@Miroslav:
It not just has been done before, it has been explored thouroughly - though, certainly its not the norm. King of the Dragon Pass (again) did that for examples, except here the "lots of voices and ideas in my head"-aspect was symbolised by advisers. The player would lead a clan and have various advisers - when an event happened, he would get a description of the situation, and a multiple-choice menu how to respond - he could hover over the adviser-portraits which would each give their own thoughts about the situation.

So, the even though it may not be popular, the metadata approach has been done already. This however doesn't bother me personally. I dont do stuff different for the sake of doing stuff different. I am mainly interested in how to implement something as efficient as possible. New approaches are interesting to me if they bring a new tool to the pool, so that some things can be done better than before. But if that "new approach" just is "new" and offers little benefits, then i'd rather pass, than doing it for the sake of doing it.

Personally, i think that it is simply unnecessary to "simulate" the process of decisionmaking in usual games, because the player can do that much better (hopefully) himself IF he has the relevant information for making decisions. That information aspect is why i consider the metadata approach interesting: it addresses the information-exchange between player and character - a communication channel which typically is assumed unnecessary, since the player and character are expected to automagically have access to the same information - but thats not always the case, ESPECIALLY if roleplaying-aspects are involved.

P.S.: Really, anyone who is interested in modern freeform dynamic stories in games should have played King of the Dragon Pass, if only for research purposes. This game got all this stuff right, and it also got other stuff right (i.e., having visual and aural representations which AMPLIFIES imagination and immersion, rather than replace it). And it achieved all that without any fancy technology (technically, its like 1986, just hi-res).

I suspect there is a middleway which avoids the issues mentioned by kinnas: Do not seperate thinking from doing/saying - instead, do both simultaneusly. Have the various options available as usual, but below the options have an infobox which gives further details about those choices as you hover over them.

As a bonus, this also solves the problem of how to communicate background info about a choice, which player may not be aware of, yet the character is aware of. You can even "abuse" it for giving subtle hints to the player. In short, what you really introduce that way, is communication between the player and the character, while making a decision. The "thinking" part in this case is not a seperate choice tree, but instead built right into the multiple-choice GUI as metadata.

I read the first 4 pages and the last, so i'm sorry if this has been mentioned already.

As far as i know, no "game" went all the way to NOT being a space "game", but instead about giving the impression of being in a living universe, traveling through space, and your actions not being about "winning" something or pursueing some kind of "goal", but rather just doing "boring" everyday stuff and exploring the environment. So, a bit like a mix of: Space sandbox-game, life-sim, exploration-game.

There are a handful of games which approached that direction a bit, but AFAIK not a single one went all to making it the core of the game, instead of it being a halfhearted "additional feature". Elite2/3 had the "living universe" aspect, but the game was still mostly focussed on combat and "leveling up". Noctis had the pure focus on exploration, but the gameworld was lifeless and there was no such thing as life-sim aspects. Stranded II significantly has the life-sim aspect (though, imo its too much biased towards construction and there is almost no interaction which doesn't serve building, killing and eating), but well 'um - its not a space game

To qualify for being such a game, it to me wouldn't even need to have a "large" gameworld, as long as it feels alive and the player not being at its center, and has the life-sim and exploration aspect. Heck, the player wouldn't even need to leave his spaceship - it could describe just the journey of the player in a spaceship from one planet to another - then the game consisting of what the player does in the spaceship and about background information regarding the world in which the game plays (that would give it the "living universe" feel, without the player directly interacting with that universe, except of the stuff in his ship).

So, what i mean for example is something like this: Player is on some kind of space taxi, flying a passenger from one starsystem to another. Onboard is the crew consisting of the player and two other persons, the passenger and some strange alien-pet. The game then just tells the (dynamic!!!) story of what the player does during that single travel. The everyday stuff he does, interaction with the two other crew-members, the passenenger, the strange pet, etc. While doing all that, the player also learns about the world in which the game plays. This could be further amplified by a single meetup with another ship and some communication happening, plus some communication with far away places via some kind of space-email

A few weeks back when SYNSO2 was announced, i not just commented on the frontpage how much i like that game, but also raised two points of criticism. One of them was about the controls and it was clearly marked by me as a matter of taste. In short, i disliked that firing-axes and movement-axes are identical - i prefer being able to adjust both individually. Oddbob replied by explaining not just that the game was designed around both not being independent, but that it also was a deliberate choice to amplify an aggressive and "primitive" feel to the game. In short, the game is supposed to be focussed more towards mindless aggression, rather than tactical thought.

That made perfect sense to me, and i agreed that what i would have liked in the game, wouldn't fit into what it currently is. Still, whenever i fired up the game for a quick blast, it was an irritating mix of fascination mixed with a bit of frustration for me. I didn't gave that much further thought for a while. Then a few hours ago i began to think again about it, because i just can't stand conflicts in me head which go like "i know its right, and yet i dont like it".

It would seem that behind game controls is actually much more, than just an interface to the game. Different controls can significantly change what a game has to offer to the player. This became apparent to me, when i thought more about what it is that i prefer about dual controls, and why i like it in general.

In the case of shooters, it for me is a mix of the controls being "efficient" and providng a "tactically interesting" gameplay. The efficiency aspect is quite easily explained: In a shooter, you make various maneuvres. The point is: Which action currently would make sense regarding movement, and which action currently would make sense regarding attacking, often isn't identical. So, if movement and firing direction is tied together, then i am faced with situations in which optimally i would need to do two things simultaneusly, and yet i need to decide between both, or shizophrenetically switch back and forth between them - either way, the result is "compensation": My interface is handicapped regarding the game situation, and i need to someway compensate that deficit. I know that quite a few people find that interesting - heck, entire games were designed around that (*cough* DUO). I however don't enjoy that at all.

And with this, we get to the other aspect: "providing a tactically interesting gameplay". I guess i can such a preference call a "desire for an intelligent challenge". It works like this: If movement and firing is tied, then in a shooter all the other gameworld entities (i.e. enemies) are designed around that player limitation. This, to put it bluntly, means that they need to be forgiving regarding that player weakness. If the player can only do A in a game, then the game must be winnable by only doing A - see, its simple. However, if the player can do A and B (move and fire independently simultaneusly), then the enemies difficulty can be bumped up futher, thus resulting in a more intense and tactically challenging gameplay. If the player can do more things, then the game can also require more of the player while remaining "winnable".

Now, all 3 previously mentioned aspects are a matter of player and developer preference. Different people may like different feel (or feels) to a game. Some may prefer a mentally more relaxing gameplay, while others may prefer something mentally challenging. Some may prefer faster required reflexes, others want stuff more easy-going. The list goes on. The funny thing which to me happened in the case of SYNSO2, was that the design-aspects of the game were a mixed bag regarding my preferences. I liked a lot of things about it, and yet there were some which made me feel handicapped.

Even more funny is that in the case of Iji, i found me at exactly the opposite end of the fence: Many players complained that the controls felt restrictive and handicapped. And yet, i partially liked the game BECAUSE of that, since - contrary to SYNSO2 - the limited controls resulted in a tactically more interesting game (felt more like fire-cover-fire play, rather than quake : ).

Okay, so at this point, i've contradicated myself with what i said in quite a few ways. Discussion opened

I prefer adjectives IF they easy to understand and give a finegrained-enough value. What is "enough" depends on the circumstances and the game.... if i can without significant issues play the game and be successful in it, then sure, why not?

By the way - another alternative is to have unlabeled bars instead of numbers. That way, you still get a quite finegrained value, but without the "abstract" feel to it. Or you could also use symbols/icons to represent an attribute, if screenspace is expensive.

Well, i've never been a good "diplomat" - though, thats by choice

I understand that many things which would make sense simply cannot be directly done in this culture - not just because they're too far away from it, but more importantly, because most people seem to want what is currently the case. However, designing for the current culture to me feels like moving through a swamp, and i cannot help but feel dirty for doing things which i know are false and untrue for the sake of "compromise". But i'm getting way off the thread here.

Anyways, as i see it, there is no way to implement a "correct" solution in this culture in the short term. All you can do is to compensate, design workarounds so that you arrive at some kind of "least evil".

One compromise would be to have more than one rating. One could have multiple stickers, like a moral sticker, a sticker purely rating potential harm, and a quick list of requirements to the player (i.e. This game requires: reflexes and knowledge of ecology and adult relationships.) The problem which i see here however is that box-space may be too limited for that.

The following wont be based on morals, conventions, idealogies, and so on, but instead only on "boring" logics, efficiency, honesty.

Why would there be a need to decide, if something "is for kids" (example)? As long as there is no damage, there is no need to make a decision for them - especially because this topic is way more complex than a one-dimensional rating, partially also because not all kids are alike.

IMO, really only two criteria matter in this case:

1. Can the player process the information without significant mental harm? (Nonunderstanding is no issue here! So, if a 6 year old cannot play a banking simulation... bummer, but no harm).

2. Is the player able to play the game? Yup, thats a very generic question, because it is meant generic. What skills are required? What background-knowledge is required? Notice that this applies to "adults" as well - so, it isn't even only age-specific.

IMO, number one is where rating-stamps make sense. Number two is the job of product descriptions and reviews, because its too multidimensional to fit into a single rating.

Completely missing in my above proposal, is of course stuff like morals and so on - because you know what? Thats totally random anyway. Moral values - since they typically have no logically sound reasoning - are purely arbitrary inventions (in laymans terms: "they are just a matter of taste."), and therefore cannot be consistently rated between varying mindsets.

Another idea: One could add stealth-aspects to the gameplay. Certain creatures could react only to light, so that one could avoid problems with the creature by disabling the sub's lights, or turning the flashlight off while outside the sub. However, if something like that goes in, then i think that it should not be common - else it may become really annoying and modify the overall gameplay too much. So, if you like the idea, then i'd propose to limit it to certain special creatures instead of making it the norm. This kind of gameplay mechanic to me seems ideal for certain very dangerous creatures which the player WANTS to avoid.

One possibility regarding upgrades would be, to not have upgrades, but instead "different-grades" What i mean with this is: The overall "power" of the player stays about linear, but he may find new ways to trade a disadvantage in one area for an advantage in another area. Of course, for this to still be desirable, there would need to be a use for "different tactics" - so, areas in which some abilities are less important and other abilities more important.

Another possibility to avoid "power inflation" would be to have upgrades, but the player can only select a fixed amount of them when going on a mission (or have him only be able to change the setup at certain places).

Of course, both approaches could also be combined (i.e., having a few different subs and suits with individual advantages and disadvantages - and then additional "tools" from which the player can have lets say 3 with him at a given time).

And to add another third approach to keep power-inflation in check: The "upgrades" could require additional energy to be used, with the available energy remaining constant throughout the game.

Idea: Make some sea creatures someway useful. Example - some fishes may have a movement pattern like this:

1. Adjust direction while moving slowly.
2. Accelerate quickly into the choosen direction on a straight path, until slowing down again.

Now, if the player could "hang" to one of those creatures, he could quickly cover large distances, if the timing and situation is right.

Just one of many possibilities. Another one would be that some creatures are dangerous, but other creatures can provide protection to the player (i.e. hiding under a shell, or the hostile creature being affraid of the protecting creature).

Correction: I just replayed TS and noticed that in it, one can NOT leave the sub. Instead, there was a mother-ship from which you could detach the sub. I guesss i misremembered this semantic similarity as leaving the sub.

To me, this so far sounds like an expanded version of "Treasure Seas" (http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Treasure-Seas-Inc.html)

I really liked that game, and i am interested in an expanded version. The problem is: I dont really thing that for an "expansion" "adding more of the same" is enough. Treasure seas was interesting, because the amount of content and gameplay variety did fit the medium-sized gameworld. But i dont think that the content of treasure seas is enough for a larger gameworld. Like it or not: If you want to go bigger, you'll need to come up with fundamentally new interesting things to do.

Also: PLEASE dont add shooter-style aspects

P.S.: One path for adding new things may come from what you can do when you leave the sub in a swimsuit. In TS, all you could do was move and collect treasures. If the gameworld allows more varied interaction, then here may be a starting point for doing way more interesting things. Heck, you could turn the "outside of the sub"-part into a complete sub-game (no pun intended .

*bangs head on keyboard*

Until i saw this thread, i thought that all regulars on the boards at least have SOME degree of intelligence.

Seriously, for someone who likes indiegames, you have a serious "follow the majority"-issue, Paul. And i do not just mean this regarding this thread - your "ideology" is a constant theme in your posts. "Empiricism over analytics", "Dont innovate, repeat what has been done before", "Everything is subjective", "Gender-roles are based on biological 'instincts', and santa actually exists"... why with such a mentality, you are an indiegamer, is something i really dont get at all.

Starting out small may - as the OP mentioned - however feel not very motivating, because remaking tetris for the one billionth time is meh.

My proposal is: Make it your goal to come up with something creative and new, without it requiring much. Look at for example all the art-games - many of them programming and designwise dont contain "much". So one solution could be: Dont copy something else as a "tutorial". Just come up with a simple interesting game idea.

DF isn't a game - its a matrix :-P

What i'm trying to say is: Even though DF is low-tech on the visual end, it does all kinds of calculations in the background. When you move in an area, the entire rest of the world as well "moves". This usually isn't the case in typical games: only the area in which you are currently "is running" - the rest of the world at best only changes on the macroscopic scale, not on the microscopic level. Phrased differently: In other games than DF, then only the beings in your location act - the rest of the world is basically frozen. Thats much easier on the resources

DF may run a bit faster if you play in a smaller world, not sure.

It would seem that Elona ( http://homepage3.nifty.com/rfish/index_e.html ) hasn't been covered at all, neither on the frontpage nor in the database.

What is it? Well, on first sight, it just seems like another graphical roguelikes with anime-style graphics. It is however in many ways a very unique game:

- large overland world and multiple cities and dungeons
- mix of fantasy and scifi content
- has a lot of content which you would usually expect from a MMORPG: You can own your own house, shops, museums, castle and more - and you can outfit and design them down to every minor details. There is crafting, guilds, arenas, and more - just to remind you in case you forgot it by now: this is a singleplayer roguelike!
- ability to get additional companions - either by making friends, by hiring them, or by forcing them via magic.
- there are many other heroes like you in the gameworld, and you can interact with them.
- ah yes, there's also trading
- and more varied random quests than is usual in a roguelike
- also includes postapocalyptic-style game elements. Just interprete the "etherwind disease" as "radioactive radiation" which causes mutation, and there you go.

So, its more like a mix of elite sandbox gameplay + life-sim + rpg + roguelike, instead of "just" a roguelike.

Where's the catch?

Well, the catch would be that even though there isn't really anything important missing in the game, and no frequent bugs, it shows that its still in heavy development, and that its done by a one-man-army.... there are difficulty and balance issues all across the board, and the companion AI really is stupid and has some defects (though, that supposedly is gonna change in the next versions). Also, learning and using magic really is a pain right now, so if you try the game, then better dont start a caster. Still, if you sadly miss a well worked out "adventurer mode" in DF, then you will get something similiar to that much earlier in Elona, than it will appear in DF.

Well, this may be a matter of taste, but to me 4axes (2 for movement, 2 for aiming) really need two input devices (i.e. mouse and keyboard) to work well (as in: without introducing all kinds of key-combos). Sometimes, this CAN work well - a wonderful example would be the crusader series (though, thats not really a platformer example). But often enough, it just complicates stuff unnecessarily.

It may also be worth to take into account, that "feeling unflexible and 'stiff'" and "restricting abilities" does not necessarily need to happen together. To get back to the iji example: I bet if iji had two additional movements - a roll in midair ala impossible mission, and a roll on the ground - then it wouldn't have felt so "unflexible". And those two movements wouldn't have changed the overall combat style. All they would have added is two more tactical maneuvres, and a more flexible "feel" to the controls. So, if iji had a control-problem, then i think that problem wasn't that certain design decisions were made, it was that there simply was only a low amount of ways how iji could move - and that ended more feeling like controling a robot, than may have been good for it.

Then again, wasn't this the authors first publically shown game, and done in game maker? (not sure if i remeber correctly here) Even though there are certainly things in which iji could have been improved, it is still incredible for a single newcomer-author.

Okay, i someway have a feeling that this will be a "first impression", and that i will write a more well thought out post at a later time.

The functional blind spot topic immediatelly seems to me as "non-onesided". That is, neither are functional blind spots generally good, nor are they generally bad.

That they are not generally bad becomes obvious, when you consider that any game situation, which requires tactical thinking to be solved - so, something which cannot be "directly" dealt with, is basically a functional blind spot. Abandonning functional blind spots alltogether, would - if consequently done - mean to abandon any tactical qualities which a game can offer.

That they are not generally good becomes obvious, when you consider how annoying a game would be, if it would overuse them, so that you feel totally and artifically handicapped and have to come up with all kinds of ridiculous solutions to circumvent all the artificial handicaps.

Okay, so that makes it clear that functional blindspots can enhance the game as well as worsen it. But what does that depend on? Surely, it also depends on what kind of game we're looking at. But i suspect that there are also a few general guidelines.

(Sidenote: As for Iji - i enjoyed the playstyle of the game a damn lot, BECAUSE of the lack of midair movements and similiar things. And that is because via those limitations, a combat-style was created which is more similiar to tactical games. There was constant use of ducking, using cover, etc. Of course, it MAY be, that iji also could have created that gameplay without those restrictions some way. Still, that doesnt change that it did what it was designed for - to encourage a certain combat style. It worked. That many players complained about it, doesn't really matter much to me. Lots of people say lots of crap all the time. The amount of people saying something doesn't bother me - what bothers me, is WHAT they say. I haven't seen any of those iji complaints yet, which came up with a better solution to achieve that specific combat style without said limitations)

I think there are at least two sub-questions here:

- Do you want to handle situations when the player approaches areas, where your "design" ends

- Do you want to set limits? if yes, how?

Those two questions aren't necessarily answered the same way. For example, even if you find a way for your content to not "end".... does that automatically mean, that you really want the player to go whereever he wants? Is it even sure that the player wants that? Glaiel gave a good example for the issues which may arise then: In that racing game, the player needed a compass just to find his way back into the "game" at all. "Getting lost" is a real issue here (unless of course, getting lost is the point of the game (exploration)). So, i think before one asks onesself HOW to set limits, i think one should ask oneself if in an optimal case one would want to set limits, and which ones.

Not knowing about "how things are usually communicated in your game", i'd do it dead simple:

Problem: Player cannot see how deep the hole goes and therefore cannot estimate the danger. Player character however can look down into the hole.

Solution: Whem the player approaches the borders of the hole, make the character look down, and let it say that it looks deep and scary... perhaps even ad some side remark like "i think i can also see some blood halfway down" to make it totally obvious.