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 ListsLEAPFROG'S PROFILE
Leapfrog
110
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Global Bullshit of Video Games
author=Link_2112
Yeah, I like challenges too, but starting a game on the hardest difficulty and complaining that it's too hard seems like player BS to me.
Playing a game on the hardest difficulty, especially in RPGs, should only be done when you comprehend the systems. Otherwise you end up making mistakes and you don't power up the proper way to handle the game. A game like Skyrim is meant to be so open-ended, allowing you do whatever you want. There will be ways to screw yourself over. It's not bad design, it just means you made the wrong choices. You're supposed to learn from your mistakes, not bitch about the games design. Many other people don't seem to have the same problems as you.
You say it was too easy on lower difficulties, but you probably turned it down and killed a few things and changed it back. Most games start off easy so you can figure how to play and they slowly get harder. Play a few hours on that one notch down and I'm sure it will catch up to you. You of all people should know these things.
I gotta stop reading this topic. It angries up the blood.
I'm with LockeZ on this one. I prefer to play RPGs on higher difficulties because the ability to customise my character and my approach, and to generally strategise, feels completely pointless if I can just mow through everything without a second thought. I'm not looking for an easy experience. I'm looking for a fair, well-balanced experience that rewards planning, strategy and conservation. And sometimes I just like hitting bosses for more than a turn or two before they go down.
Heck, I don't even mind a bit of unfairness if it's supposed to be part of the difficulty, but when it's clear that the developer has just made a whole bunch of terrible decisions and not given any thought to how their mechanics play off each other, it's very annoying.
I'm not saying Skyrim is guilty of this, because I've barely played it. Oblivion was, though. It had the most obnoxious level scaling I've ever seen. Fallout 3 was pretty bad in places too.
Minimizing Mapping: An Abstract Exercise In Game Design
In putting forward my own thoughts on this I'm probably going to repeat what others have said or otherwise state the obvious, so my apologies for that.
When I think of minimal map design, I think we can learn a lot from point and click adventure games, many of which take place within a handful of locations per chapter and have you revisiting them as plot or puzzle progression happens. Backtracking needn't be a bad thing. If you design your areas, and your reasons for revisiting them, to be compelling, I don't think people will complain too much.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean less work. If you have a lot of "just passing through" maps you can probably get away with not spending too much time on them, but if your game is heavily reliant on a few areas you really should be making sure they're well-planned and interesting.
There should be things to look at and interact with that give the location presence and character. The areas should evolve as you visit them, with character dialogue changing. More importantly, players should feel like they're progressing significantly, not just performing mundane fetch quests. Unless you're very good at designing multi-part puzzles or quests, this probably works best for a story-driven game.
But you don't just have to make fewer maps. Making them smaller is an option too. Do you really need to map out a whole town if only a few locations are important? Do you really need to map out a whole house if only a couple of rooms are used? There are benefits to doing so, sure, but sometimes taking a narrower focus on your locations can really help to make them compelling. Leaving things to the imagination isn't a bad thing.
Or instead of cutting an area down, you can instead use that narrower focus to expand on it - to give the house a bunch of individual rooms, some grounds, maybe a neighbour that factors in somehow.
If you're worried that showing less of your world makes it less fleshed-out, maybe you can just do a "cutscene" map, like a single street of the town meant to be panned over, rather than interacted with by the player.
If, instead, you're concerned with fitting in all the traditional RPG trappings - Inn, Armour Shop, etc - you could just as easily make them important locations in their own right. The character has to stay at the inn for story purposes, and not just to regain HP - this can help make you feel like you're inhabiting a town and not just passing through. One of the principal characters could live in the armour shop, or the armourer could be a suspect in some kind of plot. Again, this is assuming a heavily story-driven game, but I'm sure these concepts can be adapted for other types of games too.
This gives me food for thought. I've wanted to make a game like that for a long time, but somewhere along the line I got all focused on designing worlds and planets and cultures and forgot the simple fact that the ship you're based from should be compelling as well, not just a means to an end. Thank you very much for the reminder.
When I think of minimal map design, I think we can learn a lot from point and click adventure games, many of which take place within a handful of locations per chapter and have you revisiting them as plot or puzzle progression happens. Backtracking needn't be a bad thing. If you design your areas, and your reasons for revisiting them, to be compelling, I don't think people will complain too much.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean less work. If you have a lot of "just passing through" maps you can probably get away with not spending too much time on them, but if your game is heavily reliant on a few areas you really should be making sure they're well-planned and interesting.
There should be things to look at and interact with that give the location presence and character. The areas should evolve as you visit them, with character dialogue changing. More importantly, players should feel like they're progressing significantly, not just performing mundane fetch quests. Unless you're very good at designing multi-part puzzles or quests, this probably works best for a story-driven game.
But you don't just have to make fewer maps. Making them smaller is an option too. Do you really need to map out a whole town if only a few locations are important? Do you really need to map out a whole house if only a couple of rooms are used? There are benefits to doing so, sure, but sometimes taking a narrower focus on your locations can really help to make them compelling. Leaving things to the imagination isn't a bad thing.
Or instead of cutting an area down, you can instead use that narrower focus to expand on it - to give the house a bunch of individual rooms, some grounds, maybe a neighbour that factors in somehow.
If you're worried that showing less of your world makes it less fleshed-out, maybe you can just do a "cutscene" map, like a single street of the town meant to be panned over, rather than interacted with by the player.
If, instead, you're concerned with fitting in all the traditional RPG trappings - Inn, Armour Shop, etc - you could just as easily make them important locations in their own right. The character has to stay at the inn for story purposes, and not just to regain HP - this can help make you feel like you're inhabiting a town and not just passing through. One of the principal characters could live in the armour shop, or the armourer could be a suspect in some kind of plot. Again, this is assuming a heavily story-driven game, but I'm sure these concepts can be adapted for other types of games too.
author=Max McGee
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.
This gives me food for thought. I've wanted to make a game like that for a long time, but somewhere along the line I got all focused on designing worlds and planets and cultures and forgot the simple fact that the ship you're based from should be compelling as well, not just a means to an end. Thank you very much for the reminder.
What happened to manuals?
I always loved reading manuals as a way to get a feel for a game, to help get into the mindset of it before playing. I didn't tend to find the instruction very interesting, unless it was presented in a cool way (Like in Mario and Zelda manuals) or provided significant, in-depth strategic information.
In theory, I think in-game tutorials are excellent for instruction, because they let you learn while playing. With a manual, you have to delay playing, or stop and put down the game. This is inconvenient and not ideal from a design perspective. It also makes retention more difficult, because you don't necessarily have the right context to truly understand what you're being told. Learning while doing is much more effective than reading theory when you don't have the practical framework to work with.
Sadly, many tutorials are needlessly condescending, needlessly restrictive, or needlessly slow and intrusive - sometimes all three. I don't believe the existence of in-game tutorials is a problem, it's that they're often handled badly.
If you can manage to comprehensively teach the player what they need to know about your game in a fun and interesting way (either through direct instruction or by subtle guidance), without bogging down the pacing or locking out gameplay features, then they shouldn't miss the presence of a manual. Well, not for gameplay instruction, anyway.
In theory, I think in-game tutorials are excellent for instruction, because they let you learn while playing. With a manual, you have to delay playing, or stop and put down the game. This is inconvenient and not ideal from a design perspective. It also makes retention more difficult, because you don't necessarily have the right context to truly understand what you're being told. Learning while doing is much more effective than reading theory when you don't have the practical framework to work with.
Sadly, many tutorials are needlessly condescending, needlessly restrictive, or needlessly slow and intrusive - sometimes all three. I don't believe the existence of in-game tutorials is a problem, it's that they're often handled badly.
If you can manage to comprehensively teach the player what they need to know about your game in a fun and interesting way (either through direct instruction or by subtle guidance), without bogging down the pacing or locking out gameplay features, then they shouldn't miss the presence of a manual. Well, not for gameplay instruction, anyway.
Stronger Version of Skills; is it necessary?
You make a good point, and whether to include different ranks of the same skill is something that should be considered carefully, rather than just thrown in as a standard feature.
I suppose it's done as a cheap way to give a feeling of progression and reward; you're given the next level of a spell and you can suddenly do more damage and possibly see a new spell animation. You're not supposed to look beneath the surface and realise that you've just basically been given the same spell you already have.
It does have its uses, though. It's a way to control the progression of the player's power, and it gives them the option of casting a lower-ranked spell of the same type in order to spend less magic, when they don't need to do high damage.
I think it's not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but the challenge is to keep the earlier spell relevant. In most games, are you really going to cast Bolt instead of Bolt 3 unless you're running low on MP? If you can balance the game so that Bolt 1 still has significant strategic use, then you're providing tactical options.
Personally, I like the idea of a system in which you can choose how much MP (or whatever resource) you spend on a spell, and thus how damage it will do.
I suppose it's done as a cheap way to give a feeling of progression and reward; you're given the next level of a spell and you can suddenly do more damage and possibly see a new spell animation. You're not supposed to look beneath the surface and realise that you've just basically been given the same spell you already have.
It does have its uses, though. It's a way to control the progression of the player's power, and it gives them the option of casting a lower-ranked spell of the same type in order to spend less magic, when they don't need to do high damage.
I think it's not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but the challenge is to keep the earlier spell relevant. In most games, are you really going to cast Bolt instead of Bolt 3 unless you're running low on MP? If you can balance the game so that Bolt 1 still has significant strategic use, then you're providing tactical options.
Personally, I like the idea of a system in which you can choose how much MP (or whatever resource) you spend on a spell, and thus how damage it will do.
Game Maker Studio Standard Free Until 3/2/14
Thank you for the heads up. A link or further information would have been helpful, just so you know, but I appreciate you sharing this with us.
For anyone wondering, I don't know if there's a place where you can directly download the standard version for free.
Here's what I did:
If you go to https://www.yoyogames.com/studio you'll notice that the Standard version costs money. Download the (limited) Free version.
When you run the program, you're presented with a screen asking you which version you want to use. At this stage the Standard version still says it requires a licence, so choose the (limited) Free version on the far left.
Once you've updated the program and restarted it, you'll get the same selection screen, but this time the Standard version no longer requires a licence. It asks for your email instead. Put in the email you want to register with and follow the instructions, and you can upgrade your version to Standard for free
I hope that helps.
For anyone wondering, I don't know if there's a place where you can directly download the standard version for free.
Here's what I did:
If you go to https://www.yoyogames.com/studio you'll notice that the Standard version costs money. Download the (limited) Free version.
When you run the program, you're presented with a screen asking you which version you want to use. At this stage the Standard version still says it requires a licence, so choose the (limited) Free version on the far left.
Once you've updated the program and restarted it, you'll get the same selection screen, but this time the Standard version no longer requires a licence. It asks for your email instead. Put in the email you want to register with and follow the instructions, and you can upgrade your version to Standard for free
I hope that helps.
Nudity in Games
I don't think anyone would kick up a fuss if it's not explicit, with visible genitals, but I suppose it's possible that some people would be uncomfortable with it.
You might want to consider whether it would really affect your game or its message to give them loincloths or something, or whether you could at least give the player an option for their inclusion. For the sake of education, you could mention before the game starts (or when the option is activated) that in reality certain characters would be nude, but you've just made a slight alteration for the sake of censorship.
But if you really don't want to compromise on your artistic vision, then just do it however you like, and people will either play it or they won't. Personally, if it's realistic in the setting, and is handled tastefully rather than gratuitously, I have no problem.
As for slavery, I know it can be a touchy subject for people, but again, if you feel it's integral to the story you're telling, keep it by all means. And if it's controversial or makes people uncomfortable, well, you've set out to tell the story that you wanted, haven't you?
You might want to consider whether it would really affect your game or its message to give them loincloths or something, or whether you could at least give the player an option for their inclusion. For the sake of education, you could mention before the game starts (or when the option is activated) that in reality certain characters would be nude, but you've just made a slight alteration for the sake of censorship.
But if you really don't want to compromise on your artistic vision, then just do it however you like, and people will either play it or they won't. Personally, if it's realistic in the setting, and is handled tastefully rather than gratuitously, I have no problem.
As for slavery, I know it can be a touchy subject for people, but again, if you feel it's integral to the story you're telling, keep it by all means. And if it's controversial or makes people uncomfortable, well, you've set out to tell the story that you wanted, haven't you?
Too hard?
Too hard?
It's a little rough when you bite off more than you can chew and can't run away, but I didn't have too many problems overall. I did find myself having to return to the inn every couple of fights, until I wised up and bought a bunch of fruit. By the way, oranges don't seem to come up in the "field" items tab; I had to go to "battle" to use those. The other fruits were fine.
My biggest issue was with the optional boss (the hard one). I was at the point where I was ready to finish the game and he was wiping the floor with me. Terence was too slow to heal.
For the sake of longevity, it's usually good to have optional content that you can work towards, but in such a small game I think the idea of grinding for stat ups when you've run out of all other content is unpalatable, even if it's a fairly brief grind. I didn't fancy it, so I left the game incomplete (and the entrance to the final area rubbed my nose in it).
I think being able to willingly initiate encounters after you've run out of battles in the dungeons would make the grind more tolerable. As it is, you have to wander around a very small area waiting for something to attack you.
As far as the optional boss goes, it's possible that I was just unaware of some special strategy, but it didn't really seem like there was a whole lot else I could have done.
My biggest issue was with the optional boss (the hard one). I was at the point where I was ready to finish the game and he was wiping the floor with me. Terence was too slow to heal.
For the sake of longevity, it's usually good to have optional content that you can work towards, but in such a small game I think the idea of grinding for stat ups when you've run out of all other content is unpalatable, even if it's a fairly brief grind. I didn't fancy it, so I left the game incomplete (and the entrance to the final area rubbed my nose in it).
I think being able to willingly initiate encounters after you've run out of battles in the dungeons would make the grind more tolerable. As it is, you have to wander around a very small area waiting for something to attack you.
As far as the optional boss goes, it's possible that I was just unaware of some special strategy, but it didn't really seem like there was a whole lot else I could have done.
Help Me (And You) Draft Up A Design Outline (fo' yo gamez)
I highly encourage design documents, as they're immensely useful tools. Just having something written down gives you a new perspective on it and makes sure you don't forget things. And if you're anything like me, you'll start off by jotting down a simple idea and end up with several pages of new stuff, all expanded from that one point.
Well, the rambly sort of documents I come up with don't necessarily qualify as proper design documents, but eventually they get there. I like to use Microsoft One Note to give everything (characters, locations, background, enemies, etc) its own tab. I think having a well-managed, efficient document to refer to about everything is an important first step in making a game. It makes for excellent reference material and also helps you to compartmentalize and tackle your game one step at a time.
Along the same lines, I also like to do a rough drawing of my maps in MS Paint before I begin on them, just to give me a good idea of the overall design and proportions I'm working with.
Well, the rambly sort of documents I come up with don't necessarily qualify as proper design documents, but eventually they get there. I like to use Microsoft One Note to give everything (characters, locations, background, enemies, etc) its own tab. I think having a well-managed, efficient document to refer to about everything is an important first step in making a game. It makes for excellent reference material and also helps you to compartmentalize and tackle your game one step at a time.
Along the same lines, I also like to do a rough drawing of my maps in MS Paint before I begin on them, just to give me a good idea of the overall design and proportions I'm working with.
How to add fun to grinding?
I've a got a couple of thoughts to add, some of which are variations on what has been mentioned already.
1. Frequent and significant rewards.
I could be wrong, but I don't think even people who enjoy grinding like the idea of getting 20xp per battle and doing that 300 times to get their next level, only to find that they gain a few measly stat points. A lot of games suffer from "empty levels" that feel completely unsatisfying. I'm not suggesting that you coddle the player by making them super-powerful after a couple of battles. As with all things, you just need to find a good balance. Grinding is grinding, but it should be a steady incline, not a constant uphill struggle
2. Satisfying rewards.
This will largely depend on the infrastructure of your game, but I personally find grinding much more enjoyable if I'm working towards a specific goal. It could be a new skill that I've been coveting for several levels, or it could be raising money to buy a really cool item, or to gain access to a quest that has a monetary requirement. If I'm just leveling, maybe there's new content or a new area that will open up when I hit a certain level. I mean, you have to be careful about this so you're not placing unnecessary and overly demanding restrictions on your content, but it just tends to be more compelling if you're earning something new, varied and concrete.
3. Varied tasks.
I know there's been some talk here about grinding repeating the some, repetitive task, but I don't necessarily agree. Maybe you can gain experience in multiple ways, like doing repeatable jobs for NPCs, turning in items, mapping the world. Maybe it's just that you get more experience if you vary the enemy you're fighting every 15 minutes or so, or different monsters raise different stats... for that matter, just give the player several choices of where to grind up so they're not stuck fighting the same old enemy for hours at a time. Once location could give you more gold, but another could have, say, respawning potion chests or quest items so you can go on a collecting run while you're doing it.
4. Risk vs Reward.
The conventional wisdom seems to be to make enemies easier so you can take them out more quickly, but for me there's little more boring than just mashing one button. I have the most fun grinding if I'm up against a tough opponent that I have to use my brain to defeat, especially if I know the reward will be worthwhile. Requiring strategy or adding an element of danger is a good way to keep people's eyes open while they're killing stuff over and over.
I felt I had a few more points to make, but that's all I can think of for now.
1. Frequent and significant rewards.
I could be wrong, but I don't think even people who enjoy grinding like the idea of getting 20xp per battle and doing that 300 times to get their next level, only to find that they gain a few measly stat points. A lot of games suffer from "empty levels" that feel completely unsatisfying. I'm not suggesting that you coddle the player by making them super-powerful after a couple of battles. As with all things, you just need to find a good balance. Grinding is grinding, but it should be a steady incline, not a constant uphill struggle
2. Satisfying rewards.
This will largely depend on the infrastructure of your game, but I personally find grinding much more enjoyable if I'm working towards a specific goal. It could be a new skill that I've been coveting for several levels, or it could be raising money to buy a really cool item, or to gain access to a quest that has a monetary requirement. If I'm just leveling, maybe there's new content or a new area that will open up when I hit a certain level. I mean, you have to be careful about this so you're not placing unnecessary and overly demanding restrictions on your content, but it just tends to be more compelling if you're earning something new, varied and concrete.
3. Varied tasks.
I know there's been some talk here about grinding repeating the some, repetitive task, but I don't necessarily agree. Maybe you can gain experience in multiple ways, like doing repeatable jobs for NPCs, turning in items, mapping the world. Maybe it's just that you get more experience if you vary the enemy you're fighting every 15 minutes or so, or different monsters raise different stats... for that matter, just give the player several choices of where to grind up so they're not stuck fighting the same old enemy for hours at a time. Once location could give you more gold, but another could have, say, respawning potion chests or quest items so you can go on a collecting run while you're doing it.
4. Risk vs Reward.
The conventional wisdom seems to be to make enemies easier so you can take them out more quickly, but for me there's little more boring than just mashing one button. I have the most fun grinding if I'm up against a tough opponent that I have to use my brain to defeat, especially if I know the reward will be worthwhile. Requiring strategy or adding an element of danger is a good way to keep people's eyes open while they're killing stuff over and over.
I felt I had a few more points to make, but that's all I can think of for now.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
