I'm working on some weapon graphics for the "store" where you can buy them. At the moment, they're just outlines of the weapons with basic color fill in's. I'm going to add more detail and shade them in later Tell me what you think.
Weapon List: (From left to right)
Pistols:
-Glock 39
-.357 Magnum
I couldn't be less interested in small arms, so forgive me if I'm not as enthusiastic as some other people...
Anyway, they look fine so far (outlines are the easy part). Take care on the shading, and they should turn out very nice. Just make sure you don't leave all those black outlines.
The only other thing I'd say, is what's the point?
How is having heaps of guns going to enhance gameplay?
I know they'll all have some different characteristics (damage/accuracy/ammo/etc), but is that really going to affect how you play, or are you still just going to run up to people and shoot them with whatever gun you have?
I appreciate that you might use different tactics with a sniper rifle than with a shotgun, but why do you need 3 of each?
Because they're all going to be the same - or at least similar enough that it makes no difference which you use.
You can read just about any article on game design, and it'll talk about a good game being "a series of interesting choices" (a Sid Meier quote). Choosing whether to attack from a distance with a sniper rifle, or to attack close up with a shotgun - that is an interesting decision. Choosing between two very subtly different weapons is NOT an interesting decision, because ultimately it makes no difference which you choose.
All it does is dilute the core gameplay. The player should be concentrating on running around shooting stuff - not learning the specs of 20+ weapons, which is just geeky and definitely not fun.
And if they are significantly different, then they won't be balanced. There'll be weapons that are less effective than the others, and are therefore pointless - or worse, there'll be one or two that are too effective - and then that'll make all the other weapons pointless.
Sorry, but that is not making sense, in most game types restricting to one weapon per type will just make the game shitier. Would you play call of duty with only one weapon per type? Would you play an rpg with one weapon per type? You probably wouldn't. The only exception would perhaps be arcade games and real time strategy games, but not nessecary, you can still have more weapons, you can still have a pre level weapon chooser, you can still have an upgrade style game. And have you heard of balancing, or getting better weapons over time as you progress. Your post is mostly useless, and sid meier, you quoted him? that the most ridicoulus quote ever. Offcourse it's interesting to choose between subtly different stuff, it's like choosing between a blonde and a brunette. I makes no difference but it's an interesting decision non the less.
I agree with both you really. Too many guns may add variety, but take away from the main experience, while too few guns is just boring. I think the amount you plan to have is fine with me. Also is this for Zombie Swarm or Assassination?
more weapons or less weapon types of a kind. MORE WEAPONS.
item collecting is a key part to all games. It is up to the designers of the game to keep reinventing the wheel to keep it interesting.
I liked it when in fallout you had to be wearing the useless jacket, to pick up the dog as a fallower. To me that was interesting. I felt like the designers preyed on my assumesions about collecting clothing.
But Sketchy's point is that there is a limit to how much you can add before it becomes redundant. For example, if you have 5 different pistols and the only difference is in what they look like and that some fire slightly quicker than the others, then not only does that one pistol make the other four completely useless, they all end up being essentially the same thing. Don, your point about weapons in RPGs isn't really applicable because in those games, each weapon is usually either different enough from the others of its kind (say a fire sword versus an ice sword) or is part of the level-up process/a reward (getting the ultimate weapon for getting to a certain point in the game or being able to use stronger weapons at higher levels). They are both varied and have purpose.
More weapons or less weapons? Let's put that into different terms. Would you rather have 5 different weapons (a pistol, a rifle, a bazooka, a knife, and a grenade) or would you rather have 300 weapons to choose from (60 pistols, 60 rifles, 60 bazookas, 60 knives, 60 grenades). Why would you need so many different weapons? Can they all be so different from each other that they serve a purpose besides having more items that another game?
"It is up to the designers of the game to keep reinventing the wheel to keep it interesting."
And how is having 5 or 10 types of the same gun interesting?
Yes i agree there is a limit, but 10 weapons sumo made is certainly not above that limit. And there can be a difference between pistols even if you put 5 of them. 60 is too much obviusly. But in case you are making some kind of a historical or modern type game with weapons spanning the era, it is good to have atleast one of the type that is or were commonly used. For instance WW2: 1 tokarev, 1 colt, and 1 luger. Obviusly tokarev being the best if you would want to be historicly correct.
Would I play CoD with only one weapon per type?
Yes, I would.
CoD, MoH, etc are trying to give the impression of being historically accurate - that's the only reason they have one weapon of each type per country. It wouldn't hurt the gameplay in the slightest to just have one of each.
As far as I can tell, Sumo148 is not trying to create an historical shoot em up.
Here's a question for you - Would you refuse to play Half Life 2 because it only has one weapon per type? I'm guessing probably not, seeing as how it's widely regarded as one of the best games ever made. How about all the other classic FPSs, such as Quake, Doom, etc?
RPGs are not in any way comparable. Judging from his projects page, Sumo148 is making an online shooter, which is essentially an FPS but viewed from a top down perspective.
"It is up to the designers of the game to keep reinventing the wheel to keep it interesting."
That's such a bad attitude to have. Developers are having to fill their games will all kinds of pointless crap, just because people like you won't buy a game unless it has blurb on the box saying "50 different weapons; 20 playable characters; etc" - when they should be concentrating on making the game fun to play.
Why is the Sid Meier quote ridiculous? It supports my argument, it's from a respected authority on the subject, and it's used in absolutely the right context.
Here's an excerpt from another article, saying the same thing:
"It's easy to say that games should have interesting choices, but why is one choice more interesting than another? The answer lies in the type of decision you ask to the player to make. If the player has to choose between two weapons, and one weapon is only slightly superior to the other, even though the player may be faced with a life and death encounter, the decision itself does not reflect this. To make this decision interesting, each weapon must have a dramatically different impact on the player's chance of winning.
But if the decision itself is too easy, then it's not a decision at all. If it's obvious that the player should use the golden arrow to slay the dragon, there's no real choice. Why would the player risk using anything else? This decision, although it appears to be life and death, is meaningless. The player will invariably choose the golden arrow, unless he doesn't know about its powers, and in that case, it's an arbitrary choice, not a decision.
The key to making this decision interesting is for the player to know that the golden arrow is the right choice, but also to know that if he uses the golden arrow now, he won't be able to use it later when he has to fight the evil mage. To make this decision truly dramatic, the player must be put in a position where both paths have consequences. If the player doesn't use the arrow now, his faithful companion, who is not immune to dragon fire, may die during the battle. However, if the player uses the arrow, it will be much harder to destroy the evil mage later on. Suddenly the decision has become more complex, with consequences on both sides of the equation.
Not all decisions in a game need to be as complex as the one with the golden arrow. Simple decisions are fine, just so long as they're not hollow, obvious, or uninformed. As a rule, you want to remove all nondecisions from you game, and a player should never be forced to think about anything unless it has some impact, either direct or indirect, on whether they win or lose.
Hollow decision: no real consequences
Obvious decision: no real decision
Uninformed decision: an arbitrary choice
Informed decision: where the player has ample information
Dramatic decision: taps into a player's emotional state
Weighted decision: a balanced decision with consequences on both sides
Immediate decision: has an immediate impact
Long-term decision: whose impact will be felt down the road
In the example of the golden arrow, the decision is a combination of the previous decision types. It's an informed decision because the player knows a lot about situation he is in, it's a dramatic decision because the player has an emotional attachment to his faithful companion, it's a weighted decision because there are consequences balanced on both sides, it's an immediate decision because it impacts the battle which is taking place with the Dragon, and it's a long-term decision because it impacts the future battle with the evil mage. All these combine to make the decision of whether or not to use the golden arrow a critical choice in the game, and this makes the game interesting."
Maybe not hang onto every word of that stuff, hey Sketchy? Not least because I haven't killed a dragon with a golden arrow for a while now.
Would I play CoD with only one weapon per type? Yes, I would.
I wouldn't play CoD if you payed me, but
CoD, MoH, etc are trying to give the impression of being historically accurate - that's the only reason they have one weapon of each type per country.
And why would this be blissfully outside of the concerns of good game design? The point is to give us a rich and complex game world, with subtlety and nuance and all that, to be convincing even if only in regards to its own arbitrary rules. The kind of rich and complex game worlds I'm interested in give me the opportunity to bring knives to gunfights, not just a series of prearranged, controlled encounters.
Would you refuse to play Half Life 2 because it only has one weapon per type? I'm guessing probably not, seeing as how it's widely regarded as one of the best games ever made.
I still prefer Half Life 1 by a long way, though I never really feel the need to whip out my snarks while playing. Nonetheless, it's another detail that makes me think boy, there's a real cosmology here, in fact that's what has always been the best thing about Half Life, that cause and effect don't necessarily feel mechanical, that we're not just solving a sequence of shooting puzzles but that there's all kinds of interesting shit afoot.
Oh, and as Sumo says in his original post, you're going to buy items in a store. I tend to find handing over money can be a pretty loaded decision! What if I can't afford a golden arrow or to get my faithful companion vaccinated?
Advertisement
Post Reply
Tell me what you think.
Edited by Sumo148
