have hard modes, 100% completion options, performance grading and so on, there are plenty of ways to make a game challenging without shutting out weaker players.
I dunno about retrying random battles, since in a lot of games dungeons are sort of long endurance tests where you have to fight like 50 small battles, and retrying would just be exploited. Depends on your game balance, pacing etc I guess.
Alternative to battles
What about the Deus Ex approach? Big sprawling maps with multiple routes, and you use mainly non-combat skills like lockpicking and electronics to find the best route.
So to use your dog-taming example, you could design the maps in your game so that there are often guard dogs in the way, and if you had the dog-taming skills you could use that and walk right in the front door, but if you used all your EXP on climbing you could climb a tree and jump in the window.
Of course, you have to be reeeeally smart with your map design to make that work. Could be pretty damn cool though!
So to use your dog-taming example, you could design the maps in your game so that there are often guard dogs in the way, and if you had the dog-taming skills you could use that and walk right in the front door, but if you used all your EXP on climbing you could climb a tree and jump in the window.
Of course, you have to be reeeeally smart with your map design to make that work. Could be pretty damn cool though!
A or B (spriting question)
I prefer A, because it looks like something that a sensible character would wear if they were on a quest. It's a pet hate of mine in videogames when you're battling blood goblins deep in the ice tombs of El-Sharoth and your healer is still wearing a sodding nightie (or if she's an "action chick", some anachronist crop-top bikini thing). It's good to have the other sprite for special circumstances though, like maybe if the party has to visit someone important.
New game in the works, need some advice about the software.
Yeah, from the looks of it you could make this project with any maker and it'd still be good. VX's map editor is really well suited for simple "boxy" maps (you can slap an RTP map together in no time at all), so if you're going for a NES look you'll probably find VX to be the best.
EDIT: Why's it a problem that water, grass, etc always have to go in the same place? Is it just that the tileset will look stupid?
EDIT: Why's it a problem that water, grass, etc always have to go in the same place? Is it just that the tileset will look stupid?
"Selling Feature" of your game
I'm thinking if you want story to be a selling point it has to be something you can explain in one sentence, like a "high concept" Hollywood pitch. No matter how good a story is, if someone has to play for five hours to realise it's good, it's probably not a selling point. Unless you have legions of fans who can go around telling everyone how awesome the ending is, of course.
Not that the story has to be different or "gimmicky" to be good, but as a rule it'll probably get more attention that way. I guess it just depends how desperately you want attention.
As for me I'm trying to make graphics a selling point but it takes soooo looooong to doooo.... :(
Not that the story has to be different or "gimmicky" to be good, but as a rule it'll probably get more attention that way. I guess it just depends how desperately you want attention.
As for me I'm trying to make graphics a selling point but it takes soooo looooong to doooo.... :(
How do you guys set up Boss Battle AI?
post=108546
Skie Fortress snip
I like this! It'd be especially cool if one of the stages is some kind of full-heal and you have to disrupt it somehow. For example you could make it a multi-part boss, and the healing part only comes to life in one turn out of 5, and have to attack him in that turn before he heals the rest of the boss. But if you attack him in a different turn he does a massive counter-attack that fries your whole party. Man, it's a simple idea but there's a lot you could do with it!
Elements and Final Bosses
I was thinking the other day about a kind of see-saw shield boss, with maybe 5 different shield modes like this:
1- Immune to fire, x4 damage vs ice
2. Half damage vs fire, x2 vs ice
3. Normal
4. x2 vs fire, half damage vs ice
5. x4 damage vs fire, immune to ice
Each time you hit him with fire he becomes more resistant to fire, and less resistant to ice. And vice versa of course. So you can just alternate between ice and fire and stop him from ever getting immune to anything, OR you can hit him with ice until he's immune to it, and THEN switch to your strongest fire spell, which will do quadruple damage.
I dunno, I think the maths still needs to be worked out, and there'd need to be some in-game way of showing how it works (otherwise people will just cast ice, fire, ice, fire etc) , but I think it could be pretty cool, possibly good for a final boss even.
1- Immune to fire, x4 damage vs ice
2. Half damage vs fire, x2 vs ice
3. Normal
4. x2 vs fire, half damage vs ice
5. x4 damage vs fire, immune to ice
Each time you hit him with fire he becomes more resistant to fire, and less resistant to ice. And vice versa of course. So you can just alternate between ice and fire and stop him from ever getting immune to anything, OR you can hit him with ice until he's immune to it, and THEN switch to your strongest fire spell, which will do quadruple damage.
I dunno, I think the maths still needs to be worked out, and there'd need to be some in-game way of showing how it works (otherwise people will just cast ice, fire, ice, fire etc) , but I think it could be pretty cool, possibly good for a final boss even.
What Makes Stereotypical jRPGs Terrible?
What Makes Stereotypical jRPGs Terrible?
Ugh. Shopping! That bloody routine where you get to a new town and you know where you're supposed to go for the story, but first you have to spend 10 minutes or more traipsing around all the shops buying the exact same stuff you've got already except now it's bronze instead of iron. There's no strategy to it, it's totally unsatisfying, all it really does is eat up time before you go to the next dungeon. The only time equipment is even slightly interesting is when you're hunting for everyone's ultimate weapon at the end, in hidden areas and option dungeons and stuff. Every so often you get fun stuff like elemental swords and weapons that only work on undead, where you have to choose which is most appropriate, but 9 times out of 10 shopping for equipment is just boooooooo-ring!
Naming Conventions - Characters, Spells, and More
I like the ideas in this thread, specially regarding character names. I like trying to differentiate between "nationalities" by picking names from different origins. Although on the topic of spell/element names, if you've got a fire spell it should be called "burn" or "fireball" or something, not some Latin/Greek bollocks, and not some five syllable word you got from a thesaurus that just means fire. At least put an obvious fire icon next to it so we don't have to sit there with a dictionary in one hand. So for spells I say, simple and descriptive is best! Everyone's just going to call it "fire" anyway. :P
Oh man, you're not alone there! I hate when you get to the end of the game, click "magic" and you're confronted with a huge mess of 20 or 30 different attack spells, which are all just slightly different versions of the same thing, and then you just scroll past the whole lot of them and click "Ultima" again.
post=93964
i'm from that (apparently) nearly non-existant school of thought that every spell skill should be useful throughout the entirety of the game, so making Fire 1, Fire 2, etc, seems kind of redundant to me... I think it must be a jRPG thing.
Oh man, you're not alone there! I hate when you get to the end of the game, click "magic" and you're confronted with a huge mess of 20 or 30 different attack spells, which are all just slightly different versions of the same thing, and then you just scroll past the whole lot of them and click "Ultima" again.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
