| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
| If you were to make an rpg... |
|
1) Woud it be totally original or would you like to make a sequal to a favorite game? ANd why?
2) Would it be twitch-based combat, reat-time combat, or turn-based? Ad why?
3) Would it be fantasy, fantasy light, Post-apocolipse, sci-fi, or modern? And why?
4) Would it be more action oriented and fast-paced or slower paced?
5) Would it be combat heavy or light?
6) Would you have classes and races, a detailed character creation, skill based or class based, more like Diablo and Sacred character selection, or no choice at all like Gothic?
7) Would advancement be level based, very detailed and selection heavy, selection light and simple, no leveling like in Ultima?
 What aspect would you emphesis? Like NPC interaction, party interaction, world interaction, story interaction, etc?
9) Would you like a very story heavy but linear game like PS:T, or very open and free story (non-linearity usually means not very story focused), or do you have any ideas that could correct the trade off or a happy medium?
10) Would your game be a hot seller? Would it be more for a niche market or would the main stream rpg fans love it, and why? Would you make it just because it is your idea of what an RPG should be, or are you business minded and know what other players want?
I'll answer when I can. I'm at work and they probably want me to do some work becuase they pay me and all.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:39 pm |
|
|
Wolfgarou
Guards Lieutenant
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 163
|
If I had it my way, my RPG would be BIS' TORN. And hell yeah! It'll sell like hot cakes coz it has the big fat BIS logo on it, minus the Interplay logo to keep hardcore RPG fanboys happy 
_________________
The world is small, nasty and complicated, and everybody dies alone... - Sam Fisher |
|
Mon Apr 12, 2004 6:23 pm |
|
|
elkston
High Emperor
Joined: 21 Sep 2002
Posts: 691
Location: North Carolina, USA |
| Re: If you were to make an rpg... |
|
Hmmm. I've been thinking about this recently, so I'll answer your questions.
1) Woud it be totally original or would you like to make a sequal to a favorite game? ANd why?
>>>It would be an original game.
2) Would it be twitch-based combat, reat-time combat, or turn-based? Ad why?
>>>>Real-time, action based combat like Gothic.
3) Would it be fantasy, fantasy light, Post-apocolipse, sci-fi, or modern? And why?
>>>>>It would be fantasy, but more of the Victorian-era like fantasy we
saw in 'Arcanum'. There will be magic, but also a sort of "scientific" and spiritual explanation for how that magic exists
4) Would it be more action oriented and fast-paced or slower paced?
>>>Sort of in-between. The combat and everything is in real-time. But you still have branching conversations, stealth, and low-combat areas.
5) Would it be combat heavy or light?
>>>>Combat heavy if you want. But there will be options to avoid combat or get experience in other ways.
6) Would you have classes and races, a detailed character creation, skill based or class based, more like Diablo and Sacred character selection, or no choice at all like Gothic?
>>>The race will always be human. But you can choose a "profession" during character creation. This will determine your initial skill allotment only. After that, you can build your character as you see fit.
7) Would advancement be level based, very detailed and selection heavy, selection light and simple, no leveling like in Ultima?
>>>> It will be level based. Gaining levels allows you to increase your health and sometimes your main stats (STR, AGILITY, INT, END, etc).
.
Skills increase by a combination of use and training.
Every skill has a discrete number of levels. To reach higher levels of a skill, you must "use" that skill until you cannot increase it any further except through training. You must also meet the minimum overall character level requirement for that skill. Once these are met, you "unlock" the ability to train the skill to the next level. You must find trainers in the game world. It is not something you can do yourself.
The idea here is to model the actual way we learn valuable skills. You are taught how to do something to a ceratin level. Then you go off and use what you have learneed until you "plateau". At that point, you need guidance about how to get out of that "rut" and into the next level. The other positive effect of this skill system is that keeps character advancement balanced. You cannot get powerful by just training skills. You must also play the game and advance in quests in order to increase your skills.
What aspect would you emphesis? Like NPC interaction, party interaction, world interaction, story interaction, etc?
>>>Definitely world and NPC interaction. You will not have a party. The game will be a 1st-person 3D adventure like Morrowind/Gothic.
9) Would you like a very story heavy but linear game like PS:T, or very open and free story (non-linearity usually means not very story focused), or do you have any ideas that could correct the trade off or a happy medium?
>>>It would be a trade-off, but the balance will be more towards the "open and free" side. The story will be there, but will be sort of told "implicitly" via NPC conversations, books, and discoveries in the environment.
The game will not be as free-form as Morrowind and not as rigid/linear as PS:T or Splinter Cell. You will be given certain high level goals and how you accomplish them is up to you.
There will be some scripted/linear scequences, but not many.
10) Would your game be a hot seller? Would it be more for a niche market or would the main stream rpg fans love it, and why? Would you make it just because it is your idea of what an RPG should be, or are you business minded and know what other players want?
>>>>The aim would be the RPG market first, but definitely hoping there could be a crossover into the action game market since a major feature will be action-based sword-play and ranged combat.
_________________
All shall hear the words of Karras...the words of Karras |
|
Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:00 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
| Re: If you were to make an rpg... |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
1) Woud it be totally original or would you like to make a sequal to a favorite game? ANd why?.
I would go original because that way I don't have any expectations from fans and I could create the game I wanted.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
2) Would it be twitch-based combat, reat-time combat, or turn-based? Ad why?.
This might sound crazy, but I have an original idea that could make combat turn-based but scalable to rt with qued options. The way I worked it out both ways would please fans of either just as well. But making it RT will mean that combat is harder. I wouls never sacrifice tb by making combat easier on the whole for rt, like other tb/rt games I've played. Combat would need a lot of input from the player if TB, with choices that present risker options, but the options are dependant on your characters skill. And the risk assesment of using one of the options is what your character thinks the risk is due to his skill, but you are the one that choses it. In rt mode you can set perameters of the riskyness you want your charcetr to take, or que up some choices to use if the option presents itself. Like if the enemy leaves an opening that your character believes he can exploit at this risk level, go for a special move you know that is semi-risky, but could end battle with a kill. If it fails you leave yourself open for an attack. etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
3) Would it be fantasy, fantasy light, Post-apocolipse, sci-fi, or modern? And why?.
I would go fantasy light. Magic would be rare. But magician would be a viable option if you want to go through 80% of the game as a weak ass gimp to really shine in the end.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
4) Would it be more action oriented and fast-paced or slower paced?.
Slower paced, more story and decision making than action. But of course that depends on how you play it.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
5) Would it be combat heavy or light?.
Combat light for the most part. Battles will be few and far in between. But when they happen it is a huge deal and gets the adrenaline flowing. But you could play it fighting everyone and everyone if you so chose, so that would make it combat heavy..[/quote]
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
6) Would you have classes and races, a detailed character creation, skill based or class based, more like Diablo and Sacred character selection, or no choice at all like Gothic?.
It would be skill based with subgroups of human (peasant, background, etc). The world would have other races but I would make character creation so detailed and option heavy, and make those options have large game ramifications, that adding in additional races might not be viable due to the multiplier effect that would result in content. But character creation would be the most detailed system ever created, with a large part being personality.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
7) Would advancement be level based, very detailed and selection heavy, selection light and simple, no leveling like in Ultima?.
Mix of skill and level, but not like TES. A lot more details and involvement like in the Special system, but not at all like that either. More realistic.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
What aspect would you emphesis? Like NPC interaction, party interaction, world interaction, story interaction, etc?.
I would emphasis all of those, but in a more realistic manner. Balance will never be considered in game design. There is no balance in real life, there is no saving and reloading. You do the best with what you have, learn from your mistakes, or die.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
9) Would you like a very story heavy but linear game like PS:T, or very open and free story (non-linearity usually means not very story focused), or do you have any ideas that could correct the trade off or a happy medium?.
It would have to be story heavy at points, but open and free the rest of the time. Different story heavy waypoints that change due to actions and choices. And the story or game changes drastically with the character you deside to play as. An example would be playing as a women warrior. You would have a much, much haredr time trying to do this than playing as a male. Many doors and opertunities will be closed to you, and you would not only have to do the things the guys have to do to "beat the game" but you will have to do it with a lot less while being bombarded by sexual discrimination.
Also, good and bad are very unclear. The good guys have some ingorant views such as the way they view woman and minorities. WHile the bad guys are more accepting of woman and minoroites and social status as long as you are evil. It goes more indepth than that, I could probably tak about it all day, but you get what I mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
10) Would your game be a hot seller? Would it be more for a niche market or would the main stream rpg fans love it, and why? Would you make it just because it is your idea of what an RPG should be, or are you business minded and know what other players want?.
It might be a hot seller, or maybe it would be to complicated for most people to be interested in it. And maybe females that actually put up with some sexual discrimination in real life might not want to have to deal with it in a game. But then again they might find it attracting to be able to take action against the discrimination. Who knows? I think the game would fill a niche market but be widley appealing to those who like true rpgs. I could of gone more indepth but I think I covered the bases.
Also since the game will be so different depending on your choices it would have to be short, like 20hours. But with such a high replay value due to not nearly being able to do everything possible in the game the first time through, it might have 100+ hours of game time total.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:08 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
| Re: If you were to make an rpg... |
|
1. Original. I've always liked settings that are fresh and different.
2. Turn-based. I wouldn't have experience designing real-time combat and for better group control, although special adjustments would have to be made, so that combat was not tedious, such as involving long fights against rats or weak creatures. Speaking of which, heroes should never have to fight common rats unless they're mutated mole rats of doom.
3. Historical/light fantasy. My tastes tend toward the more dark, gritty, and realistic. I'd concentrate more on "creative realism" (the world has a believable background, political structures, and history, etc) and subtle fantasy. If I could do more games, I'd work on a sci-fi game and fantasy, but all of my own creation.
4. Let's say it'd be fun, whatever that entails.
5. Appropriate amount of combat, i.e., where it makes sense. For example, if you've betrayed your patron, and the guards are rushing to catch you before you escape the castle, the most obvious option is to fight your way out. Other more subtle and diverse options I'd include would be things like negotiating your way out (through a sympathetic/traitorous NPC), perhaps magical means of escape, or secret escape routes, etc. Too much combat or too little can be a bad thing. It should help support the plot and character development, but not overwhelm them. Combat, or rather action, can bolster and highlight parts of a story that you want to emphasize.
6. Since this would be a historical/light fantasy game, I'd leave out different races and try to concentrate on offering more skill diversity and utility and "classes." I'm not sure how much I like rigid classes from the beginning. Probably do it more like Gothic where you'd develop your class through affiliation with organizations, religions, or personal beliefs, while offering a wide variety of skills and specializations. That seems more natural to me, and helped improve my experience with the story--as I rose in ranks in an organization, it also forwarded the main plot of the game. That gave me a real sense of accomplishment and involvement.
7. Fudge it for fun--level based and selection heavy. I know it's not as realistic, but I think reaching that next level provides a concrete sense of accomplishment and tangible rewards of your time and energy spent on the game. Leveling up skills alone doesn't feel as substantial, but is probably more realistic. Special or advanced skills would be procured by trainers, masters, or quests in the game.
8. As many as I could. They're all important, especially if one desires to do a party-based RPG. I would take time to write a detailed history, story, and dialogue for characters. This really depends on what one has in mind and the limits of the project.
9. A happy medium like Fallout, but more story. Allow free exploration which is limited by the party's ability to handle encounters.
10. Preferably hot seller, but I'd settle for a niche market. If more people enjoy the game, that's a compliment. To make a game and to keep producing future games, one must be business-minded to a certain degree. Otherwise you won't be making games for long. A business doesn't remain alive by standing still or other businesses will put it out of its misery. It is necessary to expand and improve, but this should be done largely to provide the players with better games.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:20 pm |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
1) I would make an original game for the same reasons you said, Roqua.
2) The combat would be reminiscent of Gothic 2, but a bit more tactical. You would aim like a shooter and shoot, but whether you hit or not and how much damage you do depends on your weapon and attributes. The game would play much like a third-person shooter but more based on your skills, much like Gothic and Gothic 2.
3) It would be modern, but in an alternate reality. Terrorists got ahold of a few nukes and without warning bombed the shit out of Washington D.C., killing the president and most of the government. This caused the downfall of the military and the state governments, so the country is in complete anarchy. It takes place in the year 2009, and most of the story takes place in and around New York City.
4) It would have a lot of action, or very little action, depending on the player's choices. If the player shoots a street vendor (there will be many) while everyone's watching, people will fear you and many will fight you, thus making the game more action-oriented. If you play going along the main storyline, the story could be fairly fast-paced, kind of like Gothic's.
5) Again, this depends a lot on the player's choices, though there would be plenty of instances where you are required to fight. Many missions or quest could be accomplished with little or no violence though. If the player makes lots of friends and tries to stay on everyone's good side, there would be less combat than if the player kills a lot of people and acts antisocial.
6) It would be like Gothic, in that you start out without a class or any skills, but you gain them during the game.
7) It would be like in Gothic where you get XP for doing quests and killing things or people and when you level up you get a certain number of skill points to distribute, and then you have to find a trainer to help you advance the skill(s) you want to advance.
I would like to emphasize NPC interaction. You can do quests for people, hire merceneries to fight for you, join groups and make enemies or friends. And example would be that there's a bully who likes to beat up and rob people in an extremely poor area. The people there don't have guns like the bully does. There are several ways you can deal with this. The most obvious one is when the bully comes by with his gang, to bust out with your assault rifle and mow them down. Now some of the people may be grateful to you and approve of this, but some may comment that you're no better than he was, and they will fear you. Of course, when the bully come by, you could challenge him to a one-on-one fistfight, and if you win, he has to leave the poor people alone. Of course, you could always join the bully and get money from the poor people.
9) There would be a lot of side quests, but you get a different story depending on which faction you join. Now, you do have a main goal you want to accomplish that has to with none of the factions, and you can follow this path if you choose, but this path will have different variations depending on the faction you join. You can also be a loner and go about this without joining any faction or without any help.
10) It's my dream RPG, but I'm sure it would appeal to the mainstream market since it can be very action-oriented. On the other hand, it might end up like the Gothic games: not mainstream, overlooked, for a niche-market because it is different from most RPGs.
I hope you like my ideas! 
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:31 pm |
|
|
Madigan
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Sep 2003
Posts: 22
|
This is a great post!! I love it  more more more!!
_________________
Madigan, World Designer
The Road to Allysium |
|
Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:13 pm |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
If you want more then why don't you post some ideas of your own?
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 12:53 am |
|
|
Schattenherz
Head Merchant
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 71
Location: Nuremberg, Old Europe |
Madigan is making a Game of his own (sort of ...)
http://www.allysium.com
He tries to turn a Screen Saver into a CRPG ! 
_________________
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
-Nietzsche |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:02 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Another great thread. There's some really good ideas here. Oh, my answers? All of the Above!! 
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:46 am |
|
|
konny666
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 219
Location: Babylon 6 |
| Re: If you were to make an rpg... |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
1) Woud it be totally original or would you like to make a sequal to a favorite game? ANd why?
I have this fantasy-ish story/world/campaign idea - actually ideas. So definitely I would want to make something original. I would not want to make a sequel to another game, since that's someone else's handiwork, although I would not be adverse to using a published campaign setting, like one of the AD&D ones (greyhawk etc.). But I prefer making my own setting above all.
edit: i would also want to create my own ruleset. i created a whole bunch of "house rules" for AD&D 2E when I was 13-14 years old (like a magic points, "mana" system, etc.) so i think i can make my own complete system now, 15 years later.
quote:
2) Would it be twitch-based combat, reat-time combat, or turn-based? Ad why?
Turn-based combat, most likely. There seems to be a dearth of such games in the marketplace, and with current technology, there is a lot that can be done with it.
quote:
3) Would it be fantasy, fantasy light, Post-apocolipse, sci-fi, or modern? And why?
Fantasy, but not the "same old". It would probably be quite different than what people expect.
edit: inspired by works such as "death gate cycle". you have the traditional fantasy "trinity" of Human, Dwarf, Elf... but used in some VERY unconventional ways. the type of fantasy TSR would never publish...
quote:
4) Would it be more action oriented and fast-paced or slower paced?
slower-paced since its turn based.
quote:
5) Would it be combat heavy or light?
combat heavy for same reason as above...
edit: "heavy" is subject to interpretation. my definition of heavy probably means "a bit less combat than ToEE". maybe combat-medium is a better descriptor.
quote:
6) Would you have classes and races, a detailed character creation, skill based or class based, more like Diablo and Sacred character selection, or no choice at all like Gothic?
hehe, a very detailed character creation process so only geeks would want to play it. the min/maxers would probably like it too, but they're everywhere!
edit: detailed character creation schemes are a lost art -- well, semi-lost, since you have ToEE and even the most recent NWN patch allows modders to easily implement 90% of D&D 3E...
but D&D is for PnP, i think coming up with something specific to computers is what's needed here. i would still publish all the formulas though, for the benefit of the geeks.
quote:
7) Would advancement be level based, very detailed and selection heavy, selection light and simple, no leveling like in Ultima?
probably very detailed, involving the use of trainers, etc. one aspect of G2 I really liked...
quote:
What aspect would you emphesis? Like NPC interaction, party interaction, world interaction, story interaction, etc?
well, i can't stand the random one-liners in BG2, so I'd cut that out. heavy NPC interaction with characters in the world should be good. not sure if i'd want to have inter-party interaction, though. if it was a game where the player created all members of the party, i might cut out inter-party bantering.
edit: and for certain quests, you would have to seperate one of your party members from the rest of the party, they hole up in an inn somewhere for a few days, while the Player focuses on controlling one character (solo) through a particular important quest... i.e. Paladin/Knight-related.
quote:
9) Would you like a very story heavy but linear game like PS:T, or very open and free story (non-linearity usually means not very story focused), or do you have any ideas that could correct the trade off or a happy medium?
this is a toughie... everyone wants to be non-linear, but that's always tougher. i'd lean towards non-linear, still. hopefully try to come up with a world that evolves as the player goes through all his quests, including sidequests!
sidequest rant:
sidequests should have an impact on the world, and the main quests... what sidequests you complete should open/close career doors in your characters' futures... sidequests should NOT exist in their own little vacuum! (end rant)
quote:
10) Would your game be a hot seller? Would it be more for a niche market or would the main stream rpg fans love it, and why? Would you make it just because it is your idea of what an RPG should be, or are you business minded and know what other players want?
niche market, definitely. which means this isn't something i'd do unless i won the lottery and had a lot of free capital to "play around with".
any millionaires who want to send me some cash... send me a PM! |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:46 am |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
Ooh, I just came up with something cool to add to my RPG! Throwing in a fantasy element, zombies have taken over part of New York City! But they're not slow, stupid zombies, no no! They're intelligent, quick, and can handle weapons and use some magic (mostly mind trick stuff). You can even become a zombie through a process I have not completely thought out yet. The zombie campaign would be the hardest campaign as just about every human in the game world is hostile towards you.
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:28 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
1) Woud it be totally original or would you like to make a sequal to a favorite game? ANd why?
Definately original. It's lame to just try to live off something old. Plus, I get to keep my artistic creationism.
quote:
2) Would it be twitch-based combat, reat-time combat, or turn-based? Ad why?
Wow, FAR too few choices there. I'd go with pause-and-play combat.
quote:
3) Would it be fantasy, fantasy light, Post-apocolipse, sci-fi, or modern? And why?
I'd mix high fantasy with the wild west.
quote:
4) Would it be more action oriented and fast-paced or slower paced?
Action oriented.
quote:
5) Would it be combat heavy or light?
Combat heavy.
quote:
6) Would you have classes and races, a detailed character creation, skill based or class based, more like Diablo and Sacred character selection, or no choice at all like Gothic?
Class-based with lots of skills, due to more variation and better tactical choices. Lots of races.
quote:
7) Would advancement be level based, very detailed and selection heavy, selection light and simple, no leveling like in Ultima?
Level based, very detailed etc. Kind of like DnD 3rd ed.
quote:
What aspect would you emphesis? Like NPC interaction, party interaction, world interaction, story interaction, etc?
Mainly story and world interaction. General freedom focused.
quote:
9) Would you like a very story heavy but linear game like PS:T, or very open and free story (non-linearity usually means not very story focused), or do you have any ideas that could correct the trade off or a happy medium?
A more non-linear game. Kind of like Morrowind combined with PS:T. Lot of ways to get to the end, with lots of possible story lines, which you can shift between.
quote:
10) Would your game be a hot seller? Would it be more for a niche market or would the main stream rpg fans love it, and why? Would you make it just because it is your idea of what an RPG should be, or are you business minded and know what other players want?
I don't really care if it's appreciated by the mainstream.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:35 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
quote:
2) Would it be twitch-based combat, reat-time combat, or turn-based? Ad why?
Wow, FAR too few choices there. I'd go with pause-and-play combat.
What do you mean? Those are the only choices possible that I see. Everything else is an amalgamation of those three. Pause-and-play is an amalgamation of rt and tb. The system in that new mmorpg christos posted about is an amalgamation of twitch and tb. I really can't think of any other choices.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:11 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
| Re: If you were to make an rpg... |
|
OK, like many people here (I'm sure), my head is full of game ideas. Some I have developed into (I think) workable designs on paper, some are still swimming around in there, all deformed with big vague see-thru bits (those ar the bits that probably won't work). Strangely, although my favourite games are RPGs, few of my twisted brain-embryos are (I doubt any of them could be described as "pure" RPGs).
I like a lot of different game "types," and I like a lot of different treatments of the RPG genre, so some of my answers may actually be more than one answer (does that make sense?  )
1) Woud it be totally original or would you like to make a sequal to a favorite game? ANd why?
First choice would be original. Having said that, there are one or two games I think are deserving of a remake or updated sequel (like Die By The Sword with a control method acceptable to normal human beings).
2) Would it be twitch-based combat, reat-time combat, or turn-based? Ad why?
I like them all, although I don't think I've played an RPG with twitch-based action (to me, that term means pure reflex-based action - the kind that demands zen-like instinctive play, no time for thought). I'd probably go for RT, as it feels more natural to me, but I do think RT/TB hybrids offer up some interesting challenges and stylistic benefits. I really like the system in UFO:Aftermath, where all the decisions are made in frozen time, but are played out in realtime (kind of turn-based without turns!), and I think something like this could be really interesting. I wouldn't go for pure TB - I think it's been done enough, and better than I could do it.
3) Would it be fantasy, fantasy light, Post-apocolipse, sci-fi, or modern? And why?
Any of those would appeal to me. I would like to use a setting that isn't often explored in RPGs, especially modern-day and/or real-world. I'd be inclined to steer clear of straight fantasy - I do like it, and any setting in which swords and magic are readily accepted undeniably offers up plenty of obvious and believable gameplay options, but I would absolutely not go the usual route of regurgitating Tolkein's world with slight superficial changes. Even though some of my favourite RPGs are guilty of this, I think this it's a lazy, stinky practise and I've had my fill of it.
Ultimately, if the game is heavily dependant on story, and details of the setting are inextricably linked to the ins & outs of that story, I would leave this whole thing to the writer. What writer you say? If I were forced to work on a game in which story and/or dialogue were prominent and was not able to hire a professional writer for plot and script, I'd kill myself, then my publisher.
4) Would it be more action oriented and fast-paced or slower paced?
In an RPG, I'd want to slow the pace of action enough to allow the player time for proper tactical thought. I think if a game forces play at a fast pace, the gaming equivalent of a fight-or-flight response can take over, and this is not conducive to role-playing - we need our brains for that. Fair enough, if a player builds a character suited to super-fast hacking and slashing (or running and jumping), let 'em play that way, but don't force all players into a situation where the speed of an enemy or other obstacle may be too much for them (or their character) to overcome.
Having said that, it'd have to be a happy medium. Not so fast as to cause bewilderment and frustration, but not too slow as to become tedious. Obviously, for a RT/TB hybrid, this is less of an issue.
5) Would it be combat heavy or light?
I'd want to leave this to player choice. I would like to make an RPG in which there is not one single forced combat, not even with the villain; and also where the bloodthirsty rampager can enjoy the game form start to finish. Let the players build the character they want, and play how they want. Design the environments/situations/tools, design the obstacles, enemies and rules of the gameworld, but don't design the solutions - that job is for the player. Obviously, this is more difficult and reliant on solid technology, but we're talking ideals here, right?
6) Would you have classes and races, a detailed character creation, skill based or class based, more like Diablo and Sacred character selection, or no choice at all like Gothic?
No classes. I'd prefer to let players pick their abilities individually, effectively creating their own "class." I personally really like detailed character creation, but I think it's almost impossible to convey how a player should build their character effectively before they have played any of the game. Even now, I find myself restarting such games when I see how the numbers translate into in-game effectiveness and realise how to optimise my stats. Also, hefty up-front character creation is very much a hardcore-only thing, and I don't think we should be too insular. I think it would be better to make character creation a combination of simple choices and early in-game activity. I also like Gothic's "blank slate" approach, but I think it would only work realistically if your character was played from a very young age (in fact, I've just described one of my brain-embryos: an RPG in which you start at childhood, and your background and choice of activities as a kid shape the adult you will become - and yeah, there's more to it than that, but not for this thread!).
7) Would advancement be level based, very detailed and selection heavy, selection light and simple, no leveling like in Ultima?
No levels. Sure, they're traditional, but they really serve no purpose. And I wouldn't want character development to consist of pushing numbers around on a character sheet - this is a game, not a spreadsheet. The basis of character development would be automatic rewards for player activity - you fight a lot? you get better at fighting; get smacked around often? your constitution (or whatever it's called) will go up; if you constantly read books and yak with NPCs, you will become a formidable scholar and debater. This process can be augmented by players actively seeking out training in certain disciplines, and setting up a practise regime for themselves.
The ideal here is to drop any CRPG conventions that really aren't relevant any more, and to take as much of the character development as possible out of the character sheet and into the gameworld. The character sheet would be a handy record (with a cool picture, and all that) and could serve as a shortcut to certain tasks, but it should never. ever be an enforced centre of gameplay (because such gameplay is weak).
8 ) What aspect would you emphesis? Like NPC interaction, party interaction, world interaction, story interaction, etc?
Hehe... I wouldn't be happy unless all of those things were fairly detailed, but I wouldn't force any particular one to the fore - again, let the payer choose which aspects he/she wants to be embroiled in, and let the others fall into the background.
9) Would you like a very story heavy but linear game like PS:T, or very open and free story (non-linearity usually means not very story focused), or do you have any ideas that could correct the trade off or a happy medium?
I'd like to have a strong story as a backbone to the whole thing, but again I would leave it up to the player whether to follow it or not. One thing I would not do is assume a role (or limited range thereof) for the player (like valiant hero; selfish powermonger) - I'd let them do their own thing and (in a similar way to the character development) have the game monitor what they do and what type of person their character becomes. Then, a flexibly-crafted story could be made to seek them out, giving purpose and a sense of progress to a seemingly open-ended game. This is as opposed to having the player choose (a) open-ended play or (b) seeking out the next story trigger-point (a la Morrowind). Of course, if a player is actively following the story and doing what he/she is told at every turn, then that would be perfectly acceptable too.
10) Would your game be a hot seller? Would it be more for a niche market or would the main stream rpg fans love it, and why? Would you make it just because it is your idea of what an RPG should be, or are you business minded and know what other players want?
OK - if this were a big project, in today's industry, I would have to go for a big seller, because (a) otherwise it would never get off the ground ("hi, I'd like to pitch my prototype of a game that will sell to a small niche mark-" [SLAM!]), and (b) even if (a) were not a concern, a big project that sells low is an almost guaranteed death sentence for a devco. If this were a small project, I doubt I'd be able to acheive all that I wanted, but that would be preferable to letting non-designers (ie, publishers) effectively dictate design decisions to me. In an ideal world, sales would be meaningless, so I'll tone it down a bit - let's say I had the dough to self-fund one big project, but the sales of the finished game would determine the future of the company. If the decisions were mine to make, I wouldn't try to steer the game's design in order to maximise sales - I honestly don't believe this works, making a damn good game is a much better bet than trying to tap into the desires of the gaming public IMO. Having said that, I would still try to make the game accessible to a wide audience and would not go out of my way to pander to extreme hardcore RPGers' expectations - like I said, not because of a desire to maximise sales, but because I believe this is the way all games should be. Outdated conventions hinder the wider acceptance (and IMO the overall level of enjoyment even for myself, a "hardcore" gamer) of games from all genres, and this needs to be addressed if gaming is ever to break out of its tortuous niche status and become respected for the sophisticated entertainment medium and art form it truly is. If I could make a game which really does contain the ingredients of a true RPG, and present it in such a way that "normal" gamers perceive none of the current barriers between them and an enjoyable experience, I would jump at the chance. Sure, some hardcore types would criticise me if I dropped some superficial details (like levels, and the spending of "skill points"), but to be honest they could go screw themselves - if my choice is between helping the RPG (and perhaps gaming in general) take the next evolutionary leap, or satisfying the expectations of backward-looking pedants, I know which I'd go for. |
|
Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:28 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
