Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
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
No save marathon game. Good or bad idea?
author=Deacon Batista
This is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. D-:
In a good game you should be able to save any time you want.
I think you'd be surprised at how boring that game would be. You might not need to have a straight up Game Over when you die, but making death a deterrent is not a bad thing.
ShawShanky3.png
So you say your game has strategy
That's a great example of teaching the player: They'll face the enemy alone at first, meaning the battle isn't too hard, but maybe they'll figure out what abilities he has, or what he's weak too. Then later on, enemies will be mixed and matched, becoming more threatening, but if the player uses his brain he can figure out the best way to handle the situation because he learned how earlier.
And yea, there are usually easy and off-hand ways to mention to the player "Learn what these enemies do, it will be on the test." And once they get the hang of it and see it pay off, for example on a boss fight, they'll keep doing it.
And yea, there are usually easy and off-hand ways to mention to the player "Learn what these enemies do, it will be on the test." And once they get the hang of it and see it pay off, for example on a boss fight, they'll keep doing it.
So you say your game has strategy
Grinding, in the most commonly used sense of the word, requires very little strategy at all.
Dictionary: "to produce in a routine or mechanical way"
Wikipedia: "Grinding is a term used in video gaming to describe the process of engaging in repetitive and/or non-entertaining gameplay in order to gain access to other features within the game, or to allow the player to "grind" better/faster."
Routine, non-entertaining, and repetitive battles does not a game make. If you want your game to have challenging, fun, and strategic battles, you're better off removing all trace of grinding. Which of course, means a problem I've pondered for a long time: How do you make every battle in an RPG fun?
Potential solutions:
1) Make all your battles capable of killing you - yes, even forest imps.
PROS: Players will have to pay attention to each battle, and come up with clever strategies even for lowly minions.
CONS: Lessens the impact of a deadly boss (since RNG battles are also deadly). Still faces the problem of fighting the same fight repeatedly - once you've won one, you've won 'em all. Resource recovery (potions, ethers, HP/MP) may need to be heavily altered. More time must be spent balancing basic monsters.
2) Make all your battles count - limited recovery/time/number of battles means that the player will try and do his best to maximize his damage done and minimize his damage taken.
PROS: Even if a the player knows a battle won't kill him, he'll try his best to fight well, so that he can handle the upcoming fights more easily. Creates a sense of survival within the player.
CONS: Sometimes difficult to integrate in a game. For example, a dungeon in Final Fantasy is like this, but if you grind levels/potions outside the dungeon, it is no longer a challenge. However, if the player only has three days to complete a quest (ex. 3 nights at the Inn) he is forced to fight his very best to maximize his gains from those 3 days. Often, a game like this will be very heavily based around its time limits (Think Majora's Mask, for a semi-example.)
Side Note: I have noticed Craze tends to make games like #2, if you're interested.
I think I just got a great idea that utilizes the mechanics of #2... hot damn. I am psyched now.
Dictionary: "to produce in a routine or mechanical way"
Wikipedia: "Grinding is a term used in video gaming to describe the process of engaging in repetitive and/or non-entertaining gameplay in order to gain access to other features within the game, or to allow the player to "grind" better/faster."
Routine, non-entertaining, and repetitive battles does not a game make. If you want your game to have challenging, fun, and strategic battles, you're better off removing all trace of grinding. Which of course, means a problem I've pondered for a long time: How do you make every battle in an RPG fun?
Potential solutions:
1) Make all your battles capable of killing you - yes, even forest imps.
PROS: Players will have to pay attention to each battle, and come up with clever strategies even for lowly minions.
CONS: Lessens the impact of a deadly boss (since RNG battles are also deadly). Still faces the problem of fighting the same fight repeatedly - once you've won one, you've won 'em all. Resource recovery (potions, ethers, HP/MP) may need to be heavily altered. More time must be spent balancing basic monsters.
2) Make all your battles count - limited recovery/time/number of battles means that the player will try and do his best to maximize his damage done and minimize his damage taken.
PROS: Even if a the player knows a battle won't kill him, he'll try his best to fight well, so that he can handle the upcoming fights more easily. Creates a sense of survival within the player.
CONS: Sometimes difficult to integrate in a game. For example, a dungeon in Final Fantasy is like this, but if you grind levels/potions outside the dungeon, it is no longer a challenge. However, if the player only has three days to complete a quest (ex. 3 nights at the Inn) he is forced to fight his very best to maximize his gains from those 3 days. Often, a game like this will be very heavily based around its time limits (Think Majora's Mask, for a semi-example.)
Side Note: I have noticed Craze tends to make games like #2, if you're interested.
I think I just got a great idea that utilizes the mechanics of #2... hot damn. I am psyched now.
Character Introductions - Short and sweet or explanatory?
So you say your game has strategy
author=Max McGee
Trust me on this one, bro. The best thing you can do if you want your game to be moderately popular is to make your game simple and easy, at least at the beginning. Otherwise, your game will make people feel stupid and they'll hate it. Be careful, though. If everyone hates you anyway, you can even get in trouble for your game being too easy!
He already said he doesn't care if everyone hates it, he wants it to be challenging. But I'm kind of curious now, do you have an example of this, Max? I like making challenging fights too, but I'm wondering how tricky is too tricky.
What's the Point?
Wait, so have you been writing pen-and-paper RPGs and selling them? That's awesome.
He brings up a good point too. Principles of good game design transcend the medium, and practice in one form (RPG Maker) will help you design games better in other forms (Pen & paper, 3D games, Unreal Engine, Flash, board games, whatever).
I have heard at least a couple professionals tell me personally that all video game designers should try running a D&D campaign, because it's a great way to: practice design, learn what's fun and not fun, figure out what parts of design you enjoy, learn what players enjoy, experience direct player feedback, be creative, create balanced fights, create balanced systems, write stories, create settings, create characters...
y'know?
He brings up a good point too. Principles of good game design transcend the medium, and practice in one form (RPG Maker) will help you design games better in other forms (Pen & paper, 3D games, Unreal Engine, Flash, board games, whatever).
I have heard at least a couple professionals tell me personally that all video game designers should try running a D&D campaign, because it's a great way to: practice design, learn what's fun and not fun, figure out what parts of design you enjoy, learn what players enjoy, experience direct player feedback, be creative, create balanced fights, create balanced systems, write stories, create settings, create characters...
y'know?
RPG Maker VX Game on the iPhone?
It's definitely the RTP, but it seems like they just used the graphics, not the actual VX engine. Maybe there's some hack/program out there that makes publishing to iOS easy, those european RMers always pull off crazy stuff like that.
Anyway, if you can sell it, go for it, although I get the impression some RMers would take offense at it. Legally, I believe you can publish & sell RMVX games for the PC as well, but it's very rare one is actually good enough to buy.
Anyway, if you can sell it, go for it, although I get the impression some RMers would take offense at it. Legally, I believe you can publish & sell RMVX games for the PC as well, but it's very rare one is actually good enough to buy.
Does a game's download size matters to you?
The only thing I could see that would even pump up the size to an extreme level would be .mp3s or really, really high-level graphics... I suppose it depends on how good I thought the game looked. But since I goof off on the computer for hours anyway, having a file download in the background is no biggie, so file size isn't that big a deal to me.
So you say your game has strategy
A boss with minions.
Minions: Deal small acid damage, and a debuff that stacks acid vulnerability.
Boss: Deals aoe damage (multiple attacks?) as well as a huge spike of acid damage to a character every few turns.
The vulnerability is dispellable, but only on one character at a time (no aoe dispell), and you have a party of 4. You have an ability that can make one character at a time invulnerable to acid damage.
Choices: Heal, dispell debuffs, kill minions, attack boss. Who do you make invulnerable? Do you ignore removing the debuff in order to deal more damage or heal someone? Do you kill the minions first, or go right for the boss?
ALSO THEY ARE ALL SPIDERS
Minions: Deal small acid damage, and a debuff that stacks acid vulnerability.
Boss: Deals aoe damage (multiple attacks?) as well as a huge spike of acid damage to a character every few turns.
The vulnerability is dispellable, but only on one character at a time (no aoe dispell), and you have a party of 4. You have an ability that can make one character at a time invulnerable to acid damage.
Choices: Heal, dispell debuffs, kill minions, attack boss. Who do you make invulnerable? Do you ignore removing the debuff in order to deal more damage or heal someone? Do you kill the minions first, or go right for the boss?
ALSO THEY ARE ALL SPIDERS
Games - Tester
Games - Other
