 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
What I really want, are well thought out, individual characters, set in a non-linear story. I'd like to have my character BE somebody already. Then, I choose what I want to do. There would not be just one overarching concept/big evil. There would be multiple. There could be a grand conspiracy trying to overthrow the government, a corrupt government, a war with evil forces masquerading as neighbors, etc. You would only find the complete story of one of those in one go. You may hear bits and pieces of the other parts, particularly if there are two completely opposite storylines, but you would never know the full truth unless you started over and tried a new game and chose different paths.
I still think FF6 was THE best RPG, and Planescape: Torment is a close second.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
A non-linear and open setting, world, plot, and character development.
A single PC, with the possibility of AI controled companions.
I'm not sure about classes, but probably not - and if they where in use, it would only be to encourage certain paths, and not limiting at all. But I would keep most of the statistics (exp, skill points, attributes, ect..) hidden to the player.
You will be able to create the background of your character - none of this "you where the son of a great hero, blah blah blah..." crap. 
The player would not control the 'main character', so to speak - I don't want the world revolving around the player, I want NPCs (including the companions of the player - if they have any) to have a voice, personalty, opinions and motives of their own and not be just some sort of mindless drone that amounts to nothing more then a new item (in the case of 'party members'), or a sign post. (in the case of regular NPCs)
Although there would be a plot, it would not be the only focus of the game, and it would be designed in a way which allows for the player to play it any way they wish, or completely ignore it if they want, for that matter.
And conversation choices (among other things) which would allow for any kind of a response to a situation. Nothing I hate more then when a game forces you into doing something which you do not want to do.  It's not and RPG if it doesn't allow you to role play.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
a classless system
you classes like warrior or thief?
then no classes, have different skills instead and let the player develop them.
single PC or multiple PCs
single, companions are AI-controlled
skill-based or level-based character development
not sure what both of them exactly are, but i like the way it's done in fallout, when you advance a level you can spend skill points on about 20 different skills, the amount of skill points you can spend depends on your intelligence.
abstract or tactical combat
tactical, Fallout tactics has an interesting combat system
linear or non-linear story
non-linear to the extreme 
side quests
many many many many side quests
multiple story lines and endings
off course...
a moral or value system bulit-in
like good and evil?
sure why not, but not so black and white, add in some greys 
use the same rules for the PC(s) and everybody else
yes, there is nothing worse than a cheating AI
fantasy world, science fiction world, or a mix of both
sci-fi, like Imran said, get away from that fantasy stuff, post-nuclear is also getting done more now, but that is still nice
Everything else you feel worth discussing that I have missed
not right now
why are you asking, are you going to make a CRPG??? (yes?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moral Hazard
|
 |
of jack
Jul 1999
time: 01:17
|
|
a classless system, since you would only be one person having to chose a class doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion.
Single player character as mention before, but you would be able to pick up party members as the game progressed, which you could control in combat; but at the same time they would retain some independence. You would be able to manage thier inventory and send them into the worst part of battle, but this might piss them off, as might say if you treated them like fodder or pack horses. They also might get pissy if you ignore thier input or did things they disagreed with. The NPCs would also have lots of personality (built through out the game) and every NPC would have a long quest associated with them. Of course there would be friction between your party members.
skill-based, think fallout with more traits.
tactical combat, again very similar to fallout.
Well, there would be lots of side quests; but there would be one main quest, but the majority of the time it would just be in the background (Fallout 2) and would unfurl as the game progressed. It would allow for different paths, but in the end you would end up in the same place, at which point you could chose an ending, some choices might be eliminated by your previous actions.
There wouldn't really be a value system built in, if their was it would be hidden. Of course different people would treat you differently according your actions, what quests you took etc.
I wouldn't go with Sci-Fi or Fantasy but would probably take a historical time period (Old West, Pirates Carribean, an Ancient Culture) and use lots of poetic license. Magic would play a minor role, except in the ancient culture.
Other things would include only being able to rest in obviously safe places, such as inns or miles away from anywhere. As to cut down on the total of amount of combat per dungeon. If there was magic it would either be reagent based or spell point based, probably a mix of the two.
I might even bring back food in the manner it was handled in Ultima 7, hunting for food was a lot of fun; and it really brought out Iolo's character, fat pig. Actually, I wouldn't bring it back.
Probably the most important thing would be to find an equitable balance between gold and experience; I would probably do this by letting you use experience to buy Skill points, In the same manner you would use gold to buy weapons and and really valuable stuff. You would also not gain more experience by being an altruist (ala AD&D) but you would gain 'reputation' or friends in the town for the gold you forfeited, at the same time people might try and use you for being too altruistic.
All in all it would have a really complex interpersonal structure, and would end up being a really buggy piece of crap, because the publisher would realize that the amount of money I was spending would never justify, and force me to release it early
Last edited by Moral Hazard on 22-02-2002 at 03:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moral Hazard
|
|
of jack
Jul 1999
time: 01:17
|
|
Oh one last things there would be loads and loads of dialogue, and dungeons would be situated near towns (80% of your time would be spent in town, of course there would be fighting in town), and none of them would be that long by themselves. Except maybe the last one.
And about the begining your character's past would either never be discussed, or be of almost no weight. Probably the second option because I would'nt be sure how to start without some brief intro about yourself.
Last edited by Moral Hazard on 22-02-2002 at 03:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
classless system
Sort of. It would be something like Daggerfall, where your character is determined by his/her/its various skills. There would be a lot of predefined classes, like Pirate or Superman, with their predefined skill sets, but the player wouldn't be limited to these by any means.
single PC or multiple PCs
Single.
skill-based or level-based character development
Both. Your skills increase automatically as you use them, for example, if your primary skill is Running then if you Run a lot your skill will increase. As your skills increase your level increases, which allows you to pick additional Perks and maybe increase your Stats. However, your Perk and Stat increases MUST be related to the skills that you have increased. So, if somebody is trying to cheat the system (like in Daggerfall) by making Running their primary skill, then they can quickly increase their level by just running around. However, the Perks and Stat increases that they then have access to are only related to their Running skill. So, my Level 500 Runner would be a pretty useless character, and would get killed by any Level 5 Asswhupper who happened along.
You aren't stuck with the skills that you started out with, though. If my only skill is Running but I hack a lot of people up with an axe, then my Axe skill will become more intrinsic to my character.
abstract or tactical combat
Tactical. Where else would the 3D graphics come in?
linear or non-linear story
Non-linear. If somebody plays the game twice, they should get two significantly different gaming experiences.
side quests
Sure, but the PC would determine which quests are "side quests" and which are "main quests." If my character's class is Ice Cream Truck Driver, then my main quests will involve selling ice cream and my side quests will involve killing monsters. The reverse would be true if my character's class were Asswhupper.
multiple story lines and endings
Yup, this would help make the story non-linear.
a moral or value system bulit-in
Maybe. I'm not dead set against them, but at the same time I'm not gung-ho on them.
use the same rules for the PC(s) and everybody else
Sure, unless my character's class is God or perhaps Satan, in which case rules wouldn't apply to me.
fantasy world, science fiction world, or a mix of both
Dunno. Probably fantasy.
Everything else you feel worth discussing that I have missed
The game's story would be partially time-driven, not just event-driven. So, let's say your character spends all of his/her/its time selling ice cream; while you're doing so, Mon*Star or Mumra or whoever is still enacting plans for world domination. Unless you can stop them with the healing powers of ice cream (or possibly hot fudge), then some other hero will have to dispatch them. Or possibly they will conquer the world. Tough to say.
Also, you wouldn't be restricted to being "good" or "evil", or "lawful" or "chaotic", or whatever the hell else you might get pigeonholed as. Maybe you want to kill Mumra in order to vanquish his evil, or maybe you want to kill him in order to steal his powers and conquer the world yourself. Maybe you're selling ice cream out of the goodness of your heart, or maybe you're selling ice cream because you're a capitalist swine. It's up to you.
Finally, you would be able to lead armies into battle and whatnot, either through being hired as a general by a king, by becoming king, by becoming an evil warlord bent on world domination, or whatever.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
My game, ideally, would be half-way between a classic, Square-style console RPG and a point 'n' click adventure game. A rigorous, undeviating plot where no "mistakes" except death can be made, strong, predefined characters with a linear (but possibly multipath) character progression, a single unambigous ending. The focus would squarely lie on character interaction, quirky, lateral-thinking puzzles and tactical action combat with as many ludicrous end bosses as possible.
Bascially, the boredom, repetition, stupid complicated rules, ill-written dialogue and fill-in-the-blanks characters that marr practically all CRPGs would be stripped away to be replaced with a lush, funny and easy-to-play world where you're unencumbered by numbers and statistics and skills and nonsense, and where the challenge lies mostly in knowing how to tackle puzzles and monsters correctly. A certain linearity is inevitable, but generally a mixture of on-the-rails sections (the whole first episode or so) and episodal areas with multiple, in-any-order-you-chose-or-partially-completable semi-linear quests chosable in any order and with monster difficulty determined by your current level and equipment is to be strived for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snapcase
My game, ideally, would be half-way between a classic, Square-style console RPG and a point 'n' click adventure game. A rigorous, undeviating plot where no "mistakes" except death can be made, strong, predefined characters with a linear (but possibly multipath) character progression, a single unambigous ending. The focus would squarely lie on character interaction, quirky, lateral-thinking puzzles and tactical action combat with as many ludicrous end bosses as possible.
Bascially, the boredom, repetition, stupid complicated rules, ill-written dialogue and fill-in-the-blanks characters that marr practically all CRPGs would be stripped away to be replaced with a lush, funny and easy-to-play world where you're unencumbered by numbers and statistics and skills and nonsense, and where the challenge lies mostly in knowing how to tackle puzzles and monsters correctly. A certain linearity is inevitable, but generally a mixture of on-the-rails sections (the whole first episode or so) and episodal areas with multiple, in-any-order-you-chose-or-partially-completable semi-linear quests chosable in any order and with monster difficulty determined by your current level and equipment is to be strived for. |
That's an adventure game, not an RPG. Basically what you described would make all true RPGers bored (unless they were into Adventure games as well).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
Snapcase: I'm quite partial to Zelda (particularly Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time), Final Fantasy (Five and Six in particular, but Four is also petty good), and Chrono Trigger (never played Chrono Cross). However, I've gotta agree with Imran here that these aren't exactly CRPG's, but are more of adventure games--they're all quite linear, notably in that you've got preset characters and very limited dialogue options, as well as a dearth of side quests. However, this doesn't make them bad by any means, particularly since they usually have far better stories and dialogue than true CRPG's (with Fallout II being a notable exception)--a direct result of their linearity.
Like I said, I enjoy these games and others like them; for instance, I'm planning on getting Final Fantasy X as soon as it comes out on PC (or as soon as I get a job and can afford a console). I just wouldn't call them CRPG's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
|
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
I always felt that so called "CRPGs" (non-MMO, that is) were immensely poor when compared to pen-and-paper variants. There is no way you can faithfully act out a hero that you have no real creative control over, and the role of the dungeon master is simulated not by a real open world but by making everything so sketchy that you can imagine anything into it. Consistently boring characters and duff dialogue does not help either.
I feel a console RPG comes much closer to the actual experience of "real" RPG by having a realistically low level of what a CRPG is able to simulate. Rather than allowing the player to create his or her own characters, with inevitably bland and formulaeic results (there is no scope for creating an interesting/quirky character in most CRPGs), the computer supplies a set of "stock" characters that are fully developed, thus allowing you to be someone interesting. Similarly, rather than having a free world which without the guiding hand and imagination of a DM to make even the most boring areas action packed is inevitably a mere empty husk, and NPCs that (again without a DM to role-play them) are forced to become boring just to allow the player an imagined "freedom", you'd have a more linear world and more fleshed-out (but less versatile) NPCs. Console-type RPGs do not try to be a real DM, because that's impossible, but instead try to capture the essence of the DM for a much more limited set of characters/objects/dialogues. Whereas almost all CRPGs end up spreading themselves too thin.
The one area where a computer game is near-equal to a p&p RPG is combat, and lo and behold, this is where console RPGs are fleshed out. The combat system of, say, FF IX, beats the pants off any CRPG in terms of complexity, strategy, and "heaviness". Even lighter fare, like Zelda, inevitably require exactly the kind of "find the weak spot" combat that makes pen&paper RPGs fun.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-02-2002 09:08
|