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 ListsLOCKEZ'S PROFILE
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
Close
The Unofficial Squaresoft MUD is a free online game based on the worlds and combat systems of your favorite Squaresoft games. UOSSMUD includes job trees from FFT and FF5, advanced classes from multiple other Square games, and worlds based extremely accurately upon Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, and Final Fantasies 5, 6, and 7. Travel through the original worlds and experience events that mirror those of the original games in an online, multiplayer format.
If a large, highly customized MUD, now over 10 years old and still being expanded, with a job system and worlds based on some of the most popular console RPGs seems interesting to you, feel free to log on and check it out. Visit uossmud.sandwich.net for information about logging on.
If a large, highly customized MUD, now over 10 years old and still being expanded, with a job system and worlds based on some of the most popular console RPGs seems interesting to you, feel free to log on and check it out. Visit uossmud.sandwich.net for information about logging on.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Lowering your standards and finishing your game
Pretty sure your definition of "chopping off unnecessary parts without lowering the standards" is the same as what everyone else meant by "lowering the standards." Most of what you said is still pretty true though.
I do disagree with this point:
In my opinion, if you don't have a new idea, you shouldn't make a new game. If the game does nothing unique, there's no reason for it to exist. My reason for making games as a hobby is because I like to design original creative works. If you just want to re-release what you've already done before, I hope you're getting paid for it.
Besides, roughly 90% of the work on any game is getting all your stuff to function properly. This is to be expected. Chopping off some of that to save time is fine. But if you can't handle dealing with *any* of that while making a game, might I suggest a new hobby that isn't software design?
I do disagree with this point:
There's nothing worse than trying to figure out how. So, a game is not something to be testing new concepts on. A game should incorporate what you already know. If you have trouble with or want to experience a new idea, make a short but sweet tech demo. Don't feel obligated to release it, however.
In my opinion, if you don't have a new idea, you shouldn't make a new game. If the game does nothing unique, there's no reason for it to exist. My reason for making games as a hobby is because I like to design original creative works. If you just want to re-release what you've already done before, I hope you're getting paid for it.
Besides, roughly 90% of the work on any game is getting all your stuff to function properly. This is to be expected. Chopping off some of that to save time is fine. But if you can't handle dealing with *any* of that while making a game, might I suggest a new hobby that isn't software design?
Single Character RPGs: How Can They Work?
I think one of the cleanest, most balanced examples of a single-character traditional JRPG is Pokemon. As much as I hate Pokemon. But instead of talking about Pokemon, I want to talk about my online game.
The online RPG I help run does a decent job of managing this. Yes, okay, it's online, and people can theoretically group up with other players. But it's a low-population amateur game (average of 10-15 people on at a time), so they're neither required nor expected to. Not only is it not feasible due to the relative lack of players, but also we made quests, coliseum bosses, and almost all other types of real challenges specifically disallow partying.
We use a class system ripped (mostly) straight from Final Fantasy Tactics. This means the player can multiclass. But because there are 40 different classes, and at least five or six different popular methods of stat distribution, there's guaranteed to be a lot of setups that can't do certain things. A will-based character who casts Zombie on enemies to turn them undead and then uses cure magic to damage them until they die is going to be super-effective against enemies that are naturally undead, but totally ineffective against enemies that are immune to zombie. A holy knight is going to be unable to damage anything that absorbs the holy element. Though characters can set a secondary class to use abilities from, they usually use their main class for attacks and their secondary class for either healing or buffs or debuffs. So their attacks at any given time are going to be limited.
The solution: simply expect them to change classes to meet the situation. You can change classes any time you're not in combat. The holy knight can't kill the holy-aligned boss, but once he sees that the boss absorbs holy, he can run away and change into a swordsman or soldier or monk. Hopefully he learned some decent skills in at least one other job besides holy knight - if not, he'll have to go do that. If he's too slow or too stubborn to run away, then he dies - but this is an online game, death isn't game over. He just loses 10% of a level's worth of XP and reincarnates at the church.
So, we don't handle customization by making every class equally able to handle every challenge. We handle it by expecting players to adapt, and allowing them to easily do so. Letting the player run from any battle is key here, as is letting them change class at any time. You could maybe even let them change class mid-battle.
The online RPG I help run does a decent job of managing this. Yes, okay, it's online, and people can theoretically group up with other players. But it's a low-population amateur game (average of 10-15 people on at a time), so they're neither required nor expected to. Not only is it not feasible due to the relative lack of players, but also we made quests, coliseum bosses, and almost all other types of real challenges specifically disallow partying.
We use a class system ripped (mostly) straight from Final Fantasy Tactics. This means the player can multiclass. But because there are 40 different classes, and at least five or six different popular methods of stat distribution, there's guaranteed to be a lot of setups that can't do certain things. A will-based character who casts Zombie on enemies to turn them undead and then uses cure magic to damage them until they die is going to be super-effective against enemies that are naturally undead, but totally ineffective against enemies that are immune to zombie. A holy knight is going to be unable to damage anything that absorbs the holy element. Though characters can set a secondary class to use abilities from, they usually use their main class for attacks and their secondary class for either healing or buffs or debuffs. So their attacks at any given time are going to be limited.
The solution: simply expect them to change classes to meet the situation. You can change classes any time you're not in combat. The holy knight can't kill the holy-aligned boss, but once he sees that the boss absorbs holy, he can run away and change into a swordsman or soldier or monk. Hopefully he learned some decent skills in at least one other job besides holy knight - if not, he'll have to go do that. If he's too slow or too stubborn to run away, then he dies - but this is an online game, death isn't game over. He just loses 10% of a level's worth of XP and reincarnates at the church.
So, we don't handle customization by making every class equally able to handle every challenge. We handle it by expecting players to adapt, and allowing them to easily do so. Letting the player run from any battle is key here, as is letting them change class at any time. You could maybe even let them change class mid-battle.
Single Character RPGs: How Can They Work?
Examples of single-character RPGs:
- Pokemon. Yes, technically you have a party. But you only control one at a time. If the different pokemon were instead called "classes" or "souls" or something, then it would fit just fine.
- Most MMORPGs. For most of the advanced challenges you do usually have to join a group, but the vast majority of the game is balanced for single-player play.
- Disgaea and other NIS games work the other way around - once you get past a certain point in the game, all the advanced challenges are normally (though not forcibly) done with only one character.
- Many western RPGs, though you can often get a henchman/pet that is automated.
- Many roguelikes, though ditto.
I don't think it's necessary to give the player multiple types of turns to mimic the effect of having multiple characters. All you need is a good variety of abilities, and ideally a system that doesn't encourage the player to do the same thing every round (or every battle).
I think a great plan would be to let your main character class change in battle. That way they have access to all their powers, so you can throw all sorts of variety at them to keep the game interesting, but they can't do it all at once so they're not overpowered.
Allowing a lot of customization that can only be done outside of battle is very difficult in a single-character game. The player has a far higher chance of messing their build up and being unable to continue, because the choice isn't "do I want one wizard or three?" but rather "do I want a wizard or not?". And if you're giving them that choice, as a real choice, then you can't ever make a battle that depends on having a wizard.
- Pokemon. Yes, technically you have a party. But you only control one at a time. If the different pokemon were instead called "classes" or "souls" or something, then it would fit just fine.
- Most MMORPGs. For most of the advanced challenges you do usually have to join a group, but the vast majority of the game is balanced for single-player play.
- Disgaea and other NIS games work the other way around - once you get past a certain point in the game, all the advanced challenges are normally (though not forcibly) done with only one character.
- Many western RPGs, though you can often get a henchman/pet that is automated.
- Many roguelikes, though ditto.
I don't think it's necessary to give the player multiple types of turns to mimic the effect of having multiple characters. All you need is a good variety of abilities, and ideally a system that doesn't encourage the player to do the same thing every round (or every battle).
I think a great plan would be to let your main character class change in battle. That way they have access to all their powers, so you can throw all sorts of variety at them to keep the game interesting, but they can't do it all at once so they're not overpowered.
Allowing a lot of customization that can only be done outside of battle is very difficult in a single-character game. The player has a far higher chance of messing their build up and being unable to continue, because the choice isn't "do I want one wizard or three?" but rather "do I want a wizard or not?". And if you're giving them that choice, as a real choice, then you can't ever make a battle that depends on having a wizard.
Keep your goals to yourself
post=210836post=210830Ooh, what online RPG is this? I'll play it if interesting enough.
In the online RPG I help run, we keep most of our goals to ourselves, but for a very different reason. The problem is that if you tell players that something is being planned, they expect it. And then sometimes it doesn't get finished, or sometimes the plan gets changed, or sometimes they don't like the idea and complain about it nonstop (despite not understanding what it does or why it's needed). But the one thing that's guaranteed not to happen is that they will like the idea and help motivate you to finish it.
It's far harder to disappoint people who had no expectations. And when they're not disappointed, they're not complaining. And when they're not complaining, the designers don't get fed up and quit. We've had several designers quit because players bitched non-stop about projects and changes that weren't even in play yet, and made them believe they weren't any good at game design.
http://uossmud.sandwich.net - The Unofficial Squaresoft MUD, a text-based online game with a Final Fantasy Tactics job system and worlds based on Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, and Final Fantasy 5, 6, and 7. MUDs are basically like if you took an MMORPG and put it in the format of those old text adventure games. Ours is fairly popular due to the nostalgia of having incredibly accurate worlds based on classic Squaresoft RPGs, but also pretty fun on its own right.
Get Engaged: How A Partner Can Help
Keep your goals to yourself
In the online RPG I help run, we keep most of our goals to ourselves, but for a very different reason. The problem is that if you tell players that something is being planned, they expect it. And then sometimes it doesn't get finished, or sometimes the plan gets changed, or sometimes they don't like the idea and complain about it nonstop (despite not understanding what it does or why it's needed). But the one thing that's guaranteed not to happen is that they will like the idea and help motivate you to finish it.
It's far harder to disappoint people who had no expectations. And when they're not disappointed, they're not complaining. And when they're not complaining, the designers don't get fed up and quit. We've had several designers quit because players bitched non-stop about projects and changes that weren't even in play yet, and made them believe they weren't any good at game design.
It's far harder to disappoint people who had no expectations. And when they're not disappointed, they're not complaining. And when they're not complaining, the designers don't get fed up and quit. We've had several designers quit because players bitched non-stop about projects and changes that weren't even in play yet, and made them believe they weren't any good at game design.
Dialogue, Characters, and You.
If an NPC is only talked to once, I think it's fine if they have no personality. Just make their dialogue be a realistic, common reaction to whatever they're talking about. They should not draw attention to themselves; their purpose is direct the player's attention towards something else. They should make that something else seem more engaging.
Example of townsperson dialogue that draws too much attention to itself:
"Ahem, everyone! These here wounds are my glory wounds! They are my badges of honor, my trophies of courage, my things that you'll never have. 'Cause I just beat the shit out of one a' them with just one left hook! Just one of them little wolfies in that there Shekle forest."
Example of townsperson dialogue that draws attention to the issue at hand:
"A great beast lurks in the Shekle Forest. After it killed all of the town's most veteran warriors, we gave it a name: the Terrenthum Wolf. Take heed, stranger. Just because you're able to handle the other beasts nearby, don't delude yourself into thinking you're strong enough to face this foe."
Note the difference: the dialogue's focus should not be on the character, because the character isn't what the player's focus should be on. Draw the player's attention to the challenge and the information, not to the quirky character who will never appear again. I agree that the overly simple "There is the Terrenthum Wolf in the Shekle Forest" is not engaging enough. But for minor characters, make sure you are engaging in a way that's not too distracting.
As for main characters... if you can't make some of your main characters engaging, there are a million things you could be doing wrong. If you can't many any of your main characters engaging, just hire someone else to write the game's story and dialogue for you.
Example of townsperson dialogue that draws too much attention to itself:
"Ahem, everyone! These here wounds are my glory wounds! They are my badges of honor, my trophies of courage, my things that you'll never have. 'Cause I just beat the shit out of one a' them with just one left hook! Just one of them little wolfies in that there Shekle forest."
Example of townsperson dialogue that draws attention to the issue at hand:
"A great beast lurks in the Shekle Forest. After it killed all of the town's most veteran warriors, we gave it a name: the Terrenthum Wolf. Take heed, stranger. Just because you're able to handle the other beasts nearby, don't delude yourself into thinking you're strong enough to face this foe."
Note the difference: the dialogue's focus should not be on the character, because the character isn't what the player's focus should be on. Draw the player's attention to the challenge and the information, not to the quirky character who will never appear again. I agree that the overly simple "There is the Terrenthum Wolf in the Shekle Forest" is not engaging enough. But for minor characters, make sure you are engaging in a way that's not too distracting.
As for main characters... if you can't make some of your main characters engaging, there are a million things you could be doing wrong. If you can't many any of your main characters engaging, just hire someone else to write the game's story and dialogue for you.
Short Games
This probably would fit better in the game design & theory forum, due to the type of discussion it's likely to spawn, but eh, it works here too I guess.
How short is short, anyway? ShortStar mentioned a game with 4 dungeons and 3 towns, which is definitely short for a commercial game. But I think it's about average for an RPG Maker game. For a game to be noticable short by RM standards, it would have to be like... 10 battles.
Obviously if a game is only 10 battles long, you can ignore a lot of the things that people have to worry about when creating longer RPGs, like an interesting method of progression, or a way to make grinding more fun. It could work. You could probably make something like that in a month or two (or less, if you don't care about making it good).
If you just mean like 4 hours long or something, then this isn't really a complicated topic, you just do what most people around here do. You make a normal RPG, but cut out all the plot twists and filler, and end up with the final boss at the end of the fourth dungeon, right as the player finishes getting used to the game.
How short is short, anyway? ShortStar mentioned a game with 4 dungeons and 3 towns, which is definitely short for a commercial game. But I think it's about average for an RPG Maker game. For a game to be noticable short by RM standards, it would have to be like... 10 battles.
Obviously if a game is only 10 battles long, you can ignore a lot of the things that people have to worry about when creating longer RPGs, like an interesting method of progression, or a way to make grinding more fun. It could work. You could probably make something like that in a month or two (or less, if you don't care about making it good).
If you just mean like 4 hours long or something, then this isn't really a complicated topic, you just do what most people around here do. You make a normal RPG, but cut out all the plot twists and filler, and end up with the final boss at the end of the fourth dungeon, right as the player finishes getting used to the game.
Get Engaged: How A Partner Can Help
Get Engaged: How A Partner Can Help
I have a friend who I talk about RPG maker stuff with all the time like this. It's really helpful because we have very different ideas about game design. The discussions are mostly about his game, since I haven't actually worked on any new projects in over a year. We talk over AIM almost every day.
Here's a partial transcript of yesterday:
This is pretty truncated, actually. The full conversation was about twice this long.
Here's a partial transcript of yesterday:
LockeZ: No one likes enemies with instant death attacks!
Zombero: it's possible players aren't getting their 20% natural resistance to it
LockeZ: Unless that 20% resistance means "does 80% as much damage", it doesn't make one hair of a difference
Zombero: it means it'll work 40% of the time against equal willpower instead of 50%
LockeZ: 1% chance and 99% chance for random game over are effectively the same thing to most people. Either way is a completely unacceptable figure. Any non-zero random chance to die means that either you need to be stronger, or the game is broken.
LockeZ: If you get a game over, it should be because you did something wrong. If you do everything 100% perfectly, you shouldn't get a game over.
Zombero: how do single target death spells = random chance of game over
LockeZ: Well there is more than one enemy
Zombero: there aren't ever 4 pretas
LockeZ: But if there are two, and they both cast it for two turns in a row, then you're dead
Zombero: you can't kill 1 preta in a whole round?
LockeZ: Not with two dead people!
Zombero: so don't be slower!
LockeZ: Being faster requires killing the pretas
Zombero: or the speed accessory
LockeZ: Basically I don't think anyone would find the game any less fun or be even remotely upset if instant death attacks either didn't exist or were player-only
LockeZ: A shield buyable in the second town that has an instant-death-blocking rally would be a sort of acceptable alternative
Zombero: I don't know about blocking, but resist is a possibility
LockeZ: Resisting instant death is worthless. Either you are immune to it, or it might as well be 100%
Zombero: I bet you'd use it
LockeZ: I'd use it but it wouldn't solve the problem
Zombero: you aren't going to like the area instant death attacks
Zombero: also you would really hate the optional boss in DDS
LockeZ: I would hate a lot of your favorite things
This is pretty truncated, actually. The full conversation was about twice this long.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
