LUCIDSTILLNESS'S PROFILE

While I've been avoiding this thread, since I'm not ready to post anything from the current project at this time, I'd like to 'chime in' about map sizes, since it's a subject near and dear to all of us.

I have noticed that new map designers tend to make areas far larger than they need to be. I've done this too, and my rationale was generally 'I'm not sure how big this area needs to be, so I'll give myself lots of room'. That may sound reasonable, except of course that I ended up expanding the area to fill the full space, resulting in a barren, uninteresting map. Even professional game designers today can make this mistake.

I find the best way to avoid this problem is a three step checklist:

1) start by working small. Create a map the size of a single screen to get a sense of how large passages, doorways, etc. need to be. This will give you a good set of building blocks with which to organize the rest of the dungeon. Additionally, it is a very good idea to think of things in relation to a real world scale, to make certain that areas such as house interiors are close to the right size. This also brings us to point 2.

2) Plan the area before you begin. If you know exactly what an area needs to contain, and where those contents will be located, you won't need 'a lot of space', and will instead make the map no bigger than it needs to be once you start working in the editor. You can draw the map out, make a spreadsheet with the different areas, or block out a 'dummy map' in the editor, whatever works best for you.

3) Make certain every map has a purpose. Does the map you just designed have no other purpose than to make the location larger and more complicated? If so, do yourself and your players a favour by cutting it out. Every map, even something like a simple hallway, should have a function, and every part of that map should have a sub-function. For example, when a good designer makes a dead-end, they put something there, like a treasure chest or a switch. Think about how the parts of your location fit together, and cut out anything that is just wasted space. If you look at maps from well-made RPGs, you'll be surprised how compact the dungeon areas really are.

There is, of course, a lot more to designing maps than what I've just posted, but I've found that these three steps (which I can't really take credit for) have been a big help in improving my design approach. I hope you guys find them useful as well.

Yes, I completely agree with slashphoenix; it's good to have ambitions, and not content to be 'good enough', but at the same time everyone has to learn the basics. The only way you will have the ability to make your ambitions a reality is to do a large volume of work over an extended period of time.

That's not to say that your first project has to be a chore; my first project was a short little action game that, while not very good gameplay-wise, was a tremendous amount of fun to put together.

That Zen Pencils comic is also dead-on; everyone has a phase where they get frustrated because they aren't good enough, and at the time we don't realize that it's those phases that are the most important. Remember, the more frustrated you are, the closer you are to a breakthrough.

I was able to defeat the final boss of FF12 with really average levels and equipment for that point without pressing a single button. FF12, I love your story, setting and characters, but your game design could have used some work.

But getting back on topic, some of you may be familiar with the classic arcade game "Tower of Druaga", a game all about discovering secrets and items that are hidden by increasingly cryptic conditions and are absolutely necessary to progress. Some people loved figuring out all the secrets and finding all the items, while other players were absolutely miserable.

As one of the first games to make use of secret items of this kind (that I know of), it's a useful example to define your approach; basically, do you want the secrets to be cryptic and difficult so that those players who do persevere will obtain satisfaction for their dedication, or do you want the secrets to be more 'fair' so that, theoretically, anyone can find them if they stray off the beaten path? Both approaches are valid, but be sure to let your player know what kind of game is being played early on, to avoid frustration.

I forget if it was Hironobu Sakaguchi who said this or not, but all Final Fantasy plots can be summarized as "A group of heroes fights to save a dying world."

It's a compelling summary, as it not only clearly illustrates what all the games have in common, but also states a clear goal, clarifying the purpose of each game's narrative.

The Walking Dead games are a very good example of a linear game series that manages to engage the player; there are a few gameplay elements, but the games are essentially visual novels with a lot of player input. It's a prefect example of how linear games are still alive and well in the modern age of MMOs and sandbox games.

Having said that, as LockeZ pointed out, linear RPGs are typically viewed as primitive and out of place in the modern gaming market. There are a number of reasons why RPGs are held to a different standard than action games. To use LouisCyphre's example:

author=LouisCyphre
GUYS.

gg

This is an exaggeration for most RPGs, but it essentially is the non-combat gameplay of Final Fantasy XIII. The bulk of Final Fantasy XIII's gameplay is combat, and while some have praised the combat system, fans of the series had come to expect exploration elements, backtracking, and more sophisticated story progression. Combat just isn't the overwhelming focus in Final Fantasy the way it is in an action game like, say, Devil May Cry, and many fans regretted that the game did not follow the traditions of earlier games in the series in this regard. Basically, RPGs are expected to have some exploration.

The second problem is player input. Walking Dead thrived on player input, and as a result the player was never bored and their input always mattered. By contrast, linear RPGs typically feature long-winded, obtuse cinema scenes of narrative that, due to a lack of player input, clash heavily with gameplay elements and test the patience of all but the most invested of players. Long cutscenes without player input are irritating at the best of times, but when they are present in a game where a player receives little or no choice outside of combat, the entire exercise feels more like watching a movie than playing a game.

When the above points are taken into consideration by a game designer, it is easy to see why Final Fantasy XIII has been criticized as primitive while a game like Xenoblade Chronicles, with its wealth of optional content and its emphasis on exploration, is widely viewed as the future of console RPGs. Really though, this isn't a proof of the idea that linear games are inherently inferior to non-linear ones, but rather that games which successfully engage the player are more popular than ones that do not.