Page 82 of 131

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:13 pm
by GaGrin
Which is a fine way of doing things. Except that you end up with the "quick-save effect" where you save before each and every minor choice and so never have any actual risk of losing or making the wrong choice.

Not a big deal in linear games as there is only one right answer and its really not fun to have to redo the last ten minutes because you were clipped by a rocket 3 feet from the savepoint.

For more open games or games where defeat isn't instant gameover there needs to be a control to prevent players from reloading the moment things go even slightly off course - unless you want everyone to have the perfect ending all the time.

Saving systems and defeat have a massive knock on effect in how a game plays out. Not from moment to moment, but how the game plays long term.

I'm not sure I like the idea of only saving at "save areas" either. What if i want to quit without losing progress? Would this be automatic or do we have to talk to someone/activate the weird floaty stone/go to the menu etc?

And yes - this is important. I cannot count the number of games I have been unable to complete because of stupid saving mechanics.

As a side note: For the love of gaming make sure the player can't ever get themselves into a deadend situation that isn't instantly recognised as gameover. There is nothing more frustrating than wasting half an hour before realising you cannot progress because of a mistake made earlier that you cannot correct. Its rare but it still happens :evil:

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:14 pm
by Zantalos
Well, if you can save, then the game over screen might as well never happen. You just save before every single fight and you won't have anything to loose. That's what you do in Oblivion, quicksave, then pick pocket. They have a game over screen but there's nothing intimidating about it.

Edit: minute late.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:32 pm
by rudel_ic
So what? There's no need to force the player to play the game in a meaningful way. If he's an insane quicksaver, he is one. It's his fault.

I actually prefer games which don't need saving. And this is easy to do from a programmer's view, but it has severe impact on the game design.

There's a list of accomplishments, it's serializable and is serialized each time an accomplishment's state is changed.

It's the same with all the beings roaming the world, and the serialization takes place each time hitpoints or whatever change.

Same with the inventory and everything else that needs to be saved.

The observer pattern is one way to trigger the serialization, no big deal.

As for starting the game, you start wherever your homebase is. The serialized gamestate is then loaded.

If you die, nothing else happens; you just see a gameover screen and are thrown into the main menu. Dying is the same as exiting the game that way.

It works, it's easy to implement and the player doesn't have to think about anything.

The only problem is that the game has to deal with this. This is more complicated and may turn the whole design around.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:17 pm
by Colicedus
How about for each Minor and Important Path Chosen the File Automatically Quicksaves?

I also think there Should be no 'good ending' as such, and each ending offers an award for the next time you play in game.

KOs should also have effect on the story in particular parts, one game with this comes to mind, Silent hill required you to get killed by these Evil dogs to continue the game.

Example of how this could be Implemented:

Scenario: Turner Hears word about an Old and Master Crafted Mace called the Bone Breaker of Moo Moo the Cow King in the old Ruins on the isle of Moo Jong. Tuner Decides to go get this Bone Breaking Moo moo Stick. on the Voyage there Tuner is attacked by Pirate Ninja Monkeys.

two things that could happen:

T Kicks the Pirate Ninja Monkeys @$$'s and Continues his voyage to Moo Jong Isle.

T Gets knocked out and in the melee he is swept overboard and found by some gatherers, who take him back to his Village. they Nurse him back to health and Tell him who those Pirate Ninja Monkeys were. They had been killing off the Village of Rabbits here so T gose and Kicks those Pirate Ninja Monkeys @$$'s back.

Death in when fighting bosses and Randomly Generated Fights on travel (when NOT KO) should be a simple Game over I think.

With the Save, from what I can understand, there will be Zones. When you leave a Zone there should be a save, and after an important Conversation there should be a save.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:01 am
by GaGrin
Colicedus wrote:How about for each Minor and Important Path Chosen the File Automatically Quicksaves?
Thats what I said. Infact most of what you say i've posted within the last 10 posts or so.

rudel_ic:
I'm not sure I like the idea of always starting from a certain point when i start the game. Sounds very GTA / Platformy which doesn't really lend itself to a continuing story.

Not saying it couldn't work - just that my gut-feeling is against it. Or maybe I've missed something in the design you're suggesting.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:10 am
by rudel_ic
Well, that problem is solveable with a moveable homebase. Just like Kalexon said, a tent, a dug hole.. Whatever comes to your mind and makes sense.
You can't put up such a shelter near enemy territory though. You'll have to keep some manageable distance to avoid fsckups directly after spawnation.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:46 pm
by Szs315
3D cutscenes for lugaru 2:

Quote from my lugaru video topic: http://wolfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2041&start=60
New 3d animation "style" of cutscene [not actual video] that could be used in lugaru:

3D wolf rabbit hole animation by ati3000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY0AnqnSNnc

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:51 pm
by rudel_ic
Don't cross-post, please.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:26 pm
by BunnyWithStick
As I said in that thread, it won't be used. It's not anthropomorphic in the slightest.

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:15 am
by Zantalos
There should be stuff like, if you're with your allies and you happen to get knocked out, or even killed in battle. The game doesn't just end. You wake up in a medical tent of sorts that they set up by a fire or something and they should tell you what happened.

"Fiver was killed by the sword, and Hickory was slain as well.
We just grabbed you and ran."

Depending on how many enemies were left when you "died" (though you will find out that you were merely knocked out, or severly injured when they rescued you), but in comparison to how skilled your allies were and how many were left, they'll either kill the remaining forces by themselves, lose some men and take casualties, or they'll just retreat. Though the main importance should be focused on you because you are the human player in the game (though they don't have to act or say anything like that, it's just how it should be programmed. They should never do something like, grabbing skipper and leaving you to die... time to go back to the last check point).

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:33 am
by BunnyWithStick
Zantalos wrote:…when you "died"…
Even in Lugaru 1 btw there's a difference between dying and being knocked out, the game just ends in both situations. The difference is the same as with enemies, when you're dead your mouth is open and a pool of blood forms rather quickly below you. In Lugaru 2 you should be dead if you die like that, but saved if you were knocked out.
Zantalos wrote:They should never do something like, grabbing skipper and leaving you to die... time to go back to the last check point.
Why should they never do this? I think they should or shouldn't depending on how much they can carry, how important you are to them, etc. If skipper is more important than you and they can't carry you as well, they should probably just bandage you up a bit, hide you somewhere nearby if they have time and run off with skipper, and come back for you if they can.

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:33 am
by Zantalos
BunnyWithStick wrote: Even in Lugaru 1 btw there's a difference between dying and being knocked out, the game just ends in both situations. The difference is the same as with enemies, when you're dead your mouth is open and a pool of blood forms rather quickly below you. In Lugaru 2 you should be dead if you die like that, but saved if you were knocked out.
What are you talking about? I KNOW there's a difference between being dead and knocked out, what gave you the impression that I didn't know? I said that if you were knocked unconscious or if you had died, your allies would instead revive you back to health. Because what's the point of dying, if you're just going to reload your game and do it over again?

In Mount & Blade, you never died, you never had to reload your game because a battle didn't turn out right. It was hardcore, if you were in a battle and gotten slashed to death like your allies, the game wouldn't just end. Sometimes you would get knocked out and taken prisoner but you would eventually escape, other times you would just get slashed to death like your allies and the enemy would mistake you for dead and leave you there. The consequences were tough though, you would be severely injured so it could take several days of resting to recover, your friends would be taken as prisoners, your horse and items would be stolen as well. But at least the game progressed, it wasn't something stupid like you dying and then respawning somewhere in a town, or having to reload your game from the last save. Well this is what being "dead" could be like for Lugaru 2 as well. You face serious punishments, but the game continues just the same, you can never waste your time or get screwed because you didn't save your game since the grass plains, it just keeps going.

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:19 am
by BunnyWithStick
Yes, that's good, except you can't die.

Hell, just cheat or something if you want a completely deathless game!

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:29 am
by GaGrin
Mount and Blade's system is perfectly fine, but it works because there is no real story and you don't lose all that often.

I just think that Lugaru is going to be on a much more personal level so while that will work for certain situations (getting KO as people have mentioned) the game will tell the difference between them and I feel that it (death) should have more serious consequences ingame.

On the other hand I think death rather than defeat should be a rarer thing to occur so true "game-over" would happen less often than waking up/being rescued or captured.

I suppose as far as this goes we're just going to have to trust David and Co to test and see - but its still an interesting discussion topic.

I still vote autosaves at keypoints and exit. But thats because I'm expecting a little more effect on the story and world than the last game and I like things that support instinctive choices.

I can see the "homebase" loading working - I just struggle with the idea of Turner having any kind of home really - but thats a narrative trouble on my side and it could be called anything to get round stuff like that.

I suppose the question of how death and defeat should affect other things comes into this too - like do enemies recover after a while too? Will most folk leave you be or check you? Does killing enemies rather than leaving them unconscious have any effect on how people treat you (the player)?

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:52 pm
by Zantalos
BunnyWithStick wrote:Yes, that's good, except you can't die.

Hell, just cheat or something if you want a completely deathless game!
Whoa whoa whoa, back up. Did you even read what I said?