LOCKEZ'S PROFILE

post=209795
Hmm...at first I thought about gameplay that comes first in RPGs...in the sense of old school RPGs. But now I think about it again, even old school RPGs do start with a simple story intro first before going into the gameplay elements (think FF1)

So while the RPGs of the past tend to be more gameplay-oriented than story-oriented, most of them too start with story rather than gameplay first.

I'm pretty sure we're talking about which one is designed first, not which one the player sees first.

My previous project began with a story, and the gameplay was built around it. The result was that the gameplay was pretty lacking, because it wasn't the focus.

For my next project, now that I actually know a lot about game design, I want to start with a gameplay idea, and build a game around that, with story as a secondary concern. However, I feel like if I focus my energy like that, then the story will end up noticably lacking. I only have so much energy and drive and time to spread around to the different aspects of game design, and if I start to focus on something, then it takes over my mindset.

So what I'm going to do is reuse the story from my previous game, with some changes to fix the major problems that arose (like the poorly-defined setting and the two pointless stock characters). I'm not sure if this is a clever solution or one that will turn people off. But it seems like the easiest way to get a good, original story into my game without actually focusing on it and without hiring a writer.

Come on now, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy began with a guy in pajamas trying to get bulldozers to stop destroying his house. The huge explosion wasn't until 10 or 15 minutes later.

I think your intro should be however long it takes to set the tone for your game. It shouldn't have many details, but it should definitely tell the player enough to make them not wonder what the hell kind of game they're playing. If you explain the political setting, they're going to expect a game that focuses on political strife. If you show the main character's hometown, they're going to expect a story about a character's journey as he learns about the world. If you show a flashback to 1000 years ago, they're going to expect a story about mankind's repeated mistakes. If you show the main character murdering an innocent person, they're going to expect a story about his crimes and his attempts at redemption.

What you choose to show sets the tone for your game. Pick something appropriate, and show enough of it to make the player understand what they're seeing. Then save the rest for later.

Elemental defenses and elemental attacks allow for customization of your characters. For obvious examples, see the Shin Megami Tensei games or Pokemon games. You have to get characters who use different elements, but you're limited in the number of skills you can equip on each character. You also have to manage your own elemental resistances and weaknesses. And if you have a skill system that allows the player to spend points to improve skills, they have to choose which elements to improve.

Once in battle, the amount of tactical complexity added by elements can vary depending on how well it's done. Final Fantasy style black mages add no tactical complexity to battles whatsoever. However that's certainly not the only way to handle elements. You don't need to always have equal to every element. In fact, you probably shouldn't ever have that - since that is what causes elements to become meaningless.

The key here is what I like to call TENSION. When the player makes a skill choice, it should be a real choice. Each option should have an upside and a downside, and whether the upside cancels out the downside or not should change from turn to turn and from battle to battle depending on the situation. Maybe you have an amazing skill that costs 60% of your max MP. Maybe you have a skill that hurts both you and the enemy.

Here's a simple example involving elements. Maybe you have a fire skill that costs does 50 damage to all enemies, and a non-elemental skill that does 65 damage to all enemies. If one of the enemies is weak against fire, the two are pretty close to being even damage, just distributed differently. To make things more complicated, maybe another enemy in the same battle needs to be resistant to fire (or absorb fire).

Now, I'll grant, elements are not a great way to introduce tension in a battle with single-target attacks. Pokemon handles it well by making you waste a turn to bring out the party member that has access to the right element. You will have to come up with your own way to do so - that's why you're a game designer.

I will note that if you only care about gameplay and not story, RPGs are usually really boring at the beginning. Some types of adventure games too. Majora's Mask started you off with no tools except your sword, and the enemies died in one hit - and were few and far between. Ocarina of Time was even worse. If you know what you're doing, then it's an insufferable first hour or two. If you don't know what you're doing, then it's admittedly marginally helpful, but probably takes you three times as long before you get to the good part.

Final Fantasy 13 did the best job of hooking me in immediately of almost any RPG I've played in a decade, but you only have one to two abilities for the first three hours. One or two battles like that would have been fine, but three hours?

Older games aren't really any better at this, though. FF4 takes over an hour before you get any skills besides attack and jump... and you lose jump before you get to that point. FF5 makes you go through two dungeons before you can change classes. If you want to go back even further, then okay, the original Final Fantasy lets you buy magic immediately, in theory... except you have to fight random enemies for half an hour first to afford it, unless you want to be naked and unarmed.