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 ListsSLASH'S PROFILE
Close
I make video games that'll make you cry.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Some pointless meandering about gamers (AKA: Meet your audience)
Oh man, I thought we were talking about Journeyman Project for a minute. Damn.
So here are my numerologically-oriented thoughts:
1) So despite what anyone ever says, you can make a great game in any medium, be it RPG Maker (VX or 2k3 hurr hurr), Game Maker, pen & paper, whatever. That's not to say they're all equal. There's little reason to use RPG Maker to make an action game, or Flash to make a 3D game. Don't use the wrong tool for the job, and some tools are wrong more than others. Do your research.
2) If you're a hobbyist and you do this to relax from your day job, whatever. Make a game for yourself, and don't be surprised when it gets mediocre reviews because that's not why you made it! But, if you are trying to progress as a game developer, and you really want to improve, you need to strive to progress. This requires some actual work. You need to constantly be reading articles, learning about new tools or strategies, and of course and above all else, actually put time into game development.
3) As far as RPGs go, there are a bunch of truly core experiences RPGs excel at creating: Feelings of exploration, wonder, newness, awe, character growth and achievement, clever strategy, reward for hard work, etc. This makes sense when tied to typical RPG mechanics (level-ups, equipment, seeing new towns/places, heavy story) but most people don't even think about why these mechanics exist, and if you clone a mechanic without knowing its purpose, it's nearly impossible to masterfully design the mechanic. Games that pay attention to this aspect of design stand out and are more often than not amazing.
4) I appreciate hard-hitters like Craze and Soli. Somebody needs to say rough things and spit brute-force honesty - there's always gonna be enough sugarcoaters if you want more of that.
5) As far as niches go, the great thing about the internet is no longer having to subscribe to "mass-appeal" games. There's a game for every niche imaginable. That's why Train Simulator keeps pumping out DLC on Steam. If your game is good within your niche, there's probably fans out there for you.
On a side note, I absolutely design my games to be as good as Spelunky. I try to design them to be amazing. I work my ass off to make every game as good as it can be (within whatever timeline I have). I have no desire to make a "decent" game, even if one of my games turns out only "decent" due to outside constraints. I AM MAN. ROAR
So here are my numerologically-oriented thoughts:
1) So despite what anyone ever says, you can make a great game in any medium, be it RPG Maker (VX or 2k3 hurr hurr), Game Maker, pen & paper, whatever. That's not to say they're all equal. There's little reason to use RPG Maker to make an action game, or Flash to make a 3D game. Don't use the wrong tool for the job, and some tools are wrong more than others. Do your research.
2) If you're a hobbyist and you do this to relax from your day job, whatever. Make a game for yourself, and don't be surprised when it gets mediocre reviews because that's not why you made it! But, if you are trying to progress as a game developer, and you really want to improve, you need to strive to progress. This requires some actual work. You need to constantly be reading articles, learning about new tools or strategies, and of course and above all else, actually put time into game development.
3) As far as RPGs go, there are a bunch of truly core experiences RPGs excel at creating: Feelings of exploration, wonder, newness, awe, character growth and achievement, clever strategy, reward for hard work, etc. This makes sense when tied to typical RPG mechanics (level-ups, equipment, seeing new towns/places, heavy story) but most people don't even think about why these mechanics exist, and if you clone a mechanic without knowing its purpose, it's nearly impossible to masterfully design the mechanic. Games that pay attention to this aspect of design stand out and are more often than not amazing.
4) I appreciate hard-hitters like Craze and Soli. Somebody needs to say rough things and spit brute-force honesty - there's always gonna be enough sugarcoaters if you want more of that.
5) As far as niches go, the great thing about the internet is no longer having to subscribe to "mass-appeal" games. There's a game for every niche imaginable. That's why Train Simulator keeps pumping out DLC on Steam. If your game is good within your niche, there's probably fans out there for you.
Soli I don't think anyone is being that ambitious!
On a side note, I absolutely design my games to be as good as Spelunky. I try to design them to be amazing. I work my ass off to make every game as good as it can be (within whatever timeline I have). I have no desire to make a "decent" game, even if one of my games turns out only "decent" due to outside constraints. I AM MAN. ROAR
Who cares about credits?
Of course the most important thing is knowing that you made something great. Still, I would imagine it's nice walking down the street and someone goes "Hey, you made *this*! I loved *this* so much!" (Not that this happens a lot merely due to credits, but the principle is the same).
I have no shame in saying I have a huge ego and I like having fans. I like getting recognition. When you work on a project like a game or movie that requires a lot of blood, sweat and tears, it's nice to see your name on something at the end. You made something from start to finish, and there's the concrete proof.
One-liner: It's a guilty pleasure
I have no shame in saying I have a huge ego and I like having fans. I like getting recognition. When you work on a project like a game or movie that requires a lot of blood, sweat and tears, it's nice to see your name on something at the end. You made something from start to finish, and there's the concrete proof.
One-liner: It's a guilty pleasure
Skippable combat?
Skippable combat?
You know, not only was the P-Wing awesome, but it really felt like a reward worth earning and using. Few RPGS are willing to give you a one-use item that legitimately wins you a battle (unless you beat the Emerald Weapon hurr hurr).
It'd be a cool thing to consider adding, as a reward for a crazy sidequest or just some clever exploring (or chocobo breeding, cue hurr hurr). And of course, it would always end up sitting in your inventory at the end of the game because you'd always too afraid of wasting it.
It'd be a cool thing to consider adding, as a reward for a crazy sidequest or just some clever exploring (or chocobo breeding, cue hurr hurr). And of course, it would always end up sitting in your inventory at the end of the game because you'd always too afraid of wasting it.
Skippable combat?
I really think at the end of the day, it comes down to the game. Like any design decision, this isn't something that can be applied to or rejected from all games without exception.
We could take a look at the Invincibility Leaf in Super Mario 3D Land. It's an option presented to players who aren't doing well on a level. It makes Mario so powerful that beating most levels is trivial at best. While I'm sure many younger or less skilled players may have appreciated it, some hardcore Mario fans took it as an insult. "This game is telling me I need help."
Now, part of that problem lies in the presentation; if a game offers you hints or "cheats" to beat it after failing often, it feels like the game is treating you like a child that needs looking after. A skip button for battles could easily feel the same way. Although I agree with Craze's belief that grinding levels is an aging tradidion, and it can become a virtual, monotonous chore, adding a "skip this battle" button can very easily come off as condescending, and doesn't address the core problem - why are people trying to skip in the first place? Adding alternate systems that break up monotony, or better yet, eviscerating anything monotonous and leaving it to die on the cutting room floor, is a much cleaner solution, and will lead to a much purer product.
Of course, there will always be people who want to skip battles, cutscenes, content, or whatever. Is choosing to appeal to these people the right option for your game? Who knows. Do some research and see what people think - don't just take it at face-value.
We could take a look at the Invincibility Leaf in Super Mario 3D Land. It's an option presented to players who aren't doing well on a level. It makes Mario so powerful that beating most levels is trivial at best. While I'm sure many younger or less skilled players may have appreciated it, some hardcore Mario fans took it as an insult. "This game is telling me I need help."
Now, part of that problem lies in the presentation; if a game offers you hints or "cheats" to beat it after failing often, it feels like the game is treating you like a child that needs looking after. A skip button for battles could easily feel the same way. Although I agree with Craze's belief that grinding levels is an aging tradidion, and it can become a virtual, monotonous chore, adding a "skip this battle" button can very easily come off as condescending, and doesn't address the core problem - why are people trying to skip in the first place? Adding alternate systems that break up monotony, or better yet, eviscerating anything monotonous and leaving it to die on the cutting room floor, is a much cleaner solution, and will lead to a much purer product.
Of course, there will always be people who want to skip battles, cutscenes, content, or whatever. Is choosing to appeal to these people the right option for your game? Who knows. Do some research and see what people think - don't just take it at face-value.
Skippable combat?
This is entirely game-dependent though. Some games would work well with a system like this, and some would not. Adding this sort of feature into games haphazardly to appease customers is a cheap and mediocre solution - it needs to be designed well before being included, and if it doesn't make sense - don't include it.
Just because the implementation is easy doesn't mean the affect it has on design and overall game experience will be small. If you want to make your game as accessible as possible to all skill levels, by all means, this option makes sense for you... but like any other media, not all games are designed for all audiences.
This is a very common thread that occurs while playtesting a game - players will complain about particular features (or lack thereof) and while sometimes they're 100% correct, often you have to interpret why they're saying that in the first place.
For example, during a Zelda-like exploration game I worked on, we received a lot of requests for a map to see where the player should go next. Now, part of our game's emphasis was exploration, which would be hampered if there was a tool that told you where everything was. But after a little observation, it became obvious that the map wasn't the issue - our levels were simply too large, and players were getting lost in empty corners and understandably getting frustrated.
Had we just went with their feedback and added a map, the game would have suffered, because the root of the problem would've remained. Instead, we delved deeper, interpreted what players really wanted, and after our next playtest there was little feedback about needing a map and it was more positive in general.
Just because the implementation is easy doesn't mean the affect it has on design and overall game experience will be small. If you want to make your game as accessible as possible to all skill levels, by all means, this option makes sense for you... but like any other media, not all games are designed for all audiences.
Your job as a game designer is to know what's fun - better than the player does, if you're any good at your job - and guide the player to experiencing that.
This is a very common thread that occurs while playtesting a game - players will complain about particular features (or lack thereof) and while sometimes they're 100% correct, often you have to interpret why they're saying that in the first place.
For example, during a Zelda-like exploration game I worked on, we received a lot of requests for a map to see where the player should go next. Now, part of our game's emphasis was exploration, which would be hampered if there was a tool that told you where everything was. But after a little observation, it became obvious that the map wasn't the issue - our levels were simply too large, and players were getting lost in empty corners and understandably getting frustrated.
Had we just went with their feedback and added a map, the game would have suffered, because the root of the problem would've remained. Instead, we delved deeper, interpreted what players really wanted, and after our next playtest there was little feedback about needing a map and it was more positive in general.
Skippable combat?
author=narcodis
The article is arguing more that maybe some people would rather prefer to just play the game as if it were a visual novel. And in that case, so what? Let them eat cake.
Achievement systems and such really make this sort of feature plausible, as it allows you to show off that you actually beat the hard boss etc.
Achievements are nice, but my point was that by giving the player a button to opt-out, you're forever changing the way they will look at your game and the challenges within it. I believe some games (specifically, those designed around it) could benefit from a "skip" button, but it doesn't belong in every game.
Skippable combat?
My only argument against making it possible to skip combat (or any puzzle, dungeon, challenge or what have you) is that the option to skip a challenge can change the way the player approaches said challenge.
If you have to overcome something difficult, you knuckle down and you learn the tricks, you practice the skills and you gain the know-how. You talk about that challenge with your friends, and maybe because of all this buildup, it becomes one of the most memorable parts of the game.
Once you have the option to skip that challenge, however, your motivation may be lessened. Maybe you'll give it a few tries, decide you don't care enough, and then just hit skip and tell yourself you'll try it again later. Of course, you probably won't, because all you'll remember is how hard it was.
Being able to skip the challenge may entice a player to skip what might be a truly fulfilling part of gameplay - overcoming a great challenge.
This is just theory of course. I doubt I'll ever willingly design a game with skippable challenges, but that's because my games are usually all about those challenges anyway.
If you have to overcome something difficult, you knuckle down and you learn the tricks, you practice the skills and you gain the know-how. You talk about that challenge with your friends, and maybe because of all this buildup, it becomes one of the most memorable parts of the game.
Once you have the option to skip that challenge, however, your motivation may be lessened. Maybe you'll give it a few tries, decide you don't care enough, and then just hit skip and tell yourself you'll try it again later. Of course, you probably won't, because all you'll remember is how hard it was.
Being able to skip the challenge may entice a player to skip what might be a truly fulfilling part of gameplay - overcoming a great challenge.
This is just theory of course. I doubt I'll ever willingly design a game with skippable challenges, but that's because my games are usually all about those challenges anyway.
Boss Battle Design Contest - Sacrificial Lamb
World of lambcraft. Baa
But I have some good ideas for this. Maybe I'll join in if I get a spare weekend.
But I have some good ideas for this. Maybe I'll join in if I get a spare weekend.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
