We design the game! Part 2: It's an RPG!

[Fencers]

>Linear story [Baldur's Gate]
>Open world side questing [Morrowind]
>Turn-based combat [Final Fantasy Tactics]
>Isometric POV, camera rotation in 3D environments [Vagrant Story]

[icedwarrior]

Edit: Just to be clear: we probably aren't going to actually create the game. Best we can do is create a basic design document. It's more about the creative process and good discussion.

(Quoting from your first thread, first post) Is there any chance at all that this will be attempted to be actually made, if there is enough interest / whatever? I understand that it was meant for discussion, but I would venture to think that there are enough people interested in making said game that we should attempt to try (at the end of the discussion, of course). If it doesn't work out, then oh well. But I feel that we should at least try. =)

[Ynna]

(Quoting from your first thread, first post) Is there any chance at all that this will be attempted to be actually made, if there is enough interest / whatever? I understand that it was meant for discussion, but I would venture to think that there are enough people interested in making said game that we should attempt to try (at the end of the discussion, of course). If it doesn't work out, then oh well. But I feel that we should at least try. =)

I'd be up for it, but I don't bring any meaningful skills. I can probably be a project lead and do some writing, but we must remain realistic. If people are voting for an open-world game, we're not going to be able to accomplish it.

[saberon]

I'd be up for it, but I don't bring any meaningful skills. I can probably be a project lead and do some writing, but we must remain realistic. If people are voting for an open-world game, we're not going to be able to accomplish it.

Personally, I'd prefer to vote for something that is beyond our reach to do. If we want to make it ourselves, we have to restrict ourselves in terms of content and setting. If we simply design a theoretical game, we can put in anything and everything we wish.

[Deleted]

I had an idea for a very cinematic, linear with several diverging paths, quick-time-event based game before. I never wrote anything or posted it anywhere, it just stayed in my head, but the way in that it would be a RPG is the way Mass Effect is a RPG: Dialogue choices and being able to choose differing paths over customization. I don't want to clutter the thread but it probably belongs here somewhat as we're discussing ideas, so while doubting the relevance I will put it between spoiler tags for everyone interested to read.

The main game mechanic, besides combat and stealth, would be to piece things together from what you can see in your environments. These puzzel segments would be very punishing in that if you miss it you lost it - but that should oftenmost lead you down another different path: Not worse or better, just different. What if there's a small letter, say a "H" on the coat of some guy approaching, well, your king or whatever. Does the H mean anything? You see the letter, press H on the keyboard, and your character shouts to the king warning him for the coming assassin. Or you don't see it and the assassin kills the king with a different outcome later down the line. That kind of stuff. For obvious reasons this letter should change between playthroughs and maybe appear on some other piece of clothing instead.

This would mean that you have to look around and look hard to spot things, and pay attention. People will say important things and if you don't remember what they have said (or what they haven't said) you might mess something up. Maybe someone's facial expression tells more than the words coming out of their mouth. The game would be from a first person perspective because it is supposed to feel like a personal experience where you are in charge - I don't think third person games offer that in the same way. This is also why character customization would be unnecesary.

The problem then obviously is that you could just mash the keyboard and hope that something happens without even looking around...

[Adam Jensen]

It is imperative that in an RPG game -- or any game for that matter -- that you have a compelling story, and I feel that (well, obviously) a great story makes a good game great.

Agreed. Tried Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning (the demo) and saw it had no plot. The combat was amazing, but the game isn't worth the $60 price tag with out a good story. The voice acting was shoddy, the facial animations did not even synch with what was being said and the storytelling was weak. On the contrary, what made Dragon Age Origins a fun game, even though its combat system wasn't the best, was the story telling. Furthermore, Mass Effect 2 and 3 got far in depth with the story telling, even going so far as to simulate tricks you'd use in film movies, putting speaking characters in focus, using shading, etc, etc. So yeah, the story, and the storytelling methods have to be on point and interesting.

---------- Post added 2012-06-01 at 08:11 PM ----------

(Quoting from your first thread, first post) Is there any chance at all that this will be attempted to be actually made, if there is enough interest / whatever? I understand that it was meant for discussion, but I would venture to think that there are enough people interested in making said game that we should attempt to try (at the end of the discussion, of course). If it doesn't work out, then oh well. But I feel that we should at least try. =)

I've dabbled in game making before. It is not an easy thing to accomplish with limited resources, it is in fact a ton more work than it appears. I agree with Saberon, it might be best to just keep this limitless and theoretical.

[Ynna]

Personally, I'd prefer to vote for something that is beyond our reach to do. If we want to make it ourselves, we have to restrict ourselves in terms of content and setting. If we simply design a theoretical game, we can put in anything and everything we wish.

I'm personally voting for whatever I think is cool, not for what we could possibly make ourself. Everyone is of course free to do it differently.

The problem then obviously is that you could just mash the keyboard and hope that something happens without even looking around...

I think the problem would be that the player's action would feel meaningless most of the time. With so many options it's perfectly possible the player can't decide what to do. It could also easily lead to the player feeling powerless.

[Deleted]

Open world RPG with choises that actualy matter (Choises that have bigger impact will mostly be in the bigger storylines/quests)

Or Storydriven RPG with choises that actualy matter

IE: Decide to kill a certain wizard? Now you'll never learn the spell that could contain <henchman of baddie> who would have led you to something that would have easened up the final battle, instead now you'll have to find an alternative (which may or may not be there) or else one of your companions/important story figure will die during/before the final battle which makes you lose out on another spell/weapon/etc. a bunch of quests and a risk of another companion/important figure betraying you later on whereas an old enemy you let live might join you.

[icedwarrior]

I've dabbled in game making before. It is not an easy thing to accomplish with limited resources, it is in fact a ton more work than it appears. I agree with Saberon, it might be best to just keep this limitless and theoretical.

I have no doubts that it'd be a massive project -- in fact, I'm studying programming (among other video game specialties, including animation, modelling, etc) in my university. I PM'd Ynna about that, because it was far in advance. So, yeah, I have limited programming experience (C++), and limited experience with "Game Maker". Yeah, talking hypothetically is best, I suppose, I'm just the person that wants to look ahead and say "we should make this!" =p

[Ynna]

Unless new discussion suddenly kicks in, voting will be later today. The available choices can be found in this post.

Feel free to continue to suggest things.

In the next step we will tackle two things at once: multi-player/single-player and how open world or linear we want your game to be.

[Repefe]

Isometric Action RPG with open world.

[Deleted]

I think the problem would be that the player's action would feel meaningless most of the time. With so many options it's perfectly possible the player can't decide what to do. It could also easily lead to the player feeling powerless.

Yeah that's quite a risk now that you mention it, I hadn't thought of that! I guess I just want something truly Game of Thronesy where everything that happens can come and bite you in the ass no matter how you choose to deal with it lol. I guess the actual gameplay value wouldn't be that great either, being a look-and-click and all.

And I'll cast my vote: First Person Action RPG.

[Ynna]

I'll set up a poll in two or three hours (probably two).

Isometric Action RPG with open world.

Could you give an example? I'm thinking "Bastion", but I want to be sure everyone is talking about the same thing.

[Reluctant]

Something along the lines of fable i gess thats Third Person Action RPG? But thenn with a good story multiple paths and choices with diferent outcomes.

[Repefe]

Could you give an example? I'm thinking "Bastion", but I want to be sure everyone is talking about the same thing.

Isometric think League of Legends meet Diablo 3. Open world something between GW2 and D3 with layout ala Skyrim with keeps and dungeons and mountains etc ... To mix it together I am thinking phased world where you can roam alone or in group with event locations that are shared by everyone and probably sharded when you exceed some limit on participants for the event.

To give an example imagine Skyrim was isometric like D3 with cities, dragon fights, bandit camps, keeps and dungeons shared among everyone online but between those events you would be roaming alone or in group if you invited someone.

[Ynna]

Voting is life and shall last until tomorrow.

I'm not sure how I'll vote. I was thinking of sticking with Third Person, for the reasons I listed when I suggested it, but turn-based tile-based also sounds interesting. I'm pretty sure it would be easy to have strong emotional responses with that kind of gameplay when done right and it could also provide good narrative mechanics without breaking the flow of gameplay. And it reminds me of Gladius, which was an awesome game.

[raddry]

You should probably allow multiple answers. I for example would vote for both third and first person.

[Larynx]

I voted for isometric simply to be realistic.

Though, now that I think about it sidescrolling would probably be easier to develop.

[Deleted]

Could it not be possible to have a game that can be played first and third person? such as skyrim where you can do it in either views.

[Deleted]

Once, I started to developp a little project with a friend on RPGmaker2000, like 11 years ago. An original idea we had was to devellop the story through the eyes of two children who were growing during the game (from 10 y/o to 20 y/o) wich meant an evolutive design of the characters and landscape, graphic background, feelings, etc. It also involved a faction change, where your ennemies became your allies, and vice versa.

If you want to see the picture: you start in the world of legend of mana with cute little characters riding ponies, you end in the world of diablo leading a group of psychopaths riding hell hounds through redemption after the world was half-destroyed. And the way your characters are growing impact your feeling of the game world.

Of course Lionhead studios did it later with Fable, somehow, but we were glad we had the idea too.

I would pay a lot to see some of these concepts into a game, even I if perfectly know it would be frustrating for the average player.