Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1364465 Posts in 63823 Topics- by 55709 Members - Latest Member: Oliverking754321

August 18, 2019, 12:21:30 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsJobsCollaborationsOpen Project: Four Swords-like Adventure (design time)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Print
Author Topic: Open Project: Four Swords-like Adventure (design time)  (Read 36444 times)
Zest
Level 10
*****


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 30, 2009, 10:44:16 PM »




Logged
Kramlack
Guest
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2009, 11:12:41 PM »

I'd be willing to offer up some pixels if I'm given more info on this project once/if it takes off.

I'll be watching this thread, but feel free to contact me through PM if you have something in mind unsilentwill.
Logged
Terrorbuns
Level 4
****

Bluh bluh.


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: December 30, 2009, 11:39:24 PM »

Storywise, tying in to the miner robot idea, you could have 4 companies having to cooperate to obtain minerals in very hazardous mines owned by more intelligent monsters. However, the companies have told their respective miners to try to obtain more ores then the other miners (competition). Each miner has tech representing their company.

As for if you don't have all 4 players, could develop variations of the stage that doesn't require the missing character. Or have random generating dungeons/stages.

My 2 cents so far :x
Logged
Inanimate
Level 10
*****

☆HERO OF JUSTICE!☆


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 31, 2009, 12:18:06 AM »

Why don't you make it that they are all hired by ONE company, but they get 'bonuses' depending on performance? Makes a little more sense...
Logged
Kekskiller
Guest
« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2009, 12:34:08 AM »

If the game has a somehow "testable" state, I could provide freshly generated sound effects.
Logged
Poor Lazlo
Guest
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2009, 02:30:47 AM »

As previously mentioned in the Spirit Tracks thread, I would love to contribute design ideas to this.

I agree that not apeing the Legend of Zelda's traditional storyline is a good idea, but I'd still love to see little nods to it.

How about our Links are caught up in a revolution? Fighting on the side of the rising star industrial powers against the failing monarchy? This would leave plenty of scope for "Oh god who do I trust" scenarios, seeing as Capitalists and Monarchs could both just as easily be EVIL VILLAINS.

Plus, you could have the princess fighting for modernity, on your side, despite her family, and despite knowing her compatriots will probably kill her for who she is as soon as she is no longer needed.

Basically, I like stories about good people ground between the cogs of giant machines.  Smiley
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 02:37:22 AM by Poor Lazlo » Logged
Renton
Guest
« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2009, 04:09:22 AM »

There is a Projects forum. When this comes out of the "conceptualization" phase you should talk to Melly or Guert and get this thread moved there.
Logged
easynam
Level 5
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 31, 2009, 05:41:56 AM »

You could have imps working for an overlord to do stuff for him. You have to work together as you go through the caves of certian doom etc that he sends you through but you also have to have the best performance if you want a promotion (well, get the best score).

I'd rather not have differences between what each player can do. All imps are made equally inferior Durr...?
Logged

MartyMan
Level 0
***



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: December 31, 2009, 06:26:54 AM »

Here, I'll throw in my two cents.


Logged
unsilentwill
Level 9
****


O, the things left unsaid!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 31, 2009, 08:34:23 AM »

Hahaha, oh man. I don't really want this game to be about miners guys. Sounds like that would be a cool little arcade style game though.

Thanks to everyone offering up ideas and art, and so many of you are so talented--its exciting.

Also, easyname why do you think it'd be better to keep the characters the same? That's kind of a fundamental design idea, so I'd love to here all arguments on it before we keep going.

I had a bunch of ideas last night that sort of kept me up last night. As  always, these are debatable and I want your additional ideas/improvements.

-First I think we need to decide on the map/environment rather than story, as I realized the story and characters will come out of the nature of the lands and how they are used/interact. My idea at the moment is one large land mass with a large wall splitting it east to west, a larger island, and a naturally isolated chain of islands, with a character from each region.

-Four Swords kind of stripped away the town element from Zelda to emphasize the chaotic fun, but I think both can be had. Perhaps 2-3 towns per region, though that may be to many. But to make the towns believable I really don't want any "signpost" NPCs, rather at least slightly interesting characters, with the kind of wit and strangeness that's common to Zelda.

-Also in the towns, how difficult would it be for the NPCs to recognize the specific character that's talking to them? Maybe not each one, but to have different dialog to the "outsider" in the nation perhaps.

-Also to Poor Lazlo, I think a lot of the plot could be from each character's allegiance/grudges with their home nation, and the strange forces in each nation. Revolutions and political intrigue and betrayal ahoy.

-And now for some gameplay mechanics. Four Swords did a pretty good job with multiplayer interaction, but the more I looked into it the more I saw a lot of of "now this enemy has four weak points instead of one", and I'd like to be a bit more innovative than that. For example, two players must hold the walls that are closing in while the other two work quickly on a puzzle back and forth. A bit more self sacrifice than everyone having the same role.

-I thought perhaps that if one character dies, another must pick him up and carry him to some ritual area (there may be some within dungeons) as a literal burden. The body can be thrown, but if it is attacked to much or falls in a pit, the player who abandoned the body has to pay out of pocket back in town, kind of like Karma and Left 4 Dead safehouses. What do you think about that?

-Lastly, as for an opening scene (since I hate tutorials, especially in Zelda, with a passion) each character is shipwrecked in a story on a island, each out for different reasons, and to get used to working together and the controls, they pick parts from each ships, roll or carry them together, and then each player takes a role (crewman, rowers, captain) as they try to return to shore.

That is so much, and I still have a lot of ideas. I hope you guys do too. Feel free to post any concept are right now. I changed the title, since at a certain point I'd like to get those interested into some Devlog or even a Google Wave (I still have some invites) so that we can work quickly and avoid outside spoilers. However, any input from the rest of the community is always welcome. For example, I think it would be great if four writers wrote the sort of backstories to each nation, and then the stylistic differences could come from how each one interacts and treats its people.

Final note: This is not actually how game design should be in my opinion, with each element sort of tacked on with other people's ideas. BUT I think we can do something amazing by showing how these different styles, people, and nations are affected by the same "big bad evil". I may do some editing along the way to keep the overall story in one piece, but keep me in line if I step on anyone's ideas.
Logged

Poor Lazlo
Guest
« Reply #30 on: December 31, 2009, 08:55:48 AM »

I certainly feel there shouldn't be an explicit tutorial. The people who will play this aren't idiots and in any case, it's a multiplayer game. They'll work it out. Just dumping the players into a mildly challenging puzzle which showcases the major mechanics is probably the best way to go.

One thing. Are we going to make four players mandatory? I think Four Swords allowed 1, 2 and 3 player games, with players controlling multiple Links. This was kind of cumbersome if I remember correctly, I feel it would be better to let players cycle through characters rather than control multiple characters at a time.

Oh, also, would it be better to give characters different abilities, or to allow players to only carry one or two weapons/items, so players are forced to take different roles depending on what they are carrying? The latter would allow players to swap roles fairly easily, whereas the former keeps you stuck in the same role for an entire session.
Logged
battlerager
Level 10
*****


I resent that statement.


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: December 31, 2009, 09:18:53 AM »

Im not part of this, but my 2 cents about both those issues:

If you allow each player to use, say, 1 item at a time, and you would make puzzles that require the use of 4 certain items you could make it so that if there's less players, the remaining get more "item slots", so it balances out.

Not sure if that could be too limiting for certain puzzles. It would probably not work out entirely, since the more interesting puzzles would require timing and placement anyway which isnt fixed by giving 2 players 2 item slots. They can still only be in 2 places at any moment, not 4.
Logged
Ashkin
Guest
« Reply #32 on: December 31, 2009, 12:39:25 PM »

I think the whole world, as well as many of the items, should revolve around steam.
Here is an excerpt from the idea book I'm writing:

 -==========-
<=ITEM IDEAS=>
 -==========-

<Mirror Cape- Can reflect energy-based attacks if timed right. Also useful in solving puzzles involving light.

<Steam Puffer- Blows out puffs of steam that can melt ice-based things and power some steam machines.

<Magi-Goggles- Allows you to see invisible objects.

<Steam Pistol- A simple firearm powered by steam. It fires small pellets that can trigger far-away switches and hurt enemies. This could be a substitute to a bow and arrow.

<Bomb- An explosive that will detonate after a certain amount of time. Dangerous if held too long.

All steam-based weapons would have limited ammo (steam).

There would also be a "Steam Fountain", which is a volcanic opening in the earth that serves as an infinite reservoir that blows out steam which you can refill weapons from, and "Steam Bubbles", which are released by enemies when they die, which offer a small amount of steam.

You could also trade and steal steam off your partners, which is stored in a large mechanical pack that you carry. This would add a new layer of strategy and chaos, as you steal steam while saving your own.
Logged
TheDustin
Guest
« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2009, 01:03:04 PM »

Quote
-I thought perhaps that if one character dies, another must pick him up and carry him to some ritual area (there may be some within dungeons) as a literal burden. The body can be thrown, but if it is attacked to much or falls in a pit, the player who abandoned the body has to pay out of pocket back in town, kind of like Karma and Left 4 Dead safehouses. What do you think about that?

Perfect, another gameplay mechanic which focuses on cooperation.

Quote
If you allow each player to use, say, 1 item at a time, and you would make puzzles that require the use of 4 certain items you could make it so that if there's less players, the remaining get more "item slots", so it balances out.

Not sure if that could be too limiting for certain puzzles. It would probably not work out entirely, since the more interesting puzzles would require timing and placement anyway which isnt fixed by giving 2 players 2 item slots. They can still only be in 2 places at any moment, not 4.

I was thinking along the same lines for the item slots. Have the number of item slots scale with the number of players.

I think the puzzles should be designed with two people in mind, and when you have additional team members there will be another task any player could do (standing on a switch, pushing a block into a slot, etc). Either that or have a substantial increase of enemies, so that the two people doing the puzzle need the other players to watch their backs.

Quote
I'd rather not have differences between what each player can do. All imps are made equally inferior


If we do that, though, it would simply be another Gauntlet clone. Having these seperate items makes the players depend on each other, which is perfect for a co-op game.
Logged
Adam F.
Level 1
*


hold your head up high


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2009, 02:18:16 PM »

I'd be up for helping out with the pixel art and anything else art related, man
Logged

Danrul
Level 4
****


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2009, 02:28:16 PM »

Here's the thing guys.  Heres what I reckon we need, which is relevent because well, its what this whole brainstorming thing is about.

Items need to be able to be applied in inventive ways.  One beef I have with Zelda is that items are rarely multipurposed or needed outside of whatever dungeon.  Simple as, gotta have many purposes and have it actually change the way you approach things, rather than the tokenistic 'I have the Plasma gun now I can melt all the metal thats obstructing the doorway.

Also, one of my favourite games of all time is Terranigma.  This is relevant because quite simply, its the most fun ever.  Its Zelda-esque within the sense that the battle is done in REAL TIME, but it also ramps it up a bit because of the variety of moves you have.

The other reason I think it ramps thing up a bit over Zelda is that platforming, well, exists.  You can Jump, sprint, and theres different levels to fight on and such.  It feels thoroughly smoother and a lot more like an overhead platformer.  May or may not be what you want, but I thought its worth bringing up.

Also, I like the idea of the 4 (OR MORE!) players having different abilities.  I think it'd make people pick a favourite, develop their skill set, and also have that competition as new strategies evolve.

I have more points, but methinks my incoherent babble is irrelevant here.

On another note, I'd help out with graphical stuff.  Or writing, or something.  Wherever you need me.  And Design, whatever.  I want In.

EDIT:  I like the idea of having it not only be the team of 4 playing together, but that team of 4 against the other team of 4!  Rather than direct competition, it could be done as a sort of race, where they have to work their way through the challenges against the other team.  No interaction, but maybe an alert when Team A completes the first puzzle, so Team B feels more pressure to put the hammer down.

I'll come back again when I've written out my larger scope of ideas.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 02:34:06 PM by Cosmic Fool » Logged
Zest
Level 10
*****


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 31, 2009, 03:08:14 PM »

We could have a competitive metagame, a la Noby Noby Boy- If we stuck with the four corporations/nations shtick, we could have ranking for the four groups, which could lead to special unlockables.
Logged
Inanimate
Level 10
*****

☆HERO OF JUSTICE!☆


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2009, 03:17:35 PM »

I think there should be four 'models' of robot that you can choose from, but you can have multiples on the same team; if you don't some people might get stuck with one they suck with, or something. And you can always do it with the classic classes; Offense Defense Speedy Support.
Logged
unsilentwill
Level 9
****


O, the things left unsaid!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2010, 10:38:36 PM »

Yeah, this thread doesn't belong here.

I think it makes a lot of sense to have maybe one nation steampunkish, rather than the whole thing. I mean, all may have some elements of industry depending on the backstory. I like the idea of, kind of reversing the mechanical Gorons of Twilight Princess and making all of the technology compact, interesting, and ornate rather than ridiculous and rusty like it always is.

As for gameplay, I think the Link's awakening style two items, one offense and one defense (though the shield may have a spike, the sword may be broad) that are unique to the character's race. One item will be won per dungeon that will be held by one player, but it may be able to be used/combo-ed by other players. The one who takes it makes a choice to sacrifice either a defense or offense item willingly, allowing them to decide how they want their character to be.

Do you think it's unreasonable to think four players should be mandatory? I guess that depends on length. I guess maybe it could be done with 2, but it would much harder or something. Thoughts?

I'm going to wait a bit for some concept and feedback, but probably tomorrow I'm going start throwing out my own ideas for art.
Logged

Ashkin
Guest
« Reply #39 on: January 01, 2010, 11:06:15 PM »

The culture of the world should still be primitive, not in the machinery, but in thinking that, for example, the sun orbits the earth, the universe was created by a greater being, and the spirit of nature allows everything to live.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic