Jump to content


Photo

A game without battle sequences...?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Mikemc

Mikemc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 886 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 03:34 PM

I am designing a game where instead of battles, you simply walk through the monster event. If your strong enough to win, it will die, otherwise you have to return and pass through again. If you lose, you lose a 'life' though you will not Game Over untill all life hearts (for argument sake) are gone.

Opinions?
Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image

You can't run from your past, S4D. YOU CAN'T RUN FROM YOUR PAST!


#2 Alec

Alec

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 3976 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 09 September 2010 - 03:45 PM

http://db.tigsource....of-the-sorcerer

^this is a little more complicated than your proposal, but I think it's better than "live" or "die"

#3 Vellfire

Vellfire

    TV people want to leave

  • Salty Members
  • 14593 posts
  • LocationKentucky

Posted 09 September 2010 - 03:55 PM

To me it sounds like it makes battles a waste of time.

I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates


#4 Vanit

Vanit

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 709 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 09 September 2010 - 11:02 PM

You mean like chess? :P
"the way you speak about rm2k3, like "modules, arrays, pointers" sounds like
you're some badass c++ programmer stuck in the past and only has rm2k3 to
work with"
-Gutts

#5 Renegade

Renegade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 744 posts
  • LocationAlberta, Canada

Posted 09 September 2010 - 11:23 PM

I would at least make it so that the player needs to hit a certain key, or key combination to win the battle.

Using numbers would work well. Say, 1-5. An easy enemy would mean you would only need to press one random number in say, a 1sec time frame. A very difficult enemy might have a 5 number combination with a 3sec time-frame (ex only), say 34153. The numbers could pop up over the enemy.

This adds an element of actual game play and not just blind chance. Food for thought.
Sweet online game in alpha.
http://trisphere-rpg...p?refer=bucchus

#6 Ragnar

Ragnar

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 11912 posts
  • Location[color=red][size=25pt][B]??????[/B][/size][/color]

Posted 09 September 2010 - 11:32 PM

see this is what I was getting at in the 'free-roaming games' topic: i.e. there will never be a game like this because gamers hate themselves

I would like to see a game with absolutely no superfluous shit that is obvious GAMEPLAY like one second you're breaking into a castle the next you're strategizing about something or other deciding battle formations just the gameplay is always what makes sense in the moment it's not a point-and-click with millions of puzzles either like anywhere in real life where you'd have to be stealthy that part of the game is stealthy whether you're any good at the stealth or not. And next second you have to like FORGE DOCUMENTS but it's always a very natural depiction of doing these things it's never watered down into a rhythm DDR game or something

Edit: You have to make a quick escape on a raft then it becomes a sim game where you build the raft (after material collecting sequence) and if you're no good at the sim game you could die instantly

#7 Terrorantula

Terrorantula

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 1157 posts
  • LocationVA

Posted 10 September 2010 - 01:48 AM

Not necessarily- you could make the game about puzzle solving rather than battling, even approaching monster encounters this way- for example, upon having your way blocked by a werewolf you could attempt to sneak past it, go back to previous rooms and get silver dust and a blowgun to shoot at the werewolf, or jump out a nearby window.  You know, like Shadowgate and its sequels.

Mike, one question- if you do it the way you suggest, how is the hero going to get stronger? If it's not by battling there will have to be some other way,  or the hero will never be stronger than the monster.
Everyone has the right to be himself; wise men know how to,when, and whether to navigate the boundary between their rights and those of others when they collide.

#8 Puppet Master

Puppet Master

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 1341 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 01:58 AM

If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly, Backstage was an RM2k game with a battle system like that. It got pretty annoying because it really didn't tell you how much damage you had and then shit would walk up to you and you'd get killed without being able to do anything about it. So basically I hacked the shit out of it and put in way more healing stations.

#9 Mikemc

Mikemc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 886 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 07:12 AM

To me it sounds like it makes battles a waste of time.

Actually it came up because I find battles in general to be a waste of time. They're often a bunch of flashy graphics (or just plain animations) but in the end it's you win or die. With my system, there would still be a battle but without all the loading, effects and then returning back to the map. - If I'm going to win, just do it already and let me get on with my quest.

If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly, Backstage was an RM2k game with a battle system like that. It got pretty annoying because it really didn't tell you how much damage you had and then shit would walk up to you and you'd get killed without being able to do anything about it. So basically I hacked the shit out of it and put in way more healing stations.

I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking that you would simply keep track on how much of your life bar went down, and gauge the monsters in the area like that. A thought came up once of giving the monsters a kind of difficulty meter above their heads that changed based on the current state of the player. I will look for that game and see what's up.

Mike, one question- if you do it the way you suggest, how is the hero going to get stronger? If it's not by battling there will have to be some other way,  or the hero will never be stronger than the monster.

He get's stronger by, well... having more characters in his team actually, like cannon fodder :P. Each member contributes an amount of health and attack strength, along with spells. If that character leaves the party then they take their stats and abilities with them. Because there is no battle scene, I wouldn't have to worry about having more than 4 party members. And you could also buy weapons and armor, with varying types depending on your team makeup.

But all that is still being worked on. I am here to develop the basic idea of running around.

Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image

You can't run from your past, S4D. YOU CAN'T RUN FROM YOUR PAST!


#10 Daris

Daris

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 08:30 AM

The idea certainly sounds interesting, but why even have battles at all if they're just walking into something and hoping you don't die? If you don't like battles, why not just make a game that has few battles or even none at all? It sounds more interesting to me than a game with battles that aren't battles.

#11 Pilsen

Pilsen

    Administrator

  • Salty Members
  • 3914 posts
  • LocationSecret

Posted 10 September 2010 - 12:32 PM

then what will be the 'game' about

#12 Vellfire

Vellfire

    TV people want to leave

  • Salty Members
  • 14593 posts
  • LocationKentucky

Posted 10 September 2010 - 12:36 PM

Actually it came up because I find battles in general to be a waste of time. They're often a bunch of flashy graphics (or just plain animations) but in the end it's you win or die. With my system, there would still be a battle but without all the loading, effects and then returning back to the map. - If I'm going to win, just do it already and let me get on with my quest.


See this is the problem though.  I agree, I find battles in RPGs to be the most boring and useless waste of time.  That's probably why I don't like RPGs.  But see, the idea of 'let me get on with my quest' says something--it says that battles are in the game just to be irritating roadblocks.  So why is a simplified roadblock any better than a complicated one?  Shouldn't a game not have any roadblocks?

That's why I like the idea of puzzles better.  It would be more along the lines of a point and click adventure game only without the point and click.  I find that to be significantly more fun.  You still get the story and exploration, only without having to do a bunch of dumb fights.

I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates


#13 Ragnar

Ragnar

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 11912 posts
  • Location[color=red][size=25pt][B]??????[/B][/size][/color]

Posted 10 September 2010 - 04:50 PM

just make a full/completed version of Don's Adventures (still the best rpg maker game)

#14 Terrorantula

Terrorantula

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 1157 posts
  • LocationVA

Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:34 AM

See this is the problem though.  I agree, I find battles in RPGs to be the most boring and useless waste of time.  That's probably why I don't like RPGs.  But see, the idea of 'let me get on with my quest' says something--it says that battles are in the game just to be irritating roadblocks.  So why is a simplified roadblock any better than a complicated one?  Shouldn't a game not have any roadblocks?

That's why I like the idea of puzzles better.  It would be more along the lines of a point and click adventure game only without the point and click.  I find that to be significantly more fun.  You still get the story and exploration, only without having to do a bunch of dumb fights.

Which is exactly what i Was suggesting. And BTW, I try to see RPG battles as part of the journey, as no story is without conflict. Don't forget, the heroes need opportunities to hone their skills and strengthen their bodies.

But if you don't like  normal battles, why bother with stats? Why not make all the enemies deadly and have the heroes use their wits to avoid them instead, gong around them, getting them to move with monster bait, and so forth?  Maybe the hero can charm the monsters to move out of the way, and his control area expands with more party members. Whatever you do, you'll need some element of challenge to test the player.
Everyone has the right to be himself; wise men know how to,when, and whether to navigate the boundary between their rights and those of others when they collide.

#15 Pilsen

Pilsen

    Administrator

  • Salty Members
  • 3914 posts
  • LocationSecret

Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:57 AM

what about don't make an rpg in the first place

#16 Vellfire

Vellfire

    TV people want to leave

  • Salty Members
  • 14593 posts
  • LocationKentucky

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:48 AM

And BTW, I try to see RPG battles as part of the journey, as no story is without conflict. Don't forget, the heroes need opportunities to hone their skills and strengthen their bodies.


Monkey Island had tons of conflict, yet there were no battles besides the swordfights which were more of a WORD PUZZLE really.  You don't have to fight a million monsters that have literally nothing to do with the story except for you to grind them until you can beat the boss to progress a story.

I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates


#17 Corfaisus

Corfaisus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 596 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX

Posted 11 September 2010 - 03:46 PM

I try to see RPG battles as part of the journey, as no story is without conflict. Don't forget, the heroes need opportunities to hone their skills and strengthen their bodies.


I was just thinking about this yesterday. There's a dangerous and untamed world outside of town in these worlds. It's sort of like our savage wildlife on steroids as they have to do battle with giant insects, arachnids, birds, fish, grazing beasts, elemental entities and fiends formed from the corruption of the Void. To have a world devoid of struggling for survival, you might as well just stand around in a town all day. Leveling up, or gaining experience specifically, shows how they have become trained in the use of the weapons that they carry or their ability to focus their conjured spells onto their target, and should be considered as much instead of "I need to have X strength and Y agility to fight Z."

#18 Vellfire

Vellfire

    TV people want to leave

  • Salty Members
  • 14593 posts
  • LocationKentucky

Posted 11 September 2010 - 04:11 PM

Leveling up, or gaining experience specifically, shows how they have become trained in the use of the weapons that they carry or their ability to focus their conjured spells onto their target, and should be considered as much instead of "I need to have X strength and Y agility to fight Z."


Yeah but when you're carrying around a 30 foot sword and can jump a million feet in the air with it, I don't think you need to much more practice.

I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates


#19 EvilDemonCreature

EvilDemonCreature

    i don't like change

  • Salty Members
  • 5976 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 04:23 PM

You want to make a game without battles? Make Tetris.

Although seriously, going on what you said reminds me a lot of 'Castle of the Winds'. Although they did have battles, you just used the map and dialog screens rather than going into a separate cinematic whatever screen. I also remember that you died really quick early on so it felt a lot like what you described.

Although what you describe isn't really an "RPG without battles". It's just an RPG full of battles that the player is never allowed to fight himself or decide on anything whatsoever. Just take my word for it when I say that a system like that is decidedly worse than any derivative battle system you could ever come up with for any sort of cookie-cutter rpg game experience. I mean if your best idea for an "RPG without battles" is an idea that still involves your character battling, then it's a strong hint that you should be listening the suggestions that lead you to not making it an RPG in the first place.

Yeah but when you're carrying around a 30 foot sword and can jump a million feet in the air with it, I don't think you need to much more practice.


Well that's not hard at all, even for an untrained person. All anyone needs is to find is a 30 foot sword to carry around, and a cliff that overlooks a million foot drop. Jump off that cliff, and you could accomplish exactly what you describe without much practice at all.

#20 Vellfire

Vellfire

    TV people want to leave

  • Salty Members
  • 14593 posts
  • LocationKentucky

Posted 11 September 2010 - 04:30 PM

Well that's not hard at all, even for an untrained person. All anyone needs is to find is a 30 foot sword to carry around, and a cliff that overlooks a million foot drop. Jump off that cliff, and you could accomplish exactly what you describe without much practice at all.


If you can LIFT a 30 foot sword.

Also yeah I think the point is that if you don't want to do RPG battles maybe you should just consider making an adventure game of some sort.  You can still do all the same stuff RPGs do without the bits you don't like.

I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users