Decisions, Decisions
Poll: Of these options, which strike you as cooler?
| Driving a single vehicle on a map |  0% (0) |
| Commanding multiple vehicles from afar |  21% (3) |
| Some hybrid of the first two |  57% (8) |
| I don't like any of these choices |  0% (0) |
| I like mudkipz |  21% (3) |
Login to vote.
I think what I set about to say in my last entry was basically I was coming at developing a game from a perspective of somebody who hadn't really done so in two months and ran smack into a liberal dose of, "making game is hard."
However, a couple days in, most of the cobwebs are off the cogs and I'm plugging along nicely now. As it turns out, my solution to yesterday's interface problems was to use an old standby mechanic I had developed for some of my past prototypes.
How it works is basically to set up a global list of function objects, these objects contain all the code related to their function in the game, and all I really need to do in order for the players to access these functions is add them to a grid skin component. What stops this from being a security concern is that all the necessary code to verify if the player is allowed to perform that function takes place whenever that function is activated. It's efficient because only one copy of these functions need exist: that which resides on the global level.
Now I'm mostly dwelling on what to do with our little Terrans.
1. Merge them with my old Pirate idea and have each Terran player drive around an upgradable unit that represents their character's presence in the game.
2. Give the players a more hands-off perspective that allows them to easier control multiple units at a time.
3. Some kind of modular variation in between.
I am trying to make things feel personal, but I'm discovering that the line between RPG and RTS is surprisingly thin once you draw the perspective out far enough. The perspective I've currently got is a view from a space station high above the map, so it's way impersonal. On the other hand, if I push the perspective in too far, it's really hard to play a game of the scope I'm working on. A fair solution is to have multiple modes, preserving best parts of both - but would this be too complicated for the players?
Bottom line - this is a subjective thing, it matters less which I would prefer and more what the average player would prefer. Hence, pollage.
However, a couple days in, most of the cobwebs are off the cogs and I'm plugging along nicely now. As it turns out, my solution to yesterday's interface problems was to use an old standby mechanic I had developed for some of my past prototypes.
How it works is basically to set up a global list of function objects, these objects contain all the code related to their function in the game, and all I really need to do in order for the players to access these functions is add them to a grid skin component. What stops this from being a security concern is that all the necessary code to verify if the player is allowed to perform that function takes place whenever that function is activated. It's efficient because only one copy of these functions need exist: that which resides on the global level.
Now I'm mostly dwelling on what to do with our little Terrans.
1. Merge them with my old Pirate idea and have each Terran player drive around an upgradable unit that represents their character's presence in the game.
2. Give the players a more hands-off perspective that allows them to easier control multiple units at a time.
3. Some kind of modular variation in between.
I am trying to make things feel personal, but I'm discovering that the line between RPG and RTS is surprisingly thin once you draw the perspective out far enough. The perspective I've currently got is a view from a space station high above the map, so it's way impersonal. On the other hand, if I push the perspective in too far, it's really hard to play a game of the scope I'm working on. A fair solution is to have multiple modes, preserving best parts of both - but would this be too complicated for the players?
Bottom line - this is a subjective thing, it matters less which I would prefer and more what the average player would prefer. Hence, pollage.
Posted by Geldonyetich on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 04:40PM
- 5 comments
(link)
/
Keywords:
design
(Edited on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 07:46PM)
Login to post a comment.
#5 Geldonyetich:
> Ever play Goblin Commander? It's an RTS with the usual godlike perspective, but you can also possess units and order others to follow you.
I brushed up against it. Interesting game, to be sure -- I think they mostly went with this approach because they were trying to solve that age old question of how to present RTS control comfortably with a gamepad, but it turned out to be a pretty robust approach.
> I'm leaning towards 'commanding vehicles from afar', because my shorts are yellow.
That is an awesome fortune cookie. ;)
So far, it looks like a hybrid approach is in the lead, but I wouldn't be surprised if I could pull a "best of both worlds" model.
Thursday, October 22, 2009 08:47AM
#4 Toadfish:
I'm leaning towards 'commanding vehicles from afar', because my shorts are yellow.
Thursday, October 22, 2009 03:07AM
#3 ACWraith:
I'd lean towards an RTS in some form just so I can nag you in Tech Tree. ;)
Ever play Goblin Commander? It's an RTS with the usual godlike perspective, but you can also possess units and order others to follow you.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:09PM
#2 Geldonyetich:
> even then, i'd still recommend simplifying the gameplay as much as possible. not to dumb it down, but make it very accessible and easy to 'connect' with. i like the idea of having one specific 'hero' unit you control and upgrade, and then being able to colonize and build up an army to assist him. (so that the primary or beginner focus of the game is "make my dude strong", and once they get familiar with how the game handles they can add in more and more of the RTS parts)
We're of like mind here. I was thinking the idea of a game that morphs over time from a single perspective into something bigger would be great.
> that of course brings up your problem of such a limited scope when the game is primarily an RTS. i don't know what to say to suggest alleviating this issue, but i think this would be the best route to take granted the alternatives. it might not be as serious a problem as you expect-- the map could display default 32x32 tiles but have the entirety (or majority) of the screen dedicated to the map so you can still see very far around you, and have the 'hero' units be several tiles large (in keeping with the giant mech idea)
I've got a few ideas along these lines, but I haven't committed to anything yet...
> oh, and i voted for mudkipz
That makes two of us - didn't want to skew my results ;)
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 06:54PM
#1 Zaole:
since you're going with what the average player would prefer, i'm going to presume that the average player you refer to is not that of the average BYONDer but instead the average gamer in the worldwide scope of things
even then, i'd still recommend simplifying the gameplay as much as possible. not to dumb it down, but make it very accessible and easy to 'connect' with. i like the idea of having one specific 'hero' unit you control and upgrade, and then being able to colonize and build up an army to assist him. (so that the primary or beginner focus of the game is "make my dude strong", and once they get familiar with how the game handles they can add in more and more of the RTS parts)
that of course brings up your problem of such a limited scope when the game is primarily an RTS. i don't know what to say to suggest alleviating this issue, but i think this would be the best route to take granted the alternatives. it might not be as serious a problem as you expect-- the map could display default 32x32 tiles but have the entirety (or majority) of the screen dedicated to the map so you can still see very far around you, and have the 'hero' units be several tiles large (in keeping with the giant mech idea)
oh, and i voted for mudkipz
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 06:42PM