spud42
Very Active Member
but,but ,but..... have you read any of these books? they already have all these "features" lol .
Awful game ideas.
- Thread starter JDTAY
- Start date
but,but ,but..... have you read any of these books? they already have all these "features" lol .
Citizen_Lurker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2016
- Messages
- 111
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
How could I take it the wrong way?
JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
I had an idea for a board game style computer game called "Roll 4 to Live", in which various random events try to end your character's life. In single player, your goal is to make three consecutive laps around the board without your character dying. In multiplayer, dying merely sends your character back to the start, and the first player to do three complete laps, consecutive or not, wins.
Having been on BoardGameGeek before, I know how this type of game design is looked down upon, but that's why it's in this particular thread.
Having been on BoardGameGeek before, I know how this type of game design is looked down upon, but that's why it's in this particular thread.
@JDTAY : Instead of 3, make it 4 laps and you have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch_ärgere_Dich_nicht
Stand on a certain spot (position 58), you die: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzenbord
Question about your game "roll 4 to live" means you roll 4, then advance a spot? Any other number you die? Or pick a punishment card? How different is that from a Russian roulette game?
We once made "Fuga", a game which goal was to transport bags of cocaine across the border. And yes, it was dangerous, you could get robbed and killed. (depending if you had cards and landed on another person, AND the other did not have a retaliation/defend card). On successful robbery you had an extra turn. Once over the border, you had to go back again. You could play with more people at once, and had multiple avatars on the playboard. It was fun.
Stand on a certain spot (position 58), you die: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzenbord
Question about your game "roll 4 to live" means you roll 4, then advance a spot? Any other number you die? Or pick a punishment card? How different is that from a Russian roulette game?
We once made "Fuga", a game which goal was to transport bags of cocaine across the border. And yes, it was dangerous, you could get robbed and killed. (depending if you had cards and landed on another person, AND the other did not have a retaliation/defend card). On successful robbery you had an extra turn. Once over the border, you had to go back again. You could play with more people at once, and had multiple avatars on the playboard. It was fun.
Last edited:
ible
professional vim user
no he's on to something. i see boardgame.io, but you could do something really simple for local client-side javascript games, for the whole family.
JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
I was thinking just now about how RPGs expect you to win every fight. Lame.
I had an idea about an RPG where you manage losses by choosing how much resources to risk before each fight. You can even pay a set fee, of in-game resources mind you, not real money, to forfeit most fights. It's a game about accepting your limitations and planning accordingly to achieve the most success someone of your skill level can hope for.
I'm not sure how this idea is awful, but I came up with it, so it must belong in this thread.
There are probably some MMOs that already work like this, but I don't think I've heard of it in single player.
I had an idea about an RPG where you manage losses by choosing how much resources to risk before each fight. You can even pay a set fee, of in-game resources mind you, not real money, to forfeit most fights. It's a game about accepting your limitations and planning accordingly to achieve the most success someone of your skill level can hope for.
I'm not sure how this idea is awful, but I came up with it, so it must belong in this thread.
There are probably some MMOs that already work like this, but I don't think I've heard of it in single player.JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
Thinking about that last post just now reminded me of another game mechanic I was once mulling building a game around. It's an RPG that stays balanced by only leveling you up when you lose fights, and leveling your enemies every time they lose fights.
Really though, a lot of games already work like that, just on a session by session basis, rather than a fight by fight basis.
Really though, a lot of games already work like that, just on a session by session basis, rather than a fight by fight basis.
ClockworkCoder
Chaotic Neutral
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
Also, if losing results in death, expecting you to win every battle makes sense. Usually you can't continue in life after you die.
There are some jet-fighter games where you can go to the shop and add munition, cannons, bombs and such (if you have the money) to get through a certain stage, or save the money up for the stage with the bossfight.
second exodous
Advanced Member
I thought about this a lot when I was playing 16bit RPGs. I thought enemies could be paid off to skip battles. With millions of GP at end game and nothing left to do with money might as well spend it somewhere.
Well, you could buy & equip items that reduce or increase random battles. You can also equip something to increase chances to run away. In some, you can see the enemies, hence you can evade them, if you are quick enough (at the expense of not having enough XP for the boss battle up ahead). I do not mind the battles, I do mind the mindless grinding in most cRPG's
second exodous
Advanced Member
Yeah, every RPG was different. It was always at end game that annoyed me, more complicated mazes and technically your characters are powerful enough to not take much damage but the battles were just annoying.
JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
Now that I've been playing Galactic Civilizations III, I've been thinking about how fun it is to come up with factions for space 4X games. Just take a look at these awful faction ideas.
The Peacibles: A non-hostile alien race that nonetheless finds themselves constantly targetted as a menace to the universe for their unique ability to delete souls.
"Well, if you would just stop attacking us, you would stop getting your souls deleted. Gosh."
Ted: Some ultra libertarian weirdo trillionaire who moved to his own galaxy to avoid taxes. Controls an army of advanced drones.
"So, we gave him the entirety of Earth's wealth willingly. That doesn't mean he's supposed to just keep it!"
Paperclip Maximizing Robots: A race of robots whose only ambition is to turn the entire universe into paperclips. Constructed by a bunch of hippie scientists trying to prove a point about the dangers of technology.
"Resistance is futile. You will be paperclipped."
The Peacibles: A non-hostile alien race that nonetheless finds themselves constantly targetted as a menace to the universe for their unique ability to delete souls.
"Well, if you would just stop attacking us, you would stop getting your souls deleted. Gosh."
Ted: Some ultra libertarian weirdo trillionaire who moved to his own galaxy to avoid taxes. Controls an army of advanced drones.
"So, we gave him the entirety of Earth's wealth willingly. That doesn't mean he's supposed to just keep it!"
Paperclip Maximizing Robots: A race of robots whose only ambition is to turn the entire universe into paperclips. Constructed by a bunch of hippie scientists trying to prove a point about the dangers of technology.
"Resistance is futile. You will be paperclipped."
Dark Pulse
Retreaux
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2013
- Messages
- 189
Ya it kinda does make sense.
