What you would like to see in a game?

[Aemoh87]

I have recently begun the project of creating a video game at my college. It will be a RPG. I have to keep details of it under wraps but I was wondering what GTIP values in a video game or role playing game in general?

One thing we are trying to push is video games as an art form so there will be a vibrant story and multiple art styles at play. So bring on the suggestions. Also if you have references of your ideas (from any kind of game or medium, not just a video game), let me know, what better way to see what you mean by showing me!

[Serpentine]

I'm a fan of ample opportunity for exploration, but I know other people often find that pretty dull.

[Aemoh87]

I'm a fan of ample opportunity for exploration, but I know other people often find that pretty dull.

We are thinking of this in a different way. Instead of explorable landscapes we want an explorable world. And especially explorable characters each with individual conflicts that you help solve. This is one key to our art, letting you tackle social issues on a personal and subtle level. Obviously this will have in game and mechanical consequences. As for the levels, we are limited in our staff, time, and budget. And our graphics already is putting a strain on our team. So we were thinking more linear string of challenges, but each challenge as at least 1 optimal way to overcome, 2 average ways to overcome, and one suboptimal strategy. Obviously we will do our best to make it appear less linear, but in reality we are not at all attempting to make a "sandbox"

[Tyndmyr]

I feel that too many games focus on trying to get as big as possible. Ludicrously so.

I prefer games that are actually small in scope, but rich in detail. Instead of having tons of NPCs, have fewer...but have their dialog well fleshed out, make them feel realistic. Have relationships between people that are somewhat more extensive than an excuse for a quest.

Exploration is great...but you need reasons to care about what you've found. Expand the scope of the game only when you feel you have already done all you can within the existing area.

Edit: Also, yeah, my way is hella easier on the graphics team. I should probably mention that this is something I unconsciously plan for, since I'm a coder myself, but rather poor with the graphics.

[Totally Guy]

I'm a big fan of player driven direction.

The best way I've seen this handled is through the players choosing what they will be rewarded for.

I'm currently running a game where one guy earns rewards when he takes an action to keep his two favourite sons safe. One guy earns points when he takes steps to gathering an army. the last guy is rewarded whenever he manipulates the other two.

The game is constantly shaped by the player's motivations.

[Aemoh87]

I feel that too many games focus on trying to get as big as possible. Ludicrously so.

I prefer games that are actually small in scope, but rich in detail. Instead of having tons of NPCs, have fewer...but have their dialog well fleshed out, make them feel realistic. Have relationships between people that are somewhat more extensive than an excuse for a quest.

Exploration is great...but you need reasons to care about what you've found. Expand the scope of the game only when you feel you have already done all you can within the existing area.

Edit: Also, yeah, my way is hella easier on the graphics team. I should probably mention that this is something I unconsciously plan for, since I'm a coder myself, but rather poor with the graphics.

The game is actually smaller than I thought it would be. It consists of 4 different groups playing through the same experience offering you different perspectives as well as cuts scenes flashing back to what came before this event. Some groups are heavily involved, while some groups are merely coincidence but all wind up playing a key role to the ending. Overall for actually round NPCs, each of the 4 groups has 3 as well as a PC. Then there are less than ten other round NPCs, most of which would be the baddies.

This also lets us reuse levels with a new paint job.

[The Rose Dragon]

Do you want it to be a video game, or a tabletop RPG? Both mediums have their advantages and limitations, and thus I cannot answer without a clear knowledge of what you're working on.

[Aemoh87]

I'm a big fan of player driven direction.

The best way I've seen this handled is through the players choosing what they will be rewarded for.

I'm currently running a game where one guy earns rewards when he takes an action to keep his two favourite sons safe. One guy earns points when he takes steps to gathering an army. the last guy is rewarded whenever he manipulates the other two.

The game is constantly shaped by the player's motivations.

It is difficult for us to have player driven rewards, the game it's self should be a reward, especially if our characters are as engaging as we hope they are. The players will make some key decisions for the PC's which will influence deep changes within themselves as well as the story.

One interesting way we accomplish this as each sub story has it's own structure, an example is one group is the victim of a Greek tragedy.

[Aemoh87]

Do you want it to be a video game, or a tabletop RPG? Both mediums have their advantages and limitations, and thus I cannot answer without a clear knowledge of what you're working on.

It will be a video game, which we intend to market and sell, all proceeds will goto charity and all I.P. will be that of the university I attend.

But the whole team plays alot of DND and similar games, and it's something we really consider. To relate it to a table top, have you ever tried to tell some one the story of an entire campaign? Not only is it important to tell them the action, but also the person details of the characters involved and how it affected them. The most memorable campaigns involve character growth or epiphany. While game mechanics are really not all that important.

[Tyndmyr]

Do you want it to be a video game, or a tabletop RPG? Both mediums have their advantages and limitations, and thus I cannot answer without a clear knowledge of what you're working on.

This is completely correct. For one thing, large amounts of math for an action are really annoying on the tabletop, but rarely matters at all for a video game. This can change a number of things alone.

I suppose I really should ask...is this you or your teams first game? Because if so, go the simplest route at all possible, and use as much time as reasonable for bug hunting and polishing.

A finished game, no matter how small, is ALWAYS superior to that half finished mess that won't compile.

Also, have you made decisions about platform and such yet?

[Jallorn]

A game to look at is Alpha Protocol, where practically every conversation changes something later.

[Comet]

A game to look at is Alpha Protocol, where practically every conversation changes something later.

Funnily enough, Obsidian entertainment, and Alpha Protocol by extension, is also the perfect example of how too many grand ideas and ambition without the technical skill to match can ruin a game.

Sure, the conversations and various options in Alpha Protocol are nothing short of brilliant. I'd just like to express the thought that, sometimes, it's better to be humble about it than to aim too high and come tumbling down.

This is obviously less of a problem for independent game productions, since you won't be losing much in the way of money even if your game doesn't come out right. So go ahead and experiment, but remember the roof that is your limit unless you're willing to suffer a few bruises while breaking through said roof.

Returning to the OP, I'm liking everything you're offering at the moment. This sounds like a really interesting project.
I like my RPGs to have intense, relatable stories with worlds that are fantastic beyond what we are used to seeing. If you have to choose between small and large, I say go with small. Easier to make it interesting with less work and I find sandboxes that have been made just for you to wander around in pretty boring after the first few hours of excitement have worn down.

Present a clear, gripping story, likeable characters, interesting locations and tight gameplay that doesn't overstay its welcome and I'd be more than happy.

[alchemyprime]

If you're making an RPG, especially a fantasy one... I always like it when things are turned into minigames.

Like "Oh you're using Alchemy or Crafting? Here, play this Cooking Mama-esque game!" Or like turning a duel or first attack into that one minigame from Kirby: Nightmare in Dreamland. then the loser starts with more damage on them.

[erikun]

Two things I like seeing in my RPGs. The first is player choices making a difference to the direction of the story, and even to the reactions of characters in the game. Perhaps the best (simple) example I can think of is the Tactics Ogre games, where your choices change the direction the story moves in, and you can even end up on difference sides at the end due to them. The newest remake even has characters who will leave your party if you continuously take actions that offend them.

The second - not so common because it doesn't always work, but nice to see it when it will - is choosable chapters. Because video games tend to be long and you don't have the option to flip to a specific page like in a book, it's nice being able to replay through choice moments in the game without multiple save files or playing through 10+ hours of gameplay. Final Fantasy IV: The After Years did this one right: each different character has their own chapter, and you can play the final chapter (when everyone gets together) at any time you want, using the save data from previous chapters. You can even replay chapters to get more/better equipment, although you'd need to restart the final chapter to have it. The main thing I felt they dropped the ball on is that the story is still linear. It would have been so much better if you had the ability to stop the "badguys" in various chapters, and have your situation in the final chapter change as a result.


One thing that I absolutely do not like in RPGs: excessive or needless grinding, either for levels, gold, or through extended dungeons. Random battles are supposed to make it feel like there is an active world outside of towns; they aren't supposed to take up 70% of gameplay. I feel that most RPGs (especially from the PS1 era) spend far too much time wandering around fighting monsters as a way to make the world feel large. Exploration is good. Having places to go is good. Slogging through dozens of dead bodies to just do either is frustrating. This is the reason I've moved towards visual novel games rather than RPGs these days - there is just too much wasted time in your average video game RPG.

[akragster]

There are so many suggestions I could give you, but I feel that it would be helping my competition. :smallfrown:



Try innovating the small things. Mini-games are a good way to go about it, but there are other ways. So many games get hailed for having innovative concepts, but the best games are the ones that use innovation to cut down on the bad/annoying parts of a game and actually make them fun.


Also, style can affect EVERYTHING. Look at Recettear or TF2. Recettear has a vibrant chibi-French style mixed with medieval-roleplay that got it a good bit of attention for a while. TF2 stepped away from gritty, realistic gameplay and made death funny/trivial. Also, try to keep your game from going too far in one direction. Games with jokes about reproductive organs every ten seconds don't appeal to a large audience, games where you get ambushed every ten seconds stop giving any sense of surprise, and games where you gain tremendous amounts of power easily lose the sense of progress and accomplishment.




May I ask what you're making this in? Also, what hardware (Xbox, PC, etc.) will it be on? I'm hoping to go into game design/coding when I'm older, so I'm always interested in what people use for different consoles.

[Tyndmyr]

May I ask what you're making this in? Also, what hardware (Xbox, PC, etc.) will it be on? I'm hoping to go into game design/coding when I'm older, so I'm always interested in what people use for different consoles.

If you want to get started on game design, grab the XNA studio from microsoft. It works on PC as well as Xbox, and some other platforms I don't care about. It's free to tinker around with on your PC, and the license to deploy code to your xbox is pretty reasonable($99 a year). Finished games can be sold via the xbox marketplace.

It's fairly awesome for making games quickly, and it's pretty well documented compared to other things I've seen. Definitely worth a look.

[The_Jackal]

For a computer RPG? I'll echo some sentiments expressed earlier and focus on having a good, detailed, vibrant story. There's been a tendency of late to make 'sandbox' style RPGs, much in the milieu of Grand Theft Auto, but I feel that this concept doesn't really work for an RPG. Really, the 'sandbox' of GTA is a mini-game where you drive really fast and try to evade the police. I don't feel that this really translates well into the RPG context.

What has never been done before, and I feel deserves examination, is a truly branching story. Some games have had alternate endings or a fairly identical set of branches based on a decision or two, but I've never seen a game where decisions you make really alter the outcome or path of the tale. That's the sandbox that RPGs really need: A sandbox of decisions and consequences, rather than a sandbox of playing tag with armed guards.

Apart from the story issues, what I like in games is arcade-style coordination challenges. Upgrading your crowbar from +1 to +2 is fun and all, but it's the act of swinging it into someone's cranium that everyone's showing up to do, so that's the part you want to focus your efforts into making challening, fun and rewarding. One of the things that made Deus-Ex so rewarding and fun is that it successfully combined the RPG elements like skill progression and interaction into the context of a more arcade-like action game. Most RPG titles don't seem to want to mess with action mechanics, leaving the complex stuff like AI behavior and hit detection to FPS titles.

[Hyfigh]

I personally enjoy the Sandbox style games. Grand Theft Auto's are a blast in my opinion. There's enough "other stuff" to do beyond play through the story to make it fun. I've always wanted to see a a game built like GTA3 but in a fantasy setting.

[LansXero]

Have you ever played Valkyrie Profile? I think the first one did things right with how they managed the stories of the secondary characters. I also happen to like the art style, but thats not important. Just keep the overall art style cohesive within itself.

Oh, and replayability or modularity for expansive content. A game that gets finished is sadenning.

[akragster]

If you want to get started on game design, grab the XNA studio from microsoft. It works on PC as well as Xbox, and some other platforms I don't care about. It's free to tinker around with on your PC, and the license to deploy code to your xbox is pretty reasonable($99 a year). Finished games can be sold via the xbox marketplace.

It's fairly awesome for making games quickly, and it's pretty well documented compared to other things I've seen. Definitely worth a look.Yeah, I know about that one. I'll get around to downloading it one of these days.

[Infernalbargain]

watch this guy: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation

Since this seems to be a small project, one thing that he harps on is games with moral "choices". Develop a good plot and allow the player to make a meaningful choice in the outcome of the game. Even if there are only a small handful of choices, it'll succeed where the Fable series has utterly failed. Sure you can go around being a complete jerk and rack up those evil points, but ultimately nothing happens because of it. If you go this route and only have a small number really count, then please don't bury them in the among 900 other choices that don't mean anything.

[ryu]

And please, just please, if you must choose between the next lower tier of graphics or basically anything else in the game getting cut side in favor of lower graphics. Do you have any idea how many people in multiple markets have stopped caring about graphics as a whole by now? It has reached a plateau where everyone tries to have the shiniest bling mapping/pixel shading/water effects when no one and I repeat NO ONE will care in a few weeks because the contest of one upping will continue. Case in point look up minecraft and how it's selling like some kind of legal crack right about now before even being done.

Make a memorable story, a new mechanic, a highly strategic but non overwhelming combat system, competent music/voice quality/music, or some real choice for your game. Graphics are at best a secondary concern at this point. For the sake of your game and the charity profiting from it don't make a shiny but shallow wow clone. There rant over.

[valadil]

I want to take part in a deep story as a protagonist instead of just a passenger. I'd like to make my own choices instead of picking them off a pre-defined list. I have no idea how you would do this and that's why I want to see it.

[Aemoh87]

This is completely correct. For one thing, large amounts of math for an action are really annoying on the tabletop, but rarely matters at all for a video game. This can change a number of things alone.

I suppose I really should ask...is this you or your teams first game? Because if so, go the simplest route at all possible, and use as much time as reasonable for bug hunting and polishing.

A finished game, no matter how small, is ALWAYS superior to that half finished mess that won't compile.

Also, have you made decisions about platform and such yet?

PC and Xbox 360 for sure. Both are extremely friendly to what we are trying to accomplish, but with that said PC is friendly to everything. This is our first game and we have lots of room for polishing. One key to remember is most bugs aren't an issue of a mistake, but a compromise made by programmers. But we are keeping this very simple under the skin, whiles making sure the skin makes up for the simplicity under the hood. By that I mean the music, art, and story will make up for a simpler combat system. By simple I mean mechanically not simple to master. Don't expect god of war, think more of a turn based rpg :)


A game to look at is Alpha Protocol, where practically every conversation changes something later.

I know the mass effect syndrome you speak off. Yes we all want a fully immersible world but there just isn't one. You cannot program a game to truely give you all the options. So we are focusing on telling the story of our characters. Similar to what final fantasy does, so it's like a movie you play. At the same time, who wants to invest 80 hours into a movie? My target time is between 10 and 25.


Funnily enough, Obsidian entertainment, and Alpha Protocol by extension, is also the perfect example of how too many grand ideas and ambition without the technical skill to match can ruin a game.

Sure, the conversations and various options in Alpha Protocol are nothing short of brilliant. I'd just like to express the thought that, sometimes, it's better to be humble about it than to aim too high and come tumbling down.

This is obviously less of a problem for independent game productions, since you won't be losing much in the way of money even if your game doesn't come out right. So go ahead and experiment, but remember the roof that is your limit unless you're willing to suffer a few bruises while breaking through said roof.

Returning to the OP, I'm liking everything you're offering at the moment. This sounds like a really interesting project.
I like my RPGs to have intense, relatable stories with worlds that are fantastic beyond what we are used to seeing. If you have to choose between small and large, I say go with small. Easier to make it interesting with less work and I find sandboxes that have been made just for you to wander around in pretty boring after the first few hours of excitement have worn down.

Present a clear, gripping story, likeable characters, interesting locations and tight gameplay that doesn't overstay its welcome and I'd be more than happy.

This is a character driven game. It follows them. Some people want to make the choices but it always left me wishing I didn't have to pick through their moral system and pre-generated ideas. Most of which do not represent what I would actually want to do.

The key here is we want you to change your opinion of the characters as they change. Really we want you to think of characteristics we think of mundane in a whole new light. We have a mother and son in the game who is very interesting in this respect. The son is by far my favorite character so far just because of how human he feels. It's almost tear jerking to watch him spiral downwards, losing himself, but so cathartic to see him avenge his losses and overcome his shortcomings. He should give you the chills if we do our job right.


If you're making an RPG, especially a fantasy one... I always like it when things are turned into minigames.

Like "Oh you're using Alchemy or Crafting? Here, play this Cooking Mama-esque game!" Or like turning a duel or first attack into that one minigame from Kirby: Nightmare in Dreamland. then the loser starts with more damage on them.

We are focusing on puzzles for our mini games. We want to bring this art back into games. But at the same time they should not break the flow the game or irritate you. We know you can google how to solve it, so it should be something you can figure out quickly with just enough challenge so you feel accomplished.


Two things I like seeing in my RPGs. The first is player choices making a difference to the direction of the story, and even to the reactions of characters in the game. Perhaps the best (simple) example I can think of is the Tactics Ogre games, where your choices change the direction the story moves in, and you can even end up on difference sides at the end due to them. The newest remake even has characters who will leave your party if you continuously take actions that offend them.

The second - not so common because it doesn't always work, but nice to see it when it will - is choosable chapters. Because video games tend to be long and you don't have the option to flip to a specific page like in a book, it's nice being able to replay through choice moments in the game without multiple save files or playing through 10+ hours of gameplay. Final Fantasy IV: The After Years did this one right: each different character has their own chapter, and you can play the final chapter (when everyone gets together) at any time you want, using the save data from previous chapters. You can even replay chapters to get more/better equipment, although you'd need to restart the final chapter to have it. The main thing I felt they dropped the ball on is that the story is still linear. It would have been so much better if you had the ability to stop the "badguys" in various chapters, and have your situation in the final chapter change as a result.


One thing that I absolutely do not like in RPGs: excessive or needless grinding, either for levels, gold, or through extended dungeons. Random battles are supposed to make it feel like there is an active world outside of towns; they aren't supposed to take up 70% of gameplay. I feel that most RPGs (especially from the PS1 era) spend far too much time wandering around fighting monsters as a way to make the world feel large. Exploration is good. Having places to go is good. Slogging through dozens of dead bodies to just do either is frustrating. This is the reason I've moved towards visual novel games rather than RPGs these days - there is just too much wasted time in your average video game RPG.

No grinding. No money either. But the world is linear. But your choices in game do effect the end results. One key thing we included is there is no point of moral choice. It comes and goes without you noticing, unlike the conversation windows in fallout and mass effect or the moral extremes of fable.

We chose linear so we could better tell our story, you lose choice but we will make it up to you in theme and story, promise.


There are so many suggestions I could give you, but I feel that it would be helping my competition. :smallfrown:

Try innovating the small things. Mini-games are a good way to go about it, but there are other ways. So many games get hailed for having innovative concepts, but the best games are the ones that use innovation to cut down on the bad/annoying parts of a game and actually make them fun.

Also, style can affect EVERYTHING. Look at Recettear or TF2. Recettear has a vibrant chibi-French style mixed with medieval-roleplay that got it a good bit of attention for a while. TF2 stepped away from gritty, realistic gameplay and made death funny/trivial. Also, try to keep your game from going too far in one direction. Games with jokes about reproductive organs every ten seconds don't appeal to a large audience, games where you get ambushed every ten seconds stop giving any sense of surprise, and games where you gain tremendous amounts of power easily lose the sense of progress and accomplishment.

May I ask what you're making this in? Also, what hardware (Xbox, PC, etc.) will it be on? I'm hoping to go into game design/coding when I'm older, so I'm always interested in what people use for different consoles.

I talked about mini games above but I understand what your talking about in the next paragraph. Your talking about mood. Ambushes are most effective if they surprise you, if they don't, well then they aren't good ambushes. We are trying to create a piece of art so this is important. The mood must reflect our theme to create a great game.

As for the technical stuff. We have looked at PC and Xbox 360 because our programmers believe they could handle producing for both and are familiar with it. I am the least technical game designer you will ever meet, and I focus on group communication. I make sure the ideas get exchanged quickly and reasonably. My writers are great but our design team needs to keep them in check with what is realistic. Our programmers and our concept artists also have the same struggles. I mediate.


For a computer RPG? I'll echo some sentiments expressed earlier and focus on having a good, detailed, vibrant story. There's been a tendency of late to make 'sandbox' style RPGs, much in the milieu of Grand Theft Auto, but I feel that this concept doesn't really work for an RPG. Really, the 'sandbox' of GTA is a mini-game where you drive really fast and try to evade the police. I don't feel that this really translates well into the RPG context.

What has never been done before, and I feel deserves examination, is a truly branching story. Some games have had alternate endings or a fairly identical set of branches based on a decision or two, but I've never seen a game where decisions you make really alter the outcome or path of the tale. That's the sandbox that RPGs really need: A sandbox of decisions and consequences, rather than a sandbox of playing tag with armed guards.

Apart from the story issues, what I like in games is arcade-style coordination challenges. Upgrading your crowbar from +1 to +2 is fun and all, but it's the act of swinging it into someone's cranium that everyone's showing up to do, so that's the part you want to focus your efforts into making challening, fun and rewarding. One of the things that made Deus-Ex so rewarding and fun is that it successfully combined the RPG elements like skill progression and interaction into the context of a more arcade-like action game. Most RPG titles don't seem to want to mess with action mechanics, leaving the complex stuff like AI behavior and hit detection to FPS titles.

I have seen suggestions of the branching story on 4 different forums now. I feel like I cannot deliver though, because I can't create a tree that covers all the options. You wind up with morality sliders and speech bubbles that only attempt to be in the ball park of what you would do. But this is usually not even close to what we would do. Also this does not even consider our motives, how come I get good alignment points when I am just doing it to be evil later one? This is just brushing the surface of how difficult this task would be.

As for Dues Ex. We avoided that bullet by going to a turn based system :) But seriously all games are a balancing act of story and mechanic. And we are leaning towards great story with simple but perfected mechanics. Also we plan on adding lots of strategy to the game to mask the simple mechanics behind it. Whooph I feel like I am doing a press release.


Have you ever played Valkyrie Profile? I think the first one did things right with how they managed the stories of the secondary characters. I also happen to like the art style, but thats not important. Just keep the overall art style cohesive within itself.

Oh, and replayability or modularity for expansive content. A game that gets finished is sadenning.

I disagree, the art style is incredibly important. So is the music and everything else that contributes to the mood. I have not played it though, but having several round characters makes a game much more interesting. As for a cohesive art style, we are going to turn that on it's head by using several different art styles (though never at the same time).


watch this guy: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation

Since this seems to be a small project, one thing that he harps on is games with moral "choices". Develop a good plot and allow the player to make a meaningful choice in the outcome of the game. Even if there are only a small handful of choices, it'll succeed where the Fable series has utterly failed. Sure you can go around being a complete jerk and rack up those evil points, but ultimately nothing happens because of it. If you go this route and only have a small number really count, then please don't bury them in the among 900 other choices that don't mean anything.

Oh no a Yahtzee clone. If you really wanna learn something watch Extra Credits on the same site :) Yahtzee is an alright critic but really you just watch him to flame games, in fact most people can't even tell what games he likes other than silent hill 2 or whatever. He is very entertaining but Extra Credits will change the way you think about games though, great featurette.


And please, just please, if you must choose between the next lower tier of graphics or basically anything else in the game getting cut side in favor of lower graphics. Do you have any idea how many people in multiple markets have stopped caring about graphics as a whole by now? It has reached a plateau where everyone tries to have the shiniest bling mapping/pixel shading/water effects when no one and I repeat NO ONE will care in a few weeks because the contest of one upping will continue. Case in point look up minecraft and how it's selling like some kind of legal crack right about now before even being done.

Make a memorable story, a new mechanic, a highly strategic but non overwhelming combat system, competent music/voice quality/music, or some real choice for your game. Graphics are at best a secondary concern at this point. For the sake of your game and the charity profiting from it don't make a shiny but shallow wow clone. There rant over.

This is not an MMO. I am making a piece of art. Not that wow isn't art, but it's not the art I want to make.

But graphics have reached a peak. Now we can go back to the times when they needed to fit a mood or theme, not just look impressive.


I want to take part in a deep story as a protagonist instead of just a passenger. I'd like to make my own choices instead of picking them off a pre-defined list. I have no idea how you would do this and that's why I want to see it.

I feel that choice in games is overrated. It is better off fluid choices about how to tackle events than as moral choices. Especially because it is easier for us to assess what our options are in a situational sense but difficult morally. With that said programmers can determine what players might do in a given situation based on what you give them, but not in a moral one.


Thanks for the suggestions keep them coming!

[valadil]

I feel that choice in games is overrated. It is better off fluid choices about how to tackle events than as moral choices. Especially because it is easier for us to assess what our options are in a situational sense but difficult morally. With that said programmers can determine what players might do in a given situation based on what you give them, but not in a moral one.


TBH, I'm kind of bored of moral choices. That seems to be what game developers like to offer when they offer non-linear games. Take the good line or the evil line. See? There's two lines so it's non-linear! Ugh.

Faction based choices are decent, especially if your alliances can be complex. I'd like to see a game where if you eliminated half of a faction, the individuals who were left would disband and join the next best thing. Maybe you could give them each a favor score for the faction they're in, but also weigh that by the faction's power. If you cut down half its NPCs, maybe their preference for another faction would send those NPCs elsewhere. If those NPCs were also involved in the game's economy or if certain levels of faction power triggered plots or events, you could have one hell of a dynamic world.

I also enjoy simplistic physical choices though. Deus Ex is my favorite single player game. It let me select a bunch of skills and then use those skills to win. A heavy weapons character played through different parts of the world than a stealthy hacker. I loved that. Investing in the strong arms mod slot let me stack crates everywhere. I bypassed entire levels and beat other levels in ways the devs never would have imagined. This is a little more simplistic than what I initially had in mind, but it's a lot more doable and would still make me happy.

[Tyndmyr]

I personally enjoy the Sandbox style games. Grand Theft Auto's are a blast in my opinion. There's enough "other stuff" to do beyond play through the story to make it fun. I've always wanted to see a a game built like GTA3 but in a fantasy setting.

Look, I love a good sandbox myself...but the big obstacle is that they require a lot of work, and a LOT of testing, since there's so many possibilities. Small teams are generally working under rather tight limitations on budget and resources. Sandbox games are great games, but they are not great first games. The same is true of MMOs. If I had a dollar for every MMO first game attempt that failed horribly...I'd have my own MMO.

Minigames are a good choice. They're generally fairly modular, and can be developed and tested mostly in isolation. Big plus.

Linear is not always bad. It's more annoying when a game pretends to give you choice, and you find out the choices don't matter. Then you feel like you've had your time wasted. Nah, if it's gonna be linear, don't bother disguising that. A game is a series of interesting choices. That choice may have absolutely nothing to do with what direction to go, or good and evil. Depends on style.

Cohesive graphics are big. I agree that technology of graphics is overrated. I've greatly enjoyed a number of games with relatively low tech graphics. This is distinct from actual bad graphics though. Bad graphics are a terrible, terrible distraction. Even bad box art can put a great many people off a game.

[Aemoh87]

Look, I love a good sandbox myself...but the big obstacle is that they require a lot of work, and a LOT of testing, since there's so many possibilities. Small teams are generally working under rather tight limitations on budget and resources. Sandbox games are great games, but they are not great first games. The same is true of MMOs. If I had a dollar for every MMO first game attempt that failed horribly...I'd have my own MMO.

Minigames are a good choice. They're generally fairly modular, and can be developed and tested mostly in isolation. Big plus.

Linear is not always bad. It's more annoying when a game pretends to give you choice, and you find out the choices don't matter. Then you feel like you've had your time wasted. Nah, if it's gonna be linear, don't bother disguising that. A game is a series of interesting choices. That choice may have absolutely nothing to do with what direction to go, or good and evil. Depends on style.

Cohesive graphics are big. I agree that technology of graphics is overrated. I've greatly enjoyed a number of games with relatively low tech graphics. This is distinct from actual bad graphics though. Bad graphics are a terrible, terrible distraction. Even bad box art can put a great many people off a game.

One important thing to not about sand box. It makes it difficult to tell a story. I have played over 60 hours of Oblivion but I do not know the story. It was lost to side quests in the sand box.

But it's important to be honest with the rules of the world. You don't need to hide your flaws, be honest about them and if you have the strengths in other areas your players may still reward you by finishing the game.

[Aemoh87]

TBH, I'm kind of bored of moral choices. That seems to be what game developers like to offer when they offer non-linear games. Take the good line or the evil line. See? There's two lines so it's non-linear! Ugh.

Faction based choices are decent, especially if your alliances can be complex. I'd like to see a game where if you eliminated half of a faction, the individuals who were left would disband and join the next best thing. Maybe you could give them each a favor score for the faction they're in, but also weigh that by the faction's power. If you cut down half its NPCs, maybe their preference for another faction would send those NPCs elsewhere. If those NPCs were also involved in the game's economy or if certain levels of faction power triggered plots or events, you could have one hell of a dynamic world.

I also enjoy simplistic physical choices though. Deus Ex is my favorite single player game. It let me select a bunch of skills and then use those skills to win. A heavy weapons character played through different parts of the world than a stealthy hacker. I loved that. Investing in the strong arms mod slot let me stack crates everywhere. I bypassed entire levels and beat other levels in ways the devs never would have imagined. This is a little more simplistic than what I initially had in mind, but it's a lot more doable and would still make me happy.

We are favoring simpler choices. The story takes part over less than 8 hours. Which is a catalyst for personal change. This also takes out all ideas of grinding and loyalty. Most of the game is focused around surviving not "adventuring".

Also Deus Ex is one of the masterpiece games. Not perfect but still fantastic.