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
2D or 3D?
Artistic integrity?
The only reason 2d has "artistic integrity" is because only people without companies with money backing them do 2d games anymore. If you take a screenshot from a game based on a movie license in 2d it looks just as shit as most 3d movie license games look today.
I can't really see how 2d is the superior medium. The way you describe it every 2d game is a puzzle game where you have to figure out an optimal route since you have all the information at hand. In boardgame terms an information perfect game (like chess).
So 3d is then the game with some randomness in it. A random card draw. Some small thing that you can't predict.
Sometimes I like a bit of analysis paralysis but more often than not I like the random fun where anything can happen.
Basically...
vs 
The only reason 2d has "artistic integrity" is because only people without companies with money backing them do 2d games anymore. If you take a screenshot from a game based on a movie license in 2d it looks just as shit as most 3d movie license games look today.
I can't really see how 2d is the superior medium. The way you describe it every 2d game is a puzzle game where you have to figure out an optimal route since you have all the information at hand. In boardgame terms an information perfect game (like chess).
So 3d is then the game with some randomness in it. A random card draw. Some small thing that you can't predict.
Sometimes I like a bit of analysis paralysis but more often than not I like the random fun where anything can happen.
Basically...
2D or 3D?
Back when 3d sucked I was a 2d guy. But nowadays there's no reason to go back. Of course there are still distinctly 2d-genres, like 2d platformers, that benefit little from being 3d (just look at Crash Bandicoot, a 2d platformer in 3d. It did little).
But games that have really benefitted from 3d are stuff like First Person Shooters and Strategy Games. (What would a strategy game be without a free-roaming camera?... Well yes, it could be like Hearts of Iron...). 3d also increases immersiveness in certain genres that do a lot of good with immersive. (Like adventure games and RPGs, again that free-roaming camera)
But games that have really benefitted from 3d are stuff like First Person Shooters and Strategy Games. (What would a strategy game be without a free-roaming camera?... Well yes, it could be like Hearts of Iron...). 3d also increases immersiveness in certain genres that do a lot of good with immersive. (Like adventure games and RPGs, again that free-roaming camera)
Alternative to battles
post=130536Yeah but even I recognize that's the stupidest thing ever.
On a side note... an RPG with racing doesn't have to be a game ABOUT racing. The hero might as well just try to save the world, but instead of battles, he gets into races. Doesn't have to be anything like a racer management sim.
In fact it touches on one of those aspects of many RPGs I hate the most (speaking of battle and non-battle skills). The complete disconnect between the story world and the battle/gameplay world. They have nothing in common.
Alternative to battles
post=130460We could look at boardgames for inspiration and we find some pretty neat racing games out there.post=130451This sounds like the least fun thing EVER.
Not if the racing was played out in a turn-based system with set units of movement. Make an SRPG with a start point and an end point!
Formula Dé and Snow Tails are two I've played that come to mind immediately. Board games are generally turn-based (I've played only a handful of real-time boardgames). so are examples of what could be used if you really, really have to have turn-based gameplay.
There's also Robo Rally, but that's a different bag of chips.
Now a racing RPG to me is not so much the racing engine but instead the "racer management sim". You create a racer with a personality and play as he becomes a racer (and a better racer with skill points and upgrades and all that jazz). Add to that some meaningful interactions with people around you and you have a fully fledged RPG only it's about a racer instead of someone trying to kill monsters to get loot.
Alternative to battles
I've heard RPGs be called Simulation games. Especially tabletop RPGs and especially in the eighties. Since, what are RPGs other than world simulation games where you simulate a character and his interactions in a world. (with detailed instructions as to what is and isn't possible and rules for every single thing imaginable)
Of course this is tabletop RPGs. Probably just a way to differentiate them from more abstract boardgames. (It was in some book from the eighties or early nineties that referred to Steve Jackson Games and GURPS as a simulation game/publisher)
Of course this is tabletop RPGs. Probably just a way to differentiate them from more abstract boardgames. (It was in some book from the eighties or early nineties that referred to Steve Jackson Games and GURPS as a simulation game/publisher)
World In Danger - RMXP
I tried this game today. I wanted to play a game that was gigantic. Unfortunately I found the game itself to be unplayable. And I died on the first mission after running out of ammo.
That's a major thing right there... If you can run out of ammo and end up with no way of even theoretically hurting the enemy... That's a game design flaw. But the controls were pretty bad too. But the cut-scenes were awesome and voice acting whohoho!
That's a major thing right there... If you can run out of ammo and end up with no way of even theoretically hurting the enemy... That's a game design flaw. But the controls were pretty bad too. But the cut-scenes were awesome and voice acting whohoho!
Request Time! Templar Knight Enemies!
Alternative to battles
post=130200
I have tried to design some games with elements of this and one game that was EXACTLY LIKE THIS. It is extremely tedious.
I guess the easiest way to deal with it is to go the Deus Ex route and make all choices lead to the same result eventually.
Alternative to battles
Alternatives to battle depend completely on the game. Going from the tabletop RPG perspective (it was already mentioned) there's lots of conflict resolution to be done in those without resorting to fisticuffs. And EVEN when resorting to said fisticuffs they can be resolved in a way that doesn't involve a side-track that takes more time than it should.
For example. RPGs are about player characters. NOT about players. So player character skills could have more effect than player skills. So you just pick a number of specialities from a list (this is where you can look at tabletop RPGs for skill lists and other stuff. The problem is implementing loads of these and then going "HOLY SHIT THIS IS USELESS") and these will... affect things.
This way you could essentially play out battles like any other thing. Like turning pages in a choose-your-own adventure book. You get to certain pages if you have certain skills and not to some pages when you lack those skills.
(you meet thug in alley, he asks for you money and your nice watch. If you have fisticuff skill you might fight him succesfully. If you don't have fisticuff skill you might be better off not fighting him all that much. If you have rabbit-run skill you'll try to run away or if you have psychiatry skill you might talk the thug into giving up on crime.)
Of course it's hard to get some great game mechanic to replace battles. Since oftentimes battles are essentially the only gameplay element in some of these games. It's a game within the game. It's when the roleplaying ends and the dice and hex map comes out. I really think that the only way to get rid of the bore that is the battles is to turn it into "just another thing that happens". After all RPGs are about freedom and freedom means that you should be able to kill someone if you really, really, really, need to. (With all the consequences of course. Being wanted for murder for the rest of the game should really make the game a lot harder, perhaps even impossible)
So yeah a final point (that was touched on earlier). A character's skills are always more important than a player's skills. The player directs a character and decides what the character is going to do. But the player's skills shouldn't ideally affect the outcome of the decision. Instead it's the character that should do all that jazz.
Now this might not really be all about them battles and stuff but it's part of the whole... thing.
As far as leveling goes you could also look at the scope and length of the game and have very limited leveling (I guess people like to level). But I'd like to see a short-ish game where there was no leveling.
blahblahblah I probably have some more ideas on it all. But I've already thrown out a bunch of things that most of them have nothing to do with battles. I just want other skills to have as much worth as battle ones. I'm for the Equal Rights of Skills!
For example. RPGs are about player characters. NOT about players. So player character skills could have more effect than player skills. So you just pick a number of specialities from a list (this is where you can look at tabletop RPGs for skill lists and other stuff. The problem is implementing loads of these and then going "HOLY SHIT THIS IS USELESS") and these will... affect things.
This way you could essentially play out battles like any other thing. Like turning pages in a choose-your-own adventure book. You get to certain pages if you have certain skills and not to some pages when you lack those skills.
(you meet thug in alley, he asks for you money and your nice watch. If you have fisticuff skill you might fight him succesfully. If you don't have fisticuff skill you might be better off not fighting him all that much. If you have rabbit-run skill you'll try to run away or if you have psychiatry skill you might talk the thug into giving up on crime.)
Of course it's hard to get some great game mechanic to replace battles. Since oftentimes battles are essentially the only gameplay element in some of these games. It's a game within the game. It's when the roleplaying ends and the dice and hex map comes out. I really think that the only way to get rid of the bore that is the battles is to turn it into "just another thing that happens". After all RPGs are about freedom and freedom means that you should be able to kill someone if you really, really, really, need to. (With all the consequences of course. Being wanted for murder for the rest of the game should really make the game a lot harder, perhaps even impossible)
So yeah a final point (that was touched on earlier). A character's skills are always more important than a player's skills. The player directs a character and decides what the character is going to do. But the player's skills shouldn't ideally affect the outcome of the decision. Instead it's the character that should do all that jazz.
Now this might not really be all about them battles and stuff but it's part of the whole... thing.
As far as leveling goes you could also look at the scope and length of the game and have very limited leveling (I guess people like to level). But I'd like to see a short-ish game where there was no leveling.
blahblahblah I probably have some more ideas on it all. But I've already thrown out a bunch of things that most of them have nothing to do with battles. I just want other skills to have as much worth as battle ones. I'm for the Equal Rights of Skills!
Games - Tester
Games - Other
