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 ListsSNODGRASS'S PROFILE
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Any RM games/prototypes with a purer grappling combat system?
Were you referring to conceptual posts like this: http://www.kickoutwrestling.com/2011/03/wwe-rpg.html or (I assume) PnP games like this: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12035.phtml
If it's the latter, can you explain what makes the grappling system in those notable? Seems like a lot of broken links and game designs much closer to say... the martial artists from Live-A-Live or Jean from Lunar 2.
I'm not saying they sound exactly like those but since you didn't elaborate, forgive me if I'm skeptical. Many games even 3d ones have grappling oriented brands in them but rarely true grappling or even purer grappling systems and I couldn't spot anything notable from those.
Couldn't spot any more WWE Rpgs from Google unless you mean things like Story Modes for the No Mercy, DoR and Smackdown games.
Edit:
Forgot to expand on this for those who can't fathom the difference of why even grappling oriented games may not be encompassing purer grappling systems.
Most WWE rpg concepts I've encountered (this doesn't include the WWE: The Rpg as I've never played it) are often based on "buy the moves" system. The reason they aren't pure grappling even the fighting games ones are because they rarely include any attempt at physics when you grab someone so you might as well have a wizard with fire fingers touching a victim and changing the animation around. The more rpg or sim-ish these concepts get, the more they simply expand the move list or they create pseudo-situations like say positional grappling and reversals. The closest I've encountered to these games having any concept close to grappling is the ole "too big to life" when grappling someone.
In contrast, purer grappling systems tend to be setup systems. For example the Enchanter in Mage Duel Extreme comes much closer to a purer grappling system than the WWE games I've encountered even though the Enchanter doesn't grapple at all because it is a class that tend to rely on putting your opponent to sleep first (the equivalent of a grab) and then dishing out damage and stat reductions/stat buffs based on the situation.
The reason the Enchanter differs from your textbook Wizard casting a status spell though is that the Enchanter has little to no damage inflicting spells or attacks. Every advantage you get relies on them incapacitating an enemy somehow/some way and then depending on how you did that, the next advantage opens up and it just doesn't stop there. It's constantly reactionary based on when your opponent wakes and what conditions both of you are in. Of course the Enchanter is forced to play like this and you don't get a purer grappling combat unless you're playing against another Enchanter but the ai is poorer at setting things up which is what makes the idea of someone doing this in a Rpgmaker game that much interesting from the perspective of game design.
If it's the latter, can you explain what makes the grappling system in those notable? Seems like a lot of broken links and game designs much closer to say... the martial artists from Live-A-Live or Jean from Lunar 2.
I'm not saying they sound exactly like those but since you didn't elaborate, forgive me if I'm skeptical. Many games even 3d ones have grappling oriented brands in them but rarely true grappling or even purer grappling systems and I couldn't spot anything notable from those.
Couldn't spot any more WWE Rpgs from Google unless you mean things like Story Modes for the No Mercy, DoR and Smackdown games.
Edit:
Forgot to expand on this for those who can't fathom the difference of why even grappling oriented games may not be encompassing purer grappling systems.
Most WWE rpg concepts I've encountered (this doesn't include the WWE: The Rpg as I've never played it) are often based on "buy the moves" system. The reason they aren't pure grappling even the fighting games ones are because they rarely include any attempt at physics when you grab someone so you might as well have a wizard with fire fingers touching a victim and changing the animation around. The more rpg or sim-ish these concepts get, the more they simply expand the move list or they create pseudo-situations like say positional grappling and reversals. The closest I've encountered to these games having any concept close to grappling is the ole "too big to life" when grappling someone.
In contrast, purer grappling systems tend to be setup systems. For example the Enchanter in Mage Duel Extreme comes much closer to a purer grappling system than the WWE games I've encountered even though the Enchanter doesn't grapple at all because it is a class that tend to rely on putting your opponent to sleep first (the equivalent of a grab) and then dishing out damage and stat reductions/stat buffs based on the situation.
The reason the Enchanter differs from your textbook Wizard casting a status spell though is that the Enchanter has little to no damage inflicting spells or attacks. Every advantage you get relies on them incapacitating an enemy somehow/some way and then depending on how you did that, the next advantage opens up and it just doesn't stop there. It's constantly reactionary based on when your opponent wakes and what conditions both of you are in. Of course the Enchanter is forced to play like this and you don't get a purer grappling combat unless you're playing against another Enchanter but the ai is poorer at setting things up which is what makes the idea of someone doing this in a Rpgmaker game that much interesting from the perspective of game design.
A time travel system - To the past and present.
I don't quite remember Chrono Trigger and I haven't played the others but if by "certain character classes" you mean their actual classes rather than their background as characters then I think your game would be different.
There hasn't been many games, time travel or otherwise, that went into details about a character's class unless it's tied to the characters. Even games like the Valkyrie Profile series that explained the Valkyrie class for example tied it to the characters and they executed this by doing half-way/end game type of revelations even the bits where time travel-like vents occured.
There hasn't been many games, time travel or otherwise, that went into details about a character's class unless it's tied to the characters. Even games like the Valkyrie Profile series that explained the Valkyrie class for example tied it to the characters and they executed this by doing half-way/end game type of revelations even the bits where time travel-like vents occured.
Any RM games/prototypes with a purer grappling combat system?
The below is not related to a grappling combat system but I don't know how to explain what I mean by purer grappling system without explaining it.
Anyway this is purely from my head. I don't have anything written down nor do I know how to script this nor have I looked long and hard for a script to do this nor have I even tried to change the actual database of rpgmaker's combat system.
I just read a tutorial that you can have bars for anything in rpgmaker and I'm trying to think up of a fall-back stock combat system that is on one hand simple but on the other hand wouldn't make me slack off on the design part by making me turn a lazy map into a dungeon crawling grindfest.
I decided that for rpgmaker's design, a 2 bar combat system would be ideal but it just wasn't enough.
The 2 bar system is basically a dual tug of war system where you can lose not just if your HP goes down to 0 but if the other bar goes down to a 100 even if your HP is at 100%. The games I saw this in used the 2nd bar as a lust meter. Maybe there have been other systems that uses that but I can't remember any example that is as notable or opens up such diverse gameplay strategies. (It's actually one of the issues I can't figure out. How to rename the lust meter so that it can apply to more general games. Only other meter I've seen of this nature that was also notable is an insanity meter but I just can't help but think you're not supposed to lose when you go insane but instead turn berserk)
Anyway the above is one of the many reasons why I couldn't be satisfied with a 2 bar system so I plan to have a 3 bar system where the final bar is an endurance meter that basically works like this:
-Enemy grapples = paralyze effect
-Shrugging off the effect uses up the meter instead of time based
-While grappled/paralyzed, the enemy can trade hp damage at the price of paralyzed duration by using the grappled player as a shield.
Obviously this doesn't come anywhere near a true grappling system but I consider this purer because grappling actually changes the dynamic of the fight via grabbing and not just perform a melee contact body impact damage type of design.
The game doesn't need to be similar to the above example either. It just has to have some dynamic where grappling means more than damage or status effect. The more varied the better. I'm not looking so much to play a fun game as much as I'm curious what the game designers did to bypass the graphical and animation limitations of rpgmaker.
Anyway the inspiration for this topic came because I recall a DnD comment that said grappling systems were a mess in PnP. I don't play PnP so I don't know if they improved upon this but considering my more meta-threads has been locked, I thought this would be much simpler than a thread asking for designs where the designers used dated methods to work around actions that normally need a more advanced animated engine to perform.
Anyway this is purely from my head. I don't have anything written down nor do I know how to script this nor have I looked long and hard for a script to do this nor have I even tried to change the actual database of rpgmaker's combat system.
I just read a tutorial that you can have bars for anything in rpgmaker and I'm trying to think up of a fall-back stock combat system that is on one hand simple but on the other hand wouldn't make me slack off on the design part by making me turn a lazy map into a dungeon crawling grindfest.
I decided that for rpgmaker's design, a 2 bar combat system would be ideal but it just wasn't enough.
The 2 bar system is basically a dual tug of war system where you can lose not just if your HP goes down to 0 but if the other bar goes down to a 100 even if your HP is at 100%. The games I saw this in used the 2nd bar as a lust meter. Maybe there have been other systems that uses that but I can't remember any example that is as notable or opens up such diverse gameplay strategies. (It's actually one of the issues I can't figure out. How to rename the lust meter so that it can apply to more general games. Only other meter I've seen of this nature that was also notable is an insanity meter but I just can't help but think you're not supposed to lose when you go insane but instead turn berserk)
Anyway the above is one of the many reasons why I couldn't be satisfied with a 2 bar system so I plan to have a 3 bar system where the final bar is an endurance meter that basically works like this:
-Enemy grapples = paralyze effect
-Shrugging off the effect uses up the meter instead of time based
-While grappled/paralyzed, the enemy can trade hp damage at the price of paralyzed duration by using the grappled player as a shield.
Obviously this doesn't come anywhere near a true grappling system but I consider this purer because grappling actually changes the dynamic of the fight via grabbing and not just perform a melee contact body impact damage type of design.
The game doesn't need to be similar to the above example either. It just has to have some dynamic where grappling means more than damage or status effect. The more varied the better. I'm not looking so much to play a fun game as much as I'm curious what the game designers did to bypass the graphical and animation limitations of rpgmaker.
Anyway the inspiration for this topic came because I recall a DnD comment that said grappling systems were a mess in PnP. I don't play PnP so I don't know if they improved upon this but considering my more meta-threads has been locked, I thought this would be much simpler than a thread asking for designs where the designers used dated methods to work around actions that normally need a more advanced animated engine to perform.
Stats are for Sissies: Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics
True which is why it's important to be careful between distinguishing which are alternatives from which are not.
I think it's impossible to get rid of stats anyway but when I read stats are for sissies, I think even the two questions you raised are not as important which is why I try not to address them.
Stats being less important often requires a major counter design. Like you stated, Castlevania is an action platformer that just happens to merge deeper rpg elements than most games.
Giving players things at level up besides stats can sometimes be a waste of design too. You often end up with a system where they might as well level up their stats anyways because what they lose in stats they gain in spells, access, etc.
It doesn't mean those don't have merits but often times the games that do those produce traditional growth mechanics in a different cloth as opposed to alternatives.
In contrast something like relationship-based and achievement-based level ups have vast potential to not only be alternatives but innovative in developing rpg growth. Such concepts could push level-ups to choices for example so instead of just changing your alignment with your actions, you level up which changes the whole meaning of choices in rpgs.
Example: This is not a true alternative example but in one game, you were a gladiator who could fix a fight where you lose at the price of gaining 3x the prize you get but it will impact your win-loss ratio.
Unfortunately the win-loss ratio barely matters in that example but the ramifications are clear.
This is what made Fallout 2's perks system more flexible and made it's level up systems more unique (and free flowing) because you had to worry about health, combat, diplomacy, stealth.
Yet at the same time, you also see why a traditional level up system was implemented.
If you freeze grind, there's a chance the rpg becomes more like a puzzle game in an rpg engine. Yet to truly break through that, you need stats that matter more not just stats that matter less only the stats that matter more should be the alternative stats but the problem remains is that you are giving value to those stats and there's a risk that instead of giving players anything, you give players the same thing in different names with slight tweaks.
It really is something that can't be figured out through prioritizing one aspect IMO and that's what makes it scary to implement much less to talk about. If you want to make a pure anti-grind game, you can always get away with that without alternative growth mechanics through items but that doesn't mean it's an alternative. If you want to introduce alternative growth without stats, you may have to overhaul the whole engine like the pet system in Black & White that involves slapping (literally using the mouse to slap) the pet in order to modify their growth.
There's also the manner of whether the players will not only accept it but accept it in more games. I think the closest to an alternative system that have ever proven it's merit to that design is the money based, "buy this move" system that some games uses and I only say this because it's something that gives choices at level-up as opposed to worrying about the actual design. All you need is moves that have different implications to the difficulty if you buy something earlier versus if you buy something later.
I think it's impossible to get rid of stats anyway but when I read stats are for sissies, I think even the two questions you raised are not as important which is why I try not to address them.
Stats being less important often requires a major counter design. Like you stated, Castlevania is an action platformer that just happens to merge deeper rpg elements than most games.
Giving players things at level up besides stats can sometimes be a waste of design too. You often end up with a system where they might as well level up their stats anyways because what they lose in stats they gain in spells, access, etc.
It doesn't mean those don't have merits but often times the games that do those produce traditional growth mechanics in a different cloth as opposed to alternatives.
In contrast something like relationship-based and achievement-based level ups have vast potential to not only be alternatives but innovative in developing rpg growth. Such concepts could push level-ups to choices for example so instead of just changing your alignment with your actions, you level up which changes the whole meaning of choices in rpgs.
Example: This is not a true alternative example but in one game, you were a gladiator who could fix a fight where you lose at the price of gaining 3x the prize you get but it will impact your win-loss ratio.
Unfortunately the win-loss ratio barely matters in that example but the ramifications are clear.
This is what made Fallout 2's perks system more flexible and made it's level up systems more unique (and free flowing) because you had to worry about health, combat, diplomacy, stealth.
Yet at the same time, you also see why a traditional level up system was implemented.
If you freeze grind, there's a chance the rpg becomes more like a puzzle game in an rpg engine. Yet to truly break through that, you need stats that matter more not just stats that matter less only the stats that matter more should be the alternative stats but the problem remains is that you are giving value to those stats and there's a risk that instead of giving players anything, you give players the same thing in different names with slight tweaks.
It really is something that can't be figured out through prioritizing one aspect IMO and that's what makes it scary to implement much less to talk about. If you want to make a pure anti-grind game, you can always get away with that without alternative growth mechanics through items but that doesn't mean it's an alternative. If you want to introduce alternative growth without stats, you may have to overhaul the whole engine like the pet system in Black & White that involves slapping (literally using the mouse to slap) the pet in order to modify their growth.
There's also the manner of whether the players will not only accept it but accept it in more games. I think the closest to an alternative system that have ever proven it's merit to that design is the money based, "buy this move" system that some games uses and I only say this because it's something that gives choices at level-up as opposed to worrying about the actual design. All you need is moves that have different implications to the difficulty if you buy something earlier versus if you buy something later.
Visual appeal vs other content
As far as game design, there's no such thing as visual appeal vs. other content.
Some call it harmony, others call it synchronization, the thing is - criticism of visual appeal in game design = emotion, not review, comment, criticism, etc.
It's like comedy. Some low brow comedies become classics and some low brow comedies that follow those formula become poor lowly rated obscure products.
It's not like a creative corner based premise like art's visual appeal where lazy = valid comment and eye candy = ooohhh...hubba hubba.
It's easier to think of visual appeal in game design the equivalent of Jay Leno (even things unrelated to comedy). Sometimes the more horrible your graphical design is, the more it gets praised and sometimes the more you try, the less people it appeals to.
It's all in the overall product reception and not the pre- or post- criticism.
The Snake Pliskin image for example, I personally find it less funny because it has a faceset but what does that mean?
Some people will say don't make cameos, others will ask for more details, others will demand it to be removed but the fact is all these comments are not meant to be followed. They're meant to show that something is wrong but no one is right so they try to invent things that sound right to them. Your task as a game designer isn't to take these things to heart but to keep these things in mind and merge them.
Again look at Jay Leno's jokes. He mixes his monologue with different audience and the overall effect is that it's poor and not funny but sometimes people just tune in to nab that one good joke that appeals to them.
It's especially important for character cameos. Game world randomness trumps working on a singular factor like the quality of the character's graphics all the time. You want the player to be ingested in the humor not laugh at it. If they're laughing it guarantees that a different segment of your audience isn't. If the game is full of laughs, it means your overall game design is bound to appeal to enough people that cumulatively they end up defending your game even if it's not that humorous.
If Jay is too old school, think of movies like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World or Jack Black's Tenacious D Pick of Destiny. What starts out being movies that are the equivalent to lazy poor and randomly directed film versions of the humor found in movies like Tropic Thunder ends up creating a genre unto itself because the overall world is intact. If I'm not mistaken, someone even said George of the Jungle is the reason people keep giving Brendan Frasier leads in horrible comedy movies.
Some call it harmony, others call it synchronization, the thing is - criticism of visual appeal in game design = emotion, not review, comment, criticism, etc.
It's like comedy. Some low brow comedies become classics and some low brow comedies that follow those formula become poor lowly rated obscure products.
It's not like a creative corner based premise like art's visual appeal where lazy = valid comment and eye candy = ooohhh...hubba hubba.
It's easier to think of visual appeal in game design the equivalent of Jay Leno (even things unrelated to comedy). Sometimes the more horrible your graphical design is, the more it gets praised and sometimes the more you try, the less people it appeals to.
It's all in the overall product reception and not the pre- or post- criticism.
The Snake Pliskin image for example, I personally find it less funny because it has a faceset but what does that mean?
Some people will say don't make cameos, others will ask for more details, others will demand it to be removed but the fact is all these comments are not meant to be followed. They're meant to show that something is wrong but no one is right so they try to invent things that sound right to them. Your task as a game designer isn't to take these things to heart but to keep these things in mind and merge them.
Again look at Jay Leno's jokes. He mixes his monologue with different audience and the overall effect is that it's poor and not funny but sometimes people just tune in to nab that one good joke that appeals to them.
It's especially important for character cameos. Game world randomness trumps working on a singular factor like the quality of the character's graphics all the time. You want the player to be ingested in the humor not laugh at it. If they're laughing it guarantees that a different segment of your audience isn't. If the game is full of laughs, it means your overall game design is bound to appeal to enough people that cumulatively they end up defending your game even if it's not that humorous.
If Jay is too old school, think of movies like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World or Jack Black's Tenacious D Pick of Destiny. What starts out being movies that are the equivalent to lazy poor and randomly directed film versions of the humor found in movies like Tropic Thunder ends up creating a genre unto itself because the overall world is intact. If I'm not mistaken, someone even said George of the Jungle is the reason people keep giving Brendan Frasier leads in horrible comedy movies.
Stats are for Sissies: Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics
author=Craze
I started this topic; you're allowed to discuss whatever comes up in it in response to the original topic.
Stop derailing with your personal philosophies on conversation and topic branching and nitpicking my use of a plural noun over a singular.
Those aren't my personal philosophies. These are general internet forum etiquette.
Also pay attention to your own stance for once. You say anyone can discuss whatever comes up and yet the irony is that you're telling me to stop discussing something that you brought up.
Forums are designed so that the mods and admins own the threads. They can lock it whenever they want or they can let it continue. It only seems like the OP's thread for when no intervention comes.
Anyways, I seriously question anyone's opinion if they say level-ups don't mean much in FF7 especially in the beginning but then I'm focusing on the word alternative rather than choice especially as the thread is titled stats are for sissies.
If I cheat in FF7 and made everyone lvl 99, there's a noticeable effect.
If I cheat in games that truly have level up alternatives, even when you reach level 99 you can't win past the entire game. Not even reach the final boss.
It's not like FF7 was some tightly challenging game to begin with or that the concept of a lvl 99 not dominating is unfathomable. A combat system that relies on status effects alone can derail a level 99. Since FF7 has little of that system even having a boss that can be killed instantly with one common item, it really begs the question whether it is because of a choice or simply because of another subtle effect like game graphics, game art, game narrative that would make one feel like level-ups mean little in FF7.
I mean even the clues are head scratching. A little damage in a game that has limit breaks. Health in a game whose combat system is often built in damage and where some of the bosses are tough not because of deadly status effects but deadly tank designs? How could level up mean little?
Morality: What do you do to design around it when designing for it?
No. No offense taken. I actually want to say thank you.
Without people like you, people like me would be more unwelcome from making these threads because instead of just explaining our threads - we have to come off as enemies of those who think they understood the thread but didn't and then post unhelpful stuff like "This sums it up." without knowing how far off-base they are. Especially as bad sum-ups from bad posters have a tendency to not be open to the OP correcting them or to people like you who would at least reply in context to the explanation instead of ignoring the follow-up replies.
It is only through you and the other more polite/willing forum posters across the internet that the worst conversationalists in the universe even have a sliver of opportunity in silencing the doubts of such posters especially when they see your stance changing even after originally assuming your way of conveying was 100% correct the first time. If you are sincere with your above reply, then yes, I do understand where you are coming from and that's why I emphasize that your statement wasn't wrong in my last reply, simply that it was an incomplete summation of this thread which is very important in threads like this because it can be the difference between the thread making sense and the thread sounding like it's based on a stupid/weird/confusing/contradictory/basic premise (whichever most makes sense to the people who are confused/not willing to read things they perceive as wall of texts carefully esp. if it doesn't contain technical stuff like game code).
Without people like you, people like me would be more unwelcome from making these threads because instead of just explaining our threads - we have to come off as enemies of those who think they understood the thread but didn't and then post unhelpful stuff like "This sums it up." without knowing how far off-base they are. Especially as bad sum-ups from bad posters have a tendency to not be open to the OP correcting them or to people like you who would at least reply in context to the explanation instead of ignoring the follow-up replies.
It is only through you and the other more polite/willing forum posters across the internet that the worst conversationalists in the universe even have a sliver of opportunity in silencing the doubts of such posters especially when they see your stance changing even after originally assuming your way of conveying was 100% correct the first time. If you are sincere with your above reply, then yes, I do understand where you are coming from and that's why I emphasize that your statement wasn't wrong in my last reply, simply that it was an incomplete summation of this thread which is very important in threads like this because it can be the difference between the thread making sense and the thread sounding like it's based on a stupid/weird/confusing/contradictory/basic premise (whichever most makes sense to the people who are confused/not willing to read things they perceive as wall of texts carefully esp. if it doesn't contain technical stuff like game code).
Stats are for Sissies: Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics
It's one thing to discuss things, it's another to hijack threads. That's why many forums frown upon off-topic post but many mods allow for a certain level of that attitude.
The branch is the issue and not the allowance to talk. I also highlighted this because (and this is totally from my own guesswork and experience in other forums) the thing that ticked off kentona wasn't just my opinion but this borderline flaming accusation that developers must be in "fear" to not do something especially for the RM scene where developers take more risks than the company line.
Unfortunately going against my post is like opening a can of worms. I don't claim to be correct but if you are willing to just say I was broad and incorrect due to my simplification of fear, I'm not one to take that without coming back with my own more detailed perspective but to use an analogy of basic game design, you don't design a game where you enter a door to a castle and it turns out it was a potemkin mousetrap for a dragon and you have to debate the impossibility of why the dragon couldn't have feasibly set that trap by answering questions and puzzles that take up more than the entire game if your game is based around something else. In this case, the topic is still Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics and not "Defend why your statements are wrong or correct".
The branch is the issue and not the allowance to talk. I also highlighted this because (and this is totally from my own guesswork and experience in other forums) the thing that ticked off kentona wasn't just my opinion but this borderline flaming accusation that developers must be in "fear" to not do something especially for the RM scene where developers take more risks than the company line.
Unfortunately going against my post is like opening a can of worms. I don't claim to be correct but if you are willing to just say I was broad and incorrect due to my simplification of fear, I'm not one to take that without coming back with my own more detailed perspective but to use an analogy of basic game design, you don't design a game where you enter a door to a castle and it turns out it was a potemkin mousetrap for a dragon and you have to debate the impossibility of why the dragon couldn't have feasibly set that trap by answering questions and puzzles that take up more than the entire game if your game is based around something else. In this case, the topic is still Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics and not "Defend why your statements are wrong or correct".
Stats are for Sissies: Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics
It's not that I don't ascribe faith. It's that this concept is so prevalent not just in RM developers that you can't say there's not a part of it that's based on fear or if you want something less "emotionally insulting" herd behavior.
As you said it's a broad statement. Now the key then falls on whether which one of us is having a broader statement.
Not that you have take the question specifically but it's not just about doing away with leveling systems. It's what it's replacing it with that I was replying to.
In this case how many legit level up system alternatives especially ones that are achievement based or relationship-based are actually alternatives and not just tweaks on a common game and how many of the alternatives are actually good game design vs. bad game design?
With game design, it's not just about being correct or incorrect. It's also about the growth and adoption that led to the current traditional form of leveling as the preferred one especially as game engines evolve. Of course the problem here is that once we introduce this disagreement, we're branching to too wide of another topic and it risks hijacking this thread.
I was just trying to be concise. Even today there are many level-up alternatives. You can even use the birth of SRPGs as a major branching off example. I wasn't really aiming to argue about it's validity. I just perceive it as a flaw that kept it from being adopted more. Especially in context of what is or isn't an rpg game in modern times. The things that used to do away with level up systems are now often part of non-rpg games with rpg elements like sandbox games such as Prototype. What they often don't merge though is achievement based level-up combinations because it's too risky especially when you are talking about a system that's totally separate from game cutscenes and is actually an achievement not just an achievement badge based design. I also mention Prototype because it has a borderline system like that in Web of Intrigues but still it stuck to a tweaked action adventure based level up system that involves buying moves as opposed to weapons because as a pure concept it's just so risky. You don't know if you need a fallback.
As you said it's a broad statement. Now the key then falls on whether which one of us is having a broader statement.
Not that you have take the question specifically but it's not just about doing away with leveling systems. It's what it's replacing it with that I was replying to.
In this case how many legit level up system alternatives especially ones that are achievement based or relationship-based are actually alternatives and not just tweaks on a common game and how many of the alternatives are actually good game design vs. bad game design?
With game design, it's not just about being correct or incorrect. It's also about the growth and adoption that led to the current traditional form of leveling as the preferred one especially as game engines evolve. Of course the problem here is that once we introduce this disagreement, we're branching to too wide of another topic and it risks hijacking this thread.
I was just trying to be concise. Even today there are many level-up alternatives. You can even use the birth of SRPGs as a major branching off example. I wasn't really aiming to argue about it's validity. I just perceive it as a flaw that kept it from being adopted more. Especially in context of what is or isn't an rpg game in modern times. The things that used to do away with level up systems are now often part of non-rpg games with rpg elements like sandbox games such as Prototype. What they often don't merge though is achievement based level-up combinations because it's too risky especially when you are talking about a system that's totally separate from game cutscenes and is actually an achievement not just an achievement badge based design. I also mention Prototype because it has a borderline system like that in Web of Intrigues but still it stuck to a tweaked action adventure based level up system that involves buying moves as opposed to weapons because as a pure concept it's just so risky. You don't know if you need a fallback.
Morality: What do you do to design around it when designing for it?
Actually you answered the question correctly and I'm not just saying this because of your threat.
A lot of game design (especially from the theoretical perspective) relies on two people wanting to discuss things for the pursuit of game design and not just to answer because just like other topics that has some philosophical bits to it, it's just impossible to make sense to others who don't want to discuss it.
For example take your two main premises against my thread.
If you don't believe it's possible to design games for morality, no matter how many games I show you that are like these: http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/game/index.php#peoplepower you will reject it or downplay it and that holds true for every concept beyond the general overview of those games and from there it's just a total slippery slope because you'll always demand more titles and examples and fallacies from authoritative (or at least decent sounding titles) and we can no longer just discuss game design and the more titles and examples I bring up especially just to explain the thread, the less it's about getitng perspective from game developers anymore with better capabilities and experiences to share than I have.
You want me to answer less but if I just say, "No, you're wrong." Would you accept it or take it as an insult especially with your capacity to lock threads? More importantly by convincing you, am I even on-topic anymore on my own thread or will the links distract and just make you or others shout "Well, I'm not going to bother to download a trial just to accept your premise".
It's even worse with the question "What do you do to design" because it's based on two major fallacies:
1) is that the thread was titled like that.
and
2) you paint it as a wrong question as opposed to the grand all question when it comes to all forms of design.
That's as concise as I can get without sacrificing the content of my post or coming off cold and insulting especially when my thread is on a life line.
A lot of game design (especially from the theoretical perspective) relies on two people wanting to discuss things for the pursuit of game design and not just to answer because just like other topics that has some philosophical bits to it, it's just impossible to make sense to others who don't want to discuss it.
For example take your two main premises against my thread.
If you don't believe it's possible to design games for morality, no matter how many games I show you that are like these: http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/game/index.php#peoplepower you will reject it or downplay it and that holds true for every concept beyond the general overview of those games and from there it's just a total slippery slope because you'll always demand more titles and examples and fallacies from authoritative (or at least decent sounding titles) and we can no longer just discuss game design and the more titles and examples I bring up especially just to explain the thread, the less it's about getitng perspective from game developers anymore with better capabilities and experiences to share than I have.
You want me to answer less but if I just say, "No, you're wrong." Would you accept it or take it as an insult especially with your capacity to lock threads? More importantly by convincing you, am I even on-topic anymore on my own thread or will the links distract and just make you or others shout "Well, I'm not going to bother to download a trial just to accept your premise".
It's even worse with the question "What do you do to design" because it's based on two major fallacies:
1) is that the thread was titled like that.
and
2) you paint it as a wrong question as opposed to the grand all question when it comes to all forms of design.
That's as concise as I can get without sacrificing the content of my post or coming off cold and insulting especially when my thread is on a life line.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
