SLASH'S PROFILE
I make video games that'll make you cry.
Search
Filter
Graphics and the sorts
I disagree with the pure superiority of 3D. While 3D has some possibilities 2D doesn't have, 2D has the capability to evoke certain styles and graphical tricks that don't work in 3D.
While I can see the advantage of 3D in a lot of situations, it's not the end-all be-all of game art. Classical art improved over the centuries as skills and techniques grew and tools were improved; after a certain point, however - and also due to the advent of photography - artists began to branch out into stylistic approaches to art such as cubism.
I believe the same will happen to video games. Even after the advent of truly realistic 3D recreation of the real world, stylistic re-interpretation will always exist and will always be able to compete with complete realism. 2D art will have its place in this, as well as 3D and probably other art approaches we've never even imagined.
While I can see the advantage of 3D in a lot of situations, it's not the end-all be-all of game art. Classical art improved over the centuries as skills and techniques grew and tools were improved; after a certain point, however - and also due to the advent of photography - artists began to branch out into stylistic approaches to art such as cubism.
I believe the same will happen to video games. Even after the advent of truly realistic 3D recreation of the real world, stylistic re-interpretation will always exist and will always be able to compete with complete realism. 2D art will have its place in this, as well as 3D and probably other art approaches we've never even imagined.
A new combat strategy (cutting off heads, making limbs useless)
Anyone remember Hybrid Theory? It was one of the few N64 rpgs, and it had a system similar to this, where your battles were one-on-one melee duels, and you could execute tons of karate-based attacks, like a left-arm chop to the neck, or a sweep kick to the right leg. Not only could you target specific body parts (iirc) your limbs leveled up individually, and you could focus on right fist, left fist, right leg, left leg, etc...
If you removed pointless low-level fights for specified, possibly individually scripted, fights; fights build around this system (either duels or fights where you have to be creative with this system to win) it would work.
Having to do this 4 or 5 times every level of a dungeon while searching for treasure would be quite boring.
If you removed pointless low-level fights for specified, possibly individually scripted, fights; fights build around this system (either duels or fights where you have to be creative with this system to win) it would work.
Having to do this 4 or 5 times every level of a dungeon while searching for treasure would be quite boring.
Death and Antagonism: Cool Villains
author=emmych
I actually agree with this, and I think more games should be doing it! I think giving a hero an antagonist that isn't really an EVIL MASTERMIND~ but has an opposing goal makes the hero more interesting. I don't like it when the heroes are right and the bad guys are wrong - a morally ambiguous protagonist is much more attractive to me, and makes for a far more interesting conflict, I think.
Also, it fuels inner-party conflict, which is simply delightful. I LOVE inner party conflict. <3
I remember, in the first RPG Maker game I actually spent a long time on, the hero and the villain were just competing businessmen :P the villain had owned a rival company that the hero drove out of business (legitimately) and he was driven by jealous and hate.
It was actually quite cool, you had the hero, who was a rich dude, and he lived in a rich city that had walled itself off from monsters, but it was small and the ones who couldn't afford to live there bunched together in the slums outside the city wall... there was even a big elevator that lowered you to the ghetto. The big baddie was your rival businessman, who was trying to get the poor to gather together and rebel against you.
Gah, I wish I had had better scope back then, maybe I would have had a chance to finish it.
Are classic RPGs still a viable option ?
One could say that by looking back to the past we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over.
One could also say that we observe a time where graphics were limited, space was limited, and excellent creativity was forcibly extracted from designers due to constraints beyond their control.
It's a lot easier to forget about the melody when you have the ability to add 16 different tracks on top of it.
One could also say that we observe a time where graphics were limited, space was limited, and excellent creativity was forcibly extracted from designers due to constraints beyond their control.
It's a lot easier to forget about the melody when you have the ability to add 16 different tracks on top of it.
Are classic RPGs still a viable option ?
author=Max McGee
What is an atari ghost?
I think he's referring to people who intentionally create games meant to invoke nostalgia, like Super Meat Boy and a lot of indie games do nowadays - pixelated graphics, chiptunes, that whole lot.
And wow, I didn't even notice that someone had already referenced Cthulu Saves the World...
Fact is, for indies it's usually easier to make pixelated graphics than it is to make realistic ones, and trying to go realistic with pixel graphics is a lot harder than making it stylistic and, yes, obviously nostalgic. Graphics aside, Cthulu took the old-school battle system and flipped it sideways with two simple tweaks: Recovery of all HP after battle, and the damage scaling.
It's a typical Dragon Quest-ish battle system, you have a party of four, you have attacks, you have spells/techs. You can also spend two character's turns for a combo ability, but that's hardly a huge leap into innovation. The punch comes when you see the damage scaling meter. Every turn you spend in battle, enemies do 10% more damage, meaning that 10 turns in, each enemy is doing twice as much damage. This alone makes you nervous and makes it clear that you can't afford to dick around in battle, or get into one of those Final Fantasy loops of attack, heal, attack, heal until boss is dead. In addition to this, your HP is recovered to full after battle, and the battles are balanced accordingly - meaning each battle is dangerous (some more than others based on monster groups, of course). Battles require just enough thought to be engaging without being horribly tedious and overlong, which sucks when you are exploring a dungeon.
JUST A THOUGHT
Are classic RPGs still a viable option ?
You don't need a fancy, overcomplicated battle system to make fights fun. But copy-pasting old battle systems means copy-pasting their old flaws as well. Stuff like completely random targeting by the enemies (better pray they don't target your mage) and useless spells can be improved or removed as necessary. Turn-based systems are still very workable and fun, if a little thought is put into them.
There's a chance it can succeed, but you're appealing to a smaller and smaller niche as you lessen the gameplay. If by "minimum" gameplay you mean you want to spend as little time as possible on it, you're hurting your chances. If instead you mean simplistic gameplay without a million crazy twists and unnecessary systems, then of course you can succeed.. There is elegance in simplicity, and it can lead to amazing fun.
I'm just wondering how far a game can get in the RPG category with the minimum package for gameplay and maximum place for the rest.
There's a chance it can succeed, but you're appealing to a smaller and smaller niche as you lessen the gameplay. If by "minimum" gameplay you mean you want to spend as little time as possible on it, you're hurting your chances. If instead you mean simplistic gameplay without a million crazy twists and unnecessary systems, then of course you can succeed.. There is elegance in simplicity, and it can lead to amazing fun.
Are classic RPGs still a viable option ?
Excessive reading is akin to today's pre-rendered cutscenes. It worked in that medium, why not try it in games? But people aren't playing games because they secretly want to watch movies, they're playing to play. Same goes for books, if I want to read novelletes I'll go find a book.
I mean, it's not like you have to make a textless game but woe be to those who thinks a game is nothing without word vomit :P
That being said I've played some textless RPGs and they are fantastic.
I mean, it's not like you have to make a textless game but woe be to those who thinks a game is nothing without word vomit :P
That being said I've played some textless RPGs and they are fantastic.
Are classic RPGs still a viable option ?
Go take a look at Cthulu Saves the World - it's essentially a SNES (or NES, even) RPG that was released for a dollar on XBLA and Steam and has become very popular. It's clever, the theme is funny, the battles are quick and fun with some cool twists, and overall it's very nostalgic.
It's very possible to release a classic RPG in this day and age. Graphics don't matter as much as they used to - you don't need full 3D or even amazing 2D, you just need to give them due care and thought so they make sense and fit your game. Some of the gameplay design from that era has stood the test of time and some hasn't, and you should study it, pick apart those systems and use them as you will.
And @Nightowl - RPGs generally have the additional responsibility of having a good story, world, characters, or all three. But you're right, a game should have a strong focus on solid gameplay, and if gameplay is playing second hat to something else, the author is probably better off writing a novel or filming an amateur film.
It's very possible to release a classic RPG in this day and age. Graphics don't matter as much as they used to - you don't need full 3D or even amazing 2D, you just need to give them due care and thought so they make sense and fit your game. Some of the gameplay design from that era has stood the test of time and some hasn't, and you should study it, pick apart those systems and use them as you will.
And @Nightowl - RPGs generally have the additional responsibility of having a good story, world, characters, or all three. But you're right, a game should have a strong focus on solid gameplay, and if gameplay is playing second hat to something else, the author is probably better off writing a novel or filming an amateur film.
Criticism, your audience, and putting your foot down; the concept of saying "That's too god damn bad."
author=Solitayre
Use VX.
I really don't care for VX. It may be easier to assemble the taco, but being limited to only five ingredients at a time is really hampering the creative taco-building process. Sure, in 2k3 getting the lettuce, tomato bits, cheese, meat and shell in the right order might seem a little old-fashioned, but it's worked for years and I'm used to it. I make all my best tacos in 2k3.
Death and Antagonism: Cool Villains
author=Dudesoft
Actually, he still falls in the same category. Just some guy out to blow up the world, and some plucky team has to stop him. It's the same thing. Difference is that Kefka doesn't have mommy issues, just a clown fetish.
I know! That's my point, his goal is ridiculous and so is he. They didn't try and legitimize his goal, they just made him insane and everything he does reflects that. Sephiroth's goals don't even really make sense, but FF7 tries to make them make sense anyway.
That being said, a more humanized villain can be very cool, but usually he makes for a terrible end boss :P I know there are some good ones, I just forget.














