[Idea] Horroreiver

The place to discuss all things Receiver.
User avatar
Constance
Overgrowth Modder Deluxe
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:05 pm
Contact:

[Idea] Horroreiver

Post by Constance » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:40 am

I know how to make Receiver a horror game in 3 easy steps that don't require much coding. This would be a mod, of course; not saying that default Receiver isn't scary enough.


1. MAKE ALL LIGHTS IN THE MAP DESTROYED AND MAKE THE PLAYER ALWAYS HAVE A FLASHLIGHT.
Imagine you have to hide from a hoverbot in pitch black.
I tremble just thinking about it.

2. TURN OFF NORMAL MUSIC AND ADD CHASE MUSIC AND AMBIENCE.
Amnesia soundtrack would fit.
Also, I'm not pissing and shitting at the same time when I'm being chased by a hoverbot, it's only one at a time. This way, I'll also be ripping out my throat out of pure terror.

3. YOU ONLY HAVE A FLASHLIGHT.
The only pickups that exist are tapes.
You have no methods of defense.

4 (Optional). YOU OCCASIONALLY HEAR FOOTSTEPS AND WHISPERS.
....oh god, who said that?
Am I going insane? WHERE ARE YOU????

User avatar
AmorphousGamer
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:41 am
Location: Montgomery, Alabama

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by AmorphousGamer » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:20 am

That sounds fucking amazing. Someone, get on that!
I'd do it, but I'm busy learning Japanese. I can't be bothered to learn about modding right now.

Enemby
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:02 pm

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by Enemby » Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:45 am

1. Wouldn't be that difficult, maybe a minute or two of editing the level generation scripts.

2. You'd have to cut the music up to work with the existing system, or program a new one. (Not that difficult either)

3. Easy.

4. Could be done easily as well.


That would be an interesting mod, if a bit boring (Since you'd have almost no gameplay left in the game, essentially.)

User avatar
AmorphousGamer
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:41 am
Location: Montgomery, Alabama

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by AmorphousGamer » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:30 am

Enemby wrote:1. Wouldn't be that difficult, maybe a minute or two of editing the level generation scripts.
I don't think so.
The way the game generates seems to be a random lineup of pre-existing "squares." Since almost every "square" has lights in it, you'd have to actually edit those squares somehow, not the level generation itself.

emugod
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:10 am

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by emugod » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:57 am

AmorphousGamer wrote:
Enemby wrote:1. Wouldn't be that difficult, maybe a minute or two of editing the level generation scripts.
I don't think so.
The way the game generates seems to be a random lineup of pre-existing "squares." Since almost every "square" has lights in it, you'd have to actually edit those squares somehow, not the level generation itself.
Actually the way unity works i think you could just deactivate all the light prefabs.
EDIT: actually, a simple script change (to LevelCreator) does mostly work;

Code: Select all

var lights = GetComponentsInChildren(Light);
	for(var light : Light in lights)
	{
		if(light.enabled)
		{
			light.enabled = false;
		}
		/*
		if(light.enabled && light.shadows == LightShadows.Hard)
		{
			shadowed_lights.push(light);
		}
		*/
	}
	tiles.push(where);
The commented section is the original, possibly you could just not push the light onto that stack? in any case this isn't perfect because the light props still look lit, even though they cast no light (demonstrated here just by shooting one, to show what they should look like), and I'm not sure what effect this is having on the bots lights (which I think you would want to leave enabled for maximum spookiness). It does make bullet/tape blinking lights MUCH more visible, actually useful for finding them and a neat effect now instead of essentially nothing.
lightsgone.jpg

Groenendael72
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:47 pm
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by Groenendael72 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:26 pm

I like the idea, but I think they should still have a gun, but give them an Uber-complicated one with one shot and about 10 sec to reload. some rooms would be impossible otherwise.

Good idea, though, someone should make it. (not me)

Groenendael72
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:47 pm
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by Groenendael72 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:46 pm

Jamming would make the game unrealistic, though. you could make it so that the bullets were primer-only(yes, they do make them) They fire subsonic, and will penetrate into just about nothing. sometimes you can see them leave the gun. they'd only have about a 50% chance of damaging things, and you'd have to work the action every time.

User avatar
Constance
Overgrowth Modder Deluxe
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:05 pm
Contact:

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by Constance » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:50 pm

Either that or you have a lead pipe.
Which breaks really easily.

User avatar
Constance
Overgrowth Modder Deluxe
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:05 pm
Contact:

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by Constance » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:09 pm

haidawe wrote:
Timbles wrote:Either that or you have a lead pipe.
Which breaks really easily.
Or a piece of uncooked spaghetti.
The most effective weapon.

User avatar
AmorphousGamer
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:41 am
Location: Montgomery, Alabama

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by AmorphousGamer » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:00 pm

Timbles wrote:
haidawe wrote:
Timbles wrote:Either that or you have a lead pipe.
Which breaks really easily.
Or a piece of uncooked spaghetti.
The most effective weapon.
Agreed. Uncooked spaghetti it is.

User avatar
AmorphousGamer
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:41 am
Location: Montgomery, Alabama

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by AmorphousGamer » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:09 pm

haidawe wrote:
AmorphousGamer wrote: Agreed. Uncooked spaghetti it is.
>Agrees with uncooked spaghetti for Receiver
>Shot me in the knee to "balance me out"
I see, Amorphous, I see...
What? I uh . . . I don't know what you're talking about. *looks around suspiciously*

User avatar
UNHchabo
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:20 am

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by UNHchabo » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:30 pm

haidawe wrote:
Groenendael72 wrote:Jamming would make the game unrealistic, though. you could make it so that the bullets were primer-only(yes, they do make them) They fire subsonic, and will penetrate into just about nothing. sometimes you can see them leave the gun. they'd only have about a 50% chance of damaging things, and you'd have to work the action every time.
How would it make it unrealistic? If the jamming where as frequent as they are with actual guns, unless that isn't an issue now... the bullet idea is great though.
Because jamming isn't frequent with actual (modern) guns. After the initial breakin period, my Glock has gone over 1000 rounds without a hiccup. Granted, I never went more than 100 rounds without at least cleaning the barrel...

User avatar
AmorphousGamer
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:41 am
Location: Montgomery, Alabama

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by AmorphousGamer » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:58 am

UNHchabo wrote:
haidawe wrote:
Groenendael72 wrote:Jamming would make the game unrealistic, though. you could make it so that the bullets were primer-only(yes, they do make them) They fire subsonic, and will penetrate into just about nothing. sometimes you can see them leave the gun. they'd only have about a 50% chance of damaging things, and you'd have to work the action every time.
How would it make it unrealistic? If the jamming where as frequent as they are with actual guns, unless that isn't an issue now... the bullet idea is great though.
Because jamming isn't frequent with actual (modern) guns. After the initial breakin period, my Glock has gone over 1000 rounds without a hiccup. Granted, I never went more than 100 rounds without at least cleaning the barrel...
But he never said it was frequent. He said that you could make it as frequent as it is in real life. Are you saying it's literally impossible for a gun to jam in real life? Then why should it be literally impossible for a gun to jam in virtual reality?

User avatar
UNHchabo
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:20 am

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by UNHchabo » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:03 am

AmorphousGamer wrote:But he never said it was frequent. He said that you could make it as frequent as it is in real life. Are you saying it's literally impossible for a gun to jam in real life? Then why should it be literally impossible for a gun to jam in virtual reality?
I suppose, but even if it happens once out of every 1000 shots (which I would consider frequent for a modern pistol), then most players aren't going to encounter it, so when it does happen it'll be completely foreign to them.

Also, of the four malfunctions a semi-auto can have (without requiring disassembly), only one of them (a double feed) could be done without adding new controls:
1) Failure to feed - Usually caused by the mag not being seated properly (meaning you'd need to alter the mechanics to make it a user error). Tap the mag to seat it, rack the slide to chamber a new round.
2) Out-of-battery - The slide fails to go all the way forward. Hit the back of the slide to seat it.
3) Stove pipe - Brass gets caught in the ejection port. Sweep the hand across the top to clear it, and the slide will move forward.
4) Double feed - The extractor fails to grab the brass and remove it. Lock the slide to the rear, remove the mag, and rack the slide until the round gets ejected. Then insert a new mag, and rack the slide to chamber a round.

I'd say it's infrequent enough for most players to run dry to slide lock, since I imagine most of us top off our mags practically every time we shoot at a bot. Without being able to practice malfunctions like you can in real life, I can't imagine too many players being able to actually clear them in a reasonable time.

User avatar
Korban3
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:14 pm
Location: 42nd St E, Hell

Re: [Idea] Horroreiver

Post by Korban3 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:44 pm

UNHchabo wrote: Because jamming isn't frequent with actual (modern) guns.
I'll have to confront the statement. It depends on weapon, mostly. When I was in combat training, my M16 would jam up pretty often during little firefights, enough to say that they do happen pretty often. The M16 is a pretty open system, lets a lot of dust in and has a lot of carbon buildup.

However, the FS2000 I have now is very sealed and contained. A gasket around the magazine, cover over the chamber, the ejection port cover doesn't even open until you've fired six or seven rounds. It stays pretty damn clean inside, leading to less jams.

The other thing is that a user can cause jams himself, which can skew any data there.
Best to leave jams out of consideration for increasing the difficulty of weapon operation. Having random things go wrong is going to seem unfair more often than engaging anyways. It's generally a bad idea to kill players when they've done nothing wrong just because something random directly affected them.

I would suggest simply giving the players a single shot weapon, like the Kar98 or some similar weapon. I like Josh's control scheme for his bolt action rifle, and forcing the player to insert a new round every time will slow things down a bit. On top of that make ammo rare as fuck. The player has to really pick and choose their battles. Rather than making their combat decisions based entirely upon "Fuck, will that random thing happen?" it becomes more a question of "Can I aim to disable, not get shot or tazed and still have enough ammo for later?". They now have to think and engage themselves to survive rather than worrying about random shit. Also, having a weapon jam up on 50% of shots, hypothetically, would kill a very similar number of enemies as having 50% ammo spawns.

Post Reply