Blogus Maximus

Rubbing people the wrong way since 1970...
  Home  |   Contact  |   Syndication    |   Login
  1337 Posts | 10 Stories | 2135 Comments | 1336 Trackbacks

News






Google My Blog

Catch me at: The List!

My InstallScript Utility Belt My Amazon Wishlist
My Standard Disclaimer

Men who feel strong in the justice of their cause, or confident in their powers, do not waste breath in childish boasts of their own superiority and querulous depreciation of their antagonists.
--James Russell Lowell, 1861

Twitter












Tag Cloud


Archives

Post Categories

Image Galleries

Blogs

Code Camps

CTown Geeks

Geeky Webcomics

High Geek

Magenic Blogs

Microsoft Blogs

My Articles

My Sites

PodCasts

UG

XNA

Game Design Dilemma

I'm working on a 2d tilemapped RPG. I've actually made quite a fair amount of progress, but I'm at a point where I need to make a UI decision. I have the overland world completely mapped out, and I have several towns and special areas. I'm on the fence about how to integrate the two.

Scenario 1:

I have one ginormous map, where everything is the same scale. This means you can walk in and out of towns without having to load or wait and transition in any way. With everything the same scale, movement costs the same no matter where you are (in terms of time/turns/energy/hunger/whatever/etc...)  The potential downside to this is that it could take quite a long time to get anywhere on foot.

Scenario 2:

I have an overland map, a set of town maps, overland tactical maps, dungeon maps & special area maps. The overland map is at a different scale than the other maps. This means that time/turns/energy/hunger/whatever/etc is calculated at a different rate than on the other maps, which have a 1:1 scale. When entering a town, dungeon, special area or having a random encounter, you would effectively zoom in from the overland scale to the tactical scale. When you are done with combat, or exit a dungeon or town, it would zoom back out to the overland map. The downside to this is that at the zoomed out scale, the overland map isn't all that big (comparitively) and you can traverse it fairly quickly (in real time, not game world time.)

Options:

1) Go with scenario 1, as is.

2) Go with scenario 1 and introduce a slightly speedier version of overland travel, such as a horse.

3) Go with scenario 1 and introduce "instant" travel, via portals or some kind of "click the big map" mechanism. This would only work with places you've already been, or somehow unlocked (perhaps via a quest.)

4) Go with Scenario 2, as is.

 

Thoughts, opinions, suggestions?  Feedback appreciated.

  • Share This Post:
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Technorati
posted on Monday, March 29, 2010 6:14 PM

Feedback

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/29/2010 7:04 PM Keith Nicholas
can't you do slow walk-about then have speedy jump to areas you've been?

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/29/2010 8:51 PM Chris G. Williams
Keith: Wouldn't that be the same as Option 3? Or did you mean something different?

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/29/2010 11:36 PM JeBuS
I say Option 3

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/30/2010 1:03 AM Chris G. Williams
Justin: Scenario 2 isn't that much more work, I have the maps mostly designed already and the framework to support it, so I would mostly just need to work on the visual effects of zooming in and out.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/30/2010 3:49 AM Sam Judson
Version 3 seems to work well for Bioware :)

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/30/2010 7:46 AM Jim Perry
Option 3 FTW.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/30/2010 9:31 AM Chris G. Williams
Option 3? Really? The instant travel seems so artificial to me. It's probably my least favorite option. Gonna have to think a while on this one. How would you make it (the "instant travel") not be lame?

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/30/2010 3:35 PM Christopher Weeks
Start with option 1 as is, but keep things structured in mega-squares or territories or something. That way you have a bunch of flexibility on how game-play develops over time. When a territory is both safe* and well-known*, the game can zoom out to scenario 2.

I tend to think that teleportation should either be special when it exists or so fundamental that you've designed the game-experience around it.

*However you define those

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/30/2010 4:25 PM JeBuS
Chris, my biggest gripe in MMOs and regular RPGs these days is that I spend so much of my gaming time 'commuting' rather than doing something interesting. I don't care how 'lame' the instant travel method is, at least it let's me do something interesting.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 10:39 AM jasonred
For me part of the fun of RPGs and MMOs is the exploration, but when traveling through the same areas frequently a faster mode of transportation is ideal. I would use Scenario 2 but only granting access the the faster modes of travel after they have been earned.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 10:42 AM Chris G. Williams
This is great feedback from everyone, thanks a bunch!! (Keep it coming... working in a vacuum sucks.)

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 10:55 AM George W. Clingerman
I would go with Option 2 as is. It reminds me of all my favorite RPGs. Travel is boring and I like getting a sense of the "world" by seeing it all zoomed out and laid out before me. Just makes me feel larger than life being able to travel like that. I think it also tends to make encounters and dungeon crawls more special because they zoom you in to the action.

So yeah, Option 2 feels right to me. But then again, Zelda II was one of my favorite games of all time and I still play Final Fantasy I and Shining Force...

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 11:00 AM The Zman
#2 would be my preference but you are going to alienate some folk no matter what you choose.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 11:02 AM D'Arcy from Winnipeg
So it sounds like you're trying to decide between Final Fantasy 1 (which did the overland map for distance travel, zooming in for random encounters or if you entered a dungeon) or WoW which makes you walk accross the world to get from point a to point b (and even with the flying mounts, it was go-get-coffee time).

My personal feeling is that I'd rather spend time in the main gaming quest areas, towns, etc. and only have random encounters when travelling. I think Dragon Age: Origins does a great job of this, and it helps keep the pace of the game. Since it sounds like you want to give players more control over how they traverse the larger world map than DA:O though, I'd vote for Option 4, but make traveling the world map slower than in the detailed dungeons.

D

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 11:10 AM Steve Smith
JeBuS nails it - you want the game to be fun and that means you need a way for players to avoid long waits. Traveling gets boring fast and is often worse than waiting since typically you have to keep clicking or something to keep doing it. If the map isn't too big for now, just go with Option 1 to start. As a v.Next you can add the Scenario 2 zooming or some variation, such as letting the user set a waypoint and just say "Go Here" and have it (quickly) go there. Game time updates, but real time doesn't change much. And if some random encounter or whatever interferes with their travel, then put the character at the point where this happens and go tactical from there.

As for managing waypoints, you could let the user store them by name, or just let them go to a map of places they've been and click to go somewhere (which would be preferable to me so I don't have to try and remember and manage the things)

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 12:52 PM Seth
I like option 3. I’ve always liked the ability in games to drop your own portal stone wherever you like and even the ability to move both portal stones or drop multiple portal stones wherever you want so that you can determine where your secret stashes are located or where you like to go the most (shopkeeper to sell loot).

Divine Divinity has a great example of this. I was carrying entire barrels and crates through the portal with me to a house I had “claimed” as my loot storage house, even though the game hadn’t been designed in that way, the engine allowed for it.

Hope that helps!

-Seth


# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 12:53 PM designer
If both are valid options for how he wants the game to feel then he should pick the one that takes the least amount of time to get in and see if he’s happy with it.

Seems like Scenario 2 requires paging and more involved memory management which he may have to implement anyways. The GW2 map is HUGE and requires memory paging of textures to make work properly and it still needs to get optimized.

If he wants a particular “feel” to the game then he needs to choose the implementation that supports the experience he wants to give the player. I couldnt say which way supports his vision more as I have no idea what the game is about.

But generally speaking – that’s how I’d look at it.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 12:55 PM Chris G. Williams
Seth: that is great feedback... I hadn't even considered portable portals. This opens many possibilities.


# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 1:01 PM Jim Perry
In the days when I used to play MMOs, transports like griffons or horses were fun at first since they decreased travel time, but still irritating when I was sitting around twiddling my thumbs waiting to get to my destination. It was especially irritating doing corpse runs. After grinding, that's my second biggest annoyance with MMOs.

Yes, instant travel is artificial, but people play games to have fun, first. An immersive experience is great as long as it doesn't detract from the fun. Dragon Age at least made the load time seem like you were still traveling by showing an animated map. It didn't totally break the immersion and kept me from becoming frustrated with wasting time watching my character run from place to place on a macro level.

As a gamer I can tell you I wouldn't even consider playing a game where it was all scenario 1.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 1:33 PM jasonred
you could always use an option like the taxi's in GTA you can ride at normal speed, ask the driver to go faster or skip to your destination. I always feel giving the player more control over the way the game is played is the best option.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 1:42 PM Evan
I’m in favor of choice 3. Give me the big explorable world but also give me some sort of “travel scroll” to us to get back to cities and landmarks.

+1 to choice 3

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 2:08 PM Alan Jamieson
Scrap the whole thing, start over by using Unreal and add in pew pew gunz.

Of course, I kid. Option 2 or option 3 are my choices. I agree with the comments that have said that tedious travel is, well, tedious. I also agree that too much of option 3 can disrupt the feel of the game. It feels too much like an unexpected seg fault if I'm using the Enterprise to beam myself from place to place. However, a careful blend of the two kinds of travel can be really good and capture both your overworld feel, but eliminate a lot of the tediousness in travel for long distances.

An example: Star Wars Galaxies had the ability to travel from port to port instantly, but then you were on foot for the surrounding area. Initially the ports were spaced apart far enough that attempting to get to the ports by speedbike was just unreasonable (it features really big maps). That felt pretty good to me.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 3/31/2010 7:50 PM Yaboiksar
Many people have stated my thoughts on this but I'll post since ya asked. =)

I'd go with Option 3. As an adult gamer my time has changed dramatically. Gone are the days where I could sit and trek my away across the vast lands of FFVII. I point this game out since it had some of the most tedious travel of any RPG I can remember. Only about half way through the game did you get the ability to use an airship and it was still incredibly boring.

My gaming time now has to be as streamlined as possible. I agree with others that travel, really doesn't do much for a game. Even storyline wise there isn't much to be gained by having someone continuously go from point A to point B. Getting me there and into the action is where it's at. I want rich environments that expand on the theme you are expressing and I want to be immersed in it. Nothing detracts from that more than repetitiveness.

Fallout 3 is a good example of the way travel in RPGs should be. Just like you suggested for Option 3, after the player has visited the area on foot, they can now fast travel. Not much explanation went into this. You just brought up your Pipboy, picked where you wanted to go on the map and you went. Time was removed for the travel to keep things in check, but that was it. And that in no way took away from the overall feel of the game.

So like others have said, I think you are cool going with that option. I'm sure the experience you create will be solid enough to handle us not having to walk around for miles. =)

# re: Game Design Dilemma 4/2/2010 4:25 PM Beau
I like option 3. One of the best games that I've seen do this well was Oblivion. It tailors to both crowds in that if you want to fast travel because commuting is boring, then fast travel. If you don't want to, then walk. Also, in Oblivion there were hidden points of interests between major cities that you would only encounter if you walked instead of fast traveled.

# re: Game Design Dilemma 4/3/2010 10:28 AM Mladen Mihajlovic
My favourite RPG was always Ultima and they had both options 2 and 3 (horses, carts and moonstones) - if you have the time or the inclination I would recommend that :)

# re: Game Design Dilemma 5/10/2010 8:06 PM Robert
Option 2 or 3, preferring option 3. The options are only available after completing a quest. I hate waiting to travel through areas that I go through frequently. Its a waste of time.

Post A Comment
Title:
Name:
Email:
Website:
Comment:
Verification: