What would you like to see in an RPG game??
Clay Alberts
interesting) but I would like to know what you would like to see in a computer
RPG game? What make a RPG fun to play? What is the best system of combat
for an RPG?
Here is an example:
One of the ideas I had was to keep track of the characters prestige which
increased as he won fights. The higher a characters prestige, the less
likely that he would be attacked by lower level characters (at least
intelligent ones). This way once you have built you characters up you will
be able to walk from one town to another with out continually being attacked
by annoying low level characters.
I am designing an computer RPG and I am would like to hear any ideas or
suggestions.
Chad
Dave Ripton
>I have read many posting on the best & worst RPG games (Which I found very
>interesting) but I would like to know what you would like to see in a computer
>RPG game? What make a RPG fun to play? What is the best system of combat
>for an RPG?
The big decision is real-time combat versus turn-based combat. I personally
prefer turn-based for multi-character games and real-time for one-character
games. It's just too much bother to control multiple characters in real
time, and not a lot of fun to manage their inventories either. The next
consideration is how important the character's stats are compared to the
player's skill level. I'd prefer a game where skill level is useful
but relatively constant, not something like MM3 where a character's power
increases thousandfold in the course of the game. And I like games like
UW where knowing how to fight helps out a lot, but not games like EOB
where you can take advantage of corners to defeat monsters without risk.
Skill-based systems make a lot more sense than character "classes" and
"levels," IMO.
>One of the ideas I had was to keep track of the characters prestige which
>increased as he won fights. The higher a characters prestige, the less
>likely that he would be attacked by lower level characters (at least
>intelligent ones). This way once you have built you characters up you will
>be able to walk from one town to another with out continually being attacked
>by annoying low level characters.
Good idea. This does imply that everybody has to know who the character
is, though. Another is to decrease the amount of wandering nasties across
the board, in favor of a smaller number of combats that are important.
I don't like the idea of having to kill hundreds or thousands of people
to become powerful enough to win a game. It's stupid, tedious, mindless,
repetitive violence. I'll play Doom for that, thank you. It's not fun
unless the combat system is that vivid. If you want a combat-happy game,
though, I like the idea of having a limited supply of each type of
monster. You could just not have too-wimpy stuff appear. Or you could
have "monster generators" a la M&M, that can be destroyed to stop the
flow of a type of monster. Or spells like in Ultima 3 that take out
hordes of wimps easily. If combat is manual, there should be an
auto-combat option of some sort to minimize the work involved in taking
care of wimps. Again, I'd rather not have hundreds of useless
combats, but if I've got to have them then I'd rather not have to
hit dozens of keys repetitively.
What makes a game fun? A good story that keeps moving. Atmosphere.
Fairness, where you don't have your characters starving to death
and you can't make millions by taking advantage of a little quirk
in the program. More than one way around a problem. A lack of
stupid mechanical problems, where you have to do the exact same
thing a hundred times (i.e. killing wimps for experience, or
raiding the same regenerating dungeon for gold). More time should
be spent playing the game than tweaking your inventory.
Dave Ripton
Allen B Bratlie
easiest to start with a list of things I don't want to see.
1) Endless random combat encouters:It get's old in a hurry.
2) Mazes and Puzzles which have solutions which cannot be found in the
game itself. That is, if I have to solve a puzzle, I want to be ablt to
find hints,rumors, or words in the world I am in while gaming, not the
world I really live in :-)
3) Strict-linear story lines. Talk to A, Kill B, Open Chest C in town D.
A RPG must allow the player the option of many pathes to the end. Not just
requiring them to jump through 20 hoops that the program has.
Things I like to see....
1) Lots of interaction with people.
2) Open ended spell system (Like Arena)
3) Combat systems that take advantage of the CHACACTERS abilities and not
the PLAYERS reflexes (I'm getting too old for all this fast action stuff :-)
3) Multi-Character Parties with a single 'main' character. This allows for
a wide range of skills to be avalible, while allowing for a feeling of I'm
THAT guy while playing.
4) Wide variety of places to explore, monsters to fight, people to
see/talk to
5) Othere things I will post later.....
Al
Clay Alberts
Another idea I had is to make party members computer controlled. This would
give the sence that they have a personality since their action would be
somewhat unpredictable. It would also make combat a lot easier becase you
would only have to decide what your character will do. The other party
member would act according to their personalities.
Chad
Chaos
>Dave Ripton
One problem with the 'prestige' thing is if it is done the way
Might & Magic 2 did it. I played that game, and got my characters
up to 255th level (w/o cheating). Unfortunatley, random encounters
which were strength relative to your own were ridiculously powerful.
A minimum of about 100 monsters would attack me at once! There
also were no spells that just zapped every monster, so if you
actually wanted to win the combat, it would take 1/2 an hour.
I don't really like the 'prestige' factor because
1) It doesn't make any sense. Monsters don't know that you can
rip them apart with your bare hands in general. Say an ogre
walks up to any lone humanoid--he'll attack, maybe run away
after sizing his oponent up, but nonetheless attack.
2) Sometimes is handy to have wimpy monster areas to fall back on.
If you are getting your but kicked in the tough area, wimpy
monsters can often be a good way to get EXP or whatever.
I think a better solution, is if games move the plot along in
such a way that at later stages it is unnecessary to go through
wimpy areas (or have a repel monsters type spell that keeps
much wimpier monsters away from you).
Personally, I thought UW2 was excellent, and most aspects of
that game were done extremely well. I'd like to see more RPG's
like that one. Xeen was cool too--I *LIKE* increasing my
characters abilities 1000 fold over the course of a game!
===========================================================================
<<<<$Oo===) "He who knows man is clever;
/\ ### < ____/ He who knows himself has insight.
</\\_ / _ \ ( )^^^^/ He who conquers men has force;
\ \ / / \ \ ( | He who conquers himself is truly strong."
\ \_/ / \ \_( | -Lao Tzu
( ) ( /
\___/ \__/ Alex Pelton at CU Boulder
E-Mail pel...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
===========================================================================
Mark T. Wignall
>From: cl...@montego.umcc.umich.edu (Clay Alberts)
>Subject: Re: What would you like to see in an RPG game??
>Date: 2 Jun 1994 23:46:55 -0400
I disagree. I can recall severall situations in Wizardry 7, where the tactics
that were needed to get passed a few areas, required 1 character to do this, 1
character to do that etc. Having all characters be controlled by the player
in my opinion is a must, as it's another mechanisim for strategy ;)
Now, if the characters where controlled by seperate human players, via
modem....NOW THAT is what I'd like to see :)
Alexander Kim
Let me loose in a Monster filled forrest/dungeon/swamp/etc...
With a Beautiful Maiden to rescue...perhaps guarded by a Demon Lord...
Not really an RPG, but with a little tweeking with the engine, one could
add some atmosphere to it(perhaps add a 'talk' option and put in some
Characters who CAN get killed but also can give clues)
And let it have Modem and Network Support...
Then a World Builder Add-on...for infinite game play...
This is my dream...
;)
Russell Wallace
monsters in random encounters every time he wants to walk from point A
to point B. In other words, if a section of map is full of monsters
then fine, but once it's cleared, it should stay cleared.
Do have auto mapping.
If you're going to put in annoying problems like secret doors that take
half an hour to find, invisible monsters that drain levels or suchlike,
make sure there's some way to counteract it (e.g. you can find a ring of
see invisible somewhere, or something like that).
If at any point the game becomes closed off, make sure the player knows
about it immediately. (e.g. a key item is destroyed that the player is
going to need later on, either don't let this happen or let him get
another one or at the very least tell him about it so he can restore to
a previous position rather than waste hours of time.)
Make sure things like combat which the player will be doing a lot, can
be done quickly. (keystroke shortcuts if the game is mouse controlled,
etc.) Same principle as for application programs, frequent operations
should be fast.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwal...@cs.tcd.ie
Lewis Beard
>I disagree. I can recall severall situations in Wizardry 7, where the tactics
>that were needed to get passed a few areas, required 1 character to do this, 1
>character to do that etc. Having all characters be controlled by the player
>in my opinion is a must, as it's another mechanisim for strategy ;)
>Now, if the characters where controlled by seperate human players, via
>modem....NOW THAT is what I'd like to see :)
Yeah? Then try Neverwinter Nights or Eye of Yserbius/Twinion (AOL
and Sierra INN respectively). The first uses the SSI gold box
(so ive heard) format and the latter uses its own format (tho It
reminds me of a much improved Bards Tale 3 type interface) .. but
each PC is another human. Cool, eh?
Anyway, I think it WOULD be cool to have computer controlled
personalities. You could give orders in combat, but they did what
they wanted; the more cool stuff you have given them, or the
more you sweettalk them, or the better your leadership (an imaginary
skill you might could improve) then the more likely they obey. :)
Kinda like the henchman idea in AD&D. Some might have secret plots that
may or may not coincide with yours.
I think it would be also cool to be someone in the party who was NOT
the main guy; you are in a party in which you are given orders, or
asked to do a particular role. Maybe direction choice would be controlled
by you, for practicality, but then again, maybe not; maybe votes
are made and you could be allowed merely to influence the choice. But
that's too far away .. and would be better in a multiplayer game.
Lewis
--
Lewis W. Beard le...@damops.wes.army.mil Jackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.
"Inner Worlds IS the Mahavishnu Orchestra's Love Beach." - Lewis W. Beard
"Where's My Backstage Pass? Outrageous Costume!" - various members of QUEEN
"Looking at the sun for fifteen years made us CRAZY!" - Captain Jim & Pedro
"You been listenin' to those Stevie Wonder records .. hunh?" - Glenn Hughes
Allen B Bratlie
My, and I'm sure many of us, had their first experience with
RPGing due to Dungeons and Dragons, or some similar game system. I like
the feel of the 'paper and pencil' type games. That is, games where the
player makes moves/decisions on a turn based method.
The thing that most of these games seem to forget is that the
'characters' really live in the adventure world, and have special skills
to enhance their survivabiliity. The 'player' on the other hand is just
living throuigh thie eyes, and shouldn't be expected to know how to do
everything the characters do.
Most RPG's have one or two good points, but no one ever seems to
pull in all these pieces and make a super game. With the CD ROM now in
common use it should be possible to make one hell of a world to adventure in.
Al
Reed Derleth - KPFA
I'd like to see a "find item" spell in any major RPG. In about three games
now (Underworld 1, Savage Empire, Serpent Isle) I've dropped some necessary
item god-knows-where and spent a few hours having to search for it. It's is
seriously no fun and I debated every time whether to just go ahead and
delete the damn game.
A "find item" or "recall item" spell will point you toward, or simply put in
your hand, any item that you've come into contact with over the course of
the game.
Either that, or one of your companions can tell you:
Avatar: Iolo, do you remember where we left the training sword?
Iolo: Let me think. Ah yes, it's in the courtroom in Moonshade.
Avatar: What's it doing there?
Iolo: You dropped it there, milord. It's inside a backpack.
Dave Ripton
>I'd like to see a "find item" spell in any major RPG. In about three games
>now (Underworld 1, Savage Empire, Serpent Isle) I've dropped some necessary
>item god-knows-where and spent a few hours having to search for it. It's is
>seriously no fun and I debated every time whether to just go ahead and
>delete the damn game.
In UW1, I found all the ingredients to make some rotworm stew, but
couldn't figure out how to make it. (Interface problem: I didn't think
to use the scroll with the recipe on it on the ingredients, since to me
that would mean dipping the scroll in the goop.) So I wrote down the
recipe and dropped the scroll.
Oops. Never did find the sucker again, either. Luckily, there was
a cheat program around that let me create items.
I think "find item" would be a bit tough to implement. You know what I'd
like? Bigger inventories. Especially when the stuff you want to carry
is really light, like scrolls or little stones or keys. I also think
that meta-items like keychains or notebooks into which scrolls and keys
can be placed (and from which they never again need to be removed) are
a great thing to have, to prevent this kind of annoying problem.
I usually establish a dump at some easily accessible point within the
game world. Anything potentially useful gets dumped there. _Finding_
the right scroll out of the 70 I have stacked up would be a pain, and
some of the food in my U7 game is probably a bit rancid, but I won't
lose anything this time.
Dave Ripton
Mark T. Wignall
>Anyway, I think it WOULD be cool to have computer controlled
>personalities. You could give orders in combat, but they did what
>they wanted; the more cool stuff you have given them, or the
>more you sweettalk them, or the better your leadership (an imaginary
>skill you might could improve) then the more likely they obey. :)
>Kinda like the henchman idea in AD&D. Some might have secret plots that
>may or may not coincide with yours.
>I think it would be also cool to be someone in the party who was NOT
>the main guy; you are in a party in which you are given orders, or
>asked to do a particular role. Maybe direction choice would be controlled
>by you, for practicality, but then again, maybe not; maybe votes
>are made and you could be allowed merely to influence the choice. But
>that's too far away .. and would be better in a multiplayer game.
What this sounds like is one player that you're in charge of and the rest of
the party is NPC's. Granted it would be a nice twist to today's CRPG's, that
being the computer controlled personalities and stuff. Perhaps, being that
you and you're party are relatively 'new' with one another, as the game goes
by and you establish yourself via level, charisma, whatever, then the
'loyalty' or 'obeyness' of the rest of the part would increase. This would
indicate a more 'team' oriented approach to situations.
Just my $.02 worth ;)
Torbj|rn Mattson
One thing I really like is magick systems where you have to find the spells
yourself , either by geting hints about them or by experimenting. Those who have
played Dungeon Master (one of the best rpg's of all time by the way) know what
I'm talking about. The DM system used symbols that you could chose between ,the
first symbol was a power symbol and the second was a element symbol (I think!!)
and so on. It was great fun trying to find new spells. The system used in Ultima
underworld were also very good, I didn't have a manual when I played it so I had
to figure the spells out by experimenting. I found that the symbols had meaning
and in the end I could usualy figure out what symbols a spell concisted of
merely by knowing what it did, learning the spells was for me a very interesting
part of the game. My idea for a great spell system would be to make it like a
very simple programming language, where the commands where represented by
symbols. One symbol for example be projectile and another fire, these two could
then be combined to make a fireball. Then you could put on a targetting symbol
to make it hit the target more easily and a power symbol to make it more
powerfull. The realy cool thing although probaly hard to implement would be to
make every combination work but some bad combinations would give nasty effects,
for instace, a fire symbol alone would make a spell that explodes in your
hands.
This is only a thought and I really would like some input on it.
Bye.
Torbjoern
Kirk Wicklund
>>Another idea I had is to make party members computer controlled. This would
>>give the sence that they have a personality since their action would be
>>somewhat unpredictable. It would also make combat a lot easier becase you
>>would only have to decide what your character will do. The other party
>>member would act according to their personalities.
>I disagree. I can recall severall situations in Wizardry 7, where the tactics
>that were needed to get passed a few areas, required 1 character to do this, 1
>character to do that etc. Having all characters be controlled by the player
>in my opinion is a must, as it's another mechanisim for strategy ;)
I would like to see the player have a choice of having any character
controlled by the computer or not, like in Ultima 6. In that game,
you selected a fighting position for each character to take or you
could command any of the characters.
>Now, if the characters where controlled by seperate human players, via
>modem....NOW THAT is what I'd like to see :)
Me too!
Kirk.
--
email: wick...@cse.unl.edu
real life: Kirk Wicklund
major: Computer Science
* University of Nebraska - Lincoln *
Adam Wiggins
>>the main guy; you are in a party in which you are given orders, or
>
>the party is NPC's. Granted it would be a nice twist to today's CRPG's, that
>being the computer controlled personalities and stuff. Perhaps, being that
>you and you're party are relatively 'new' with one another, as the game goes
>by and you establish yourself via level, charisma, whatever, then the
>'loyalty' or 'obeyness' of the rest of the part would increase. This would
>indicate a more 'team' oriented approach to situations.
Well, I don't know how much fun it would be to be a sort of
second-to-best hero in the game. But as for not having total
control over the other characters, there are games like this -
combat in Ultima 6 and 7 for example. Also, the Mindcraft games
have a "loyalty" stat for the people in your party: if they become
unhappy with your leadership, they will (supposedly) leave.
...Boone
Tim Chown
>My idea for a great spell system would be to make it like a
>very simple programming language, where the commands where represented by
>symbols. One symbol for example be projectile and another fire, these two could
>then be combined to make a fireball. Then you could put on a targetting symbol
>to make it hit the target more easily and a power symbol to make it more
>powerfull. The realy cool thing although probaly hard to implement would be to
>make every combination work but some bad combinations would give nasty effects,
Yes, I agree. This sort of system is used in Legend, and it's sequel Legend,
Son of Something (can't remember the "Something" :) In Legend you can mix
your own spells using runes for targetting style and effect, and you need
components to cast. Although there are only 4 targetting and about 12 effect
runes, you can achieve some nice spells (remember Legend II comes on only *1*
compressed 3.5" disk).
So, for example, you can use the "missile" rune, add a "heal" and a "speed"
rune and with the right components you have a targeted heal&speed spell.
You only start off with missile/heal/damage runes, but the spell system is
not dependent on level, so a level 1 runecaster can cast anything his/her
runes/components allow. You can have up to 10 spells readied, activated
by the 0-9 keys. Firing off spells in real-time isometric mode can get a
bit hairy though, at the start a "surround"+"damage"+"damage" spell can
hurt your party bad =) Some spells are handy out of combat, eg. "forward"+
"continuous"+"heal" makes a long-lasting healing "mist" in front of your
runecaster.
Although the isometric game engine appears a little dated, Legend is an OK
game considering it's now a budget game available very cheaply. It's main
strength is the innovative spell system, which with some though could be
expanded to something very fun indeed.
Tim
Mike Cowgill
Anyway, here are some of my ideas and comments.
*Magic System: I like the reagent idea AND the runes. Harvesting reagents from
natural sources in U7 and U8 (not sure about before) gave a fairly realistic
feeling. Some sort of fractal generated dungeon decoration if processor
power permits. But I digress... I agree also about using an extensible
system of magic. DIY potions and spells could be fun. What about differently
'powered' runes (say, wood, stone, copper, silver, gold) and a write-only
tablets for frequently used magic.
*Injury: I agree. One moment all your limbs are nearly dropping off. One
potion or a bit of sleep later and you are 100% again. Not very real.
*Combat: I am a real time person myself (so to speak). More than hack slash
or parry though. I like the idea of plenty of armour and weapon types and
the ability to enchant items to a higher level. It is *very* satisfying
going around with a Black Sword of Unsurpassed wotsit. You get a feeling
that you sort of made it yourself.
*Locks: What about a cut to a sub-game with a view through the lock. You can
use different types of lock and different picks, so you can even pick fancy
key locks with a low game skill, but plenty of real skill. Not sure how the
exact implementation would go.
*Bestiary and Notebook. Linking in with the excellent UU auto mapper, CDs
provide plenty of room for a bestiary of known monsters with stats, flora
and fauna, geology, diary and other nifty stuff.
*SAVE/LOAD time. Ultima 8. Need I say more? OK then. Use a RAM cache for the
last load/save. More than 10 slots for saves and use proper titles. No more
than 10s for load or save.
*Points graduation system: I prefer the UU2 method of learning, but I think
the shrine method also has a place for some stats when used in direct
conjunction with specific experience.
*Graphics: First person perspective all the way. 640*480 graphics for those
that have local bus video and plenty of RAM. I like the light falloff in
DOOM, but I think it could have gone further. Better simulation of portable
light sources. I know it uses clock cycles but we *are* dreaming here and I
am getting fed up of 320*200 graphics looking like an early 1980s machine.
*Sound: Not just plenty of samples, but change the stereo image, volume, echo
etc. to provide warnings, clues and general atmosphere. Speech as standard
please!
Playing U8 I kept getting the feeling of 'xxxx would make it a far better
game'. I realised after a few days that i was getting the ideas from UU. Fast
and smooth (on a 4Mb 486), good plot, good interaction, good flexibility etc.
Why is there no add-on disk for the UUs? U7 had plenty and it looks like at
least Christmas for UU3. Any sign of Stonekeep on that side of the pond?
Mike.
--
Michael S. Cowgill (Mike) \_ My opinions! MINEMINEALLMINEHAHAHAHA!
ze...@myth.demon.co.uk (That's me) \_ " Swirly thing alert! "
G1...@GB7WRG.GBR.EU 44.131.2.76 \_ " ...Cracking toast Gromit!... "
Christoffer Lernoe
> from natural sources in U7 and U8 (not sure about before) gave a fairly
> realistic feeling.
But does realism equal good gameplay? I would argue it does not. I find
it overall annoying having to mess around with reagents after the
initial experiments!
>*Combat: I am a real time person myself (so to speak). More than hack slash
> or parry though. I like the idea of plenty of armour and weapon types and
> the ability to enchant items to a higher level. It is *very* satisfying
> going around with a Black Sword of Unsurpassed wotsit. You get a feeling
> that you sort of made it yourself.
I *HATE* real time combat. If I wanted an action-game I would go buy an
action game! "Realistic realtime combat" is often very unrealistic.
I agree about the weapon and armour types though. It adds to the atmosphere
and the interaction.
>*Locks: What about a cut to a sub-game with a view through the lock. You can
> use different types of lock and different picks, so you can even pick fancy
> key locks with a low game skill, but plenty of real skill. Not sure how the
> exact implementation would go.
This may be realistic, but is it FUN???? And if you think it is; what about
lock number 1242??
>*Bestiary and Notebook. Linking in with the excellent UU auto mapper, CDs
> provide plenty of room for a bestiary of known monsters with stats, flora
> and fauna, geology, diary and other nifty stuff.
Good idea.
>*Graphics: First person perspective all the way. 640*480 graphics for those
> that have local bus video and plenty of RAM. I like the light falloff in
> DOOM, but I think it could have gone further. Better simulation of portable
> light sources. I know it uses clock cycles but we *are* dreaming here and I
> am getting fed up of 320*200 graphics looking like an early 1980s machine.
Why first person? I would favour overhead views combined with some very
detailed animated scenes. You never get the time to really WATCH the
pictures when you're running around with first person perspective all
the time.
>*Sound: Not just plenty of samples, but change the stereo image, volume, echo
> etc. to provide warnings, clues and general atmosphere. Speech as standard
> please!
Would be great..
Christoffer Lernoe
> easiest to start with a list of things I don't want to see.
> 1) Endless random combat encouters:It get's old in a hurry.
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't see the pleasure in playing games where
95% of the gaming time is dedicated to slay the same old wandering
monsters that you can't do anything about..
> 2) Mazes and Puzzles which have solutions which cannot be found in the
> game itself. That is, if I have to solve a puzzle, I want to be ablt to
> find hints,rumors, or words in the world I am in while gaming, not the
> world I really live in :-)
:) Agreed absolutely!
> 3) Strict-linear story lines. Talk to A, Kill B, Open Chest C in town D.
> A RPG must allow the player the option of many pathes to the end. Not just
> requiring them to jump through 20 hoops that the program has.
You got my vote again... ;)
> Things I like to see....
> 1) Lots of interaction with people.
Yep.. That's what made the pre-Pagan ultimas worth playing.
> 3) Combat systems that take advantage of the CHACACTERS abilities and not
> the PLAYERS reflexes (I'm getting too old for all this fast action stuff :-)
Even _WITH_ reflexes: What's the point? If I wanted an action game I'd buy
one. This "realtime (tm etc)" stuff isn't realistic if anyone tries to
claim that, and I don't see how it improves gameplay either!
> 4) Wide variety of places to explore, monsters to fight, people to
> see/talk to
This goes without saying..
Jeff Cota
ID...@asuacad.bitnet
way of the future. I don't agreed with the computer control npc party member,
like in U7, U7.5 it's was more a hinder than help.
Tim Chown
>Why first person? I would favour overhead views combined with some very
>detailed animated scenes. You never get the time to really WATCH the
>pictures when you're running around with first person perspective all
>the time.
Heh... have both, or maybe a free-floating camera.
That should stretch a Pentium nicely >:)
Tim
Christoffer Lernoe
>> detailed animated scenes. You never get the time to really WATCH the
>> pictures when you're running around with first person perspective all
>> the time.
> Heh... have both, or maybe a free-floating camera.
> That should stretch a Pentium nicely >:)
That wasn't my intention. By using using first person perspective in
real time (I guess that was what you suggested since you talked about
the Pentium), you miss out much of the graphics since you're busy killing
whatever monster you're fighting.
I want to tell my characters what to do and see them try to carry out those
orders as well as they can. I want to see them fighting, I don't want to
fight for them.
I don't play crpg:s to slay monsters, in fact that is a very annoying
aspect of the game.
So when I go to a fight, I want it to MEAN something and I want it to look
good.
Chuck Cote
>>*Graphics: First person perspective all the way. 640*480 graphics for those
>> that have local bus video and plenty of RAM. I like the light falloff in
>> DOOM, but I think it could have gone further. Better simulation of portable
>> light sources. I know it uses clock cycles but we *are* dreaming here and I
>> am getting fed up of 320*200 graphics looking like an early 1980s machine.
>Why first person? I would favour overhead views combined with some very
>detailed animated scenes. You never get the time to really WATCH the
>pictures when you're running around with first person perspective all
>the time.
What about both at the same time? You could split the top half of the
screen or whatever and have an overhead tactical view and also have the
first person view of the current character in (turn-based) combat or the
party leader while just trekking around. If you wanted to be fancy you
could allow the current combat character to target a specific enemy
for a melee attack from either view. If the enemy is in that character's
current first-person view you could give the option to target a
specific body area (eg. by clicking on the arm, leg, etc.) and if it is not
the attack (for instance a bow attack on an enemy harassing a seriously
injured party member to the current character's extreme right/left) would
be a general attack with no ability to target a specific area. The idea
behind this is that if the character is shifting to target a new opponent
out of his/her view they would have less time to target.
Actually, this would be especially nifty for casting spells such as
fireball. You indicate the target square on the overhead view and observe
the result on the first-person view!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Cote
Christoffer Lernoe
>> detailed animated scenes. You never get the time to really WATCH the
>> pictures when you're running around with first person perspective all
>> the time.
> What about both at the same time? You could split the top half of the
> screen or whatever and have an overhead tactical view and also have the
> first person view of the current character in (turn-based) combat or the
> party leader while just trekking around.
Well, it may look good, but I find it too much work for (almost) nothing.
> If you wanted to be fancy you could allow the current combat character
> to target a specific enemy for a melee attack from either view. If
> the enemy is in that character's current first-person view you
> could give the option to target a specific body area (eg. by clicking
> on the arm, leg, etc.) and if it is not the attack (for instance a
> bow attack on an enemy harassing a seriously injured party member to
> the current character's extreme right/left) would be a general attack
> with no ability to target a specific area. The idea behind this is
> that if the character is shifting to target a new opponent
> out of his/her view they would have less time to target.
This idea with clicking on opponents in first-person view sure sounds
fun, but I wonder how much patience you have when you go to battle for
the 234th time.
I'd like a less controllable system that still allows hitting specific
body parts and so on.
My favorite combat system is probably the one in Phantasie III. You
gave the characters orders "Slash", "Fire bow", "Cast spell", "Defend".
These orders were carried out by the characters if they were able.
There were hit locations, both for the monsters and the characters (you
could get arms and legs cut off!).
The orders was kept for the next combat round, so fighting tended to be quick
and effective.
I would like to see a system where you could program the actions of
the characters. Maybe they knew what locations to aim for, and when
to help out a friend. Their personality could affect their fighting
style.
Then I'd like to see the fight carried out in animated sequences.
> Actually, this would be especially nifty for casting spells such as
> fireball. You indicate the target square on the overhead view and observe
> the result on the first-person view!
While the idea is great, "first-person" view implies animations that
are calculated in real-time which in turn means that it won't be as
good as pre-drawn (possibly real-time altered) animated sequences.
Joshua Rodman
ze...@myth.demon.co.uk (Mike Cowgill) wrote:
>
>*Sound: Not just plenty of samples, but change the
>stereo image, volume, echo
> etc. to provide warnings, clues and general
>atmosphere. Speech as standard please!
PLEASE! NO SPEECH.. or at least allow for a decent
text display as well. I hate speech. Books are
always better than movies. Allow a non-speech
option if you must put it in.
Joshua Rodman
Obscurity magnifies, produces, and obscurates phrases existing
without meaning in form.
Clay Alberts
>ze...@myth.demon.co.uk (Mike Cowgill) wrote:
I agree. All the game that I have played so far which used speech do far
turned out to be a big disappointment. Unless the voice exactly matches the
character (and they never do) then it makes the game seem extremly fake and
even somewhat childish. I much prefer text - it leaves more to the
imagination.
Bye the way, I like to interact with characters by using conversation trees
i.e. where you can chose from three (or more) different things to say, one
good choice, one choice that might be good and one demented choice.
Chad
Clay Alberts
I agree that multi-player dungeons are the best kind of games. I am working
working on that now, but it will only two players at one time. What about
computer controlled characters which you can tell what to do but still have
a mind of there own? i.e. you can tell one of you companions to attack a
monster or pick a lock but if you ask him to do something unreasonable he may
refuse. Perhaps if you are stuck you might get some advice from one of your
companions on what to do next or information about something.
Chad
Per Tore Stokke
I may be a bit late posting this, I don't know if the debate has died out
but I just wanna express my views of what I would like in an RPG::
GRAPHICS:
I prefer hand drawn graphics over digitized graphics any day. There is some-
thing wrong when you are playing a game with goblins and trolls which
you can see are actors dressed in bad B-film costumes. That flames me off.
A good graphic artist can with different technics use the resolution and the
palett to produce graphics that are much better than digitized graphics,
this includes digitization of airbrushed pictures. You got to work
very long on them to get the same clear colors and filling as a computer
artist can make. Graphics should be representative of what is happening
in the game. If a member of the party is wielding a big axe, he should
not be seen in the game wielding a standard sword.( Like in the gold-box
series from SSI). Every spell should be drawn so that they appear distinct.
I allways like to know what spell that just wiped out my party so that
I can have a clue what to do to conter the attack next time.
I love when a game provides lot of different animations that displays what
happens in the game. Imagine your fighter in the party advances to an enemy
and jumps up, spins a full round with his sword outstretch and beheads the
enemy. That would be very neet indeed( And NO I do not want to hear about
U8. Thats a bloody adventure-game, not an RPG, besides combat SHOULD be
tactical)
INTERFACE AND GAMEVIEW:
Essensial for a good RPG is a good inventory system. Every item should be
displayed so that one can make out which item is which. I liked the
inventory system in RAVENLOFT: Stradh's possesions very much ( the doll
dressing part was very clever done and I enjoyed it immensly (( I'm I becoming
like a girl??)))even though it had problems like when you had to drink a
potion in a hurry. You had to enter the inventory system, place the right
potion in the hand which hopefully is empty, enter the gamescene again and
finally press the hand with the potion. I mean PLEASE.. I'm sure there must
be a better way of designing an inventory system which would have made that
easier.
As for gameview I must say I prefer the overhead display of U7. You get a
good sense of the area, it's easy to orientate oneself and for combat
there is no rival to it ( that is, when it's used in tactical combat).
If somebody had gotten around to make a similar view but with smooth/smoother
scrolling and that the game hadn't accessed the hard-drive for every step
the party takes, I think he would just there be on his way to a brilliant
RPG.
COMBAT:
In my view there is no rival to tactical segmented combat as in the old
goldbox-series and the recent Dark SUN game (the combat was the main
selling point for me when regarding the gold box series. I readily admit
that the character interactions was limited ( if not nonexistent) but
the combat scene was very well made.
The whole purpose with a RPG is that who have a party. When that party gets
into trouble and have to fight you are supposed to ROLE-PLAY your characters
to the fullest. That is, if you have a high level mage with very high
inteligense, you should be able to think out the best strategy/spell for
defeating the enemy. I do not have the brainpower to role-play that in realtime
I have not spent my life studying spells and monsters so I do not automaticly
know the best strategy. Therefore I need time to hatch a plan how to defeat
the monsters, and so far segmented combat is the only thing that allows me
to do that. Besides, in many games you are not just ment to control a mage, but
a hole party. I have no way of using the party to the fullest in realtime,
as I just haven't the time to think of what I am doing. I't becomes like
an arcade-game where you have to rapid press the mousebutton to defeat the
monsters. What is the fun with that? If I wanted to play an arcade I would
have gone out and done that, I wouldn't have shelled out 500 kr (about 70$)
for a RPG.
CHARACTERS:
Something I think would be cool in a RPG would be if you only start out
with one character which you can choose what profession he has for
instance a cleric. Then you can travel around in the world finding
other computer controled NPC which may join you so that you get your party.
You do not have complete control over these characters, but if you manage
some check, they will obey you, meaning you can control there actions in
combat. If you fail the check, they will do what they think is best
according to the type the character is. For instance a dwarven berserker
will charge into the flok of monsters not realizing that the mage has just
thrown a fireball or something into the flok. I know this will require a
lot of AI programming, but it would be fun nontheless. Also communicating
with the characters would become more importaint as the NPC in your party
perhaps knows more than your character about something, so you can ask him.
And all converstions should reflect the way the character you are talking
to behaves. If he is a grumpy dwarf, he should be sour and easy to get
angry, while a inteligent mage should be more reflected and maybe a bit
in control of his feelings. Also you shouldn't know what motivates the
NPC before you get into a situation where a moral dillema is to be solved.
For instance if you have the choise of killing a troblesome prisoner
or letting him go away, the different NPC should give their opinion based
on their alignment.
WORLD:
Any fantasysetting is ok so long that the world is well thought out. I
think the world should be huge, so that you can travel over the whole
continet in search of your quest. I hate games that start out with the
party getting trapped in a cave and your mission in the game is to get
out. That is a much to old idea. I like do discover wideranging plots
which the party eventually have to stop. I also like the idea that
if you do something in one part of the contry, that affects something that
happens in an different area in the world, and as more famous/infamous
you become, the more will the public know who you are and what you have
done and they react to you accordingly.(If you are known to kill
newborn babies, they should take a hostile approch to you.)
I like a lot of puzzles in RPG but I am a bit tired of the "Pull levers
in combination to open door" etc. A bit more innovative puzzles
would be good.
Well thats about all I care to write... If you ever see a game
which resebles what I have described please let me know...
Per Tore Stokke
Trondheim College of Engineering
Norway
ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu
Joshua L. Kleinpeter
> >*Magic System: I like the reagent idea AND the runes. Harvesting reagents
> > from natural sources in U7 and U8 (not sure about before) gave a fairly
> > realistic feeling.
>
> But does realism equal good gameplay? I would argue it does not. I find
> it overall annoying having to mess around with reagents after the
> initial experiments!
why not, after you cast the spell once correctly, using runes or whatever, you
can just tell the sucker to cast the spell...and it does it. Sort of like a macro
or something.
>
> >*Combat: I am a real time person myself (so to speak). More than hack slash
> > or parry though. I like the idea of plenty of armour and weapon types and
> > the ability to enchant items to a higher level. It is *very* satisfying
> > going around with a Black Sword of Unsurpassed wotsit. You get a feeling
> > that you sort of made it yourself.
>
> I *HATE* real time combat. If I wanted an action-game I would go buy an
> action game! "Realistic realtime combat" is often very unrealistic.
>
> I agree about the weapon and armour types though. It adds to the atmosphere
> and the interaction.
I like the Darklands and Ultima 6+ styles... Tell the characters what to do
once and they do it. If you want to change up, stop `em and change it...
Mike Cowgill
t93...@albireo.tdb.uu.se "Christoffer Lernoe" writes:
> But does realism equal good gameplay? I would argue it does not. I find
> it overall annoying having to mess around with reagents after the
> initial experiments!
IMO, if you have good gameplay, realism makes it better. It certainly
doesn't make bad gameplay good. Perhaps mixing reagents in bulk would be
better, or only using them for special one-off events.
> I *HATE* real time combat. If I wanted an action-game I would go buy an
> action game! "Realistic realtime combat" is often very unrealistic.
I want to be able to impose my techniques on the combat. I *hate* the U7
type 'click on this' and the program takes over. U8 isn't much better. I like
th UW type combat, but should be expanded. It's a matter of bringing strategy
to combat.
> This may be realistic, but is it FUN???? And if you think it is; what about
> lock number 1242??
I didn't say how it should be done, just that it is an area that seems to be
overlooked. You either have the correct key (which you can lose or throw away
irretrievably) or you may be able to use lockpicks, which I rarely train for.
> Why first person? I would favour overhead views combined with some very
> detailed animated scenes. You never get the time to really WATCH the
> pictures when you're running around with first person perspective all
> the time.
I just find that's what I enjoy most. More involving and eventually more
satisfying. I find that with a U8 type view that I don't really *look* at the
scenery after the first hour or so. Mind you, because of the speed
limitations, first-person views seem to be just more-of-the-same type views.
They really need a hardware manipulation engine to get good images whereas
the U8 view can be done with much less power (although you wouldn't believe
it with U7 and U8). With first person views, you effectively get a dynamic
detail system so that when you are close, things are seen in higher detail.
The overhead view is always trading off more detail with being able to see
less of the environment. I used to enjoy the old games like Cadaver and (on
the ZX Spectrum / Timex 2068) Head-over-Heels, Knightmare and the like.
Whoever it was said 'keyboard interface', I agree wholeheartedly! Hot keys
remove many of the problems encountered with only having one hand to move,
fight, cast magic etc.
On the subject of multi-player dungeons, I think that at the moment these
are suited more to hack-n-slash DOOM type games rather than RPGs, because in
RPGs you are mostly doing one thing at once, it is only when fighting that it
would be useful to have multiple players. I think it is a totally different
genre that is being born. One that _will_ be incredible to play with the right
hardware, but the current thinking doesn't make good games. They would tend to
be one-player games with multiple players. Puzzles need to be different, which
would rule out single-player participation.
Randy Armstrong
your character has with the various NPCs. I hate writing things by hand.
Games which force me to copy down endless streams of converstions which
may have critical hints are very annoying. Wiz7 was the worst because the
NPCs would some times only say something to once; if you missed it tough
luck.
This feature would be trivial to implement. Dumping all text output to
a text file would be sufficient.
Cheers,
Randy
Christoffer Lernoe
>> it overall annoying having to mess around with reagents after the
>> initial experiments!
> IMO, if you have good gameplay, realism makes it better. It certainly
> doesn't make bad gameplay good. Perhaps mixing reagents in bulk would be
> better, or only using them for special one-off events.
I don't like to bother with reagents at all, but that is just a personal
opinion. If they have to be there, your solution is ok.
>> I *HATE* real time combat. If I wanted an action-game I would go buy an
>> action game! "Realistic realtime combat" is often very unrealistic.
> I want to be able to impose my techniques on the combat. I *hate* the U7
> type 'click on this' and the program takes over. U8 isn't much better. I
> like th UW type combat, but should be expanded. It's a matter of
> bringing strategy to combat.
So UW gives more strategy? In some senses perhaps, but how well will that
work when you play a party of characters?
>> Why first person? I would favour overhead views combined with some very
>> detailed animated scenes. You never get the time to really WATCH the
>> pictures when you're running around with first person perspective all
>> the time.
> I just find that's what I enjoy most. More involving and eventually more
> satisfying. I find that with a U8 type view that I don't really *look* at
> the scenery after the first hour or so. Mind you, because of the speed
> limitations, first-person views seem to be just more-of-the-same type
> views.
Actually, I didn't want a U8 view. I find it very unrealistic (the world
gets so small).
I would like a mix between U7 and U5. You walk around on a map of the
world, but you can shift back to a "close up" at any time.
That would make the world large and realistic.
Brian Armontrout
for when you are lost that shows the position of your
party, and a DOOM-like view or first-person view.
Also, I agree with a previous poster: no puzzles
that have nothing to do with the game.
-- Brian
Guillerm Malpartida
: Yeah? Then try Neverwinter Nights or Eye of Yserbius/Twinion (AOL
: and Sierra INN respectively). The first uses the SSI gold box
: (so ive heard) format and the latter uses its own format (tho It
: reminds me of a much improved Bards Tale 3 type interface) .. but
: each PC is another human. Cool, eh?
How do I get in touch with it?
: Anyway, I think it WOULD be cool to have computer controlled
: personalities. You could give orders in combat, but they did what
: they wanted; the more cool stuff you have given them, or the
: more you sweettalk them, or the better your leadership (an imaginary
: skill you might could improve) then the more likely they obey. :)
: Kinda like the henchman idea in AD&D. Some might have secret plots that
: may or may not coincide with yours.
That was done in Magic Candle 3. Didn't work out too well.
: I think it would be also cool to be someone in the party who was NOT
: the main guy; you are in a party in which you are given orders, or
: asked to do a particular role. Maybe direction choice would be controlled
: by you, for practicality, but then again, maybe not; maybe votes
: are made and you could be allowed merely to influence the choice. But
: that's too far away .. and would be better in a multiplayer game.
hmmm.... I like the idea of following others. How about we just reduce it to
a segment of the game?
Guillermo "Chilly Willy" Malpartida Jr.
Saint Peter's College
7malpa...@spcvxa.spc.edu
"We kill the cows to make jackets, then we kill each other for the jackets from
the cows we killed." -- Denis Leary
Guillerm Malpartida
: I would like to see automatic travel diary which records all the conversations
: Cheers,
: Randy
This was one in Magic Candle 3. It was a very nice feature that I truly
enjoyed. :)
BTW, if you are going to make an RPG, it is definitely a good idea to reduce
the amount of monsters in an area. Or how about just making it so that the
monsters live in only certain parts of the world? This is strange, but don't
you find it confusing that you are right outside of a town and all of a sudden
you get attacked, and the guards do not come to your aid?
It's like they don't care.... *sheesh!* a little help would be nice.
Whoever said about magic system being with words and experiments, has a good
idea. I like it myself. One prob. I get tired of buying x amount of reagents
all the time. I'd rather just have it with spell points instead... (I'm
simple, so shoot me! :) )
1st person perspect: I agree and disagree.
Agree:
-> It creates an environment more appealing and realistic
-> Gets the imagination flowing more
-> Help with the mood.
Disagree:
-> Large amounts of memory needed for many details
-> Can be distracting at times.
-> Sometimes, you need an overhead view of things.
Just my 2 cents
Christopher Wetzel
> >PLEASE! NO SPEECH.. or at least allow for a decent
Well, is seems there is no perfect solution. I my self llike
lots of options and configurability - ie, a speech/no speech button.
Hopefully after a few hours :) setting up your environment everyone
will have something they like.
Here's my pet peeve, again only an opinion. I hate realism.
Maybe becuse it's hard to cary off. I don't like real people (Mortal
Kombat, Free DC, Krondor). I like fantasy cartoons. Drawings.
I also don't like speech if it causes the game to pause.
In DarkSeed, when the speech kicks in, everything else is on hold.
The speech and real video was cool in a few games the first couple
of times I heard it, but when I go back to the same area or person
over and over these things get old. I'm in Lore now, and the graphics
are awesome, but having gone through a castle or forest the tenth
time, I'm hitting arrow keys as quickly as possible to go somewhere
or do something I haven't done yet.
I second the "tell a player if he just screwed up" idea.
I hate selling/destroying/losing items that are neccesary for winning
and never knowing they're gone.
I also hate weapons and items with secret/special powers. Like
a sword thats +5 that you equip, dumping a +2 mace, only to find
when you read the net or get a hint book that the +2 mace is more
effective against lizards or a certain creature. That's ok if you
get hints (like darklands and the itching powder) or if you can go
to a certain person and pay him to identify items. I like all the
special details, but if they're unknown they're unappreciated.
- baylor
Dennis E. Weldy
I would also like to add a few things about combate.
First off, I liked U8, with the only real bothersome feature
was the fatal aspect of the failed arcade portions. This dovetails
with the combate suggestions, which is why I mention this also...
I would not take away aspects of the U7&8 system but _add_
features that make it truely realistic. I do not mean realtime. Please
do not confuse the two terms. It is the realtime aspect that the U7&8 that
causes problems, in the definition I have in mind for the two terms.
In my paintball experiences our team used short command sequences
for adaptations to a given "problem". I also play fighter plane sim's that
have wingmen talk to you that substansually add to your situational awareness.
What I would propose is the addition of a "bark out commands" mode that freezes
the game and allows you to alter (or lay out a plan of attack) combate on a
whim and have the party members clue you in on what they're doing (I had some
dishartening experiences with off screen characters in U7).
This "bark" mode would would allow you to tell each member to do a
veriaty of taskes. I would have the normal ones found in U7 but more intellegent
(let's not have any more of this casting fireballs through the back of Dupre,
oh, that's right....he's dead anyway ;) ) and features like 'support' targeted
on a party member that would follow what they're doing, allowing you to split
up into teams.
The freeze effect would not rob from the realism feel and would return
Ultima to a more playable aspect, and a more realistic one IMHO. I see a army
flic do this all the time (commander stops, turns and hand signals a few of
his men and in three or four seconds a battle plan is layed out and they're
off). This mode could be used to stop the screen, target the d*mn jump and
the Avatar's dex would be used to determin if he made it instead of yours.
But if you really wanted to.....
This would give back the tactical planning aspect, one of my fav's. I
never played Darklands, but I heard that something like this was in there,
albeit without the freeze part (this is the crutial part, using the war movie
example, this would kill the _realism_ part without it).
--
Dennis E. Weldy | enter-> 01101011
dwe...@expert.cc.purdue.edu | 10101010
"In _wildness_ is the preservation | 01011101
of the world." -Metallica | 01101010->exit
Dennis E. Weldy
>Cheers,
>Randy
Mmmmmm.....I played a game called The Heart of Africa (or something like
that) by EA (ironic, that) on my old Commodore that had a feature just like this.
Of course sense you were role playing a journelist (Stanly whats-his-name) it
was a natural thing to have. I missed having that when I went to Ultima.
Todd Perry
>
>I agree. All the game that I have played so far which used speech do far
>turned out to be a big disappointment. Unless the voice exactly matches the
>character (and they never do) then it makes the game seem extremly fake and
>even somewhat childish. I much prefer text - it leaves more to the
>imagination.
Well, I know it's not an RPG, but Day of the Tentacle CD has got my vote
for the best CD game I've ever played, and the speech played a big part
in that. Gabriel Knight (another non-RPG, sigh) also had great speech.
Contrast that with Ravenloft CD, where it sounds to my untrained ear
like SSI threw the script at a bunch of ordinary employees/actor
wannabee's, and yeah, I see what you mean.
The problem is, speech isn't quite as much an integral part of an RPG
game as an adventure game -- I doubt if companies want to spend the
$$$ on their RPG to hire some real voice talent. I agree that it's
better to forget speech unless they want to do it right. But if they
*did* do it right, it would really improve the atmosphere, IMHO.
I agree with some other poster that real-life pictures of characters can
be pretty cheesy, too. The one thing about BAK that turned me off was
the incredibly silly digitized pictures of people wearing fake beards
and mustaches and plastic armor. A decent computer artist could've done
better in his sleep.
--
Todd Perry
to...@polaris.async.vt.edu
Dennis E. Weldy
>Dennis E. Weldy wrote:
>> I would also like to add a few things about combate.
>> First off, I liked U8, with the only real bothersome feature
>> was the fatal aspect of the failed arcade portions. This dovetails
>> with the combate suggestions, which is why I mention this also...
>> I would not take away aspects of the U7&8 system but _add_
>> features that make it truely realistic. I do not mean realtime. Please
>> do not confuse the two terms. It is the realtime aspect that the U7&8 that
>> causes problems, in the definition I have in mind for the two terms.
>The combat systems in U7 & U8 were completely different. I'll assume
>that you're generally referring to the U7 system, since IT'S the only one
>(of the two) that allows for any form of automated combat, and is also
>the only one which provides party members for you to bark at.
Actually, U8 seemed a stunted form of U7's combate were you _had_ to do
it manually (to me any way). I assume that they changed quite a lot when they dropped
the party members. I was egnoring stratagy considerations as one lonely guy against
the world does not have many options any way. The U7 system did not go far enough.
(MHO)
>> In my paintball experiences our team used short command sequences
>> for adaptations to a given "problem". I also play fighter plane sim's that
>> have wingmen talk to you that substansually add to your situational awareness.
>> What I would propose is the addition of a "bark out commands" mode that freezes
>> the game and allows you to alter (or lay out a plan of attack) combate on a
>> whim and have the party members clue you in on what they're doing (I had some
>> dishartening experiences with off screen characters in U7).
>You must have missed a very important feature of U7, or misunderstood it,
>or underestimated it. Those crossed swords could provide for a lot of
>really fun combat choices, not excluding, berserk, attack
>largest/smallest, attack closest, defend weakest party member, defend
>yourself, flee, don't flee, be aggressive, don't be aggressive... All of
>this could be set while time was stopped.
But lines of defense were difficult to impliment. Many was a time when I
wish I could have formed pincer movements with co-ordinated missle fire. Clever
things _could_ be done, I tried (with some success) many differing stratagies.
I had laid out a archer group, fighter group and reserves (usually spellcasters).
There still needs to be more control. I'de like to be able to build up a phalanx
and plow through of need be. Then pop off a detachment and flank with it while the
main group keeps the baddies occupied. The U7 system was individual based. It had
no provision for a archer to use a bolder for cover. Or climbing a tree to get
the high ground.
>> This "bark" mode would would allow you to tell each member to do a
>> veriaty of taskes. I would have the normal ones found in U7 but more intellegent
>> (let's not have any more of this casting fireballs through the back of Dupre,
>> oh, that's right....he's dead anyway ;) ) and features like 'support' targeted
>> on a party member that would follow what they're doing, allowing you to split
>> up into teams.
>I've always been under the impression that those were mistakes on the
>part of Iolo/Dupre/Shamino rather than the programmers. Come on, haven't
>you ever mis-clicked and put a fireball through Dupre's back? :)
>He deserved it, anyway... :)
ROFL! Well.....maybe..
>Teams? You could lead one team, who goes off one way, and the other team
>would be lead by artifical computer intelligence who just happens to know
>to run east instead of north to attack the monsters there. Sure. THAT'S
>feasible. :)
>> The freeze effect would not rob from the realism feel and would return
>> Ultima to a more playable aspect, and a more realistic one IMHO. I see a army
>> flic do this all the time (commander stops, turns and hand signals a few of
>> his men and in three or four seconds a battle plan is layed out and they're
>> off). This mode could be used to stop the screen, target the d*mn jump and
>> the Avatar's dex would be used to determin if he made it instead of yours.
>> But if you really wanted to.....
>What's so horrible (if you're in the mood) with controlling each action
>of each of the party members? I always thought that if you included an
>auto-combat feature, you should almost always include some way to disable
>it, so in combat you COULD have control over each party member.
>That's generally quited the stragegic/tactic enthusiasts...
I'm not sure I want to build a phalanx one character at a time. But I
do prefer games that let you do it that way. But then you're going back to turn
based modes. I have mixed feelings about it, but I'de like to see something
not-quite-turnbased, but close. Real-time that you can adapt to. The only
way I could think of was close to the U7 method, but with _more_ control, and
you can control the Avatar like in U8 (but not _required_ to).
>> This would give back the tactical planning aspect, one of my fav's. I
>> never played Darklands, but I heard that something like this was in there,
>> albeit without the freeze part (this is the crutial part, using the war movie
>> example, this would kill the _realism_ part without it).
>Well, actually, the average human being speaks at (about, I think) 120
>words per minute, so all you need to do is buy a REALLY good typing tutor
>and use it day and night. :)
Wasn't it a certain Starship captain that sayed "with an alert, well trained
crew, a few simple gestures can perform the same effect that your speicies telepathy
could." In other words, you don't need a lotta words. But then again, maybe they aren't
well trained (my grandmother would kill me if she saw this grammer). 'would explane all
those shots in the back ;-).
>--
> /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
> / Dan Fabulich | You haven't got any bullets! You've just got \
> / gf...@netcom.com | two coconuts and you're bangin' 'em together! \
>< Finger me for the | ---------------------------------------------- >
> \ U8 Walkthrough!! | My opinions are not those of my employer's, /
> \ Toenails! Bolo on! | if only because I am no longer employed. /
> \-----------------------------------------------------------------/
Animesh Karna
that didn't have these features, but . . .)
-- if I didn't do something or get something that is absolutely essential
at a later point, do the following:
1) tell me when I didn't do something or didn't get the thing (or when I got
rid of the thing) that I just made a fatal blunder.
2) have some way that I can go back and do the thing or get the thing
(whoops, I just entered a cave that has this horrible monster, and I need
that sword I dropped in that town; turn around, leave the cave, and go
back to the town to get that thing!)
3) offer several ways through the situation (one solution to the situation
in 2) is to use the sword, another is to use a special spell, another is to
run and go around the mountain and enter the cave through another entrance,
and yet another is to make a cup of tea and sit down with the monster and
talk).
-- Multiple view perspectives. Often, I get lost in those first-person views;
I would love it if I could hit a key and view the scene from above.
-- Command lines during conversations! Perhaps like this: ask about this,
this, this, or type in something.
-- KILL THE FOOD REQUIREMENT!!!!!!!!!
-- I'm sick and tired of "pixel hunting". I enter a scene, and I need to
(yawn) move my mouse cursor around and (sometimes) click on things, to see
what's here that might be neat. How about a little scrollable list at the
bottom of the screen, saying "Here are the stuff that you see".
Phew! Looking at the above list, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm taking
this stuff too seriously. Perhaps I need to get a life . . .
Mike Cowgill
is going to have speech, provide it as standard instead of having to buy it
at a later date and at extra cost". It shouldn't be part of the plot though.
What seems to be appearing is a division. Just as it appeared that the old
overhead view type thing was evolving into the first-person-perspective view,
the two systems seem to be going off in different directions. The old type is
gaining a truer "moderated strategy" feel to it and the new type is getting
more of a virtual reality feel (why do I feel that the phrase "virtual
reality" is becoming meaningless?).
I agree about the hand drawn monsters, or at least rendered models.
Digitisation has never cut it, which is what worries me about Stonekeep (any
news about this?).
Whoever mentioned monsters keeping to their own areas, have you played
UW/UW2? This happens, with many of the monsters having a name and
personality. Just like they promised for U8 but never delivered. Conversation
spooling - even "The Hobbit" had this back in 1984. A replay of the
conversation like a video recording would be excellent.
Some form of optional speedup is beneficial. When I started UW I only had a
386SX/20 and it ran OK with some detail removed, which didn't detract from
the plot. Running full detail on a 2/66 was nice though.
David Speer
>Tim
Yea... (command:hit the goblin) 1 hour later, after coculating the angles...You miss!!!
Overhead systems RULE
(and they R easyer to make too)
David Speer
>ze...@myth.demon.co.uk (Mike Cowgill) wrote:
Why? If used in the right way, speech enhances the game not killing it...
-Bemo
Lunatic
>From: ze...@myth.demon.co.uk (Mike Cowgill)
>Subject: Re: What would you like to see in an RPG game??
>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 00:30:16 +0000
> Surely some of this status statistic is already there and called 'Charisma'?
>Anyway, here are some of my ideas and comments.
>
>*Magic System: I like the reagent idea AND the runes. Harvesting reagents from
> natural sources in U7 and U8 (not sure about before) gave a fairly realistic
> power permits. But I digress... I agree also about using an extensible
> system of magic. DIY potions and spells could be fun. What about differently
> 'powered' runes (say, wood, stone, copper, silver, gold) and a write-only
> tablets for frequently used magic.
>
>*Injury: I agree. One moment all your limbs are nearly dropping off. One
> potion or a bit of sleep later and you are 100% again. Not very real.
>
>*Combat: I am a real time person myself (so to speak). More than hack slash
> or parry though. I like the idea of plenty of armour and weapon types and
> the ability to enchant items to a higher level. It is *very* satisfying
> going around with a Black Sword of Unsurpassed wotsit. You get a feeling
> that you sort of made it yourself.
>
> use different types of lock and different picks, so you can even pick fancy
> key locks with a low game skill, but plenty of real skill. Not sure how the
> exact implementation would go.
As in Hillsfar (anyone else remember that?).
>
>*Bestiary and Notebook. Linking in with the excellent UU auto mapper, CDs
> provide plenty of room for a bestiary of known monsters with stats, flora
> and fauna, geology, diary and other nifty stuff.
>
Notebook would be great
[stuff deleted, but with which I fully agree]
Speed and Plot are more important IMHO than the graphical detail (who cares
if it looks great if it plays like a slug!??), but the graphics are still
important. I haven't played (and won't play) the latest Ultima's because
despite having a reasonable system (486DX33, 4mb ram ,1mb LB video card),
they run bloody slow and they ACCESS THE GODDAMN DISK EVERY GODDAMN MOVE!!!
I bought a PC to get away from disk access problems (I had an amiga).
But I really like the idea of locks ala Hillsfar. It could be improved of
course, but the basic idea is there. I'm also in favor of the 'user
creatable spells' idea, as this adds a great amount of variety to the game.
Brian Armontrout
topview so you don't have to spend all your time wandering
around lost or mapping.
-- Brian