ZEELLO'S PROFILE

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.

6
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.

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.
http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/19104-ancient-resources-specializing-in-arabian-resources/
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.

author=Red_Nova
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.
*or*
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.

author=Red_Nova
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.

imo a true gamer wouldn't watch a let's play for any game.