Defeat the vermin of the underworld with the help of a fire djinn.



WIN SOME // LOSE SOME - What game did you think would suck was actually awesome, and vice versa?

Because it lacks unit queue. Not to mention judging by the first few missions that the game was just spam to win. (which just made the lack of unit queue even worse) By comparison Tiberian Sun felt more rock scissors papery which I absolutely dug. But anyway, the lack of unit queue is a dealbreaker.

WIN SOME // LOSE SOME - What game did you think would suck was actually awesome, and vice versa?

I played the DS Sonic collection, it was so-so but I played the games already so they were less annoying. The DS collection is probably not the best way to play the games for the first time since they cut off part of the screen in order to fit on the DS. For a game based around speed and being able to react, even trimming a few rows of pixels is very bad. But then again nobody seems to get this, and Sega continues to repeat the same flaw in every new 2D Sonic title including the upcoming Sonic Mania. (although at least that one is 16:9, and seems to have slower gameplay like the classics)

I recently played Tiberian Sun again, since it's freeware now and I never beat the Nod Firestorm campaign so I decided to do that. My, how this game aged poorly. I love the atmosphere, soundtrack, art direction, and unit design to this game a whole lot, and that makes it sort of a classic to me, so it kind of pains me to say that the campaign is poorly set up and a chore to play through, and many of the missions are abysmal, frustrating, poorly designed (Nod base mission that can easily be completed before even a single chemical missile becomes ready) or downright near impossible. (Hammerfest Base for GDI, Capture Jake McNeil for Nod, etc) The volume settings also also out of whack, but no matter how you adjust them it is impossible to hear anything during the FMV cutscenes. (not to mention the cutscenes are an optional download now, meaning why would anyone bother to download them?) However, afterwards I played the original Command Conquer and that game is far worse. It is pretty much unplayable.

Mr. Driller - I bought the PSone classic, I thought it would be a slam dunk since I loved each of the three Mr. Driller games I played up to that point. (Mr. Driller 2, Drill Spirits, and Drill Till you Drop) But this was a disappointment. The music was eh, the colors look crappy, and the PSP dpad felt a little too big to work well with the game. (although you could hardly blame the game for that) Chalk another one up to early installment weirdness.

[Poll] Character Progression Mechanics

1 and 2 are essentially the same, right? Normally, higher levels require more exp, which is in effect the same as if enemies gave less exp.

3 sounds neat but it's kind of counter intuitive to reward skilled players by making the game easier. That might be a problem.

4 is excellent, and I was considering doing it for my first RPG. However there is a drawback to this, it means the player has to manually do everything. Exp is automatic. Upgrades and equipment and customization are obviously staple elements of any good RPG, but it's also nice to have that added layer that a growth system provides, one that takes care of itself and the player doesn't have to worry about. It's also realistic to the concept of "experience". you naturally get better as you do something, without having to do anything else.

5 is difficult to pull off and it's also no longer an RPG at that point. Kind of boring since there's nothing to discuss. A game like this has nothing to contribute.

other ideas? How about enemies that become weaker over time. you'd put a conditional branch on each battle event with a global switch that counts the number of bosses that player defeated.
But this is dumb since the idea is essentially the same as 5. Also there's no way to grind.

Another idea is to make it so dying is the only way to increase your level. So like a handicap.
Oh, maybe my game should do it this way. It's a really neat idea.
Player dies, then is forced to grind. After grinding, the party gains a level, and the process repeats.
The genius is in the fact that the level is gained not upon death but after post-death grinding. Though on second thought this is irrelevant. It really doesn't matter when the level happens.

What I don't like about RPG Maker is that levels are permanently displayed (I think?) and there's no way to remove them. So you're forced to have a level system. Which means I also want to use methods to make levels vary between party member because it's weird if everyone has the same level and if everyone levels up at the same time. Because in that case the party should have a level instead of each individual character. This can be problematic in games where you have the same 3-4 characters for the entire duration of the game since they all gain the exact same amount of exp for the entire game, making individual exp counts redundant.

Totally green on RPG Maker - Have some questions.

MV doesn't have a free trial I don't think, which is crazy because its $80. Also, I'm really intrigued about the whole export to mobile thing which is only available on MV.

Whatchu Workin' On? Tell us!

Arabian Nights themed RPG using stock actors

Wondering if these faces are befitting the characters they're supposed to resemble.

I was going to use the blue haired guy below for Aladdin, but I noticed that this set of portaits is in a thicker, darker line style than the rest. As a result he really seemed out of place from the other characters during battle.

EDIT: I found a thread providing Arabian resources that are really freakin sweet.
But it can wait. I'll probably use my current headsets in the meantime until I build my game up, then make the switch.

EDIT: Found a way better Sinbad in the stock graphics.

The Bonus Dungeon is the Final Dungeon?

I think this is the first time I've ever seen somebody be against additional content. Unsure if serious. Actually, pretty sure not serious. This isn't some case of differing opinions from multiple views like how some people can eat BBQ insects, it's more like saying you eat broken glass.
Well that's not what I was arguing, but you are wrong anyway because not all additional content is worth putting in. The argument levelled against me (or so I hope is) is the addition of GOOD additional content that's actually worth putting in. But if anything you guys are the ones arguing against this content because I am proposing you put that content in the main game but you say no. So I guess this isn't some case of differing opinions from multiple views like how some people can eat BBQ insects, it's more like saying you eat broken glass. ;)

My argument was never with the bonus content itself, just the way it's implemented. you might as well use the "bonus content is bad? Huwah?" argument against anyone who complains about paid on disc DLC. Why shouldn't that logic apply there as well? It doesn't. So you should be able to see what I mean.

But, as I mentioned, there can be bad bonus content that makes the game worse. Also, film directors cut tons of stuff from their film all the time to make the final cut. Gee I wonder why that is.

There would need to be some incentive other than challenge to do the harder, bonus path.
i.e. punish players who choose the easier one.
It's the final dungeon. you're here to SAVE THE WORLD. It's already the hardest version. Period. Adding a "harder version" destroys the illusion, at one of the most critical points in the game, and it was all you had.

The Bonus Dungeon is the Final Dungeon?

The impression that I got from you was that there should be no optional content. You do it all, or you do none of it, which doesn't makes sense to me. Yes, a large portion of most single player RPGs are linear, but there are still typically side quests, hidden goodies, etc. that you can still experience only if you seek them out. A bonus final dungeon would just be one of those things.
But unlike all those other things, the bonus dungeon comes after the game had already ended.

It's actually very different, especially if the choice to enter the optional dungeon isn't immediately apparent. For example, say you unlocked a different version of the final dungeon because of a side quest you completed earlier in the game. That was the outcome of the player playing the game, discovering a secret, and was rewarded as a result.
How would the player be aware of any of those things? As far as the player knows, the different version is the only version. By your logic I could baselessly assume that the final dungeon in every RPG I've ever played was something unique to me because of choices made throughout the game. There is no reason for extra versions to actually be created, the same effect is achieved regardless.

or it suggests that I don't want to go back and play the easy one at all. If a player knew it was a shorter, easier version of the same dungeon, they may just call it quits there and not bother.
I love how you use the word "knew" in the past tense, as well as the qualifier "if", proving twice in the same sentence that the player wouldn't know until after they had already played the other version.
Time and time again the element of choice in games seems to be based largely on faulty assumptions and false logic.

That alone debunks the "all games should have one ending" argument. And who knows? Some players might do just that for a long RPG.
Key word is "some".
Furthermore... just because some players play through a game multiple times doesn't mean there HAS to be elements that take advantage of this. It's great that some players want to enjoy the game multiple times. There is nothing wrong with a game to just leave it at that. It's if anything presumptuous and cocky to assume that the game will be played multiple times. The game creator should just focus on making the game good enough that players will want to do this in the first place. And even then, many players won't, which is why the objective should be to make the first playthrough as enjoyable as possible, which means to largely disregard the possibility of subsequent playthroughs. Nothing is stopping those players who want to play a second play through from doing so.
p.s. Multiple endings and bonus dungeons are like oil and water. Because you can't start a second playthrough toward a different ending while also screwing around in the first playthrough some more. It has to be one then the other, just like a player might have to beat world 2 before they can neat world 3, and it is not at all oppressive for the game designer to decode which order the worlds come in, in fact it is the game designer's only one job.

Depends on how much you enjoyed the game. I remember finishing Tales of Zestiria and not enjoying it to the point where I wanted to neither play the post-game dungeon or start a new playthrough.
This flies in the face of what you said earlier that you wouldn't have enjoyed a certain game nearly as much if this content weren't there.
Why bother having this content if players won't try it unless they liked the game anyway? It becomes nothing more than icing on the cake, and not essential to the game.
Which is better, a game that the player loves, but doesn't have any bonus content.
A game with lots of bonus content that the player won't bother trying out because they didn't like the main quest.
Your above comment proves that this type of content does not make or break the game.

Whether or not to keep going is a choice left to the player, not the game. Because the game ended.
Bonus dungeon means the game hasn't ended, and that the ending was actually a lie.
If a bonus dungeon really is meant to be played after the end of the game, then beating the final boss should plop the player right back in the game, and possibly even with the final boss defeated.

The Bonus Dungeon is the Final Dungeon?

You don't get to decide what should and shouldn't be done by all games. 90% of your statements about what other games should be like are based on a your own personal, biased views of what a game should contain.
Wrong. It's based on logic and deduction.

This may come as a shock to you, but not every player and developer shares your opinions of what they like in a game. Developers can include unique ideas, extra content, and the like if they feel the game would benefit from having it, and to state that ideas that deviate from a specific blueprint are objectively wrong is absolutely ridiculous.
There is nothing wrong with liking it.

Nope. Not every game needs to take the player on a guided tour.
Most single player games do in fact. Unless the game is some artsy sandbox game with no objective, then generally speaking a guided tour is at the core of the premise. This probably includes your game, which is why a large portion of your game probably isn't optional, if not the vast majority of it.

Some can have branching paths depending on choices players make, others are more free form allowing you to explore and experience what interests you. Forcing every single snippet of backstory to the front and center isn't always the best idea for a game, and to claim otherwise neuters the potential of storytelling through gameplay.
When the game is beaten then the story is over. All unseen optional content during the course of the game becomes forfeit. The insanity of bonus dungeons is tht they are meant to come into play at this point. Things like branching paths can resonbly be justified since they come onto play DURING the game and are naturally part of it.

Same deal with a bonus final dungeon. The potential to go for an optional, harder version of the final dungeon with extra content you wouldn't see otherwise puts control in the hands of the player, and it feels more special because of it.
It's literally no different from choosing a difficulty level at the start of the game, so by your logic the choice between Easy, Medium, and Hard "puts ontrol in the hands of the player and makes them feel special because of it". Complete madness.

If I chose to go through a harder version of the final dungeon, I'd be annoyed if I was then forced to experience the tamer version right after.
Which suggests you wouldn't choose to take the hard dungeon unless you completed the easy one first, because otherwise you'd have to play the easy one afterwards to see how it differs from the hard and whether it contains any exclusive bosses, alternate dialogue, etc.

You have no right to dictate how many endings a game should have
One. The correct answer is one.

Silent Hill 2 has multiple endings, each one a different representation of how the protagonist, James, overcomes the guilt of his dead wife. Achieving an ending requires players to perform certain actions in-game that they aren't aware of, actions that reflect different mental states James may be in. When you finally reach the end, James' feelings on the situation can accurately reflect your own, and a different resolution is reached.
This requires the player to play multiple complete playthroughs, which wouldn't work for a long game such as many rpgs.

If your ideas were the norm, then arguably the most important aspect of the game wouldn't exist.
Oh lookie here. Deciding which parts of a game are the most important. Hypocrisy much? ;)

idea of every game only containing one ending both limits and insults the potential for interactive storytelling.
By definition I see only one ending when I finish the game. To see multiple endings suggests that the endings aren't actually endings in the first place, and that I stop playing not when I get the ending but when I've unlocked them all, or at least a sufficient amount of them. This is fine for some games but it's absurd to suggest that a game somehow fails to live up to the medium if it doesn't have multiple endings. If I'm going to see both choice A and choice B, then its not really a choice in the mutually exclusive sense, and you as game designer might as well have stacked both choices in a linear fashion, and then put the ending (the "actual, true ending") after it.

or maybe, after completing the game, a player may want to let loose and screw around with their endgame characters?
Key word is maybe. However, once the expectation is placed on the player to do this then players might start to do this anyway just to check if the game HAS a bonus dungeon, which defeats the point of treating those players who wanted to stick around regardless.
By the way, in some games, rather than screwing around with my endgame save file, I immediately start a new game to experience the game with a different class/loadout. This is devastating to the idea of bonus dungeons.

The Bonus Dungeon is the Final Dungeon?

Are you saying bonus dungeons in general make no sense? Because that's an extremely narrow-minded attitude.
IMO there are things that, when looked at objectively, are things that generally shouldn't be done by games but it can be justifiable to include them in a game every now and then if you realize what you're doing. Bonus dungeons are illogical, but, if all games were 100% logical then they might start to feel to similar, its nice to have some oddball twist now and then. But even having said that, bonus dungeons still don't make sense because they are common enough to the point where your game isn't setting itself apart by having it, and if you were going to include bad design in your game as a twist, it should be front and center rather than hidden content buried after the end of a game that seems otherwise run of the mill. Sonic, Mega Man, and Half Minute Hero have ideas that don't necessarily hold up to reason, or at least are things you wouldn't want most games to do (RPG with a time limit?) but nonetheless make the game more distinct. Bonus dungeons don't really achieve this because they only apply to the last few percent of the game. You can't really build a game around it. It's an afterthought.

from a narrative point of view, you could gain insight into an aspect of the story that you wouldn't otherwise. Not ever story needs to cram every plot intricacy down a player's throat.
Those sentences contradict each other. You want to show the player a piece of the story and you don't want to.
I'm saying logically it has to be one or the other. It's binary in a way, either you will try to get a player to experience something, or the opposite, which is easy, since you can simply not include it.

If some players are curious about some aspect of the story and see the opportunity to explore it more via a optional version of a final dungeon, then why not let them?
"optional". In your example the player will have finished the easy dungeon and then moves on to the more difficult version. Which in effect is the same as if you had made both versions mandatory and simply stacked the easy dungeon in front of the harder dungeon and the player has to complete both to get the ending.
You might as well argue that final dungeons are optional in the first place and make them bonus-dungeon hard. Which actually doesn't make any less sense than having a bonus dungeon in the first place.
Aren't you just looking for loopholes? Either you include something with the expectation of the player experiencing it, or you don't. If you do, t arguably should be not optional. If you don't, you arguably shouldn't have bothered to include it let alone create it. And if you do include it, it arguably shouldn't be after the game has ended becaus by then the game is already over!

plus, some bonus dungeons can offer content that wouldn't make sense in the context of the main story. Tales games do this all the time: some bonus dungeons let you fight party members from previous entries, others can unlock joke endings upon completion, all of which are nice additions that would kill pacing and immersion if forced in the main game.
All excellent arguments as for why those things didn't need to be in the game at all.
I mean if you're gonna shed tears over cut content why not stuff that actually related to the story? For example, how the protagonist's parents met, or more insight into the villain's motivations. That's the kind of stuff you were talking about a moment before, or at least I assume you were, and if so then I can relate. But joke endings? They are, by your own admission, included as a joke, meaning they aren't important, in addition to the fact they are not the ACTUAL ending which generally there should be only ONE, even if the extra endings aren't jokes.

While your solution of an epilogue/prologue is a good idea on its own (wasn't that used in Red Dead Redemption?), I wouldn't call it a "better" solution to the OP, or even a solution at all if you're looking to conclude the story before that point.
The story was arguably concluded nonetheless. So it makes sense perhaps, if you're going to prolong the game, to start a new story or continuation rather than rewinding the previous story that just ended.

The Bonus Dungeon is the Final Dungeon?

Bonus dungeons make NO SENSE. The idea on the op is not that great of an alternative because the player will feel as though he's chosen the easy mode final dungeon which is the complete opposite narrative effect you wanted to achieve when designing the final dungeon. So come to think of it it's even worse of an idea than having a bonus dungeon since at least the player doesn't know about the bonus dungeon yet. (although this makes no sense either)

Maybe a better solution is to have the game continue with different characters. What I mean is you skin swap the characters so they have the same skills and level, but they have different names/appearances and are in a different setting such as 50-100 years after the events of the main game or a thousand years before. (e.g. the main characters offspring, or a race of ancients fighting monsters far more powerful than what had existed during the main character's time) This way the story of the main characters is still conclusively finished and the bonus dungeon is like a side story.