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
Turn-Based...dead?
Recettear
I played a demo a while back, it was pretty fun. I skipped it yesterday to try Aquaria and Trine, but Recettear is still on sale for 10$ if you want it. It was a little buggy when I played it, but it was a demo a few months ago, so it might be better now.
Capitalism HO!
Capitalism HO!
"2D" Zelda Games Obsolete?
Yes, but Modeling, Animating and Texturing all require more training and higher levels of skill, as well as expensive programs to do it in. While a spriter might use Photoshop (if not a free knockoff), a 3D modeler might use Maya, Photoshop, and maybe even Mudbox. Not to mention that even being trained as a 3D modeler doesn't mean that you're proficient in all three specialties (four if you count Rigging, five for Rendering if you want nice cutscenes), and the time it takes to create good looking 3D models, terrain, etc... you wouldn't necessarily save much time or money relying on 3D.
It's certainly viable if you have people with the training, but it's not easy, since 3D has a higher initial barrier to entry. Neither is definitively superior to the other; it depends on the style of the game the designer is looking for. While I doubt AAA companies will be releasing tons of 2D-sprite games anytime soon, as far as the indie community goes sprites are alive and staying strong.
It's certainly viable if you have people with the training, but it's not easy, since 3D has a higher initial barrier to entry. Neither is definitively superior to the other; it depends on the style of the game the designer is looking for. While I doubt AAA companies will be releasing tons of 2D-sprite games anytime soon, as far as the indie community goes sprites are alive and staying strong.
"2D" Zelda Games Obsolete?
One of the great things about the advance of technology means we can make 2D games a lot easier than ever before, so while major companies like Microsoft are gonna keep pumping out fully 3D games, smaller developers (ex. independent/small studios) can very easily make good games with 2D mechanics and art. Spriting is much easier than before too.
Go Make me a Sandwich: Sexuality in Bayonetta (and other games)
I am male and probably to most people the last person who's opinion on this matters, but these are my thoughts:
1) Someone mentioned this earlier, but this phenomenon is hardly unique to video games. It occurs in every art form: There's Picasso, and there's pornography. There are paintings that were obviously meant to please the male eye, so to speak, and there are paintings where a woman (sometimes beautiful, sometimes nude) is created with a deeper purpose, with every detail of her character carefully laid our by the artist. Video games have seen both sides of the issue, but again - if there are people with a want or desire, companies will seek to fill it. It's some part of human nature (at least, in this day and age) to crave beautiful, sexualized women, and so games like DoA Beach Volleyball make money. It's the porn of the interactive media world (until they come out with interactive porn.)
2) Sexual lines aren't drawn evenly between males and females. We live in a society that judges both men and women by how many sexual partners they've had - men are congratulated by their friends, and women are branded with titles like slut by their enemies. It works in reverse, too - women are often offended if a man stares at her chest, but men find it more than acceptable for a woman to stare at him if he's a handsome dude.
When it comes down to video games, many female gamers are offended if their gender is represented hyperfeminine. However, many men prefer their owngender to be represented hypermasculine - think of the lead characters in God of War, Devil May Cry, or really, any game where you control a badass who is extremely muscular, extremely powerful, or both. Do male players want to play a wimpy guy who lets the girl get taken by another man, or the heroic stallion of manliness who saves her?
That last idea was taken from an article written (by a female) about Bayonetta here:
http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/213466/bayonetta-empowering-or-exploitative/
The author writes about players using their video game to explore the life of another character. The character may be unrealistic or just plain ridiculous, but that's the point.
I don't know. I certainly don't blame companies for giving people what they want. You can blame misogynistic males, but that's not really deep enough. I think it comes down to the judgement line between males and females - if humanity was less quick to pass judgement, perhaps sexual women wouldn't be treated as "sluts" and they could get the same respect that sexual men do.
It's funny, one of my female friends sometimes tries to talk about who she's had sex with, but she always wonders if I'm judging her or is embarrassed afterwards. Why is it a big deal? I'm completely cool with women being able to have sex without being judged or called names. That just means more women having sex and thus more men having sex, and everyone being less insecure in general.
1) Someone mentioned this earlier, but this phenomenon is hardly unique to video games. It occurs in every art form: There's Picasso, and there's pornography. There are paintings that were obviously meant to please the male eye, so to speak, and there are paintings where a woman (sometimes beautiful, sometimes nude) is created with a deeper purpose, with every detail of her character carefully laid our by the artist. Video games have seen both sides of the issue, but again - if there are people with a want or desire, companies will seek to fill it. It's some part of human nature (at least, in this day and age) to crave beautiful, sexualized women, and so games like DoA Beach Volleyball make money. It's the porn of the interactive media world (until they come out with interactive porn.)
2) Sexual lines aren't drawn evenly between males and females. We live in a society that judges both men and women by how many sexual partners they've had - men are congratulated by their friends, and women are branded with titles like slut by their enemies. It works in reverse, too - women are often offended if a man stares at her chest, but men find it more than acceptable for a woman to stare at him if he's a handsome dude.
When it comes down to video games, many female gamers are offended if their gender is represented hyperfeminine. However, many men prefer their owngender to be represented hypermasculine - think of the lead characters in God of War, Devil May Cry, or really, any game where you control a badass who is extremely muscular, extremely powerful, or both. Do male players want to play a wimpy guy who lets the girl get taken by another man, or the heroic stallion of manliness who saves her?
That last idea was taken from an article written (by a female) about Bayonetta here:
http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/213466/bayonetta-empowering-or-exploitative/
The author writes about players using their video game to explore the life of another character. The character may be unrealistic or just plain ridiculous, but that's the point.
I don't know. I certainly don't blame companies for giving people what they want. You can blame misogynistic males, but that's not really deep enough. I think it comes down to the judgement line between males and females - if humanity was less quick to pass judgement, perhaps sexual women wouldn't be treated as "sluts" and they could get the same respect that sexual men do.
It's funny, one of my female friends sometimes tries to talk about who she's had sex with, but she always wonders if I'm judging her or is embarrassed afterwards. Why is it a big deal? I'm completely cool with women being able to have sex without being judged or called names. That just means more women having sex and thus more men having sex, and everyone being less insecure in general.
Button Mash - Forcing the player to use different skills
There may be a "best" strategy, but I think that bosses should allow for a few creative options. And I don't just mean the old fallback of "grind 10+ levels" although that certainly can be one.
Secret/ Super Boss length
If you want a long battle, you should probably make it either multiple phases or several shorter battles. Once a player figures out the strategy, the battle should be won fairly simply, so each phase's strategy should be complex enough to make the player work to figure it out, and then that phase should be won *fairly* easily.
That being said, a battle that complex will wear out your player, so use them wisely and not too often.
That being said, a battle that complex will wear out your player, so use them wisely and not too often.
Button Mash - Forcing the player to use different skills
Just to drop a name, the Mario RPGs have managed to reduce the boringness of repeated battles by simply making you press the attack button twice - with correct timing. Maybe adding some action to our RPGs is not a bad thing.
But in a solely turn-based game, maybe you shouldn't even add an "Attack" button. Maybe add two or three simple "Attacks" to each character - each with a different effect - that can be used every turn, and don't consume resources like MP. For example, your Soldier has a poison attack, an attack that deals less damage but heals the Soldier, and an attack that slightly delays the target's next turn.
Now all of a sudden there's a little dynamic. If the poison lasts 3 turns, you want to hit with that attack every three turns. Typically if the enemy is poisoned, you'll rely on the delay attack (to decrease the enemy's damage done to you) unless your Soldier is missing HP, at which point you'll start with the healing attack. It's a simple combo, but at least it requires a little management and thought process behind it.
Of course, like people have said, if you're going to have numerous battles, they can all have their own strategy - hopefully, the strategy is recognizable fairly quickly - and the player will do his best to learn and execute it. For example, an enemy might be immune to the poison attack, or might deal enough damage that the Soldier needs to constantly drain life to stay alive.
I've heard people complain about reptitiveness while playing World of Warcraft, but WoW does its best to address the problem. There is usually by and far an optimal, maximum-damage strategy for every class (Ex. Rogues Mutilate to 5 combo points, Envenom, making sure to refresh Rupture and Slice and Dice) but this strategy is hampered or must be adjusted to fit the boss's attack pattern - maybe he summons minions you have to kill or avoid, maybe he lights the floor on fire and you have to run away to dodge it, or maybe he has a 10-second period where he suffers triple damage. Most of WoW's bosses are like this, meaning that you're never JUST executing the optimal strategy - you have to adjust it to compensate for the boss.
A side note: The strategy has to be effective enough to make a noticeable difference in battle - in WoW, a player may be happy if he's skilled enough to utilize a boss's weakness and do +10% damage, but in a typical RPG, strategies often have to be much more obviously effective - for example, 50% - to convince a player to do them on a regular basis. Again, take Paper Mario: would you ever not try to get the Timed Hit? Of course not, it does double damage! You want that timed hit! You're willing to work for it! Players should feel the same about strategies in your game. Or so the theory goes.
Second side note: Finally, if a player gets the strategy right, he should win the battle fairly easily (or that phase of the battle easily). Once he's got the mechanics down, the player will get bored and his mind will tire if he has to consistently apply intense strategies to every single enemy. Enemies with overly complex strategies should be used sparingly, to create an intense boss fight, for example. Normal enemies should either be fairly simple (but still somewhat involving) or few in number. If the player has to give 110% constantly just to stay alive in your game, he will get exhausted. A good game has relaxing points as well as spikes.
TLDR:
1) Paper Mario games require you to used timed hits, adding flavor to battles.
2) Replacing an "Attack" command with a more involving, strategic choice to be made may be a solution to boring battles.
3) Battles should differ with each enemy. Strategies for fighting an enemy should be recognizable and the player should have the tools to utilize them.
4) WoW uses raid bosses to mix up fights - each class has its own optimal strategy, but must adapt to the boss's mechanics to win the fight.
5) Addendum: Strategies must be effective enough (read: extremely effective) so that players are convinced to spend time executing them.
6) Don't tire out your player by requiring perfect strategy application on every single mob. Either reduce random mobs or make them simple (but still somewhat involving) to fight.
But in a solely turn-based game, maybe you shouldn't even add an "Attack" button. Maybe add two or three simple "Attacks" to each character - each with a different effect - that can be used every turn, and don't consume resources like MP. For example, your Soldier has a poison attack, an attack that deals less damage but heals the Soldier, and an attack that slightly delays the target's next turn.
Now all of a sudden there's a little dynamic. If the poison lasts 3 turns, you want to hit with that attack every three turns. Typically if the enemy is poisoned, you'll rely on the delay attack (to decrease the enemy's damage done to you) unless your Soldier is missing HP, at which point you'll start with the healing attack. It's a simple combo, but at least it requires a little management and thought process behind it.
Of course, like people have said, if you're going to have numerous battles, they can all have their own strategy - hopefully, the strategy is recognizable fairly quickly - and the player will do his best to learn and execute it. For example, an enemy might be immune to the poison attack, or might deal enough damage that the Soldier needs to constantly drain life to stay alive.
I've heard people complain about reptitiveness while playing World of Warcraft, but WoW does its best to address the problem. There is usually by and far an optimal, maximum-damage strategy for every class (Ex. Rogues Mutilate to 5 combo points, Envenom, making sure to refresh Rupture and Slice and Dice) but this strategy is hampered or must be adjusted to fit the boss's attack pattern - maybe he summons minions you have to kill or avoid, maybe he lights the floor on fire and you have to run away to dodge it, or maybe he has a 10-second period where he suffers triple damage. Most of WoW's bosses are like this, meaning that you're never JUST executing the optimal strategy - you have to adjust it to compensate for the boss.
A side note: The strategy has to be effective enough to make a noticeable difference in battle - in WoW, a player may be happy if he's skilled enough to utilize a boss's weakness and do +10% damage, but in a typical RPG, strategies often have to be much more obviously effective - for example, 50% - to convince a player to do them on a regular basis. Again, take Paper Mario: would you ever not try to get the Timed Hit? Of course not, it does double damage! You want that timed hit! You're willing to work for it! Players should feel the same about strategies in your game. Or so the theory goes.
Second side note: Finally, if a player gets the strategy right, he should win the battle fairly easily (or that phase of the battle easily). Once he's got the mechanics down, the player will get bored and his mind will tire if he has to consistently apply intense strategies to every single enemy. Enemies with overly complex strategies should be used sparingly, to create an intense boss fight, for example. Normal enemies should either be fairly simple (but still somewhat involving) or few in number. If the player has to give 110% constantly just to stay alive in your game, he will get exhausted. A good game has relaxing points as well as spikes.
TLDR:
1) Paper Mario games require you to used timed hits, adding flavor to battles.
2) Replacing an "Attack" command with a more involving, strategic choice to be made may be a solution to boring battles.
3) Battles should differ with each enemy. Strategies for fighting an enemy should be recognizable and the player should have the tools to utilize them.
4) WoW uses raid bosses to mix up fights - each class has its own optimal strategy, but must adapt to the boss's mechanics to win the fight.
5) Addendum: Strategies must be effective enough (read: extremely effective) so that players are convinced to spend time executing them.
6) Don't tire out your player by requiring perfect strategy application on every single mob. Either reduce random mobs or make them simple (but still somewhat involving) to fight.
No save marathon game. Good or bad idea?
author=PsychoFreaX
By the way, would everyone be okay with the quick save idea in a fifty hour game where players will probably lose against half the bosses?
For an RPG? No.
1) Random Number Generation means an enemy critical hit can wipe a character or party instantly, and bam, no game.
2) For characters to know/learn/experiment on a boss fight, they have to fight the boss, meaning that there's a good chance they'll die before they have any idea what they are supposed to do. Not only that, but if the party needs special equipment equipped to beat the boss, well... too bad.
3) Honestly, most players who felt the need to beat the game would grind excessively to just survive, because it's the only solid, reliable strategy in a game like that. But not everyone likes grinding.
Action RPGs like Diablo II have pulled off optional hardcore modes that was essentially what you're talking about - you could create a character that was deleted on death. However, there were several differences:
1) Players have already beaten the game once (to unlock Hardcore mode)
1a) There are multiple ways to play the game (with several different classes) which makes replaying it fun instead of a complete bore
2) There were rewards for Hardcore mode - you were ranked in your own ladder (against other players) and it made you play more careful.
No save marathon game. Good or bad idea?
author=PsychoFreaX
Okay okay I get it. How about this? You can save anytime you want. However every time you save, the game shuts off automatically and every time you load deletes that save file right after. I might even shorten the game down to 7 hours. Should I? What do you think?
This had been mentioned several times during this topic by a few different people. It's called "soft-saving" or "quick-saving". If you actually planned on making a long game without true saves, at least add quicksaves so people can make dinner or go to bed.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
