Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsCRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE
Crystalgate
694
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
The number of skills for characters
author=LockeZ
This isn't a problem with the number, it's a problem with you not understanding how to create useful and interesting skills. There are so many ways to get this wrong that it's hard to give advice without more info. Can you post the skill list of one of your characters as an example, listing what each skill does, and explain the situations in which each skill is useful? Pick the character who has the most skills you would never use, if you can.
Emphasis mine. In my experience, the problem is often not necessarily the skill itself, but the situations where a certain skill would be useful just doesn't happen. If you make a skill that is useful in specific situations, then said situations also have to actually happen.
Anyway, Liberty's guideline of 6-15 skills sounds good. However, I think that you should count any Fire/Fira/Firaga type of series as only one skill.
Lying to and deceiving the player
author=Hasvers
I'm not sure why you seem to dislike the idea that the player should learn the dev's logic. What can be painful is point&clicks where a different thought process must be guessed for every puzzle, but if the logic is consistent throughout, then it's just learning how to play the game. In Portal, the devs have created their own logic for how the portals work; that doesn't mean that you cannot learn this logic and play with it.
Humans rarely follow a consistent logic. It's especially unlikely that different individuals adhere to the same logic. The more consistent the logic is, the less human the NPCS will feel.
Lying to and deceiving the player
author=Hasvers
You're assuming that some pieces of info are just wrong for no reason, so the only way to know that they are wrong is to cross-check them - which is not a great design decision, as it involves doing the same thing (e.g. checking in the library) again and again.
I have made no such assumptions.
What I am suggesting is that there should be a reason every time someone lies, and this reason should be part of a consistent set of causes or rules that can be learned. "guessing the logic the game creator is using" becomes simply "learning how to play the game".
Obviously there should be a reason. However, if you make it consistent, won't it result in a similar situation with my checking the library example where the player repeats the same procedure? Or maybe that can be made interesting.
However, these don't have to be stupid abstract rules like in logic puzzles (e.g. the Dwarfs always lie except when they are underground), they can be part of the plot/setting, like figuring the motivations of the NPCs to get a feeling of who would lie, when and why. That's a major part of tons of social games: poker and other bluffing games, detective games and Mafia/Werewolf, and so on. That's also part of what the GM provides in any sufficiently RP-oriented pen&paper session."Get a feeling of who would lie, when and why" sounds to me like something that's likely to result into guessing the logic of the game creator. The NPCs may be individuals, but it's still one single person who decides what actions makes sense with what personality and situation. I'm also not sure that what happens in social games where people receives feedback from each other will work when you replace one human with a computer. In P&P games, the GM can give the players a result even if they uses an approach that the GM didn't plan for in advance. This is impossible in computer games. What we have is the equivalent of a P&P game where the GM has decided on specific approaches the players may take and absolutely no other idea will have any result.
Lying to and deceiving the player
If you make it easy to identify what is true or what is false, you're defeating the point of giving the player false information. However, if you make the process of verifying the accuracy of the information non obvious, how do you make it fair?
Realistically, if the heroes hear a rumor, there are several ways they could go about investigating it. Go to a pub and ask the bartender if he has heard variations of the rumor. Go to a library and look up information relevant to the rumor. Try to trace the source of the rumors. However, none of those approaches are available unless the game creator implemented them.
Let's say the game creator makes pubs a good source for information. In that case, the player will cross-check every rumor with the bartender. Ditto if going to a library is a thing. If there are multiple approaches, the players will more or less go on a list and check them off for every rumor.
Of course, you can always omit having standard approaches to the investigation. You could simple give the players different pieces if information and then ask the player to use logic. However, using logic in such a situation in a video-game does in reality mean guessing what logic the game creator is using.
It's easier if it's non gameplay affecting rumors. You just throw the players a bunch of rumors and let them know that some are true and some are false. Then they can, if they care, wonder which of the rumors will be true and which won't as the game unfolds.
Realistically, if the heroes hear a rumor, there are several ways they could go about investigating it. Go to a pub and ask the bartender if he has heard variations of the rumor. Go to a library and look up information relevant to the rumor. Try to trace the source of the rumors. However, none of those approaches are available unless the game creator implemented them.
Let's say the game creator makes pubs a good source for information. In that case, the player will cross-check every rumor with the bartender. Ditto if going to a library is a thing. If there are multiple approaches, the players will more or less go on a list and check them off for every rumor.
Of course, you can always omit having standard approaches to the investigation. You could simple give the players different pieces if information and then ask the player to use logic. However, using logic in such a situation in a video-game does in reality mean guessing what logic the game creator is using.
It's easier if it's non gameplay affecting rumors. You just throw the players a bunch of rumors and let them know that some are true and some are false. Then they can, if they care, wonder which of the rumors will be true and which won't as the game unfolds.
Controversial Topics In Your Game
author=bulmabriefs144
My approach to gaming is to ask myself, "Can I program it? Has it been done before? Moreover, has it been done this way before?" I playtest my own game. So I would want a game that would be exactly the same boring stuff as every title by Square? Sure, I like having fans of the game, but ultimately, if I'm not okay with the game, why work on it?
The first question I agree with, but the other two I'd swap to "does it improve the game?" Granted, I'm a functionality over originality type of guy.
Cutscene.png
Battle_System.png
Looks nice, but the ASDZ positioning makes it look like I'm supposed to turn the keyboard around 180 degrees. Can't you position things more intuitively?
Global Bullshit of Video Games
Due to the way armor works in Skyrim, upgrading it from 50 to 100 does very little while upgrading it from 500 to 550 makes a huge difference. Eventually, you will reduce all physical damage by 80%, be it from a sharpened toothpick or from a giant's club. If upgrading armor doesn't seem to do much, you're most likely still at a low armor rating.
Anyway, I have a problem with games which have a long start with mostly cut-scenes before the gameplay really starts. If you need to get the story going first or whatever, I feel that you're approaching video game stories wrong.
Anyway, I have a problem with games which have a long start with mostly cut-scenes before the gameplay really starts. If you need to get the story going first or whatever, I feel that you're approaching video game stories wrong.
Treasure Chest Tutorial
If you followed the instructions, you should not be able to reopen the chest. The event command "Control Self Switch: A=ON" and creating a new event page with the condition "Self Switch A is on" will prevent you from reopening the chest. The only possibilities I can think of is that either you skipped one of the instructions or you copied the event code into the new page.
'Stance' system idea. Check it out and tell me what you think.
I would suggest that you make attack skills which also put her into stances instead of having skills who's sole effect is getting her into a stance. I don't think using up one turn to put her into a stance would please the player and even if you use a script to make it a free action, it's still extra clickety clicking and you get other problems such as the player being able to switch stances for free every turn, making their existence pointless.
It also matches with the reality better. No one in their right mind would first move to get into a specific stance and then attack. If you need to get into a specific stance, you do it while doing something else.
It also matches with the reality better. No one in their right mind would first move to get into a specific stance and then attack. If you need to get into a specific stance, you do it while doing something else.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
