Creating a Game Pitch - The Concept

several thing i have dreams of making, and variously started writing code for

1. a GURPS implementation robust enough to allow magic combat.~ ie scripted game rules (turn air to stone, shape earth. mixed with having a sprite engine with z depth support)

2. Supermodel foodfight, a procedual FPS. You either decrease or increase other peoples weight to terminal extremes, with a characters weight effecting movement speed and reload time, as well as character model. Some thought to lego style weapons that you build ingame from bits you fid to get different attacks.

3. Have quite a few thoughts about MMORPG with procedual models (stats change geometry) and changing gameworld from the inside~ but working with some people on it and can't be more percific at the moment.

~ i'm just a 3d artist who claims to program and likes comics too much....
sample work
http://www.websamba.com/davidcoen/best.htm

_edit, also found 'princess maker' the other day, strangly addictive and could well serve as a interesting scope game to clone.

david - you have very strange tastes indeed, but I should've known that from the conference ;-)

@Daemin, hey, i didn't describe any of the hentai games i have thought about making, consider yourself lucky. ('hentai' derived from japanes word for 'deviant', gomenasai)

you where describing wanting to make a auran engine (whatever the name) RTS, and i was trying to get you to have a stronger concept, and sugest the joy of 'procedual' models which you could quickly design ingame and allow some more creativity on the part of the players if done correctly....

_edit
anyway, what do you expect me to do while draginf polygons around for several hours a day, i want to see the end of this stupid contract work. ARRGH. sleep, go make more LODs, bye

_edit again. don't want to sleep, as that will mean i need to wake up and do more work. anyway, some theory.
from evolution people like to build things, and to destroy things.
things which get into our 'run away' primitive responce also see to cause excitment.

the old MUDs allowed increasted editing of avatar based on game experence, extending to moderator status and ablity to create new areas in a world once l33t status had been reached. Myself, i enjoy powering up character in RPGs, 'princess maker' was the first nurturing game where you raise a child in a fantisy setting with a myriad of options.

_snip, next point was a bit too perverted, other than sounds are important too

David: I've deviated a lot from the design spec that I initially suggested to you at the conference. Take a look at it a tad later when I upload the document.

What did you mention about the procedual models? That sounds interesting, but I don't quite get it now? Do you mean procedually generated - like fractally generated trees - or like super-high detailed models that are procedually culled down on slower machines? - or something else?

in the MMORPG game by procedual models i guess i should say morphing models, where you have several target mesh shapes (neutral, strong, charasmatic) and as the stats change, you lerp to the other models. since i can make a model in under a day i tend to push for things like this. basically an aspect of avatar customisation. (or for perverts, getting measurments about female charaters you have spent too long powering up)

"1. a GURPS implementation robust enough to allow magic combat.~ ie scripted game rules (turn air to stone, shape earth. mixed with having a sprite engine with z depth support)"

Ahh, good ol' GURPS... kind of the "holy grail" of computer game design in a way, isn't it? =) I guess it really depends on just how flexible you try and make the underlying systems. We had a lot of (what I magine to be) similar problems on FF - namely, having to come up with a group of powers (or elements of powers) that could be tinkered with in a formula-based way. I think something a lot more robust COULD be done, but it would really need to be done from the ground up - that is to say, essentially allow the players to have a similar level of control over power construction and methodology as the developers do. That's where you hit a snag, though, I guess - either you wind up being TOO flexible (ie let the player create powers/spells that shoot the game balance to hell) or, alternatively, you lock down some of the options that some people will need for legitimate reasons (NWN's editor's "item level limits" spring to mind).

"2. Supermodel foodfight, a procedual FPS. You either decrease or increase other peoples weight to terminal extremes, with a characters weight effecting movement speed and reload time, as well as character model. Some thought to lego style weapons that you build ingame from bits you fid to get different attacks."

Haha... I dig that. =) Gotta love the odd zany idea... one of my personal favourite ideas I still toy around with is a game tentatively titled "John Hughes High", where you have to make your way through the school halls (starting out as an 80s nerd) and keep doing "cool stuff" until you either become "the unpopular guy who becomes popular" or "the 'ugly' girl who takes off her glasses, shakes out her hair, and turns out to be gorgeous". =)

"3. Have quite a few thoughts about MMORPG with procedual models (stats change geometry) and changing gameworld from the inside~ but working with some people on it and can't be more percific at the moment."

The procedural models thing is certainly an interesting new direction (I'm assuming you, like me, are probably keeping eager tabs on the game "Fable" to see how their taking a crack at it goes =)). Massivley multiplayer stuff's another interesting possibility - some of my prior experience has actually been in working with similar systems - large scale net distribution and commercial multiplayer gaming based from a central server. My "dream game" is actually probably very, very close to being a MMORPG... and, again, is something I toy with from time to time when the mood strikes me. =)

One aspect in particular that I find interesting about MMORPG gaming is that people willingly devote so much time to it (though I occasionally wonder if that's not really exploitation of the players to some extent in a very "slot machine-addicted" sort of way). That's something I'm not sure is really - well, here's that ugly word - exploited enough. A MMORPG is something that has a lot more potential than any other game when it comes to crossing over into someone's "real" life, which is something I'm actually pretty keen to explore at some point. I'm not thinking so much along the lines of that game Majestic (the EA "conspiracy theory" game that I think might've folded a while back), but more just in terms of actual learning of skills in a real sense.

F'rinstance, if you wanted to play a hacker in a MMORPG game, would the player be prepared to actually sit down and study up (through "fake" websites) on how to be a hacker in the game, and have to actually LEARN vital skills for the task at hand in order to do something in the game, rather than just click on a "hack" button? Would they be prepared to have to remember to use a Mark 3 Ice Breaker on a Supra-2000 security system, and know where to connect the wires to the terminal? Or would they find that totally annoying? Would the prestige of being "the best hacker in the game" be greater if you had to actually know your stuff, rather than rely on a numerical representation and repetition of a skill for somewhat more vague improvement? Would the information pass through the channels a lot quicker to the point where it was almost worthless, or would people hoard and guard their private collections of knowledge to retain an edge?

That sort of thing could make for really, really addictive gameplay in some respects, but in others it could be a real turnoff. It's something I'd dearly love to explore, though... there's still not really enough scope to "be yourself" within current MMORPGs, I don't think, and the first product that truly taps into that mentality - in terms of appearance, of skills, of Machavellian little player-based schemes, and of "way of life" for a character - will probably reap big rewards. =)

I still don't know if now'd be the time to try it, mind you. =) Any thoughts on that? =)

- Grif

** Firstly I'd like to apologise to Grif for taking his thread for this time **

Ahh yeah, I get that sort of procedural morphing of models, basically something that was done with Black and White in other words. I get that, and it would be interesting to implement, although in a more scientific fashion IMO. As in defining a model with bones, and then when a character uses their muscles then those muscles grow away from the bone resulting in a larger more muscular frame. Or when they use their right arm more then it grows bigger leaving the character slightly lob sided. Doing this with pre generated models wouldn't be enough I don't think, since you'd (being the modeller) be making several hundred different models (slight exaggeration).

Oh well, I think that's it. Good idea though to include, since morphing isn't generally that hard.

Hey guys, I'd like to show my interest as a level designer/world builder. I've released a couple of maps for Jedi Knight II - created many more which were only halfway completed, mainly experiments...

Technology wise I don't have much input as it isn't my field. As long as there is room to breath for 'creative expression' when designing the levels then that's ok with me :) I do like the idea of procedural morphing though, thats something I really enjoyed in b&w.

Before Christ has my interest, the dinosaur age... cavemen. Combine the two and you get a game which hasn't seen the light of day so far (to my knowledge). I've recently started work on a Dino-Riders mod for Battlefield. Swap all the tanks around with mountable Dinosaurs, with lasers and missiles and you've invoked some childhood memories for many of the people playing that game.

That wouldn't be original enough for a stand-alone game. Though if you put yourself in the shoes of the villagers in Black and White, remove the gods and give each side a Dinosaur to raise - you could have something quite unique. Villagers would be able to select a role they wish to partake in, i.e feed, water, bathe, poopie-cleanup(humor is lacking in a lot of games lately...) and when their dinosaur is fully grown, they'd be able to take them into battle. There would be bases to capture, which would donate a dinosaur to the side who captured it, which then, would also need training up - and protection from other attacks.

May not sound like fun being a villager, but its possible to make it a very enjoyable experience :) Give the dinosaurs weapons of some sort and you have something similar to Dino-Riders, that alows player interaction and control over the dinosaur. Each player would be in charge of an area on the dinosaur, dependant on their role as a villager.

Probably gone into it a bit too much, coulnd't help myself :) But overall, collaboration rocks - I can't wait to see what comes out of this thread.

Project Ego (or whatever it's called now) changes your players model as you play, lots of fighting will give him big muscles etc.
Don't know what technique they use to do it though.

If you're interested in Cavemen + Dinosaurs game, check out B.C. (also from Molyneaux AFAIK). Don't want to create something to similar to something that, based on the designers past feats, will probably be a hit :)
I like the idea of having to raise your war-beasts to take into battle, rather than just building them in a factory, battle-ready etc.
Reminds me a little of a book i read years and years ago where people raised dragons to battle in arenas...no, not like pokemon :P

On the subject of the complex hacking stuff, there are at least 2 things i think about that. I think it would be good, however, if you make hacking complex, then you need to do similar things to other character classes. This will possibly lead you into the realm of needing very fast servers to enable twitch-based fighting for fighter classes. Magic classes could benefit in a very cool way from an interface similar to B&W spells, people playing the game would have to actually learn and remember thr proper hand motions for doing spells. All this comes with a lot of complication that doesn't invade the average MMORPG atm :)
Also, making a game that complex may have a bad effect on mass market appeal, and MMOG's can live or die based on that. When the average player only has a couple hours a week to play, are they going to find the complexity a very large obstacle to playing the game? You would need a very well tweaked learning curve i think.

David, do you have the nudie hack for princess maker? Oh yeah, the demon dress (i think it's called) is really...nice :) *ahem* i'll try not to pervert this thread any more.

CYer, Blitz

Just quickly about procedural modeling at this point - I agree that it's an interesting prospect, but we need to bear in mind here that we shouldn't be building a game as an excuse to demonstrate a cool technological feature (I don't think anyone's really suggesting that, I should add =)). Red Faction and its Geo-Mod tech would seem to be good examples of how this sort of thing can go a bit awry. If we can come up with a cool game concept that would easily have such a feature slotted in, of course, then fantastic. =)

As for Black and White, I have to confess I found it a little vague and, in some respects, really poorly designed. That's a whole other rant for a whole other thread, though. ;) As for the dinosaur-rearing game, though, off the top of my head I could maybe see that working in three different styles:

1) The "Nintendo" style - Something almost Pokemon-like in its aims and combat style, and somewhat cartoonish and simplistic in feel - something you can "tinker" with.
2) The "mech" style - basically a Mech game that uses dinosaurs instead of gigantic armoured robots. Fairly full-on violent and somewhat strategic - perhaps the most "realistic" of the lot.
3) The "strategy" style - The game's style would basically be almost RTS in nature, except as viewed from a single unit's perspective. Think "Sacrifice", perhaps? Probably the most B&W-ish in its nature.

There are probably at least a couple more obvious styles, but those are the three that instantly sprang to my mind - feel free to add any I'm just plain overlooking, naturally. =)

Out of those three, though, I'd say that the simplistic Pokemon-style one would probably appeal to me the most - both the accessability and target audience would be greatest if it was pitched at this kind of level, I think - plus, admittedly, it's probably just what flat-out appeals to me the most in terms of prospective gameplay. The downside would, of course, be that the market for games in the "train a creature and use it to fight, then collect MORE creatures" category is pretty crowded right now - whether or not it would be compelling enough or different enough to stand out from the crowd would be pretty dependant on just what features we could squeeze into it without sacrificing its ease of play.

It's probably a bit late for me to be trying to think of such things right now, so I won't bother, but I'll throw the idea out there so other more concious folks can do the thinking for me - what sort of gameplay could be put into the "being a villager" aspects? It sounds as if that would be where the majority of time would potentially be spent, so we'd need to come up with a way to make sure it wasn't too dependant on repetetive tasks - if going the aforementioned "Nintendo" option, f'rinstance, a "toybox"-style of village with a bunch of little things to muck about with in a really freeform sort of way would probably make for a great way to go. =)

Those are my initial thoughts on the subject, anyway. =) Everyone else, fire away! =)

- Grif

Blitz: "Reminds me a little of a book i read years and years ago where people raised dragons to battle in arenas...no, not like pokemon :P"

Hehe oh well, guess you won't much like the example I used above then, eh? =P

"On the subject of the complex hacking stuff, there are at least 2 things i think about that. I think it would be good, however, if you make hacking complex, then you need to do similar things to other character classes. This will possibly lead you into the realm of needing very fast servers to enable twitch-based fighting for fighter classes."

Yeah, absolutely (in regards to doing much the same for fighting classes). =) That's where it gets tricky, of course - the twitch gaming method is certainly one way of doing it, but twitch gaming in a MMOG is notoriously sucky, as I'm sure we all know. =) My thoughts on how to work around it boil down to its simply being unavoidable to have some things that aren't based on stats (this is me thinking about a specific game concept I've toyed with, admittedly, with combat that revolves around an RPG system and tactical gameplay). In terms of how you could make "learning" applicable to a fighting class, that could boil down to things such as combat manoeuvres that can only be "learned" after completing a test or achieving a goal of some kind that requires other prior knowledge being used.

Hrm... that sounds a little vague and ropey, doesn't it? =) I'll try to be more specific - what if you wanted your squad to learn to "slice the pie" (that is, use a combat-effective method of entry) when bursting in through a door? it's certainly within the realms of possibility that you could let a player "create" entry methods before a mission that could be quick-selected during actual combat. That's one example of how it could potentially work - making sure that techniques are what are learnable and utilised, I suppose. Needs more thinking about and fleshing out, of course, but the possibiliy's there. =)

"Magic classes could benefit in a very cool way from an interface similar to B&W spells, people playing the game would have to actually learn and remember thr proper hand motions for doing spells. All this comes with a lot of complication that doesn't invade the average MMORPG atm :)"

Yeah, that's one feature of B&W that I thought was really well-done, and could certainly be used in a lot of different and interesting ways in other games. =) I've actually toyed around with a couple of brief concepts that involve elements of that mouse-wiggly stuff for execution of combat and whatnot - always thought it could go really well in an RPG franchise where each game focuses on a single class (think "Thief", but more Ultima 9/Morrowind than shooter), each of whom has to "learn" their own particular method of fighting using that kind of technique. Could potentially be very cool... or, on the other hand, a total nightmare. I'm yet to figure out which is more likely. =)

"Also, making a game that complex may have a bad effect on mass market appeal, and MMOG's can live or die based on that. When the average player only has a couple hours a week to play, are they going to find the complexity a very large obstacle to playing the game? You would need a very well tweaked learning curve i think."

Yeah, very true. It's sort of dependent on whether you make that the ONLY focus, I think. If you give the hardcore players the option to be "all that they can be" and then give the more freewheeling players the ability to pick out their own funky character wardrobe, buy an apartment, and furnish it how they see fit while gaining experience at their own leisurely pace... ...that would strike me as a decent way to kill an afternoon, for certain, particularly if that wasn't nearly the only goal available to me (a la The Sims Online). That's sort of how I picture it being counterbalanced, at least. =) Also, certain "classes" would be inherantly easier to just "get up and go" with - it doesn't take a lot of study to be able to pick up a pistol, slide a clip into it, and fire it, after all, but it's probably a lot harder to plug a laptop into a bank's security system and bypass it. That's the other nice aspect of this sort of system - it would bring more of a "real world" balance to proceedings, where not everybody is just "the most useful class" right away. =)

- Grif

quote:Originally posted by davidcoen

several thing i have dreams of making, and variously started writing code for

1. a GURPS implementation robust enough to allow magic combat.~ ie scripted game rules (turn air to stone, shape earth. mixed with having a sprite engine with z depth support)

2. Supermodel foodfight

3. Have quite a few thoughts about MMORPG

1) GURPS is good stuff :) Currently I am working on a MUD (for myself) more or less to use as a demo. I have been following D&D rules and have come up with my idea of races, classes, and alignment. Trying to set up 2 lines of alignment into 1 is quite fun! I am following D&D from the point that its not the concept thats new but how the implementation of the rules into a game make it unique.

2) Not sure I could bring myself to work on a supermodel food fight ;)

3) MMOG's I am very interested in. From playing and beta testing I have a fair idea of the MMOG market.

While I have a very wide interest in games I would say RPG's and MMOG's are there most of my knowldge lies. And as I have already started to nut out some race/class and alignment ideas I would be happy to put those into something.

"Yes I Code"
As found on AGDC name tag 2002

"Magic classes could benefit in a very cool way from an interface similar to B&W spells, people playing the game would have to actually learn and remember thr proper hand motions for doing spells. All this comes with a lot of complication that doesn't invade the average MMORPG atm :)"

Arx Fatalis does this very well - it also uses a method similar to B&W though it requires more than one animation to build up spells. You can memorise up to three spells, but once you use one, you have to memorise it again. These sorts of methods are great, a lot more interaction, beats clicking on a button. Would be good for those with a drawing tablet too ;P

Refering to your 1, 2 & 3 Grif:

1 isn't really the games nature I had in mind. Combine 2 with 3 and its almost spot on. Not sure if you've played Natural selection or heard about it, but if you have then consider something like that but based more on unit building than building construction.

The jist of the teams is that there would be four (or more/less) tribes to choose from. Each would have their own technology/knowledge of weaponry, armor and overall building - similar to how RTS games have differen't attributes to set apart their races. Their knowledge in the above attributes would be displayed on the dinosaurs they build for. If its a tribe with good armor technology then the "saddles" they build for the dinosaurs would appear bulkier, if weaponry - they may have more weapons displaying or more powerful weapons. Other things like tribe powers (AOM God powers) could be put in place too, where players receive some form of bonus if there is more than X amount of them around one another.

What would being a villager entitle? Chores around the village, wood, twine, food, water collecting. What ever tools are needed to create the arsonel/armor on dinosaurs. Villagers would also be able to make weapons for themselves, spears, throwing boulders, anti-dinosaur weaponry etc. At the start they'd have nothing other than a few tools around their camp, a stone axe, pick axe, a beating stone - which would be used to chop down trees and shape wood, mine stone for boulders/better tools and for breaking twine/creating rock dust (smoke bomb? ;P). How fun this would all be for the player, not sure - it's possible to make it fun though. It resembles the start of any RTS game where you have to build up your base/units before mounting an attack.

Should the two tribes start with one dinosaur each? Or should they be required to craft tools which could be used in capturing them? Tribe attributes could come in to play here, x tribe has a better alliance to meat eaters, or flying dinosaurs where as y tribe doesn't. Tribe powers where x amount of players are around each other would definitely play a part in capturing dinosaurs...

Combat methods, villager vs villager wise - I'd like most of it to be close combat and low on ammo. If we have spears, make them cover some distance, but not too much. Keep their numbers low and encourage close quaters combat. Think of Jedi Knight and how well their saber fighting came off. When I think of this I think of two cavemen facing off against each other, dancing around in a circle with spears in hand trying to hit one another making monkey noises ;]

Last but not least, maps could contain 'landmarks' where they would find special types of wood/stone/twine/water. Each differen't type of resource holds its own valuable attribute and requires the other tribe to scout to see what the opposite side is gathering so they can counter it. If only one type of special wood is placed in the map, then villagers would require weaponry to protect themselves from the other tribe whilst hunting there.

@Jacana. it's not sexist if you degrade both genders, then it's just equal opurtunity. Sumo wreslers and muscle bound beefcakes work just as well. though after that mentioning that your 'sheild' material would be sillicon might not be a good idea.

@Gif. Daggerfall had some very nice ablities to change ablities and edit spells ingame. one loved rpg was old 'dungen master' on amiga, first person dungen crawl, 4 people party, practicing activites improved stats. for magic you spent mana points to write runes (first one determining power of spell, you got choice of about 6 and longest spell was 4 runes long) and if you got it right and you skill was high enough it would work when you cast it.

anyway, this thread is for game sugestions? yes?

a RTS. Giant robot fighters. all players get same increacing flow of resources. (interest on unspent) aim is to destoy other player's construction plant. you choose how many points to put into range, speed, armour. choose type of weapons and type of movement, type of brain and sensors... (~record designs for reuse) and then select a spot around the plant to construct the robot at. build speed is divided by how many things you are making~ and make robots that cant move to defend the base.

WARNING: This is going to be a loooooong post. ;)

Jacana:

quote:Currently I am working on a MUD (for myself) more or less to use as a demo.

Good stuff! =) I actually got my start through working on a commercial MUD for local BBS systems... very addictive things, those. =)

In regards to D&D, here's a question I always find interesting to ask: are the rules and classes in 3rd Edition perhaps TOO balanced? And if so, at what point does game balance become a bad thing?

Kris: Hrmm... I have to admit, I'm still not quite sure where the gameplay as a non-combative caveman would come from. It's generally easier to accept doing something that's essentially a "menial task" in a multiplayer scenario because you're building on something as part of a real team, rather than the simulated one you'd be working with in a single-player game. I agree that there's got to be a way for it to be made fun we're just overlooking. =) Perhaps by making getting to "resources" and back something of an adventure in itself... but I still worry about the potential repetitiveness of it - the tendency to make the dinosaur rather than the player the primary focus of the game's attention could be risky.

I have to admit that I'm also a bit unsure of how well dinosaur games are being received at this point in time. Is it a theme that has broad appeal? I seem to recall some earlier Jurassic Park titles (and certainly the Turok ones) having some issues with sales, but I have no idea just what proportion of that was due to the games themselves just being poor. =) Anyone have any idea on those?

================================================================
A Couple of Personal Ideas
================================================================

Just thought I'd throw these ideas out there, most of which I've at least tinkered with design-wise from time to time. Feel free to pick, hack at, and generally dissect to your heart's content. =)

1) The "Adventurers" RPG Series, Game 1 ? ?Ranger?

This game would be intended to be the first in a series of RPGs with a bit of a difference. Each would focus solely on an individual, pre-determined character of a set character class (my personal preference being the class of "Ranger" for the first such game). The lack of flexibility in character creation (ie nearly none outside of clothing, accrued damage, and fighting style) would be offset by several factors - a stronger narrative and the ability for all game mechanics in each title in the series to be geared at providing each title's given class the best possible gameplay experience and options. Gameplay style would most likely be third person and the platform of choice would vary depending on which combat system style was implemented.

Narrative-wise, most of these games would be aimed at starting with character background - that is, each character would begin each game as a child, with gameplay events conveying how it is they managed to learn their own particular profession. Certain set "events" would need to be completed before the character would "grow up" somewhat - maybe with one or two "teen years" portions of the game between childhood and eventually being "grown up" with the whole wide world to explore. Events in these formative years would also determine just what transpires to drag the character into more epic conflicts - a best friend's death as a child, for instance, means the character won't exist later on - will the adventuring guild he would have founded to protect their home town then still exist? The aim would, in some respects, be to go about showing a player-driven story of how the world around them reacts to the choices they make, and how those choices can lead someone who started out as "a regular person" into becoming someone who is in some respects quite extraordinary and important in the scheme of things. There should really be no "right answer", in other words - just realistic reactions to events that transpire, with real-world consequences. "Events", incidentally, would be done via gameplay (to some extent) rather than externally - think of the game Another World and its set pieces that required user interaction for storytelling, rather than Warcraft 3 and its story being basically external to gameplay concerns.

In terms of the world itself, a sense of exploration and wonderment would be by far the most important thing to convey. Semi-stylized in terms of appearance, perhaps - still realistic-looking, but really "classic fantasy". The world wouldn't be so much a massive treasure horde with wonderful creatures everywhere as they would be Tolkien-esque, to my mind - still fairly Earth-like, the kind of place that's very ancient, and that holds quite a few secrets. Magical items would be truly rare and a true wonder, and certain races are truly reclusive or openly hostile. Some things should simply not be explainable by anyone within the game world and are taken as things that "just are", with a somewhat romanticised "some say that..."-style legend to accompany them. The general aim would be to make the world feel like a big and wonderful place to someone who's come from humble beginnings - not simply a place where hugely magical and wonderful things occur on such a day-to-day basis that they're mundane. The events surrounding the player being drawn into anything "epic" would hopefully therefore take on a truly grand feel - something bigger than the player, and something that conveys a true sense of "this will be a large chapter in this world's history, and this kid I've helped grow up from humble beginnings, and who's now seen many wonderful things, will play a major role in it and become a true hero/villain of epic proportions".

Combat as I see it could be done one of four ways: Soul Calibur-ish in style (when a weapon is drawn, combat simply takes on a "one on one" approach, even if there's more than one combatant on-screen - they patiently wait their turn or jump in when their pal gets knocked down, perhaps), a more complex "learn to fight" style (think of the aforementioned Black and White "mouse swipe" system, except used for swordplay), a button combo system akin to the Dynasty Warrios series (fairly simplistic, but fast-paced - ideal for a console) and possibly just the usual simplistic RPG style of "click on whatever you'd like to hit and hope for the best". My personal preference would probably be the first option, which, in turn, would make the game a likely candidate for a console release.

In terms of the game being used as a launch pad for a franchise, future games would be fairly straightforward to explain - the same world, possibly the same time frame, using a different character of a different "class", and with events potentially being reactive to those of the previous game. There's also always the prospect of "multiplayer addon worlds" - that is, adding a game world where friends can play cooperatively through various quests. There's quite a bit of potential for a solid series here, at the very least.

ADVANTAGES OF THIS CONCEPT: It's probably going to be the best concept of these three for simply conveying a specific "feel" of gameplay and demonstrated proficiency at creating a more complex title in a demo form. It would also tackle some decent new areas of gameplay and storytelling (not to mention actual style and flair), hopefully to the point where it would create enough impact for people to truly sit up and take notice - particularly as it becomes more apparent that their choices are actually having an effect to the extent where the gameplay experience might be totally different from someone else's. The fact that it's pitched at being a franchise can't hurt, either.

DISADVANTAGES OF THIS CONCEPT - There'll be a lot of work involved in all the cause-and-effect style of gameplay this would entail - a lot of chances for things to "break" that will need to be predicted and countered in advance, if we want such things to be truly meaningful. Also, the more impact-laden we'd like the storytelling elements to be, the trickier it's going to be to maintain out-and-out quality at all times - these elements could become somewhat hit-and-miss if we're not careful.

2) Gang War

Gang War is, in some ways, my ?dream game?. A team management, squad-based combat, and strategic game rolled into one, the aim of the game would simply be to raise a gang of semi-futuristic street thugs and turn them into the kind of criminal organisation who can rule their home city by taking over sections of ?turf?, and using their individual reputation, the overall rep of their gang, and the reputations of their individual heroes to exert influence. Threaten someone into giving over a local power station, for example, and you can shut down the power to any nearby enemy bases, thereby shutting down their base's security systems. Being sneaky and Machiavellian, too, would come into fairly hefty play ? do you meet with an opposing gang leader in good faith, or set up a sniper to pick him off? What happens if you get caught out? Will any other gang leader ever trust you again? And, perhaps most importantly ? will you sacrifice body armour for the sake of simply making your character look ?cool?, thereby giving him access to certain reputation-based class types like ?the gunslinger? that he mightn?t have otherwise been able to get at?

The real name of the game in Gang War would be customisation ? gangs could be named, given their own in-game logo, given their own organisational chart, and even change to other organisation ?types? based on how they handle events. A gang that deals with opponents and general obstacles by trying to ?convert? people to their cause could get enough of a reputation for it to change into a ?religion?, for example, with the gang?s ?misc. thugs? being assigned the player?s own choice of religious robes and the gang?s various higher-up ?hero? characters being able to be assigned individual titles as the player sees fit. If your characters spend all day wandering around and threatening shopkeepers into paying protection money, meanwhile, you might want them to become an ?Organised Crime? gang ? be that ?family-based? or ?businesslike?. Of course, this means the game?s general tone and mood would be more ?mature? than most existing titles ? drugs, theft, violence, and all other aspects of crime should be at least an option to the player.

This level of customisation would really extend to everything in order to ensure that people always had something to tinker with ? base design down to individual security layouts and the type of software run on vital systems would be customisable by the player, or simply ignored in favour of figuring out which shoes best match their new leather jacket for those wanting a more simplistic ?way of life? for their gang. Internal "gang" emails would be able to be sent and hacked. Intelligence-gathering through ?recon missions? and contacts/informants would be important in knowing how best to take on an enemy emplacement, but not vital ? the guy who just wants to drop a bunch of heavily-armed thugs into his opponent?s courtyard and hope for the best is still free to do so, and will get a fearsome reputation to go with it if he succeeds.

In terms of general ?feel?, the game?s vibe as I picture it would really be very Shadowrun (the pen-and-paper RPG) minus the magic. The graphics technology behind it, meanwhile, would need to be fairly dynamic in appearance ? that is to say, we?d need to counter the ?Oh, it?s a strategy game ? it?ll therefore look pathetic? way of thinking, and do it in great style. Your own individually customised gang has to look damn cool on-screen, after all ? not just be some stats on paper.

Combat would be tactical and mouse-driven ? a free-roaming camera with a three-tier pause system. Space bar once for slow-mo, space bar twice for full pause, and space bar again to go back to full speed. The interface would be as intuitive and mouse-driven as possible (and hence a PC game, obviously), with most options selectable from tiered menus. And for those wondering about how you'd handle more specific combat styles and attacks, yes, I've thought about it already and have something of a decent system for handling it - it actually *does* seem workable, but I won't bother going into it here yet. =)

In terms of missions goals, in some ways this game would be very much like the GTA3 rendition of ?The Sims? ? that is to say, the aim would really primarily be to give the player enough stuff to tinker with that they won?t get bored with it in much the same way that the ?Sim? games do, except there?ll be guns involved for when they want to do something besides put up wallpaper. ;) Naturally, though, there?d still be mission goals ? people offering jobs would be the initial way for a gang to pull itself off the streets, for instance, with larger-scale self-motivation missions being able to be undertaken as more and more resources are made available.

In terms of multiplayer, there would be issues with turning the single-player campaign into something two players could have a go at due to time-management issues (what if player A?s team launches an attack on player B?s stronghold at the game time of 5:05 on day 34, but player B is already involved in something else?). However, there *is* MMORPG potential there ? in fact, the Machiavellian aspects would be a lot better suited and engrossing to such a platform. It would also allow for the aforementioned ?actual learning?-style of character knowledge, which could be something that?s a lot of fun to play around with.

Admittedly, this is just scratching the surface ? more specific design details would obviously clarify things a great deal, but I?d rather not babble on too much more at this point. Suffice to say, though, that it?s the type of game that I could easily see myself losing great gobs of my life to, and a great many people I?m discussed the concept with seem to get pant-wettingly excited about the idea of such a game being made, too.

ADVANTAGES OF THIS CONCEPT: It would be as addictive as... err? a really addictive thing, I suppose, if done right ? customisation and ?building something cool? is really what pulls the players in. Couple that with the more mature themes of GTA3 and it?s a potential large dumpster o?money. And finally, it?s a concept that you can generally easily manage to get people excited about, which is absolutely something we shouldn?t overlook. As a MMORPG, meanwhile, the odds would be good that people would forget to eat, sleep, and perhaps even die from lack of eating or sleeping ? it would provide for a pretty engrossing world.

DISADVANTAGES OF THIS CONCEPT: This would be a truly mammoth undertaking. The art assets alone would constitute some monstrous hurdles in terms of technical issues as well as sheer volume. Also, its gameplay (even if done right) will most likely be very hard to demonstrate as ?really cool? in an initial incomplete demo. Plus, if done WRONG, its gameplay would just begin to resemble a bunch of truly overwhelming options coupled with a pretty nifty gangland fashion design simulator. The MMORPG design option adds more issues to these, of course ? there?d need to be a certain level of true developer-end maintenance for the Machiavellian aspects to truly flourish, for instance.

3) The Updated Flashback

This one?s short and sweet: we could create an updated version of Flashback. Who didn?t like Flashback? Nobody, that?s who! ;)

ADVANTAGES OF THIS DESIGN CONCEPT: It?s short to write out as a concept. Err? and in terms of actual workload, it would be comparatively straightforward and probably quite easy to show our capability to complete it. It would also work on basically any platform.

DISADVANTAGES OF THIS CONCEPT: The primary disadvantage is obviously that it?s simply not anything new under the sun. That might make it harder to sell ? publishers can be very trend-based thinkers, and if it?s not a ?fully 3D? game, then we could be hard-pressed to convince them of its being worthwhile. it might also not be complex *enough*, in some respects.

==============================================================

Well, I guess those are my three not-so-quick-after-all ideas. To break down my thought processes on all three quickly, though:

Ranger ? probably the best combination of ?doable? and ?contains innovativenessism ??.

Gang War ? The hardest of the lot to actually make, but also the easiest to get people a bit excited about.

Flashback Clone ? We?re going to be most likely to be able to complete this in a timely and effective manner, but it mightn?t allow us to escape the shackles of ?simple game development? when we want to at a later date.

Feel free to pick them apart and have a bit of discussion on ?em, obviously. =)

- Grif

I have yet to find anything that is truly balanced :) Someone at some stage will always

quote:Originally posted by Grif
Good stuff! =) I actually got my start through working on a commercial MUD for local BBS systems... very addictive things, those. =)

In regards to D&D, here's a question I always find interesting to ask: are the rules and classes in 3rd Edition perhaps TOO balanced? And if so, at what point does game balance become a bad thing?

complain that something else has more of an advantage than another - such is human nature. IMO if D&D was ever truly balanced they would lose a lot of money *grin* Who would need to buy 89659th edition player and DM books if they got it all right in 3rd.

While not a programmer as such I have spent over a year as an admin on a game based off Legend of the Red Dragon :) Now if that doesn't take you back to BBS days I don't know what will.

- Very much a side note but Derek Sanderson who is working on the MF Xbox title got his start into the MMOG world through Gemstone.

quote:Ranger ? probably the best combination of ?doable? and ?contains innovativenessism ??.

The idea of Ranger sounds very appealing - but then I am very biased. I grew up on pen and paper. Tho with the invention of things like MUD's I lost touch with a lot of the D&D rules...

So in talking about the world changing around you as decisions are made - Are you talking about an advanced Choose Your Own Adventure? [:)]

One of the negatives I have always had with BioWare's RPG's is that it is such a scripted adventure as everything seemed to tie into the main story plot. Morrowind broke the mold with that by allowing for so many different quests to be followed. The downside - for some - of Morrowind was that it was too open and could take too long if one tried to complete as much as they could - and I thought that was called getting your moneys worth from a game.

As for fighting styles - it could be a pain either way. The point and kill style can very much get old. The other side is to use movement or keystrokes to represent the battle - one of the hardest things I found about Everquest (Bard song macros) - after a while of hitting keys over and over again it really took a toll.

Maybe the idea would be to have a character first learn a few basic combat stances and then allow them to marco them somehow? In a sort of pre planned battle attack. Or have a few premade ones that work in defensive, offensive, ranged etc (similar to the scripting with Baldur's Gate).

Just to add to your disadvantage of the concept - people can be very unforgiving of RPG's that have very thin storylines. Even before cause and effect is worked out I think a storyline would need to be very fleshed out. The idea of RPG is to immerse yourself.

"Yes I Code"
As found on AGDC name tag 2002

I just skimmed through this, but gang war sounds like someone has played too much Necromunda :) This s actually a game i'd be very interested in co-operating on, but i highly doubt i'd have the time to work on it because i'm way to lazy and will be working on 2 large and 1 largish project come february already :(
The MMOG aspects of this that i considered when thinking about this game type, was that players would have their own gang, but they would also be part of a larger organization/race/whatever. When you took over territory, they would become your factions territory and anyone in your faction could defend them, you would get a bonus if you were the gang (or one of the gangs) that captured the territory etc.
I think if you run it as a MMOG you have to limit the resource "gathering" potential a fair bit, particularly if the resources go directly to your gang. Everyone would be trying to build stuff everywhere, and people would be disappointed because other gangs in their faction had already built the best spots. However, resource management would still work fine if the resources were allocated from your faction. You would be allocated resources consummate with the work you've done for the faction (buildings built, territories won, enemies beaten, etc.) There'd still be plenty of choices to make with those resources.
The main idea of using factions is so that popping your gang in and out of the game (your gang would just dissappear or something, similar to most MMORPG's) would not be a large problem, the rest of the people in your faction can defend the territory you've won etc.
Anyway, just some ideas.
CYer, Blitz

I LOVED FLASHBACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [:)]
Heavily influenced Prince of Persia type of game, which the current 3d type of game that Tomb Raider and it's sequels were the natural progression of..

quote:IMO if D&D was ever truly balanced they would lose a lot of money *grin* Who would need to buy 89659th edition player and DM books if they got it all right in 3rd.

Very true. =) In regards to 3rd edition, though, they've made it all very "even playing-field" - even EXP charts and very even levels of power progression, for the most part. I personally agree with the folks who say it feels almost like it's been geared towards attracting a video game audience who expect "balanced classes" rather than potentially more realistic missmatching at various levels. =)

quote:So in talking about the world changing around you as decisions are made - Are you talking about an advanced Choose Your Own Adventure?

Hrmm... in a way I suppose I am, yeah, but more open to freewheeling tinkering... certainly not just a bunch of "either/or" options. =)

As another example, I'll go back to the "starting as a kid" point. The first thing that could happen in this game might be that you and your best friend go poking around in a cave you're not supposed to poke around in, with the result being you get chased down by a troll. There might be two ways of "solving" this problem - one being to distract the troll away from your friend, diving back into the cave, and then finding a seperate way out where the troll can't follow. If you try to out-and-out run, though, the troll might give up on you and chase down your friend, killing him (and then in turn being killed by the people of your home town for it).

Thus, you'd wind up with two "future" options for when you hit your teen years - in one representation you'd still have a teenage best friend but there'd still be a troll out there, and in the other you wouldn't have a best friend but the troll would be gone.

Naturally, this form of gameplay would preclude certain aspects from being too "tied in" to the main thrust of events, but the illusion could certainly be built up that all such subtle changes in the world around you had a wider impact. =) There are more complicated examples of how such a thing could work, of course, but this sort of methodology would provide for some interesting options when it comes to dealing with obstacles - cutting off the supply source for a fortress, for example, could weaken its defenders over time, making them easier to deal with on your own as a single swordsman. =)

quote:One of the negatives I have always had with BioWare's RPG's is that it is such a scripted adventure as everything seemed to tie into the main story plot. Morrowind broke the mold with that by allowing for so many different quests to be followed. The downside - for some - of Morrowind was that it was too open and could take too long if one tried to complete as much as they could - and I thought that was called getting your moneys worth from a game.

Most of the criticism I heard was about its being very cookie-cutter in execution in regards to NPC conversation and such... though the "too open" one came a close second, for sure. =) That tended to come from people who loved Deus Ex and cited *it* as having "open-ended gameplay", which I found interesting. =)

quote:Maybe the idea would be to have a character first learn a few basic combat stances and then allow them to marco them somehow? In a sort of pre planned battle attack. Or have a few premade ones that work in defensive, offensive, ranged etc (similar to the scripting with Baldur's Gate).

The stances idea is certainly one I wouldn't mind, but I'd want to be careful about reducing player interaction in combat to too low a level. To be taken on-board in a more mainstream way, I think the combat would need to be fairly dynamic but still user-controlled... though I'm still thinking of it as a console-based title, admittedly. =) Perhaps that's what we're differing on. =)

quote:Just to add to your disadvantage of the concept - people can be very unforgiving of RPG's that have very thin storylines. Even before cause and effect is worked out I think a storyline would need to be very fleshed out. The idea of RPG is to immerse yourself.

In that regard, my hope would simply be that we can do as good a job of conveying a story through player actions and choices as the aforementioned Another World did. =) That's not to say there wouldn't be an overreaching theme, of course... I just don't know exactly how blatant it should be made. Certainly I think the prospect of having the player led along to a small extent would be better than his simply being put in a "here's the big problem, now you need to save the world" position right from the get-go. The growth of the plot from humble beginnings (say, the player's being taken away to go to war as a regular soldier on behalf of his country after his "teen years" were over, or even simply his investigating local occurrances that lead to deeper things) would seem a lot more natural to me than BioWare's chosen "the lord of the land asks you, miscellaneous adventurer who I've apparently heard of, to fix his kingdom by slaying a mega-demon" storytelling method. That's kind of a pet peeve of mine, though, I've gotta admit... not a huge BG series fan (outside of Dark Alliance on the PS2, at least). =)

This is all just hearsay for now, of course. =) I'm quite sure a solid plot can be built along with the modularity of various events - in fact, I think it would be enhanced by the combination in a lot of ways, if we could nut out a way to do it decently. =)

- Grif

Hehe dagnabbit... make one post and two more are there before I'm done. =P

Blitz:

Yeah, you raise some valid points (though I haven't ever played Necromunda, actually... know of it, of course). =) That faction territory stuff's really good thinking, I've gotta say... good stuff! =)

In regards to the MMORPG bit, I was actually simply thinking that players would just take on the role of an individual character, much like most current MMORPGs... sorry, I was rambling on there, so I obviously missed a few things in the explanation. =) That takes a lot of the worry out of team management etc, though, and combined with AI-controlled security measures it brings in some decent incentive for teamwork. The real reason guilds and such things don't seem to work very well in a game like EQ is, to my mind, simply that there's not really a whole lot for a guild to DO aside from things they organise for themselves. If the game's built with guild issues in mind, though, and provides a lot of options for them to play with, I've no doubt they'd be well-used. =)

Souri:

quote:I LOVED FLASHBACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Hehe ditto! =) Actually dusted off my old copy a week or two ago, and it's made me a bit wistful. It's just SO simple and elegant, though... and the disgruntled and jaded old gamer in me would love to see a repeat of it. It's still a load of fun to play to this day. =)

- Grif

?Kris: Hrmm... I have to admit, I'm still not quite sure where the gameplay as a non-combative caveman would come from ... I agree that there's got to be a way for it to be made fun we're just overlooking. =) ?

Well that?s what this thread is for isn?t it?

I think we need to take a look at a couple of non-game related issues. The main one being that we?re going to be spread all around Australia, what happens if we do get a demo up and a successful pitch? Do we move into an office somewhere? Are we all willing to move? This also plays a big part in how large the project we take on will be. Most of us don?t have commercial gaming experience behind us, if we take on a project, it would probably be best not to be too ambitious about what we want to achieve.

I think a MMORPG is out of the question. Especially for the PC anyway, as there are far too many in the making / already out. With big names like World of Warcraft, Star Wars Galaxies, EverQuest 2 and Horizons all due out within a year / year and a half ? ours would want to be somewhat the best game ever created in order to pull people away from a fan base that was built long ago.

The Dinosaur / Cavemen may not be the best idea gameplay wise ? but it?s different in both game genre and appearance. Other dinosaur games beforehand may have failed ? but was it because of the age it was set it? I don?t think so.

Whilst we don?t have many members at the moment, I think we need to sort a few things out before hand so we can work out exactly what we will be able to achieve. Then we can move on to creating a game design / story etc? that will be easily accomplishable in order for us to stand on our own two feet.

quote:Originally posted by Kris

I think a MMORPG is out of the question. Especially for the PC anyway, as there are far too many in the making / already out. With big names like World of Warcraft, Star Wars Galaxies, EverQuest 2 and Horizons all due out within a year / year and a half ? ours would want to be somewhat the best game ever created in order to pull people away from a fan base that was built long ago.

To argue the other side of this - Yes they all have fan bases and that can be quite a big issue. Not everyone likes Warcraft, Star Wars, EverQuest, or Horizons. EQ and Horizons are very much a fantasy RPG. While they are popular not everyone likes them.

The way you point that out is because they have established names or genres then they are going to be great games and people are going to be playing them no matter what. And that is very wrong :)

One of the main reasons people play MMOG's is the community. Not all titles will have that community. You really have 3 different player bases in MMOG's and its quite hard to cater to all three. You have power gamers, gamers, and casual gamers. Because a lot of games are still about level advancement and attainment of items they fall into the power gamer games. The other downfall about games that cater to power gamers - the rest of the community will never see the whole game.

Recently Earth and Beyond was released. This was quite a good game setup. They seems to be able to balance the power gamer down to the casual gamer. Just in the beta test I think I saw most of the game and my character was level 50 at highest. You actually had to travel around and through some higher level zones to complete fairly low level quests. I was tempted to continue to play EnB after gold but the reason I did not was the community. A great game and nice people I just found the community odd.

Also from the pitch about the MMOG here it really has more of a sci-fi cyber sound (sorry I skimmed over it). Right now the only game that really fits into that is Anarchay Online (and maybe Shattered Galaxey). So there is still an opening for a cyber type MMOG to work and run well. Its still an untapped market :) Not everyone likes fantasy based games or the space of Star Wars.

So I guess the Readers Digest of my post (I can go on for days about MMOG's) is that while there are a lot of games in development there are still untapped markets out there.

"Yes I Code"
As found on AGDC name tag 2002

Perhaps i don't know any better, but i'd take a guess that a large majority of sci-fi fans, and particularly sci-fi fans that play computer games, or itnerested in star wars. I haven't met one yet that isn't as far as i can recall :)

The best way IMO to target the casual gamer for MMOG is to develop a game that actually relies on some skill, rather than just time spent. As far as i know the only MMOG around atm that uses a reasonable degree of skill is planetside (correct me if i'm wrong).
There is actually a brilliant way to get rid of the "time spent" gameplay that runs rampant in MMOG's these days...BUT hardcore MMOG'ers tend to absolutely hate it. Simply make death permanent. When you die you lose all your XP skill etc. Now, this will suck, you spend ages building up your little dude, and then he dies and you lose everything. Answer: Rapid skill advancement. You can create a very powerful character with only a few hours/days of gameplay. This naturally lends itself more to a PvP type game rather than a PvEnvironment game, as there will come a point where a character can easily get very powerful and just pick of computer enemies easily. However, in a PvP style game, you will find that as you become powerful, people will start gunning for you to try and take you down, simply because you are a bigger threat.
Just some ideas again.
CYer, Blitz

quote:Originally posted by Blitz

Simply make death permanent.

Then you are punishing the player. A bit hard to do that when in a group setting. There are people in EQ who actually get mobs to follow them and run into areas of people just to see those mobs then attack the crowd. Also known as training. Perm death would be so abused that it would not be funny. Stupid mistakes happen - power goes out, kids hit the keyboard, you spill a drink on your keyboard.

You want to develop a following not kill it.

Also with Sci Fi I think there's two totally different genres lumped in the one. There are the Star Trek and Star Wars type stuff. Its just stuff in space. Then there is more of the Matrix type. That's more cyber then space. *shrugs* I really see them as quite different.

"Yes I Code"
As found on AGDC name tag 2002

"One of the main reasons people play MMOG's is the community. Not all titles will have that community. You really have 3 different player bases in MMOG's and it?s quite hard to cater to all three. You have power gamers, gamers, and casual gamers. Because a lot of games are still about level advancement and attainment of items they fall into the power gamer games. The other downfall about games that cater to power gamers - the rest of the community will never see the whole game."

One of the reasons I pointed out the names I did, was because they already had a community established. Maybe not Horizons, but WOW has Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft behind it - all of these have their own online community, it isn't mmorpg environment but it is one where they mingle with others of the same interests. Going to WOW will establish a community that they can relate to due to previous games and player personalities. The same with EQ2, they already have a community from a previous MMORPG - they're focusing on the good and bad aspects of that game and are building upon it. Although it is possible to see it all going wrong in terms of gameplay, I'd vouch that it is unlikely.

These companies have huge development teams behind them. Is it something we would be capable of? And if so, how far could we take it? If we're to reach out and pull people in to our game, we'd need something very solid and intriguing to people. The gang MMORPG idea would probably be able to do so, if executed correctly - but then it comes back to the size of the team working on it. Not to mention the fact that they're spread across the whole of Australia and not in an office for easy collaboration / file transfer with one another.

I hate to be negative about the whole process, mmorpg or no mmorpg - we need to tackle something that we know we'll be able to pull off. I do not doubt our ability to create a game design document on something that would most likely interest a vast number of gamers; I doubt the final result given our working predicament.

ok, i will bite. what is FLASHBACK.

@Grif. re. gangwars. funny, my concern is getting good concept art~ with good concept making the model and texture are quick/easy (and animation isn't that hard). it is just when the 'boss' see the model in the game and doens't like it you loose 3 weeks or more of work... loose that feedback loop and work is quick, just need to get it right first go or be happy with it.
http://www.websamba.com/davidcoen/3d/3d_75.jpg
is something of my own IP which could be used~ grungy, somewhat realistic and animated.

re: death in games (MMORPG). how about having a constant 'karma' and 'skill' rating. so if your 'karma' goes down from killing people and not being nice, when you die, you might not get to come back as a human. (you are now an ork, go get some good karma and get killed) having them all in the same environment could be interesting. (imagining rather slow character powerup to go with preserved skill)

quote:
re: death in games (MMORPG). how about having a constant 'karma' and 'skill' rating. so if your 'karma' goes down from killing people and not being nice, when you die, you might not get to come back as a human. (you are now an ork, go get some good karma and get killed) having them all in the same environment could be interesting. (imagining rather slow character powerup to go with preserved skill)

I still don't think that would be a popular option. MMOG's tend to focus on character development. Either by stats in the game or throught the player community. It would upset a fair few people if they "lost" this character they put so much time into working on. Even changing into an orc.

Not sure how many others have played MMOG's (other then Grif). And no a very big Counter Strike server does not count in a MMOG :) MMOG's tend to feed to one extent or another peoples addictive nature. Some people become to addicted - one player in the guild I was in lost his job because of the game. The time put into a MMOG is quite different to a standard pc game. In MMOG's people put in 1000+ hours in a year. For most of the MMOG's that are out now thats almost a requirement to keep up with the growth of a game. Once you start getting into "uber guilds" you then have people who spend 2000 a year.

Thus far the best MMOG's for death have been either Earth and Beyond where your ship is actually disabled and you can get it fixed by a player or towed back to your last docking station (for a cost) or Asheron's Call 2 which you start back after death with say 2/3 of your normal hit points and through combat and experience gain you work yourself back to full hit points - all that experience for that time goes into getting hp back you do not gain new experience on your tnl(till next level) until you have worked off your "hp debt".

quote:
Q2, they already have a community from a previous MMORPG - they're focusing on the good and bad aspects of that game and are building upon it.

Yes EQ does have a following. It gained that from the original EQ. When they first started development of EQ they did not have a following. Lineage did not start with a following. You have to build that following. One of the great things about MMOG's is you can build up a huge following before you even really open the doors to the game. You can get so many ideas from the community. Have you looked at MF's Citizen Zero page? They have people already developing stories and such - and the game has never been released.

Oh yea - I totall forgot about Eve in the list of MMOG's coming up. I know Eve has quite an following and interest as a scifi MMOG.

MMOG's have quite a unique player base. The loyal will help develop the game for you in ways you never exected (Ultima Online). But you also need to make the people feel like people or they might come back to bite you (Ultima Online has ex guides suing them).

I would suggest people really do go out and research the communities behind the games. If you have not really played MMOG's or ever looked into the communities then its a bit hard to understand the player base that the game could be presented to.

A note on that - NeverWinter Nights has an amazing community! I would say one that rival's a MMOG community. I even mentioned to Ray at the AGDC that I think its the first stand alone game to have built up a community to that level.

"Yes I Code"
As found on AGDC name tag 2002

I still have a _lot_ to read here in this thread, but thought I'd post my game idea:

The high concept: You build combat or explorative vehicles from available materials to achieve set objectives or win battles.

The PR spin: It's kind of like Junkyard Wars meets Interstate 76 meets Robot Wars.

The game design document: http://www.gazunta.com/fun/junkyard.rtf

Basically, you're given a car frame which has several slots on each side. Each level has a number of parts you can attach to the slots. The neat thing is that the parts aren't just conventional car parts, and you aren't limited to what parts can go into which slots.

For example you can put a rocket in the slot underneath the frame, missile launchers in the wheel slots and a giant umbrella in the roof slot. You just made an instant flying missile launcher rocket thingy :) Or you can put a rocket on the back and battering ram on the front and make a giant missile that would be destructive but not very easy to steer. Of course you can just make a conventional I76 style car with guns and a beefy engine, but you get extra points for creativity...

Each level has a set objective, such as find an object before a CPU vehicle does, or go on a land (or sea, or air...) race, or build a vehicle that can (for example) fly up to 250 metres in height. Creativity is the key. I also think multiplayer would be essential, since then you can have people around the world trying to build the best vehicles from parts they find in the single player game.

Anyway, if anyone wants to read the game design document, please do. I really, really like it (and I'm not a car person at all) and I honestly think it's a goer.

OK, now I have about 30 posts on GURPS and MMORPGS to read. Rock! I'm glad everyone is so hyped :)

Just regarding death in MMOG's, i think you need to think broader about it than trying to fit it in with the current crop of MMORPG's. Of course it doesn't work in MMORPG's where character development takes months and years. I'm not saying that at all. I'm talking about a game where you can become the most powerful character in the game in a matter of several game hours...IF you can stay alive! To give a very basic example, think of counter strike where, if you are still alive at the end of the round, you get, say, a health upgrade or an accuracy upgrade. Now add a persistent universe and your partway there. Everytime you kill someone you get an upgrade. As you gain in power, so does your avatar, so people know who the tough guys are.
Thats the basic idea.
Now, interestingly, i initially introduced this idea as a way of targetting the casual gamer, as current MMOG's take way too much time for the average person to really do well/whatever. You replied with an argument that MMORPG's "In MMOG's people put in 1000+ hours in a year. For most of the MMOG's that are out now thats almost a requirement to keep up with the growth of a game. "
This is exactly what i'm arguing against! People shouldn't need to put 3+ hours a day into a game to enjoy it. This is not the way to attract casual gamers! (Although you may attract some casual gamers initially and get them hooked :) )
Permanent death gives some sense of resolution to a sessions play. How often have you played a game, and given it a rest the next time you die? I have plenty. It's an obvious place to stop playing. Now you may suggest my game isn't "addictive" enough as the current crop try to be. But to target the casual gamer you're not trying to get them to play every spare hour. If you can get them to play a couple hours a week, and keep the subscription fee you've done well.
Not all MMOG's have to follow the mould of the previous ones. Theres thousands of options to explore, don't hold yourself back just because of what is popular now! :)
Anyway, thats my rant for tonight.
CYer, Blitz

quote:Originally posted by Blitz

Blitz wrote a lot of stuff just above

Ok :) I didn't see anywhere about taking a few days to reach a "max". So yes if you are building a game up where a character development is short then there should a very equal and opposite penalty.

My experience with MMOG's is that most of them get you addicted by the long term character development so thus has been my assumption of what was being discussed in terms of such a genre.

So if you start a game that follows this idea how do you reward the players? If they keep alive at a certain level for X number of days do they get Y? Some name mention somewhere? There still has to be something to keep everyone interested (I realise for some it will just be creating the biggest and baddest character).

"Yes I Code"
As found on AGDC name tag 2002