DESERTOPA'S PROFILE

Guardian Frontier
An RPG with classic-style gameplay and a non-classic premise, inspired by the history of exploration and colonialism of the 19th century.

Search

Filter

What elements from existing games would you like to see reused?

Time travel is super complicated to do in a coherent way. Chrono Trigger does an okay job storywise because despite using it all the time, the characters barely discuss its capabilities and limitations, and even if it doesn't actually work consistently, the player isn't encouraged to examine it closely. Ironically, using time travel less will probably tend to result in making it even more obtrusive, because players won't be able to help asking "why don't they use time travel in any of the other situations it could hypothetically have resolved?" To make it work, you pretty much have to turn it into a game mechanic which players just take for granted, or devote an immense amount of effort to making sense of the whole thing.

Unless you're okay with flagrant Timey Wimey Ball continuities, which personally I am not.

Forever's End Review

NicoB, I'm glad you appreciated the review; I was hoping that you'd see it, largely because I wanted you to know your game is still attracting interest from new fans.

Your comment has me curious though, whether save files from the current version of the game will carry over to the next chapter, given that the first chapter isn't in its final state yet. Tweaking the power and/or availability of healing items for instance seems like something that would be hard to reconcile with preserving save files where the player is already carrying large numbers of powerful healing items.

Looking for inspiration for events in my world

It might be best if you don't consider yourself too beholden to real life events. When I have trouble coming up with ideas within a certain scenario, I often find it helpful to look at the circumstances I've set up, and ask "What's the most obvious consequence of these circumstances?" If the situation itself is interesting, interesting consequences should follow naturally from it without your needing to force them.

If you want historical bases for your ideas though, for the setting with the good king and corrupt nobility, you might want to try drawing on the French Revolution. Louis the XVIth was a relatively progressive king who tried to reform France according to the ideals of the Enlightenment, who was opposed by his country's nobility. When he supported the rebellion of the American colonies against Britain, he also racked up a debt that seriously destabilized the economy of France, leading to increasing dissatisfaction with his regime. Despite his progressive intentions, he ends up villified a symbol of the old regime and gets beheaded by his own people.

As for the country which values power to the point of allowing anyone a position of leadership if they defeat one of the current leaders in a duel, consider just how unstable a form of government this is. Changes in leadership are probably more rapid than its ability to implement most of the directions from the leadership, and the leaders are selected by a process that has nothing to do with skill in statesmanship or command. There are a few ways this could plausibly play out. First, the country might undergo a regime change which replaces the council with a more stable form of government (here's another place where you can draw on the French Revolution, or rather the Reign of Terror where France was ruled by a revolutionary council with extremely high turnover, which also imposed high turnover on the municipal and military leadership via execution, which lasted about seven years before Napoleon performed a coup d'etat.) Second, the country might fracture into multiple self governing states which administrate their own needs due to the ineffectiveness of the central government. Third, the country might be toppled by neighboring states which capitalize on the present instability to move in and take over.

What elements from existing games would you like to see reused?

author=Cecihoney
First: FF6 Multi party battles for RPGs, it could be used even better in games where the plot sets you in a war and you have a verty very large cast of characters as your army (like Suikoden)



I'm definitely on board with this one. One thing I'd really like to see is a game with a large number of player characters, where rather than being designed for a balance where all characters are comparably useful in combat, all characters have a balance of combat and non-combat skills, which they use both to provide services and funds for your group. There would always be an incentive to have good combat characters beyond just your A team, because there would often be sequences where you have to mobilize a larger fighting force, and you would have to be able to effectively manage even your weaker combatants (for instance, using them to defend locations which are not likely to see major attacks.) But unlike the Suikoden games, I'd like to make at least a fair portion of the characters mutually exclusive with each other, so the player has to decide between characters with skills which may be useful in completely different contexts from each other.

Equipping "Souls"

Okay, I didn't understand from your first post that the system in your new game would only apply to monsters. That definitely limits how much impact you'd want to give it on party construction, but making the items only usable by or on monsters does sound like it could be a viable solution.

Does anyone here know ccoa?

This might be a bit of an odd question to raise as a forum topic, but I know that she at least used to be active in the gamemaking scene. She was also a moderator and prolific member of tvtropes, but she hasn't shown up over there for over a year now, and I was wondering if she still has any sort of presence in this community.

Equipping "Souls"

If there's literally no incentive to unequip souls, I wouldn't bother with it, but I think it should be possible to offer interesting incentives for doing so. You said that replacing one soul with another destroys the old one, so maybe unequipping them doesn't. If you can keep souls which you've acquired and then removed with the soul render, then you should be able to find something interesting to do with them. Maybe rended souls become consumable items, or can be traded in for some sort of goods or services, or both. You might tempt the player with mutually exclusive bonuses, where one might acquire souls from a unique monster, and choose between some valuable use, or trading them in for some other valuable thing, one a one-time-only basis.

[Poll] Which game engine do you prefer? (I fixed it)

So, if I'm a complete newbie to game making programs, and more interested in making games which are interesting and engaging within the constraints that were present on old school console games than developing any sort of novel features, and I'm willing to pay for one but no more than one program, what do you guys recommend?

Judging by the games I've seen made on the 2k3 engine, I'm confident that anything I'm really interested in making should lie within its capabilities, but I know nothing about which program should make the process easiest and most practical given no prior experience.

Equipping "Souls"

Unless there's a strict progression whereby the souls the new souls always offer better bonuses than the ones available before them, I think you might want to consider giving the player some way to store souls that have already been obtained and reequip them, if not at any time, then by visiting the same NPC who allows you to unequip them, otherwise players may end up doing a lot of annoying backtracking to reacquire souls of monsters that aren't available in the current area for the stat bonuses after taking on new ones for the moves.

How much incentive do the players actually have to unequip souls at any point, rather than simply absorbing new ones as they encounter them?

Why first grade to 12th is completely useless, including parts of college ..

I had a big response written up to this, but really, I think LockeZ's about summed this up. It's enough to say that the basic premises are misguided, it doesn't really rise to the level where it merits an in depth address.

Super abridged version. School sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as all the other methods to keep the general populace at least marginally educated which have been attempted so far, apprenticeship has much bigger problems than the author would have you believe, and the idea that the people who rise to the top in the public school system are idiots is just sour grapes. Most people are pretty dumb, but the top performers in school are less likely to be so than other people, not more. Also, back when doctors were apprenticed in six years, doctors didn't know shit anyway.