next »

[BeautifulGlitch]

Yeah, Monster Prom sounds better.
So... how many "events" will be?

Thanks for organizing all the data. It's cool when devs keep it all organized. Much more easier to navigate!

Yup, it seems people like that one better.
There will be 6 locations. Each location will have 1 event. If we get enough funding, we will go with 2 events per location.

Yup, the devlog is slowly growing. Some kind of organization was needed!

[BeautifulGlitch]

NPC-BASED STAGE (NOON)

Here, you are at the cafeteria. You will see a limited number of tables (3 or 4, but it needs to be studied) and you will see the NPCs sit at them. Other seats will be taken by special NPCs, like the “shopkeeper” or “the money boy” (also needs to be studied - go to “NPCs: the other ones”), or even by random characters (whose only function will be to limit the number of seats available.
We still need to figure out how players will navigate through this map. If by navigating naturally through seats or through some sort of menu (listing the seats available or the tables with seats available).
When a player choose a seat/table, an event starts.
Here, there’s no “standard location event”. You go directly to a special event that always will include at least 1 NPC that has to be in the table you’ve chosen. Aside that, the special event works the same as a special event in a location-based stage.
Why? We wanted to add this kind of stages for different reasons:

• The player can decrease the randomness of the events, aiming (with no 100% accuracy, since there will be more than 1 NPC per table) for specific NPCs. Then the game can internally learn from this and, therefore, increase the chances of that player of later encountering that same NPC when going through a location-based stage.
• The game gets some variety on its progression, feeling fresher.
• It follows the high school theme, adding the classic “the table where you seat can seal your fate” trope. 

To sum up, the flow on this kind of stage goes like this:

• Map → choose a seat/table
• Special NPC event → 2 options
• Choose option → failure/success (depends on stats)
• Failure/success → stats update
• REPEAT FLOW WITH ALL PLAYERS → Next stage

Later we will define which are the NPCs, which can be defined as LOVE INTERESTS and THE OTHER ONES.

[BeautifulGlitch]

MENU-BASED STAGE (EVENING)

Here, there is no map: just a menu. The purpose of the menu is to determine what you will do during the evening. These turns are much more shorter because there’s no special events. Only standard events. The only purpose of this micro-stage is to boost stats in a predictable way, to let room for some strategic planning.
So the menu with contain options for each stat, including money.
Another option will be to visit the “shop”.
We’re studying the possibility of adding a final option related to something techie and cool, like a social media platform or an app.
For instance: “wAAAAAAAAAAHt’s app”. If you choose this option you will get access to an exclusive and unique kind of event where you choose or not choose a specific NPC and chat with him/her. The event’s mechanics are the same as a special event (2 options and 4 outcomes). The special thing is the whole edgy approach, through a instant message app, including emojis and such. Obviously this means more work on art and narrative, so it’s tied to getting more funds.

To sum up, the “evening” menu is:

> Read a book (boosts intelligence)
> Go party (boosts fun)
> xxxxxxxxx (boosts confidence)
> xxxxxxxxx (boosts boldness)
> xxxxxxxxx (boosts charm)
> Go to work (boosts money)
> Visit the shopkeeper
> use wAAAAAAAAAAHt’s app

Maybe we can come up with several actions per stat, so they can randomly change each evening. It’s easier to create more of these ones, since there is no bifurcation, but only a standard text that leads to a consequence, stat-wise

[BeautifulGlitch]

PLAYABLE CHARACTERS' MODELS.


ORIGINAL



FINAL




MAP: FIRST ITERATION (still needs some work... it will be quite different)

[JWK5]

With the "Bride of Frankenstein" character, I recommend giving her skin at least light green or something (anything but white) because it is really hard to tell what is her undershirt and what is her skin. At first, I thought she was wearing some kind of stockings until I realized it was not her skin at the top of her legs but the bottom of her undershirt.

The school is a bit plain-looking, but with a few more props (things littered about the grounds, sports gear sitting on the court in the background, parked cars, etc.) I am sure it will look a lot more lively. For what is there, I do like the general design of it and I think you are on to something.

If you end up throwing more characters into the mix I would like to see more body shapes as right now you are just kind of catering to the Hollywood cliches and I think you'd generate a lot more appreciation for your project by catering to more perceptions of attractiveness. I realize this is your project and likely built around your ideals and perceptions, but it doesn't hurt to expand them a bit (or at least keep an open mind) and art (and art projects) are a great way to do that.

Other than those minor issues, it all looks pretty awesome! I really like the expressiveness of your characters and how you're communicating their personalities through body language rather than just through costume or props alone. All in all it is a real nice project and I look forward to seeing how it progresses.

Keep up the good work! 

[BeautifulGlitch]

With the "Bride of Frankenstein" character, I recommend giving her skin at least light green or something (anything but white) because it is really hard to tell what is her undershirt and what is her skin. At first, I thought she was wearing some kind of stockings until I realized it was not her skin at the top of her legs but the bottom of her undershirt.

The school is a bit plain-looking, but with a few more props (things littered about the grounds, sports gear sitting on the court in the background, parked cars, etc.) I am sure it will look a lot more lively. For what is there, I do like the general design of it and I think you are on to something.

If you end up throwing more characters into the mix I would like to see more body shapes as right now you are just kind of catering to the Hollywood cliches and I think you'd generate a lot more appreciation for your project by catering to more perceptions of attractiveness. I realize this is your project and likely built around your ideals and perceptions, but it doesn't hurt to expand them a bit (or at least keep an open mind) and art (and art projects) are a great way to do that.

Other than those minor issues, it all looks pretty awesome! I really like the expressiveness of your characters and how you're communicating their personalities through body language rather than just through costume or props alone. All in all it is a real nice project and I look forward to seeing how it progresses.

Keep up the good work! 

Hi! :D

Sure! You're not the first one mistaking the jeans with stockings. The skin is slightly blue (we prefer not to dye the skins too much, but always in the direction of the "main color" of the character). Maybe the best solution is just to erase the white shirt over the jeans.

Sure it is a bit plain-looking. It's a first iteration to research styles. We're between 2 options here:
1. The map will be a bit plain but in exchange it will have "zoom bubbles" that will clearly show the 6 locations
2. The map won't have the "zoom bubbles" but, in exchange, it will be more vivid and the locations will be clear at plain sight!

We're catering to the cliches because the whole games revolves around paroding those cliches. Anyway, the bodyshapes answer to different reaseons:
a. portray the classic highschool characters
b. they need to be appealing in some way, to match the dating sim approach
c. they have to be rather similar bodyshapes to be exchangable on the illustrations.

All the girls will be skinny. Best case scenario some of them are more "cute" (BLUE) while other ones are more "sexy" (RED). The guys will vary from "slim" to "muscular".
I understand your point of "starting a conversation". But it's too far away from the game's tone, which is irreverent and parodic. I rather prefer to start a conversation by including situations TOO wrong so people love them or hate them to a critical degree.
Note that I like the idea of making people to think about something. But I prefer the political incorrect approach to that. South Park style, kind of.

I must admit that one thing I did was erasing the classic "beauty" stat in exchange of a "confidence" stat.

[Jasmine]

All the girls will be skinny. Best case scenario some of them are more "cute" (BLUE) while other ones are more "sexy" (RED). The guys will vary from "slim" to "muscular".
I understand your point of "starting a conversation". But it's too far away from the game's tone, which is irreverent and parodic. I rather prefer to start a conversation by including situations TOO wrong so people love them or hate them to a critical degree.
Note that I like the idea of making people to think about something. But I prefer the political incorrect approach to that. South Park style, kind of.

Hm...

Southpark does a great job of being politically incorrect, but very diverse. Body types, for one. I mean Cartman is iconic, as a character, but also as a trope. He's the average fat funny friend (everyone has one). Anyway,

b. they need to be appealing in some way, to match the dating sim approach

Also, I'm sure you didn't mean it, but that... is pretty harsh. It's kind of stating that people will only find thin women attractive. That, or only slender, muscular men are attractive. I could understand wanting to parody that with having a guy who is an over-steroidized muscle head. I mean, if they are going to be that extreme, then it makes sense, but you can depict varied character traits in different body forms, and they still be attractive. I mean, take the main cast of Archer for example:

Pam - Big, Unsanitary, Overweight, Moderately Attractive, Adventurous, Funny, Honest, Confident

Cheryl - Very Attractive, Normal Build, Not Smart, Mentally Unstable, Into Aggressive Sex, Rich

Lana - Extremely Attractive, Athletic Build, Fighter, Insecure, Naggy, Hard to Please, Independent Nature

---

Archer - Very Attractive, Athletic Build, Inconsiderate, Self-centered, Apathetic, Rich

Cyril - Soft-spoken, Considerate, Thoughtful, Passive Aggressive, Smart, Not Athletic, Average Build, Moderately Attractive

Kreiger - Adventurous (scientifically speaking), Isolationist, Odd Fetishes, Very Smart, Sexually... Obscure?, Open to New Ideas, Moderately Attractive, Caring (in his own, very odd way).

The thing is, if you talk to people about characters in Archer, they can give you reasons as to WHY they like their persons with reasons outside of their physical appearance. In fact, many people will take it into account, because it adds to their personality. Their body becomes another factor that adds into whether you would want to date them.

As far as the women I listed, Pam is the least attractive (subjectively), but she is the most ballsy, down to earth, and confident of the bunch. Actually, Pam isn't UNATTRACTIVE, it's the crap she does that kind of lowers her hot factor (I mean, the chick can fart). Ultimately, taking in their pros and cons is what actually makes choosing between the 3 successful. And lets be honest -- what made most high school comedies fun were the tropes that went into it: The nerd, the band geeks (who were always unattractive and usually plump), the dumb jock, the guitar guy who was always high... I mean, you could play on these tropes and still make them attractive with a varied body frame.

I mean, I'm sure you are aware that attractiveness does not boil down to one body type, and it was the last thing on my mind, really. It has gotten to a point that I am used to it, though I am extremely appreciative of people who gravitate from the thin girl style. Also, coming from someone who will never be small or thin (i.e. the model standard), that statement struck a chord (a very dissonant one).

[BeautifulGlitch]

All the girls will be skinny. Best case scenario some of them are more "cute" (BLUE) while other ones are more "sexy" (RED). The guys will vary from "slim" to "muscular".
I understand your point of "starting a conversation". But it's too far away from the game's tone, which is irreverent and parodic. I rather prefer to start a conversation by including situations TOO wrong so people love them or hate them to a critical degree.
Note that I like the idea of making people to think about something. But I prefer the political incorrect approach to that. South Park style, kind of.

Hm...

Southpark does a great job of being politically incorrect, but very diverse. Body types, for one. I mean Cartman is iconic, as a character, but also as a trope. He's the average fat funny friend (everyone has one). Anyway,

b. they need to be appealing in some way, to match the dating sim approach

Also, I'm sure you didn't mean it, but that... is pretty harsh. It's kind of stating that people will only find thin women attractive. That, or only slender, muscular men are attractive. I could understand wanting to parody that with having a guy who is an over-steroidized muscle head. I mean, if they are going to be that extreme, then it makes sense, but you can depict varied character traits in different body forms, and they still be attractive. I mean, take the main cast of Archer for example:

Pam - Big, Unsanitary, Overweight, Moderately Attractive, Adventurous, Funny, Honest, Confident

Cheryl - Very Attractive, Normal Build, Not Smart, Mentally Unstable, Into Aggressive Sex, Rich

Lana - Extremely Attractive, Athletic Build, Fighter, Insecure, Naggy, Hard to Please, Independent Nature

---

Archer - Very Attractive, Athletic Build, Inconsiderate, Self-centered, Apathetic, Rich

Cyril - Soft-spoken, Considerate, Thoughtful, Passive Aggressive, Smart, Not Athletic, Average Build, Moderately Attractive

Kreiger - Adventurous (scientifically speaking), Isolationist, Odd Fetishes, Very Smart, Sexually... Obscure?, Open to New Ideas, Moderately Attractive, Caring (in his own, very odd way).

The thing is, if you talk to people about characters in Archer, they can give you reasons as to WHY they like their persons with reasons outside of their physical appearance. In fact, many people will take it into account, because it adds to their personality. Their body becomes another factor that adds into whether you would want to date them.

As far as the women I listed, Pam is the least attractive (subjectively), but she is the most ballsy, down to earth, and confident of the bunch. Actually, Pam isn't UNATTRACTIVE, it's the crap she does that kind of lowers her hot factor (I mean, the chick can fart). Ultimately, taking in their pros and cons is what actually makes choosing between the 3 successful. And lets be honest -- what made most high school comedies fun were the tropes that went into it: The nerd, the band geeks (who were always unattractive and usually plump), the dumb jock, the guitar guy who was always high... I mean, you could play on these tropes and still make them attractive with a varied body frame.

I mean, I'm sure you are aware that attractiveness does not boil down to one body type, and it was the last thing on my mind, really. It has gotten to a point that I am used to it, though I am extremely appreciative of people who gravitate from the thin girl style. Also, coming from someone who will never be small or thin (i.e. the model standard), that statement struck a chord (a very dissonant one).

Yup, agree on leaving body as a secondary factor. Because of that, as noted, we erased the stat "beauty" and replaced it with "confidence". The diversity will come from personalities, not bodies (with subtle exceptions).

And agree on the unfortunate choice of the word "appealing" with no further explanation.

We will go with "mainstream" body types if you prefer. As commented before, I want to push boundaries with the humor and dialogues, not with the char design choices. In terms of body type and such I will just stick to safe options in a biz sense. Safe meaning "mainstream" in the sense that we will make choices based on what will probably appeal to a bigger audience. This might not sound "correct", but correctness is far from being our compass in this specific aspect. My personal criteria here is simple: if you want to go wild in one aspect (let's say humor in this case), best you can do is playing safe in the rest of fields, so the whole thing is easier to manage.

Sorry if this doesn't fit your ideal expectation on how this should be done :/

But yeah, sorry for using the term "appealing". That was genuinely rude.

[JWK5]

We're catering to the cliches because the whole games revolves around paroding those cliches. Anyway, the bodyshapes answer to different reaseons:
a. portray the classic highschool characters
b. they need to be appealing in some way, to match the dating sim approach
c. they have to be rather similar bodyshapes to be exchangable on the illustrations.

You can parody cliches and stereotypes without falling into the trap of actually just repeating the cliches and stereotypes. What really makes the cliches anyways is the personalities more than the bodies. Attractiveness is less tied to weight and more tied to body language and presentation (do some Google searches, there are a lot of attractive models for example that run the range from thin to plus size).

As for the bodyshapes being exchangeable, I am not sure how you are going about it so I will have to take your word for it.

All the girls will be skinny. Best case scenario some of them are more "cute" (BLUE) while other ones are more "sexy" (RED). The guys will vary from "slim" to "muscular".
I understand your point of "starting a conversation". But it's too far away from the game's tone, which is irreverent and parodic. I rather prefer to start a conversation by including situations TOO wrong so people love them or hate them to a critical degree.
Note that I like the idea of making people to think about something. But I prefer the political incorrect approach to that. South Park style, kind of.

It is less about starting a conversation and more about recognizing that in reality there is a lot more diversity to attractiveness than what is generally offered up in entertainment media (games, movies, etc.) and by expanding the range of attractiveness you are catering to you could potentially increase the appeal your game has overall. In other words, if you want more people to come to the table offer a greater variety of things to serve them.

I must admit that one thing I did was erasing the classic "beauty" stat in exchange of a "confidence" stat.

What does one achieve (mechanically) that the other doesn't?

I am not trying to knock your project, so I hope you are not taking my posts as such. The point of them is not that you are doing badly, I do think you are on to something good here, it is that I see that you could potentially increase your customer base by offering up what so many others have failed to. Realistically it would not detract from the theme of your game, the aesthetics, or anything else. The only real barrier you have is your willingness to do so and apparently whatever "exchange" hurdles you've got going that you mentioned previously.



EDIT:

In terms of body type and such I will just stick to safe options in a biz sense. Safe meaning "mainstream" in the sense that we will make choices based on what will probably appeal to a bigger audience.

That is not actually true. Because few in the entertainment industry will venture outside this "comfort zone" they have no real clue how lucrative it might be to break free of it. Hollywood still runs off an age-old mindset even though times have changed and greater strides have been made in social acceptability, especially where attraction is concerned (for example, greater acceptance for homosexuality). Unfortunately, the game industry suckles at the teat of Hollywood, so the game industry too is trapped in the narrow focus of an outdated beauty perception.

If you really think about it, and especially from a financial standpoint, it is not hard to understand that offering greater diversity can result in greater sales. The more people your product appeals to the more people there are who want to buy it.

[gimymblert]

So far good movie with diversity of body type, race, and other are the best selling movie. Also we are in an era where "all about that bass" top the chartz. It's not "safe" to make only "skinny white people" as there is plenty crappy work with just that as well. In fact it's okay to have the mandatory skinny girl, it's not about removing her, but people do get amaze when you have more than that to cater to their taste, hence why diverse is actually more selling.

[BeautifulGlitch]

Sorry guys! Today/Yesterday was my bday and my father's bday then (22nd and 23rd respectively). I'm also moving to a new apartment. Hectic days!

I'm glad to see the devlog starting some interesting conversations like this one. I want to answer accordingly. I'll try to do it tomorrow, ok? (:

[BeautifulGlitch]

Hi, guys! Sorry for the absence.

I've moved to a new apartment, so late-Dec and Jan have been pretty hectic. Installed internet last week or so + changed mega-old fuses this week (we had like 5-10 blackouts per day).



Also we're about to launch a KS project that might be of your interest: Inde G Zine. It's an artzine where 30 talented artists portray 30 amazing indie games. I attach here some previews. Do you recognize the games? (((:











The artist was on a vacation but he has returned. He's working again.
Events are done and he's now on NPCs. They need some more iterations more.

I totally remember that before I started with all the moving we had a pretty important argument on body types.
As noted before, body types will vary, but they probably won't met everybody's demands. Boys will be "slim", "normal" and "muscular". Girls we have two "tall/slim" and the third one, which was also intended to be like that, is going to have another body type. I thought on a shorter/cuter girl. I don't want to turn her into a loli, but at least changing her a bit from the rest. Anyway there are some functional reasons to avoid making the NPCs very different in body size (a logistical thing that can become a higher art cost for me).

I'm studying funding possibilities such as crowdfunding. If enough money is raised, adding more NPCs will be an option. Then maybe we can add even more variety. It could be that when I talk about "mainstream" body types I might be biased by my own opinions or context. Not sure. But if I go with a crowdfunding solution, maybe we can doodle 3-4 proposals on different characters and then submit it to voting and just see what is what the audience prefer. I will be OK with going the direction the audience wants for sure (:

I'm still managing the Indie G Zine thing and solving all kind of problems regarding the apartment (it has almost 100 years, so it needs a lot of fixing); but soon I will upload the different evolutions of art. I think it's interesting. And I'm sure someone will get angry, because you will clearly see that sometimes the feedback has clearly been "make him/her skinnier", so a lot of controversy and arguments are expected :x

The next steps are:

> Closing the design for the 6 NPCs. The general design is done, but we're correcting anatomy details and deciding a color palette
> Writing down the 12 BIG plotlines (2 per NPC)
> preparing all the wireframes so we can know if we are on the same page with the programmer
> finishing the biz doc
> and more!

I hope some of you are still interested in Monster Prom (:

Here's an image on the LIBRARY events! The "action" is "to make money on internet". There are 4 different ways!  

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

amazing comeback post

[BeautifulGlitch]

Thanks! (:

It isn't ironic, right?

I mean, I basically posted non-related stuff (other project + my apartment's pics) and just promised controversy and arguments DDD:

But I'm glad there's people happy that I came back here! I'm still very busy fixing stuff in the house + Indie G Zine; but I hope I will be all in w/ this by early-Feb :D

[gimymblert]

If you want controversy start adding POC characters asap

[BeautifulGlitch]

Right now we have NPCs whose skin is RED, BLUE and GREY/GREEN. So yeah!
There's a concept for a new NPC which was like a witch with a cool neo-grunge/neo-chic style and sometimes I think of her as white and sometimes as black. So... who knows?

[gimymblert]

That's not what POC mean BAM! controversy

[BeautifulGlitch]

Uhm, I'm not English-speaker, but I went here: http://es.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poc
Now I searched again and other possibilities are "Piece of Cake" or "Pile of Crap". Did you mean any of those ones? o_o

[gimymblert]

People of color lol (minorities), non white person from a real cultural background on earth (no troll or goblin and space minorities), for example black, native, asian, indian, etc ... people that are forgotten in most media but still buy games in masses, undeserved and thirsty for great works. If you are good they multiply your sales. Also LGBTQUIA+

[BeautifulGlitch]

Ah, yeah, but I told you already: "and sometimes I think of her as white and sometimes as black. So... who knows?"
I was meaning that is possible that, if the goals are met (money-wise), we can add this new NPC that'll be black.

About sexual orientation, players can seduce both male or female NPCs. Nice thing is that the game acts the same either the player has a male or female character. This is due for design economy, but also reflects my personal opinion (which is that, just an opinion). I defend a non-binary approach on both sexual orientation and sexual identity. Coincidentally, the design need of not differentiating the behavior of the NPCs depending on the gender of the playable char reflect this POV: gender won't affect the outcome of the relationships, but your personal choices and, therefore, personality.