SHINAN'S PROFILE

Search

Filter

Creativity: Thinking about "Experience/Leveling Systems"

Going for the tabletop approach there's also a couple from there that can be used as examples. The skill-based experience where you get points in a certain skill as you succesfully use it (usually limited to once/session in tabletop though easily exploited when used in a lot of crpgs). Those systems usually also have "general experience" they tend to give away after certain points in the game that the player can freely distribute amongst his skills (see Deus Ex or Vampire Bloodlines). Some games also use this general experience model in combination with leveling (Fallout).

Personally I'm a big fan of a level-less system. Though my personal game design things tend to go for very limited new learning in a game (because the scope isn't that gigantic) so there's perhaps only a couple of progressions in any given game.

There's also the powerup experience model. Picking up certain items will give the player more health or more magic or more of whatever stuff he might need.

Where to now?

France during the French Revolution! The stalin poster could come in handy there. For moustache fashion.

Super RMN Bros.

Oh man. I basically submitted my first attempt as an entry I feel dirty. Though just because I submitted it it doesn't have to be the final version... right?

Super Mario Bros. X Help Thread -

Is it possible to disable the SNES controls for a level (I'm thinking of the spin jump)? I'm designing with the NES in mind (and only mushrooms as power ups). I guess it doesn't make that much of a difference but still.

So far I've made a really short beginner's level. I'll have to come up with some nice concept for a proper level.

This is probably the most in-depth RTS ever

I started playing with the new DF. In a freezing territory with aquifier. Which was fortunate because I got through with ice although I thought I was done for when I didn't have any stone in the first six months.

Once I dug through the aquifier though I found a huge underground cavern filled with riches. I haven't gone to exploring it yet but man...

This game is too awesome to exist. My dwarves are struggling on in the tundra. It's a pretty calm tundra though. Nothing nasty has appeared yet.

2D or 3D?

I don't know about the controls. Of course some games have bad controls no matter what. Like Henry Hatsworth... goddamn that animation delay shit thing. 2d games don't have inherently better controls. Again the only genre of game that is comparable between the two generations are movie license games. And they've always had sucky controls. Compare a game like Total Recall for the NES with... uh... whatever movie license game they churn out nowadays. Tranformers 2: The Game.

Bad controls in 3d tend to happen in the early 3d games when they still didn't know what they could do with 3d and so only made games in the 2d mindset. I mean... Mouse-look is a given nowadays, but in the early days (even the early days of 3d) it wasn't. Platformers is a genre that suffers the most from this because 2d platformers tend to be awesome and 3d platformers... not so much... (It takes a lot more to make a good 3d platformer than it takes to make a good 2d platformer.)

But as I said comparing between the generations is only worthwhile when you talk about license games. Because those have usually been about the same throughout years and years and years.

Alternative to battles

post=131367
I don't think anyone was suggesting that it's an issue of player vs. GM, or even vs. game designer. It IS an issue of Player vs. Environment. In order to get anywhere in the game, you have to overcome obstacles and threats in the environment. Losing means not getting anywhere, and that's boring and frustrating if you do nothing but lose, so the goal is to win.

On the other hand if we're speaking in that general terms EVERYTHING is like this. Not only games. Getting out of bed in the morning is like this. It's a challenge you have to overcome and if you don't do it you lose.

Of course the only real way to lose is to die (and everybody dies so everybody loses). And that also applies to tabletop. That was the three-page idea I sort of had. A game where losing doesn't mean you're not getting anywhere. Heavy Rain does something like this doesn't it? Where not responding sometimes can be just the response you need. (Though I don't know enough about that game. Does it have a "game over"?)