next »

[gimymblert]

You are kind of different too, the dialog fighting seems to be more in depth that all your original inspiration.

About the style it need to be an exploration, you need to start somewhere and then iterate until you have reaction, when you have reaction you iterate base on them given it serve the impact you want to have.

But be careful, if you have a good game the style will became a signature, so the most out of generic it is the better it is. Look at minecraft, it had imposed its own style.

[Joh]

Thanks! really like the dialog figting myself, and im pretty pleased of how I managed to implement it. This game was quite premeditated, lots of planing so actually managing to pull it all off feels great. (well I guess it isn't over yet, but at this point im very confident in all of it working out.)
You calling it dialog fighting is interesting though as I was just thinking about changing the term "objection" & "Agree" to "Attack" & "Defend" and how it would still work.

As for art exploration that seems like a great idea, it's what I did and I really liked it, but kind of forgot about it once I settled. Well, now is probably not the time since I want to move the project further, but ill remember that. Im nearing quite certain milestone, and reaching it might be great time to further experiment. Always the little dilema of art investment when theres the chance of having it redone by someone much better though.

As for becoming a signature style, I really don't see that happening (but I guess no one does). Curious what awaits, I know when I started I certainly didn't expect it to look like it does now.

[Pixel Noise]

If you are going to be developing dialogue battling....well, it wouldn't quite fit the style, but I hope you are familiar with the old "Monkey Island" games. Still some of the best dialogue I've ever read, and though not at all the same setting or style, you might take an idea or two from it.

[gimymblert]

Thanks! really like the dialog figting myself, and im pretty pleased of how I managed to implement it. This game was quite premeditated, lots of planing so actually managing to pull it all off feels great. (well I guess it isn't over yet, but at this point im very confident in all of it working out.)
You calling it dialog fighting is interesting though as I was just thinking about changing the term "objection" & "Agree" to "Attack" & "Defend" and how it would still work.

just want to reinforce how you are above your inspiration.
-Phoenix write is a simple matching game: understand the situation, find teh correct object to progress.
- you have a dynamic system of clues based on your action with dynamic npc that understand and memorize situations. The trial is based on the dynamic clues and dynamic behavior of npc using a system of credibility and influence.
- you have yandere simulator basic gameplay + the trial system it doesn't.

You have very great hand, pixel noise didn't understand it.

[Joh]

If you are going to be developing dialogue battling....well, it wouldn't quite fit the style, but I hope you are familiar with the old "Monkey Island" games. Still some of the best dialogue I've ever read, and though not at all the same setting or style, you might take an idea or two from it.

I wasn't familiar with Monkey Island, Looked into it and what I saw was actually impressive. The pirate battles actually reminded me of my "Meltdown mode" although I couldn't really understand what was good and bad answers. The dialogue was really good though, super interesting and full of humour. The voice acting might have heavily helped the delivery though.
Not sure how id fit that in the Trial mode, but it might be interesting in the Everydaylife mode. talking to others was always planned but maybe it could use some more player interaction/response. I'll see where it goes.

just want to reinforce how you are above your inspiration.
-Phoenix write is a simple matching game: understand the situation, find teh correct object to progress.
- you have a dynamic system of clues based on your action with dynamic npc that understand and memorize situations. The trial is based on the dynamic clues and dynamic behavior of npc using a system of credibility and influence.
- you have yandere simulator basic gameplay + the trial system it doesn't.

You have very great hand, pixel noise didn't understand it.

Very well put, could totally use that as game pitch. Wouldn't want to put down my inspirations though as they are very good games.
Im sure Pixel Noise knows I'm making something special , I'd argue I owe one to you  guys for letting me know. 

[gimymblert]

Monkey island is just a dialog tree, you match the choice with the appropriate follow up
ex: "You fight like a Dairy Farmer!" -> "How appropriate! You fight like a cow!" the follow up properly address the content of the attack you win, it's not different than phoenix wright structurally, you just find the correct item to match to a situation, just less complex.

[Joh]

Oh wow, interesting hadn't notice, but pretty fitting. Seems like there's a thousand ways to make matching games. In a way I guess my game is one of those too. Have to match evidence, memory, witness accounts with other people statements in a supporting or objecting way. Only with all those things being generated in game and having competitors able to steal your thunder.

Entry 26
Agreements expanded

As I expressed before, Agreeing is essentially a reverse objection. You can use it on statements that are true. And it will heal both you and the person you agreed with. Just like objections, you don’t have to be right, you can agree with someone who is lying and if no one knows any better, you will both benefit of a suspiciousness reduction.

If someone else knows the other is lying,  You both get dealt critical damage. A counter-agreement is the scene I showed back in Entry 21.
Its also possible to have someone else agree with you.


But now, normal agreement are functional too. By agreeing you get healed and an icon shows up next to the person as a sign you agreed. It is a lists everyone that agreed, so you can know who backs it up. If ever proven false, everyone on the list gets penalized. (I doupt it would ever happen with a big list)
If you select a general agreement, you MAY be asked to back it up by someone else. Like in objection you can back down (take small damage) or pick the right evidence. Objections will almost always ask to back you general objections; it will happen for Agreements will be much less often.

look at those nice suspicious bars recovering & the cute little icon appearing (placeholder)

also changed the agreement font, better?

Specific agreements will be rejected and hurt you if the reason is bad; Even if the statement is true. You can also agree to anything in general, even most "non-statement" lines. Doing that Might heal you (not sure anymore) but it will build up a "penalty", that will Hurt a lot if unleashed. "Doesn't that guy agree to everything? even stuff that's obvious".

Thats all for now, getting back into "other's" acting on their own, or maybe some art, or experimenting or maybe someone points out something to directs my next focus? Things are going well, life is good.

[gimymblert]

BTW speaking of design, since your game is inspired by Dagonronpa and rely on character, what about a talk about dagonronpa design?

[Joh]

Thanks its a really good talk and I found it really interesting. Also Insane to think characters come from such a simple base. You'd think they are made by purely gifted people (well they probably are too) but it's all about that love!
I'll probably use this approach when making characters, or something like it.
Characters I have for now are kind of  blank slates, well they have appearance and I already know their backbones, some events, but I haven't really put much more thought into it. I mean, right now I'm all about getting the gameplay down. But I have some good ideas in mind and characters I have yet to make.
Building characters and the overall narrative seems like it would be really fun, so I'm really looking forward to it.

[Joh]

-Entry 27-
Ai going wild

So we have objections, agreements, Ai needs to be able to do them too!
It wasn’t very hard, Objection/Agreements were fairly “general” giving them to Ai wasn’t much work. They use the same system the player does.
To use they simply check the current statement and check if they have the evidence that backs it up or contradicts it.

Small problem, Lies are (for now) random (50%) so half the time people are saying the truth half the time they are lying and for some reasons, at least one person has evidence to back it up/or contradict it.
Thus, a run that used to be peaceful with only the player being able to agree or object now has everyone else doing it. They heal each other, damage each other with no thought whatsoever. It fun to watch but it doesn’t make sense for the game.

By letting it running, I once saw someone else get accused and found guilty with 0 input from me.

Also, for gif purpose I wanted to make someone suspicious to accuse him, only for the others to Agree away all the damage I had done. 

The good news is, this is kind of what I  wanted, this freedom of mind of the others and them having a pretty big impact. Basically the others being their own person that have an influence ALMOST as big as the player’s.

{Fastfowarded} Other Objects followed by same Other agrees. end result: no damage dealt & the guy objecting actually removed his own damage. No input from player.



The solution is quite simple, I have to give the others an Ai and the player Handicap.
Im thinking the handicap is what ill play with for the difficulty setting if I have some.
What im thinking of is:
-first 3 replays of a section will have no interventions from the others. (except to counter you)
-This is how things are implemented but it works; other’s Interventions happen at the END of the statement.
~not sure because extreme: Ai have some evidence removed and given to them throughout the trial. That is, the longer the trial, the more evidence others will have available to use.(from their own original pool)

As for AI, im still thinking things through but so far im thinking of giving them “Strategies” that limit their action. “neutral””attack””heal” depending on the situation. Hey look! That’s awfully like an rpg .

[gimymblert]

looking good

[Joh]

HELP Whats a good screen size/resolution?

Checking other game made me realize that maybe my game resolution is small.

Im now wondering if I should change it (again)...
What is a good game size?

my Screenshots are the actual dimension of the game that is
640x360 (16:9) As far as I remembered that was the general ratio... but it seems small.



I made it that size so it could scale x2 perfectly to 1280x720 only to realize my screen is not that size (explaining why it didn't pixel perfect scale)

At this point i'm not sure what resolution to aim for, should I even make it able to go full screen?

My first screen size was 960x480 (2:1) it was more about taking a good portion of the screen
but it was still apparent that it was too big, characters simply couldn't fill the space leading to too much free space:


Im not sure what to do with the game window size, should I keep it at 640x480; should I make it bigger? should it even be able to go full screen. while I think the game looks great as is (smooth pixels, good hud element sizes) when scaled up it doesn't hold up; (weird pixels, and hud seem over sized).

while im being bothered by this resolution problem, im currently working on my "dev tool" so no actual progress but I really hope it will help for future testing and be worth the down time.

[gimymblert]

Finish the game mechanics first then it will be consideration for the final art style and lay out pass

[Joh]

I guess you're right, worries later. plus it really is something that should be done with final art in mind.
Anyway as I mentionned last time, now is a little down time in terms of progress. Im working on my dev tool to have more "In-game" world altering power.
Its been bothering me a lot throughout testing, lots of little changes had to be done with recompiling or simply couldn't be done.
Well no more!

-Entry 28-
Improving Dev tool

Ill admit testing has been a real pain so far, I always had to simulate the whole gameplay.
If I wanted someone to take damage, I had to hope theey lied somewhere, seeing the evidence and use it. I couldn’t see a lot of relevant information while in-game. Had no exit way, so if a section bugged, I couldn’t exit and retry to see what went wrong; I had to relaunch the whole game.

These are all things I want to be able to do:

Everyday life

Launch trial<quickly generate (or input) trial precondition and launch it.
-see player basic info (location,action,object possessed,stats,relationships){change those}
--memory {add/remove}
---evidence (once investigation starts) {add/remove}

During trial

-Suspiciousness {add/remove}
-Strategy {change}
-see in trial evidence list
-see biases {change}
-force agree/object
--General
---Turn off third party section launch
---Turn off third party interventions
---Go to menu

hopefully all these abilities make future development easier.

[Joh]

-Entry 29-
Dev tool improved

not sure if its worthy of a "entry" but my intentions of the previous entry have been fufilled.
Change my "dev-view" as I called it, from a simple "information observation" to something that can both see and edit the world.

Also quick trial launch that might be the most useful thing ever.
Beforehand if I ever wanted to test something in the trial, I always had to first "create the case", kill someone,clean myself, fast forward time, go through body discovery, skip all investigation. I had become very efficient, almost robot like at performing those task to reach the trial. but that was still lots of wasted time.

Memory and evidence can be deleted, but not the trial evidence.

anyway, now I can look at whatever list i want (evidence, memory etc) and only one shows up instead of all of them.
can also modifiy relationships, deal damage in trial, change the strategy of the people (oh yeah, i did that too!), turn on and off some ai functionalities.

oh and another one of my favorite ability is to move people around. I could do that before using the meeting functionality  but doing it at the click of a button is even better.

anyway:
Before

After

and it changes a bit during trial.


But that's enough of stuff that's mostly relevant to me, I'm now working on game over. implementing fail states should be interesting and quite a big deal in terms of full gameplay progress! Looking forward to it!

[gimymblert]

Is there a variable of "certainty" to facts? Like he is not sure he have seen him (for example didn't stay long enough in a room) so it can be contested if press on and depending on the personality the person might cave or press his certainty (for example he don't like the player or being wrong).

Although it might be overkill and only needed consideration after validation of the current iteration if there is no such mechanics

[io3 creations]

HELP Whats a good screen size/resolution?

In general, I would make the graphics flexible to fit a wide range of screen resolutions and keep GUI separate. If you only target a single screen resolution then in worst case scenario some devices may not even be able to display the game properly.

There are some screen size discussion for another pixel game, Irkalla:
https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=35320.msg1068722#msg1068722
There's more info on other pages but that may be more relevant for moving certain parts of the background separately from others and still achieve a good pixel look.

If you want to know what people are using, this post https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=35320.msg1089024#msg1089024 has some notes about the Steam hardware survey.

[Joh]

Is there a variable of "certainty" to facts? Like he is not sure he have seen him (for example didn't stay long enough in a room) so it can be contested if press on and depending on the personality the person might cave or press his certainty (for example he don't like the player or being wrong).

Although it might be overkill and only needed consideration after validation of the current iteration if there is no such mechanics

Actually, that was something I wanted to do in the begining, it's an idea that kind of got dropped due to how overkill it was indeed. A Facts is 100% certain, the problem is you don't really know, if someone says he was in the kitchen and you weren't there and you haven't seen him somewhere else, there is no way to know for sure if what he said is true.
Someone else could know, and then relationship/strategy come in; Even if someone does know something is not true, it doesn't mean he will let everyone else know. When lying, and objected too, sometime the person will cave in directly other times press certainty, haven't really worked into the reasoning but both exist.

With that being said, I was actually thinking of perhaps of indroducing the concept, with a new feature I have in mind. Now I don't want to make any promises, but it would involve "observing" outside the current room; "long range detection" or "Awarness" as I plan to call it. these observations would be "weak" and could get thrown out even if factual due to uncertainty. but Again, no promise

HELP Whats a good screen size/resolution?

In general, I would make the graphics flexible to fit a wide range of screen resolutions and keep GUI separate. If you only target a single screen resolution then in worst case scenario some devices may not even be able to display the game properly.

There are some screen size discussion for another pixel game, Irkalla:
https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=35320.msg1068722#msg1068722
There's more info on other pages but that may be more relevant for moving certain parts of the background separately from others and still achieve a good pixel look.

If you want to know what people are using, this post https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=35320.msg1089024#msg1089024 has some notes about the Steam hardware survey.

Thanks a lot, seems like this could be really useful! and also some damn pretty pixel in there, making me all jealous!

[gimymblert]

Yeah you are right the player wouldn't be able tell the difference anyway

[Joh]

-Entry 30-
CheckMate:Game Over

Nothing better than an actual fail state to put up the stakes!
First one I implemented is the CheckMate.

What happens is once you trigger "Cover up" mode, you should be very careful not to be caught in suspicious activities.
Getting caught bloody, with a bloody weapon, moving a body, or even in the act will all trigger HEAVY (read DAMNING) suspicions. Actually, the eventual discovery of the body will only cement their suspicion.
Quite honestly, getting caught should be a game over.
But I thought hey, why not let players try to get out of the bad situation?
At the end of the day, it would he a "He said, she said" with no one able to tell who is right, who is wrong. This would cause trials with someone out to get you. I think it might be interesting.

just cruising around with bloody clothes.


So Anyway, someone catches you, its no big deal: Check.
You can carry on with your cover up, do expect the person to call for support though, or even attack you.
Now if a second person catches you: Mate.
Check mate is a game over state, where you have to restart the day, week or from chapter start.

The other game overs are
K.O.: remember how you might get attacked? well a defeat would result in a game over.
Disqualified: Lets just say you're not killing other people (if at all) for the fun of it... You gotto play by the rules.
Guilty: of course losing a trial is a big NoNo.
Might be some more.

That's it for today, might work a bit more on the everyday life side before returning to the trial.