What would be the desire for a game based on the old rock-paper-scissors? Using elemental magics, magic cards, and online friend battling with character advancement. This type of game would have no adventuring, simply a battle of the wits, similar to a Magic(*) card game, but based more on simple and easy to learn, yet expansive strategy. If you would like to hear more of my ideas, or contribute your own, feel free to reply and ask/share.
Pola
ID:154056
 Jul 10 2002, 7:08 am
|
|
Polatrite wrote:
Pokemon has an amazing amount of complexity in the game. I wouldn't go as far as amazing, but it does have more than most people realize or give it credit for. :P | |
About 160 (Yes, 250, but not counting evolved forms, this is my estimate) "basic" monsters, each with their own evolutionary pattern, their own stat growth, move growth, learnable moves (TMs), breeding info, and quite a bit more. 17 different types, each with special, unique attributes versus the other types. Over 400 or so techniques, about 150 of which are 'unique'. A very, very large game map, few to no bugs, a long story with lots of replay value, and easy to understand and play.
Lets see you do that. :P | |
Polatrite wrote:
About 160 (Yes, 250, but not counting evolved forms, this is my estimate) "basic" monsters, each with their own evolutionary pattern, their own stat growth, move growth, learnable moves (TMs), breeding info, and quite a bit more. 17 different types, each with special, unique attributes versus the other types. Over 400 or so techniques, about 150 of which are 'unique'. A very, very large game map, few to no bugs, a long story with lots of replay value, and easy to understand and play. Those things would actually be easy enough to do. The problem comes when you try to make an even more complex form of CCG where the cards can vary considerably in what they do, and in ways the designers never even thought about. If everything boils down to different kinds of attacks or transformations, that's actually a lot easier to model than trying to figure out what happens when the player with the invincible sword card meets up with the opponent's invincible shield. Most of the stranger interactions are even more subtle than that: If for example you're restricted from playing any of X card type for 2 turns, but you have card X.456 which says you can play it at any time except when Y.14 is down on the table, which takes precedence? Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Those things would actually be easy enough to do. The problem comes when you try to make an even more complex form of CCG where the cards can vary considerably in what they do, and in ways the designers never even thought about. If everything boils down to different kinds of attacks or transformations, that's actually a lot easier to model than trying to figure out what happens when the player with the invincible sword card meets up with the opponent's invincible shield. Most of the stranger interactions are even more subtle than that: If for example you're restricted from playing any of X card type for 2 turns, but you have card X.456 which says you can play it at any time except when Y.14 is down on the table, which takes precedence? Ah, sounds like M:tG. I've probably spent more time arguing about stacking issues than actually playing the game. Thems good ole' days... Alathon\\ | |
Pokemon.
Rock = Fire
Paper = Water
Scisors = Grass