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 ListsSHINAN'S PROFILE
Shinan
4314
Close
I'm Shinan.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Alternative to battles
post=131100
The basis of almost any game is some level of competition. It is you vs someone else, whether it is a friend you are playing with, or a computer, and your goal is to win.
Actually this is usually refuted in one of the first paragraphs of any tabletop RPG book. And I always go back to my beloved tabletop RPGs. The aim of most tabletop RPGs is NOT the players vs the GM. Instead the players and the GM collaborate to create something. Of course computer RPGs are mostly single player things, but this actually got me thinking about another design thing from tabletop that would be cool to bring to the computer. The concept of not trying to beat the game. Instead trying to... just... sort of... enjoy it... (And of course the game accomodating this... enjoying)
No I don't have any real ideas how it could be implemented... Yet. No wait I just got one but that would lead to another page-long reply by Shinan and seriously we don't need more of those.
Hype and how it affects you
If I had a game I was proud of and wanted to hype lots I probably would do so. But not until it was either finished or so close to completion I could smell the bacon. When hyping a free game (which is what this is) people tend to want to have that game available after your hype.
"alright this game is so fucking awesome it has like this and this and taht and this and then some of that as well. With a touch of this'n'that"
"Okay... So where is it?"
"I'm still working on it."
"Oh go fuck yourself."
"I'll have a demo out in two weeks!"
"What, you're still about that game? I'm playing this other game AVAILABLE NOW instead and I've forgotten all about your game except for that sour taste of incompleteness in combination with hype."
Once you have a following and are respectable enough (as well as being someone who actually finishes stuff) you can start hyping your next project. Beucase that's when your followers will be all gaga and go "DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS GAME. THERE'S A DEMO OUT IN TWO WEEKS!" and you don't actually need to do any of that senseless stupid hyping yourself.
Nutshell:
Hype when it's done.
Let other people hype your game while it's still incomplete.
"alright this game is so fucking awesome it has like this and this and taht and this and then some of that as well. With a touch of this'n'that"
"Okay... So where is it?"
"I'm still working on it."
"Oh go fuck yourself."
"I'll have a demo out in two weeks!"
"What, you're still about that game? I'm playing this other game AVAILABLE NOW instead and I've forgotten all about your game except for that sour taste of incompleteness in combination with hype."
Once you have a following and are respectable enough (as well as being someone who actually finishes stuff) you can start hyping your next project. Beucase that's when your followers will be all gaga and go "DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS GAME. THERE'S A DEMO OUT IN TWO WEEKS!" and you don't actually need to do any of that senseless stupid hyping yourself.
Nutshell:
Hype when it's done.
Let other people hype your game while it's still incomplete.
2D or 3D?
The thing about those early 3d RTSes was that they were stuck in the 2d-mindset and thus didn't really do much with the 3d. (Like a lot of early 3d it didn't really do much other than look a lot shittier than 2d).
Of course today 3d looks better than 2d.
I just did. Quote you on that. It's not true. I think. If you mean that 2d graphics have more variety than 3d then you're absolutely wrong. Since 3d graphics are 2d graphics with an extra dimension so by their very definition you can do more with 3d graphics.
There's a term that was thrown around a year ago or so called 2.5D. Which is 3d graphics used to make a 2d game. (Bionic Commando Rearmed comes to mind). Combined with stuff like cel-shading it's simple enough to make games that look like old 2d games in 3d graphics. 3d graphics are a lot more versatile than the 2d ones.
Games all looking the same has been a problem for the longest of time. I just look back at those movie license games I mentioned earlier because they are sort of a staple of cheap knock-offs of popular games/genres for any time they've been made. So they're nearly always comparable. Today we see all those actiony third-person games that most of them are either grey and boring or based on kids movies and colourful and boring. The same thing we could see backinthedays. With either dark sprites and environment with pixel-people running around the same boring shooter/platformer levels or colourful sprites doing the exact same thing.
Of course today 3d looks better than 2d.
"2D graphics" has many more variations they can manifest as compared to 3D, so that probably alleviates some of the "looks the same" syndrome. Don't quote me on that, though.
I just did. Quote you on that. It's not true. I think. If you mean that 2d graphics have more variety than 3d then you're absolutely wrong. Since 3d graphics are 2d graphics with an extra dimension so by their very definition you can do more with 3d graphics.
There's a term that was thrown around a year ago or so called 2.5D. Which is 3d graphics used to make a 2d game. (Bionic Commando Rearmed comes to mind). Combined with stuff like cel-shading it's simple enough to make games that look like old 2d games in 3d graphics. 3d graphics are a lot more versatile than the 2d ones.
Games all looking the same has been a problem for the longest of time. I just look back at those movie license games I mentioned earlier because they are sort of a staple of cheap knock-offs of popular games/genres for any time they've been made. So they're nearly always comparable. Today we see all those actiony third-person games that most of them are either grey and boring or based on kids movies and colourful and boring. The same thing we could see backinthedays. With either dark sprites and environment with pixel-people running around the same boring shooter/platformer levels or colourful sprites doing the exact same thing.
Two Questions
The way I'd go about it if I had a long-term project would be to work on it by myself until I reach a stage where I can release a version of it. And after that basically "release often". If you don't have something tangible I don't see much reason in advertising. Of course once the game is finished one can go on a couple of weeks of heavy advertising (Captainregal, I'm sorry about that btw... I'll never promise anyone anything again...) before releasing the final product.
And once it's done you can hype it for a couple of weeks with designer notes and post-release-defending of a game that isn't received well. Or just complain about it not getting enough attention.
Thinking from a follower perspecitve though. Having the long project and releasing often is good. Having loads of short projects and releasing often is also good. Essentially releasing something for the "following" to play is generally the only way to keep a following interested. I guess once you have a decent backlog or something really, fucking awesome in the backlog you can be excused with not releasing immediately, instead working on something and "it's ready when it's ready". But some followers will drop out during any time of draught. Even if there's designer notes and screenshots and concept art.
No one wants concept art. Not really. Not until after the game. (It's always nice to see early concept art and compare them to what you saw in the game. Not see concept art and hoping it'll be awesome in the game in five years)
And once it's done you can hype it for a couple of weeks with designer notes and post-release-defending of a game that isn't received well. Or just complain about it not getting enough attention.
Thinking from a follower perspecitve though. Having the long project and releasing often is good. Having loads of short projects and releasing often is also good. Essentially releasing something for the "following" to play is generally the only way to keep a following interested. I guess once you have a decent backlog or something really, fucking awesome in the backlog you can be excused with not releasing immediately, instead working on something and "it's ready when it's ready". But some followers will drop out during any time of draught. Even if there's designer notes and screenshots and concept art.
No one wants concept art. Not really. Not until after the game. (It's always nice to see early concept art and compare them to what you saw in the game. Not see concept art and hoping it'll be awesome in the game in five years)
This is probably the most in-depth RTS ever
Yeah I wouldn't really recommend playing this game unless you have a weekend dedicated exclusively for it and want to be put into the situation where you'll spend the first eight hours following a step-by-step tutorial.
Dwarf Fortress is not a casual game. Though once you've learned how it goes you can sort of play it casually. I, for example had it on my laptop playing while watching a movie. Only looking at it occasionally when it paused (important stuff happened) or when I decided I wanted to give my miners new orders :D The fort practically ran itself.
Dwarf Fortress is not a casual game. Though once you've learned how it goes you can sort of play it casually. I, for example had it on my laptop playing while watching a movie. Only looking at it occasionally when it paused (important stuff happened) or when I decided I wanted to give my miners new orders :D The fort practically ran itself.
This is probably the most in-depth RTS ever
post=131061
You could've probably gone into the area where the water and the magma initially hit and mined the obsidian that was created.And the lava would've been better used redirected into the river, so you could get some of that Obsidian mined.
I redirected that stuff all over the place. Magma moves so slowly I actually mined magma canals AS the lava was flowing behind me occasionally. Essentially by the end I have an underground riddle with small passageways that some have had lava and some not. And I have a huge obsidian deposit at an old riverbed (the river is elsewhere). I haven't played that game in a couple of months now I don't know if I would remember what I was about to do if I started it up again...
Which graphics set are you using by the way?
pfft. Graphics are for wusses. I use set that comes with the game. Actually I just got used to that when I played one of the early versions (before it had z-levels (a.k.a. 3d)) and I just can't see myself moving away from those happyfaces. I have modified it so I have a huge map area though, because that tiny window you get at standard settings just doesn't cut it. (there's a performance hit though, but it's manageable as long as you don't have a river flowing out into the open...)
2D or 3D?
This RTS bashing... I don't know man. I'm no fan of RTSes. But there's vast differences as long as you go outside the same subgenre. 3d RTSes like Homeworld and Total War (TOTAL WAR WHOHOOO!) would not be possible without the 3d.
EDIT: Oh and Sins of a Solar Empire (2008)!
Speaking of games looking the same though... What about those SNES 2d RPGs?
Now I look at more modern games like Warcraft III, Age of Empires III, Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations, and Empire EarthModerna games? The newest one of those is Age of Empires which is from 2005. Look instead at games like Dawn of War 2 (2009), Hearts of Iron 3 (2009), Empire: Total War (2009), Endwar (2009) or Men of War (2009). Now some of these games still use the old kind of style where 2d would do almost just as fine (HoI3 comes to mind, but also DoW2 and MoW), but the fact is that it's a lot less demanding to make 3d so why invest extra time and money to make 2d graphics when 3d are cheaper and allow a lot more customizability and freedom?
EDIT: Oh and Sins of a Solar Empire (2008)!
Speaking of games looking the same though... What about those SNES 2d RPGs?
This is probably the most in-depth RTS ever
Yesterday I went to the site and realized that the last release was in 2008. It's going to be a whole new learning experience to play with the new version when it comes out.
I guess everyone knows about DF by now though. Not that it makes it any less awesome.
I remember a fortress I had that I flooded by accident because I wanted to redirect a lava pool I found. And it redirected into a river which then created a wall of cooled lava. In the end I dug a hole that let the lava out in the wild, which wasn't a good idea either so then somehow I had the water flood the outside which did wonders for my framerate. In the end I redirected both of these things into an endless chasm.
But those water-hurt caverns were places with numerous dead dwarves. And those dwarves just kept going in and dying while trying to retrieve their dead comrades. I had to lock the cursed area away.
I guess everyone knows about DF by now though. Not that it makes it any less awesome.
I remember a fortress I had that I flooded by accident because I wanted to redirect a lava pool I found. And it redirected into a river which then created a wall of cooled lava. In the end I dug a hole that let the lava out in the wild, which wasn't a good idea either so then somehow I had the water flood the outside which did wonders for my framerate. In the end I redirected both of these things into an endless chasm.
But those water-hurt caverns were places with numerous dead dwarves. And those dwarves just kept going in and dying while trying to retrieve their dead comrades. I had to lock the cursed area away.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
