posted
Lately there's been an idea tossing around in my head for a computer game based (very) loosely on the incredible hulk - someone who becomes more powerful the more damage it takes, fueling their power with their rage. The risk does not come from the fact that your character could die, rather the risk comes from the fact that your character might utterly lose control and hurt people they care about.
For that to translate into an effective mechanic, there need to be character(s) hanging out around you that you care about, that you will feel really bad if you kill by accident. They also have to somehow be "re-usable." Otherwise if you hulk out and kill everyone in the first boss fight, you'll feel sad for a bit and then go on and play the rest of the game with effectively no penalty.
So I'm looking for a non-combat character who is nonetheless essential to your goals (perhaps with magic abilities necessary for puzzle solving). Who somehow can come back from the dead repeatedly, without it getting tiresome or lame.
Right now I'm assuming your characters rage-powers come from a demonic entity who can bring your friend back to life, but each time you do so you friend loses a bit of his/her soul, turning more hollow and sinister. (A variation on that might be that resurrecting them requires you find another soul of equivalent value i.e. you must sacrifice another innocent life). If they die more than X times, you get the "bad" ending for the game. If you make it through without them dying once you get the "perfect" ending. Everywhere in between you get some in-between ending.
The question I'm pondering at the moment is the demographic makeup of the group. The easiest (one might say laziest) way to make a character insta-sympathetic is to make them really young. The default also seems to be make them female, although I try in all my stories to choose demographics than run against the typical grain unless it's important for some reason.
So I'm wary of just using a small girl with magic powers because not only is that kinda a cliché, there's a certain wrongness to having a child character who's primary purpose is to be allowed to die over and over again.
There's other issues at work, but this is already approaching Wall O' Text length so I think I'll stop for now. Any thoughts?
Edit: also if this game has already been made let me know now before I get too excited about it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes, they certainly will. My assumption is that most people probably would get the bad ending or least come close to it on the first try. In most games, my sense is that people usually go for the good ending first, and then do a another run through just to screw around and see what trouble they can cause and see what the "bad ending" looks like. This would sort of reverse that. Everyone (including people with fairly poor gaming skills) can make it through to the bad ending on the first try, but I think a) for the most part they'd feel, well, bad about it, and b) even (perhaps particularly) the people who have no empathy with pixel characters will feel motivated to prove that they CAN get the good ending. Making it genuinely hard to get to it encourages multiple play throughs, which can be a good thing.
Also, if I'm going with a) the secondary character is necessary to complete parts of the game, and b) you have to go out of your way to do this "find a truly innocent person and steal their soul" side quest every time you need to resurrect them, letting them die over and over could be annoying enough that you'd probably stop doing it on purpose.
Depending on whether "truly innocent people" spawn randomly or have a finite supply, there might eventually be a "really bad ending" too, which you just plain fail.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rethink the bit about not letting the kid die, I got so annoyed at Fallout 3 when I realized that the only NPC's you couldnt kill were the children. Realizing this only after finding that massive cave filled with massively bothersome voice actors and thier dialogue.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Random idea: what if one or more characters had been assigned to monitor and attempt to dampen down the raging character on some sort of feedback loop? They attempt to keep him/her from losing all control, but when he/she gets into the red, they effectively "blow a fuse".
Alternately, the RPG "Shadowrun" suggested that characters who are implanted with cybernetics lose some of their "essence". Characters with a lot of cybernetics become very flat and inhuman. Cybernetics would certainly be one way to bring back someone who had been "killed", but you would have to find your own reasons for some other agent to keep bringing them back in that way.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
For that to translate into an effective mechanic, there need to be character(s) hanging out around you that you care about, that you will feel really bad if you kill by accident. They also have to somehow be "re-usable." Otherwise if you hulk out and kill everyone in the first boss fight, you'll feel sad for a bit and then go on and play the rest of the game with effectively no penalty.
So I'm looking for a non-combat character who is nonetheless essential to your goals (perhaps with magic abilities necessary for puzzle solving). Who somehow can come back from the dead repeatedly, without it getting tiresome or lame.
posted
I dunno. I think if Jesus just kept doing it over and over, eventually people would get tired of the shtick.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But he only does it once a season, whereas this would probably end up happening about once an hour.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Alternately, the RPG "Shadowrun" suggested that characters who are implanted with cybernetics lose some of their "essence". Characters with a lot of cybernetics become very flat and inhuman. Cybernetics would certainly be one way to bring back someone who had been "killed", but you would have to find your own reasons for some other agent to keep bringing them back in that way.
Shadowrun is also overtly spiritual. magic exists, the soul exists, all of that cohabitates with incredible technology, and thus you get to see the point at which the two rub roughly on each other.
Your essence level acts effectively as the maximum amount of alteration your body can take before it becomes inhuman and thus uninhabitable by the soul. Anyone installing cybernetics, bioware, nanoware, etc over that precisely observed level will die, there and then. You simply depart. There's also other effects (bioaugmentation directly inhibits your ability to use magic and can even cause you to lose it permanently) but that's the big one.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not opposed to including cybertechnology (I was actually thinking about doing this game using the StarCraft II editor, since that's supposed to be a pretty in depth editor and you can potentially sell content you make with it. That could lend itself to a sci-fi angle for the story). But given that the death I'm talking about is not just getting stabbed or shot by accident but rather pulverized or incinerated with phenomenal cosmic power, I don't think cybernetics would make for a realistic method of resurrection.
quote:Random idea: what if one or more characters had been assigned to monitor and attempt to dampen down the raging character on some sort of feedback loop? They attempt to keep him/her from losing all control, but when he/she gets into the red, they effectively "blow a fuse".
Hmm. I think that could be interesting. A few thoughts in no particular order:
• A common trope is for a super-powered-hulk character is to have a friend (often a love interest) who can try to calm the hulk down when he/she gets too crazy. • I was leaning towards the second character having psychic powers but few direct attacks, (giving them a primarily non-combat focus, but still something they can use in combat to remain somewhat relevant) • In normal gameplay, you'd be able to switch back and forth between the two characters at will. • When the Rager goes "into the red" you might be forcibly switched to the psychic character. You'll want to run away initially and watch the Rager pulverize everyone from a distance, but eventually you'll need to go back and face them (they might also chase after you) and so essentially every time you overrage your psychic character will have to do a boss fight, and if you fail you have to restart from the last save.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Depending on the setting of the game (Sci-Fi, Fantasy, etc) you could have a recurring character that is, say, an android that has so many models produced. When one is detroyed another is sent to replace it. (Through delivery, or time travel, etc)
Or if it is in a fantasy setting you could always use some half humanoid/half phoenix like entity that goes through a rebirth of sorts.
Raymond, if the Map Editor was part of the Starcraft 2 beta I would give you my log in to mess around with. Sadly the only thing they currently have active right now is the multi-player. If they add the map editor I'll email you the log in information.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The key is that you have to feel bad every time it dies, so there needs to be a continuous, escalating consequence. That's why I initially went with the source of rebirth being the same as the rage-power, and having it taint the soul.
The "gradually losing your soul to cybernetics" idea works on a similar level, it just doesn't work very well given the extent to which you'd be obliterating their body.
An idea from another forum was to have a ghost character that could possess the bodies of other people you meet, and it needs to get a new body every time you destroy its old one. I think that would make sense as a third character but because you wouldn't be attached to any particular body (or you might choose bodies that you specifically wanted to blow up later) it wouldn't have the necessary emotional impact required for the primary "victim" character.
One specific question I meant to ask (I has originally intended it to be the focus of the thread) was, if I'm making the side character young and innocent to increase the drama of killing them, how young is "too young" in terms of it just plain being wrong to create such a character for purposes of being repeatedly killed? I know Bioshock has the little sisters, but they start out creepy enough that it's not quite the same thing.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps some sort of Sympathy mechanic should be implemented? As in the less the character is killed, the more sympathetic it becomes with your character, and the more helpful it will be in any given situation. The more it becomes killed the character will help less and less until it eventually starts to undermine your efforts.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Raymond, if the Map Editor was part of the Starcraft 2 beta I would give you my log in to mess around with. Sadly the only thing they currently have active right now is the multi-player. If they add the map editor I'll email you the log in information.
posted
A friend pointed that someone you killed would probably be hesitant to continue working with you, even if you resurrected them. My justification was that because the resurrection came with demonic corruption, the resurrectee would continue to work with you... but not necessarily for the reasons they originally were. This was what would eventually result in the "bad" ending: by the time you reach the end of your quest, the now-demon-corrupted character has actively undermined your original mission.
However, another option is make it a Dragon Age ish game, where there's a variety of characters you can recruit with different skills you might need, but depending on the choices you make they might not stick with you. You could get rid of the resurrection thing completely, and simply have it that when you kill your allies, they're dead, and you won't be able to progress through certain areas until you find new allies.
There might be a finite limit of such allies throughout the game, each of which has a slightly different skillset. Like, if you need to get through a tomb with all kinds of traps, you could have a mage character who can levitate around them, a demolition guy who can just blow up everything in your path, or a traditional thief who can sneak past them. Each character's skills might have different advantages, and if you kill the one who was best suited for a particular area you'll have to deal with the consequences of working with an inferior replacement.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Raymond, if the Map Editor was part of the Starcraft 2 beta I would give you my log in to mess around with. Sadly the only thing they currently have active right now is the multi-player. If they add the map editor I'll email you the log in information.
I heard they were going to release it later on after the multiplayer was more solidified. I also suspect that the shape of the game would depend a lot on single player campaign units that might or might not be available in the beta editor. Anyways, gratz on the beta!
StarCraft makes me kinda sad lately. I realized eventually that I don't particularly like real time strategy, and the reason I found the first game so awesome was because of the plot.
Part of the problem might have been that the multiplayer in WarCraft III (and StarCraft for that matter, though they didn't even pretend otherwise so I wasn't disappointed then) was full of people creating new accounts with "low level" ladder players, so I kept getting matched against people so much better than me that there was no point in playing.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Raymond, if the Map Editor was part of the Starcraft 2 beta I would give you my log in to mess around with. Sadly the only thing they currently have active right now is the multi-player. If they add the map editor I'll email you the log in information.
I heard they were going to release it later on after the multiplayer was more solidified. I also suspect that the shape of the game would depend a lot on single player campaign units that might or might not be available in the beta editor. Anyways, gratz on the beta!
StarCraft makes me kinda sad lately. I realized eventually that I don't particularly like real time strategy, and the reason I found the first game so awesome was because of the plot.
Part of the problem might have been that the multiplayer in WarCraft III (and StarCraft for that matter, though they didn't even pretend otherwise so I wasn't disappointed then) was full of people creating new accounts with "low level" ladder players, so I kept getting matched against people so much better than me that there was no point in playing.
I only got into the beta because I went to Blizzcon in 2008. I went in 2009 too but no beta key..I'm a nerd.
The Multi-player in SC2 is a lot like the original, with just a few more gimmicks and units. The races all have the same basic gameplay. I played the original and loved the plot, and that is what I am waiting for with Starcraft 2.
The game I am MOST excited about however is Diablo 3. I was able to play it at the last two Blizzcons, and I may just quit Wow for it.
I don't know how you felt about DOTA back in the day, but if you loved it, I suggest you try League of Legends. It is free to download and play forever. It is by the creators of DOTA Allstars, and I am addicted. I've logged about 400 games since November. As you play matches, you earn experience and influence points. You can level up and gain masteries that will help you in the game (Like +HP, Attack speed, etc.) and the influence points can be spent to unlock new champions or purchase runes that will buff your character. It is a lot of fun.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Gameplay differs from SC1 in the growing importance of intelligence and counter-strategy, as well as the degree of control options entered into the game (single-unit power use from multiple selected bunches, no cap on units in a group, auto resource gatherer assigning on birth, etc) whose function is effectively to free up mental overhead for more micro. The end result (along with the higher degree of unit variety and map control strategy) is a more or less furious high-micro fight where a vague notion of 'pressure' drives games. If you have the initiative, you can only waste it or use it. If you don't have the initiative, you have to regain it.
Right now it's still obviously an unfinished product -- zerg suffer from strat homogeneity and have to use roaches ALL THE TIME. Protoss are too buff. Terran need some love. Etc.
League of Legends: great game. Play all the time.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Part of the problem might have been that the multiplayer in WarCraft III (and StarCraft for that matter, though they didn't even pretend otherwise so I wasn't disappointed then) was full of people creating new accounts with "low level" ladder players, so I kept getting matched against people so much better than me that there was no point in playing.
I think that was called smurfing, and apparently Blizzard will only let you make one account do disable that, not sure if people will find a way around that though.
I heard that Heroes of Newearth was made by the guys who made DOTA, I've never actually played it even though I'm in the Beta. I'm mostly just afraid of getting my butt kicked from more experienced players because I never got to play it in Warcraft III, due to every game kicking out Noob players.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure people will do it anyway, but for the most part will have to either pay extra or go out of their way to do something illegal, so hopefully it should be a much smaller problem.
Part of me is really excited about all the micro-ing that's going into the game now, part of me is worried that I just won't have the right mental muscles to be good at it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
