next »

[Graham-]

I'd recommend building a single solid feature set, then tweaking them for each world.

This variant looking good. Not all features are easily possible to tweak, but I think, this is optimal variant.

And yes, some of players still may say on this: each world is similar to previous. But this problem is simply in the number of gameplay features, I think.

Similarity between worlds is dependent on the number of features, but also the pacing between them. If on a hot day you give me a glass of ice water, I'll be very grateful. The second one I'll appreciate less. If on a cold day you offer me the same thing, I may reject it.

Even with a limited number of features, if the experience each world provides contrasts well with the others, and the player is shifted between worlds - maybe back-and-forth, back-and-forth - you can get a lot more mileage than you would've if you didn't think about pacing.

It's like if you have peanut butter, jam is excellent. If you have milk, cookies are excellent. If you've just eaten 3 servings of milk and cookies, maybe you don't want to eat anything more. When you do, you may want a proper meal.

Minecraft sort of had these natural transitions between areas. There was the night-time, the daytime, the mining, and the building/crafting. Each felt a little different, and they contrasted well with each other. Particularly, the danger and uncertainty of the night balanced the safety and freedom of the day, and the searching and acquiring of the mining balanced the imagining and execution of the building and crafting.

The player had some control over when they switched from one activity to the next, largely following their intuition. But there were also natural limitations in the world. If you ran out of resources you had to mine. If you ran out of mining resources or filled up on gear you had to return home. If you had a surplus of things you were compelled to build.

At the beginning of the game these barriers were popping up all over the place. How long I mined and where I mined shifted around a lot as I gained familiarity with the game and acquired things. I'd say about 10 hours in, that started to slow down considerably. There were often best decisions about what to do next and everything became very routine.

For the first 10 hours the game re-used its environments to create a cycle of mutating experiences. My gear/base/experience dictated the meaning of each gameplay type, and controlled how I alternated between them. The game become routine not because it ran out of features, but because it stopped delivering those features to me in an interesting way. It could gone a lot further with the content it already had if it continued to guide how I had to interact with it.

Any feature can be tweaked by controlling when it can be used and how much it can be used relative to everything else that is going on. If you think about the player's experience as a series of transitions between contexts - i.e. moments in time when he/she is in a particular place and has a particular set of options available - then create rules that control what features are active, and in which way they are active, based on those contexts, then you've effectively "tweaked" those features. Then the problem just becomes a giant balancing one. But at least that has a solution. You just have to work your way over to it.

I'm so hungry for a better Minecraft. It's really a whole new genre.

[sb3dgraph]

toast_trip, interesting thoughts. What can I say, I think about it. Perhaps this will influence the further development of the game.

Thanks!

I'm so hungry for a better Minecraft. It's really a whole new genre.

Each person has only their own, individual "better Minecraft". But I'am not sure, that my is the same, as yours.

And yes, just in case, it is not my goal to surpass Minecraft. I just create a game. 

[Graham-]

Thinking is all we have.

We all have our own Uncharteds and Marios too.

I don't think my Minecraft would be like anybody's.

---

Yeah, surpassing Minecraft is a whole other thing. I just want to see others run around with the concept.

[sb3dgraph]

-------------

Today added a walking trees creatures. They could be better, but how it happened, it happened.



-------------

[sublinimal]

I'm keeping an eye on this. You've got some interesting ideas (particularly "search and survival") coupled with great visuals.

[Graham-]

Cool. What are the interactions with the tree? Or is aesthetic only?

The walking tree is the tree with the white box over it correct?

[sb3dgraph]

sublinimal, yes, exactly "search and survive". Not "craft", and not "build". Though craft and blocks set are present in the game.


toast_trip, yes, this "walking tree" is just living world part. It has no gameplay functionality. Walking tree - the whole structure is in the screenshot. There's even seen the tree face.

[Graham-]

I like how it stands out without standing out.

I'm reminded of some fantasy stories. I think Lord of the Rings is an example. The "living" trees in these stories would blend into their environment, so that other characters often were unaware of their presence until they were made known. Sometimes the trees were in motion, sometimes they weren't. Not knowing if there were any living trees, and not knowing which were which, was very nerve intensifying, for the characters and the reader. This fact had two cool consequences: that the world was a thing that you didn't understand, and that the world had a life of its own that didn't revolve around you. The idea that there is more to the world than meets the eye, in a very real and relatable way, is awesome, and well represented by living trees.

Your screenshot reminded me of that idea. Very cool.

[JobLeonard]

toast_trip, yes, this "walking tree" is just living world part. It has no gameplay functionality. Walking tree - the whole structure is in the screenshot. There's even seen the tree face.

What about seeding new trees? A "gardener of forests" kind of role?

[sb3dgraph]

JobLeonard, but the trees are already so many. And they already give rise to seed and die of old age. But basically, I think, thanks.

toast_trip, you captured the very essence of this project. A large and mysterious world that lives not around the main character, but by itself. And the hero must investigate, explore the world, to understand his life and to survive in it.

Each game step calculated entire whole world map, not just an area around the hero.

The whole world lives regardless of the protagonist. Trees grow, floods, breeding and dying animals, in the depths of the earth erupt volcanoes, earthquakes shifting layers of earth, pressure and temperature are produced minerals, underground creatures built the treasury, and mined ore.

All of this is already in the game, but should be even greater.

I think, I put this text to start post. Why did not I done this before?

[Graham-]

. Well, your vision shows. What can I say?

I've been working on my game for 3 years nearly now. Most of the time has been spent doing the necessary research, so it's not something to share yet. But I can tell you that the idea of nature, man's role within nature, and the persistence of interdependent systems (i.e. ecosystems) interests me. Maybe that's why I noticed the similarities in what you have. Some of my inspiration is very similar, but my execution will be wildly different.

One idea I've put a lot of hours into is how a person might interact with animals, say regular animals, or animals that are much more sophisticated than traditional animals. Pokemon for adults instead of children, would be a good analogy maybe.

Anyway. We know our games, but we don't know them. Sometimes you need to step away and return to know what you have. That's why you didn't make the post.

[PsySal]

Just saw this over on screenshot saturday. Really beautiful use of colors, I haven't read all the posts with respect to the premise of this game but it sounds fabulous. Following eagerly!

[obsidian_golem]

JobLeonard, but the trees are already so many. And they already give rise to seed and die of old age. But basically, I think, thanks.

toast_trip, you captured the very essence of this project. A large and mysterious world that lives not around the main character, but by itself. And the hero must investigate, explore the world, to understand his life and to survive in it.

Each game step calculated entire whole world map, not just an area around the hero.

The whole world lives regardless of the protagonist. Trees grow, floods, breeding and dying animals, in the depths of the earth erupt volcanoes, earthquakes shifting layers of earth, pressure and temperature are produced minerals, underground creatures built the treasury, and mined ore.

All of this is already in the game, but should be even greater.

I think, I put this text to start post. Why did not I done this before?

I just thought of something interesting. What if, during each step, you generated a seed for that step. Later you could give someone else the world seed and the step seed perhaps encoded together and the player could see your world exactly as it was to you.

[BomberTREE]

Beautiful art! Very cool!

[Angelbait]

Gorgeously lush my friend!  Great style and texture.  Didnt even know you could get texture out of pixels...   

[sb3dgraph]

Gentlemen, thank you for your kind words! It motivates!


obsidian_golem, cool idea, but technically it impossible to me.

toast_trip, in my project interaction with wildlife and wildlife itself is derived from the basic structure of a) all divided into blocks, and b) there is no animation. This is to some degree simplified my implementation, but also set the tone for this realization of the living world, and all interactions.

So, if you will choose for your project another basis, everything else will be different.

-------------

So, dear readers of these words to you an important question: Which of the characters and what living creatures will be fun to meet in endless caves?

What is already:
1. Peaceful rabbits, biting lizards and spiders. It's all boring.
2. Emerging from the portal the devils and demons. Sometimes the demon lord. OK, but boring.
3. The sect of scientists who like to throw bombs. That bombs and the explosions that's interesting.
4. Underground dwarfs are building mines, tunnels, and a variety of construction and leave the treasure. Now that's cool.
5. Living "multicellular": creeping clumps of lava and walking trees.

And what else? How cool and challenging living creatures you can think of?

-------------

[Ashkin]

Living minerals.

[Graham-]

sb3dgraph, mm, interesting. I think everything will be different regardless. The world is a big place.

--

I like what you have in this order: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

"Dwarfs" or whatever are interesting. I like the idea of having to understand the nature of what's beyond your comprehension.

Example. Imagine the dwarfs live in a society in the world. They make decisions, do things, whatever. They are a race that is different and complex and interesting.

Maybe you see the dwarves a lot, maybe very little.

You interact with the trail of their constructions. Search/survival in their territory is confusing. It is dangerous. There are many things to learn. Without knowing, the risks are higher and the rewards are lower.

You get glimpses into how they think based on what they have done. To capitalize on whatever they have to offer you, you have to understand them very well.

Maybe some areas are owned/previously-owned by groups of dwarves with different behaviours.

.

Trees are interesting as well.

Other choices:
  1. A competitor, or series of competitors. The player has a series of abilities available to him. He can explore and affect the world. There could be someone else, computer controlled, who is very similar to player. This other person may be less capable, significantly less wise, or slower moving. The idea is that they may pose a threat, or they may be helpful. Maybe you compete over resources. Maybe your interaction is purely aesthetic - you can only watch each other. May you can steal resources, or share, or something else.

  2. The same thing, but with any animal, which has a severely reduced move set, less flexible goals, and a simpler personality. Of course they'd interact with the world using natural abilities, while the player more likely uses tools.

The most interesting creatures are ones that can affect the player's experience in a variety of ways. Maybe for example water is important in your game - I don't know, I'm just pretending. Say water is something you must always be searching for. Maybe at night the trees sneak to the water. They leave very subtle trails and clues as to their behaviour. By studying the trees, understanding the patterns of their behaviour, you can learn from their wisdom, such as the location of water, tactics for searching, when it is safe to travel in a particular area etc.

If combat is deep, then demons are interesting. Even more interesting are a variety of "creatures" that must live and survive in the same world, who must use many tactics that are similar to the player's, but different because they are suited to the owners' particular nature.

Maybe the lava "loves" rare minerals and hunts them out.

etc.

[sb3dgraph]

Living minerals.

The good part is that it suited to the mechanics of the game. The bad part is that this is not a very interesting for the player. But, still think it over.
Thanks.

Maybe some areas are owned/previously-owned by groups of dwarves with different behaviours.

Yes, now there are two varieties of dwarves, relatively good and evil. Now they live in a mixed, but you're right, can create a various habitats to them.

But this is not the primary problem: creation of radically new beings is much more interesting to the player and to me, than tuning of old ones.

A competitor, or series of competitors.

Oh, it's too hard! Just think, in fact to create such character I would need:
a) make him a very good intelligence
b) Every action that I add to the protagonist, I'll introduce in a competitor intelligence.

This is a very slows down implementation of new entities in the game.

Thanks for the ideas, I will think about each of them!

[Graham-]

Yes, now there are two varieties of dwarves, relatively good and evil. Now they live in a mixed, but you're right, can create a various habitats to them.

But this is not the primary problem: creation of radically new beings is much more interesting to the player and to me, than tuning of old ones.

Yeah, yeah. What I mean is, finding ways to bend your existing mechanics into something that adds variety to play is another good starting point for coming up with "original" ideas.

I just like the idea of there being other beings that do lots of things, that have to search and survive and exist under similar constraints.

Have you ever played Geometry Wars? Very well selling game. It is a twin-stick shooter, top-down, in a small ring, with spawning enemies. Each enemy is a single color, has one attack pattern, and "breathes" in a particular way. The results are enemies built from the same principle of motion on a 2-d plane, but with incredible personality.

I'll come up with an example. Let's say you like the idea of light. I know light is a big deal in Minecraft. I don't know what you have planned, so I'll just assume light is a big deal too. In Minecraft you need light to see, so torches are important. You have to place torches and craft torches... and that's about it. For argument sake let's say your game depends on torches in the same way.

Ok. So, if torches are a big deal, light is a big deal. The two most obvious ways to vary light are to create beings that add light or remove it.

Let's say you are _deep_ underground. Maybe you are so deep, so very deep, that the atmosphere and "magical" darkness of the area over powers the standard torches. If you put up a torch in one of these areas it will burn out fairly quickly. You want to be in these areas because there are precious things there. But maybe stocking up on a ton of torches isn't the best strategy.

Ok. Maybe there's a "glow worm" that lives underground that has to be lured around. Maybe you have to farm them, or feed them, or trap and herd them, into areas where you need permanent light. Maybe the best places to find the spawning grounds for glow worms are in a dangerous place - queue monsters, evil dwarves etc.

Maybe the glow worms are dangerous themselves if you're not careful. If you don't treat them well they turn on you. Maybe some are dangerous and others aren't, and you have to be very studious of their behaviours over a long time to tell them apart. Give some hidden teeth, and large appetites. Maybe the idea of an innocent creature that you force into labor is interesting. So you get inspiration from baby bears or something to make your worms.

Maybe only the baby glow worms are useful. The adult mothers will kill you, but only if they know you've stolen what they treasure. Maybe the mothers can fly at high speeds underground, can turn off their glow affects to hide, can stalk, and tear your flesh to pieces, but can only find you using sound. Being stalked by one is a very intense experience.

You could take some other inspiration you like and combine it with the mother worm. I'm thinking about some of the over-sized bugs in Starship Troopers. It doesn't matter where you pull it from. The result is something integrated with the mechanics of the game.

The alternative to producing light is removing it. Maybe a wolf creature loves to prance around and eat your torches, because that's how it feeds, giving the ability to move a little faster and hunt it's prey. You have to be careful in areas where these guys roam because they might eat your torch trail out of a cave, making it much more difficult to navigate your way out.

Maybe the feeling of being lost without torches is an experience that the player should never ever want to have. It should make them paranoid. So you give the wolves a buoyant attitude for the contrast, and an element of mischievousness so that when they do eat your torches you are really needled by it. You can give them whatever personality that complements their mechanical function.

Maybe the wolves interact with the trees in some way.

I mean you can do this stuff over and over with all of your mechanics. Those examples just came out of 1 or 2 mechanics that I imagined. But you know your game, not me.

----

A competitor, or series of competitors.

Oh, it's too hard! Just think, in fact to create such character I would need:
a) make him a very good intelligence
b) Every action that I add to the protagonist, I'll introduce in a competitor intelligence.

This is a very slows down implementation of new entities in the game.

Thanks for the ideas, I will think about each of them!

You're taking me too literally. A competitor doesn't have to have all the same abilities as the player. Let's say the player can do 30 different things, and is as intelligent as a player would be. The "competitor" could do 3 things, and have 1/20 the level of intelligence. Maybe all the competitor does is mine around in some simple pattern. He's like a mining "gopher." Occasionally he breaks some of the player's tunnel systems, or ups up a hole from a tunnel into a lake, flooding it. Maybe he's just hungry and eats the player's un-guarded supplies.

What I mean is, think of what the player wants, then create something that wants some similar or totally different, but has to impact the player's resources and options in-order to get it. Something simple like a cow that eats plants that the player wants to grow, or something like that, would be enough. Then there is this conflict between cows and the player. The player can kill the cows, or herd them, or change locations etc. The "competitor" doesn't have to be very intelligent or complicated. It can be whatever suits your game.

----

Sometimes it's nice just to write about someone else's game. Doing this is how I break from my work to regain perspective. So thank you for being inspiring.