Author Topic: Let's Make us some Games! (Read 44861 times)

app103 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 06, 2006, 05:09 AM »

How about a whack-a-mole type game staring some of the forum regs...and cody and his alien peg pals?

Hitting the regs earns you CodyCoins...hitting Cody or his pals you lose coins...hitting dalmatian snakes earns you bonus coins.

You need to collect enough CodyCoins within a time limit to advance to the next round...where it just gets faster & faster.

Not sure about the setting...maybe the inside of a pc case with people popping up from behind things?

(inspired by nudone's avatar)

Deozaan · « **Reply #26 on:** October 06, 2006, 05:22 AM »

Not sure about the setting...maybe the inside of a pc case with people popping up from behind things?
(inspired by nudone's avatar)
-app103 (October 06, 2006, 05:09 AM)

How about a cash register! It pops open and you see cody & friends and site regs. Almost like those quickshoot games with the NES Light Gun.

Mizraim · « **Reply #27 on:** October 06, 2006, 08:54 AM »

Those are some excellent ideas! I think the whole base a game after a random name sounds unique and challanges the coder to some creative ideas based on a single title. Keep these ideas coming and invite your coder friends to come try their skill.

Mizraim · « **Reply #28 on:** October 13, 2006, 05:50 PM »

I have been thinking about a game recently, and under the ideas posted on here realized that I could use some of the ideas on here to start the beginning of my game. I can't share all of it because there is still a lot to be decided, but basically I want to create a world where everything on it is interactable in one way or another. We could collect the rocks' like JavaJones idea to build castles, weapons etc... and we could take Deozaan's, idea of grow up to store energy for various things and farm food for our people who harvest the materials to build. I think you may see where this is going. Things would eventually get better, stronger, and faster to find and produce and soon you would have a thriving civilization... then the other work begins... Exploration. You explore to find another civilization and then begins the wars and domination factor. We tie all this into a RPG type prehistoric setting, throw in the occasional monster attack (the giant Cody monster) and you need to develop ways to defend yourself and so on.

nudone · « **Reply #29 on:** October 14, 2006, 01:19 AM »

WOW! I just noticed your avatar....thats awesome!
-Mizraim (October 05, 2006, 08:56 AM)

i'm glad you like it.

mouser · « **Reply #30 on:** October 14, 2006, 01:32 AM »

very ambitious idea mizraim and sounds fun.. be nice to think of some small start you could make on it.. not sure what that would be though!

but you have given me a funny picture of cody as a giant sized creature who can bend down and chomp up a person

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2006, 01:38 AM »

Maybe we should move the actual discussions about each game idea that gets mentioned in this thread into it's own thread, and keep a nice uncluttered idea-list here?

mouser · « **Reply #32 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:30 AM »

good idea gothic.
what id really like to see is a flash game where we can all contribute by making levels for it.
ie some kind of game where there is a level editor.

maybe a lemmings style game with cody's instead of lemmings?

what about something with a "programming" twist to it?
(you have to program the cody's to get to the end of the level?)

mouser · « **Reply #33 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:31 AM »

and make sure you don't miss this: https://www.donation...dex.php?topic=5663.0

JavaJones · « **Reply #34 on:** October 15, 2006, 05:44 PM »

Mizraim, sounds like Civilization.

I like the idea of a modular/extensible game a lot. Start small, make it simple and reasonably open architecture. Then everyone can expand on it. If you're a coder, code a new module for it, and you can do it on your own. If you're a level designer, make new levels with the level editor. If you're an artist work on a new character or environments. If it was made modular enough and tools to extend it were made easy to use and widely available, you could end up with a very expansive and cool game at the end. The only concern would be security due to malicious expansions I guess, but you'd use a central directory of verified extensions that people could submit to for verification, like Firefox extension repositories.

I see this as kind of going back to the "good old days" of game development where 1 or 2 people is all it took because the hardware couldn't cope with much anyway, so you had to make games simple. Back in those days someone would be the game designer, story writer, coder, and artist all in one. It didn't take much to do the graphics for Jill of the Jungle.

So this could be similar. After all it is the gameplay dynamics that matter most. In a perhaps ironic proof of that the modern Flash technology is being used to enable all kinds of classic and extended classic gameplay dynamics, sometimes with upgraded graphics, but the gameplay is still the star. This resurgence of classic gaming in the mainstream shows it's still all about those simple, enjoyable gameplay mechanics.

- Oshyan

Mizraim · « **Reply #35 on:** October 18, 2006, 11:57 AM »

Mizraim, sounds like Civilization.
-JavaJones (October 15, 2006, 05:44 PM)

I was thinking the same thing when I started to discribe the idea, however I wanted to get more into the fighting aspect, "the old clang you're dead, clang I'm dead lose a troop from Civ" isn't what I wanted at all.

Great game though.

I wanted more of a Diablo 2 / Titan Quest type fighting game style, maybe even more. I still have a lot to learn about coding so I will have to work with what I have.

JavaJones · « **Reply #36 on:** October 18, 2006, 01:32 PM »

Ah, interesting concept. I like it. So basically Diablo-ish with an RTS twist? I'm sure that's been done, but it sounds like a cool gameplay dynamic, especially if the two aspects are reasonably well balanced. Of course the issue with mixing genres is always that fans of one may not necessarily be fans of another, so although they may enjoy half of the game, the other half may piss them off. Which is why I've always wanted to have basic AI in games to take care of unwanted aspects for people *optionally*. So in your proposed game for example, let's say someone doesn't really care about the Civ aspects and just wants to do the adventuring Diablo parts. When it comes time to do their Civ stuff they can just say "auto-roll" or "let the computer do it" (or even set this as a consistent setting for every turn or whatever) and then the computer does a reasonable (if not exceptional) job and they get to go fight some more. Obviously if anyone wants to master the game they have to get good at both parts, but the *option* of playing either or both is really great.

- Oshyan

Mizraim · « **Reply #37 on:** October 18, 2006, 02:03 PM »

Well spoken, I can see that some of the hack and slashers may not want to hang back and build the kingdom back up while the architects of the group may want to do just that, I am thinking more in the Multiplayer setting of course, and that would be a major flaw in a single player mode, unless you were able to specify beforehand the gameplay type you preferred and were given the means to perform the opposite of your choice. So just as you said, this is something I have thougth of.

JavaJones · « **Reply #38 on:** October 18, 2006, 04:19 PM »

Adding multiplayer makes it a lot more feasible and cool, from a gameplay standpoint. The only major issues then are mostly technical - working out the multiplayer and whatnot. Doing a game like the one you mention in simple Flash probably wouldn't be too hard, at least to get a good start on it. But once you start getting into multiplayer I think it'd become rather more difficult. On the plus side of that however the "dungeon explorers" (diablo style) could be doing their thing pretty independently, not even necessarily interacting with other players, while the "kingdom masters" (civ style) would be turn-based, so simple message passing could be used to update the view of each client. Not bad as far as difficulty of programming I would think. But once you got into semi-realtime and if you wanted for example the hack-and-slashers to be able to work with each other or whatever, then you'd probably want to go to a dedicated client of some kind (stand-alone), or a very sophisticated browser component (I *have* seen stuff of that level of sophistication).

The only other thing to deal with then is making sure you have a good balance of player types. What if most people want to play hack-and-slash? Are there enough missions for them? Missions must be generated by the civ-style players, so if they're not doing enough battles, then there may not be. You'd have to spawn/allow AI players both to get more missions for the diablo players and to ensure enough opponents for the civ players. Counting on there always being enough players at either level would be a mistake. Also what if one player or another doesn't finish their game/turn? You have to have a cut-off point where the AI takes over. Presumably the diablo players would have to complete a dungeon/battle for the civ player to see a battle conclusion screen (or they die and the civ player sees a failure) - but what if the diablo player disconnects or just idles in the dungeon without completing? You have to be able to take it over with AI. To reduce load it'd probably just be a dice roll based on a few simple factors (how well the diablo player has done so far in the dungeon perhaps).

Oh wait, one more thing.

There's the social element of it too. Not so much pairing people up with other people who are friends, but at the least you need a mechanism to regulate and distribute players to each other, since the civ and diablo players are complementary and basically a team. So how do you determine who gets the best fighter in the game? Does he get to pick who he plays with? Probably. But then you get a fairly small elite who will probably dominate the game together, so you have to deal with that. Making assignment more random would solve that, and to some degree the diablo players might not care since they get to keep fighting almost no matter what, but it would probably still be annoying for people not to be able to choose teammates. If you made games somewhat short, so no one could gain a long-term upper hand, that might solve some of the problems.

Anyway, lots to think about. Game design is fun.

- Oshyan

Deozaan · « **Reply #39 on:** October 18, 2006, 06:47 PM »

So who has experience with Flash enough to be able to organize something so that it will be modular and easily expandible?

I've been using Flash for many years now but I've never become familiar with things like multiplayer or modular expansion. I suspect it has to do something with OOP classes (which I'm still trying to figure out) but I'm not sure.

And if we were to get started on this project, what is one of the areas we should work on first?

mouser · « **Reply #40 on:** October 18, 2006, 08:01 PM »

There are some nice tutorials on flash game design. I've been looking into a few on platform games in flash using a tile editor (which would make it easy for others to design levels):

http://oos.moxiecode.com/
http://www.strille.n.../part1_scrolling.php

JavaJones · « **Reply #41 on:** October 18, 2006, 08:49 PM »

Ok, first off I think it should be entirely 2D, like Diablo and older versions of Civ. This cuts down on resource use and system requirements.

Second, I think it should be started with the civ-like component, since I envision the diablo-like components being essentially spawned from that whenever a battle happens. You'll want the basic civ battle decision system in place anyway for those who don't want to diablo it, so this is a sensible starting place. Put in a simple resource collection and domination game (there are already a number of Flash-based examples, although none come readily to mind in URL form just now), and then you can build hack-and-slash battles and ultimately perhaps multiplayer on top of that.

I think you begin with just a few resource types, a very limited technology tree (if any - probably make it static, not research-based), and a smaller world map. Have limited unit types (maybe 5 typs of units), limited weapons, etc. Basically start everything small and limited, but try to get as many in there as possible.

Get it all setup and then work on balancing once it's functional.

Use publicly available textures and art at least as placeholders while prototyping. Keep it in prototyping phase, including prototype art, until you really want it to be played a lot (i.e. when it's a bit more mature).

Those are my thoughts for now. Unfortunately I don't have any Flash dev experience. Another possibility would be Java btw.

- Oshyan

Deozaan · « **Reply #42 on:** October 18, 2006, 09:33 PM »

I envision something more real-time. Like an RTS where you can move your character around and build things, but also go off to fight. Except with one person instead of many units. I guess the best (yet still very, very terrible) comparison I can come up with is something like an MMORPG but with building aspects that appear in Second Life.

mouser · « **Reply #43 on:** October 18, 2006, 09:38 PM »

that sounds like a giant project that would take years..
how about starting with something really simple but playable that could be done in a month?

Deozaan · « **Reply #44 on:** October 18, 2006, 09:53 PM »

I said it was a bad comparison.

Still, I think if it was done right, it could be like a 2D RTS, where you control only one character. When the game starts, you can stick around the castle to build it up and work on defenses and homes and things, and when you get bored with that or if you need to, you can go with your army (or solo, I guess) and go explore and try to find the other people and fight them if you want.

Or perhaps a better example would be something with the character control and visual design of Diablo II but where the city can be attacked and destroyed or built up.

I don't think it necessarily needs to be PvP, or that different factions need to be at war all the time.

But again this is getting too complex. I think it would be nice, and along with Mizraim's idea of something that we start small with and add more to it as time goes on to make it a more full game.

This project is very ambitious, and would almost certainly take longer than a month, but could be playable in various stages throughout time.

JavaJones · « **Reply #45 on:** October 18, 2006, 10:34 PM »

So what are the advantages/disadvantages of building? The consequences or effects? If you don't build and your city gets destroyed, do you die? Lose points? Will you have to end up tending your castle when you'd rather be off fighting? If no, then how is the castle management dealt with when the player is not handling it - AI? And if that's the case then you have to develop the AI, and how effective is it? If it's too effective, no one will want to do the building parts. Lots of problems I see with that basic concept. I like that it's reasonably innovative, but it also seems kind of like just throwing in some unrelated components as sort of filler. The bits have to interrelate and depend on each other to make each compelling. I understand you just may not have outlined the idea fully, but it does already sound immediately complicated. If so perhaps it's something to do a little later, after a first game or prototype is done, to build momentum for the team and ideas.

- Oshyan

Mizraim · « **Reply #46 on:** October 18, 2006, 11:04 PM »

Defending the castle would have the benefits of growth. If anyone played Utopia on the SNES, there were places where food was processed. I kind of see the same idea behind fortifying the castle. It could be like sending food to the troops, giving moral, or like in Civ, if your nation was destroyed, you had to settle a new town before too many rounds or you would disband, not seeing a purpose to fight for a nation that has no future. I'm out of time but I will revisit this for a better explanation. Thanks for the links and point of views.

Deozaan · « **Reply #47 on:** October 18, 2006, 11:59 PM »

If you think of an RTS, each faction needs resources. The castle would be akin to the main headquarters for your faction. Naturally there could be cities elsewhere that your faction controls.

This idea is starting to get very complicated, but I think it's worth mentioning just as an idea and not necessarily a mandatory feature. In fact this is probably best suited for something much more advanced than what we'd want to start with.

How about, like an RTS, when the faction had the resources to train/buy new units, what would happen in this particular setting is that new players joining in could only join the faction that had allocated the resources to train new units. So if your castle or main base was damaged or destroyed and you didn't have the resources, you couldn't "hire" more people to join the faction. It would be almost as if the game took place on another world and everyone who joined was basically a freelancer/mercenary getting into a contract to join the faction and be shipped off to the planet.

JavaJones · « **Reply #48 on:** October 19, 2006, 12:05 AM »

Interesting concepts but it sounds like that *depends* on multiplayer functionality fundamentally, and that's a tall order for a web-based game - or if non-web based, then it would probably require a central server, or people to run servers. Not impossible, just additional complication we probably don't want to start with.

As far as the rewards of building and maintaining the castle, I understand the traditional goals of that in a regular civ-like RTS. It sounded like it was being suggested that it be different than that though, particularly in the sense that the user only controlled one guy. Would people follow you? Would additional units just run around with AI and do their own business? Lots of questions are raised in this scenario.

- Oshyan

Mizraim · « **Reply #49 on:** December 13, 2006, 10:00 AM »

I agree. Something this big will take a team that can dedicate their time and get paid for their labor. I think if we want to go with a smaller idea, we could go with some of the afore mentioned ideas. This was something I wanted some input on and some brainstorming.

Another thing, maybe we could tone this one down a bit. Drop the multiplayer aspect. More or less, use the idea where you can bulid up cities and command armies, I guess like a Civilization and Populous mix. As basic as the first Populous was, that may be too simple, but somewhere along those lines.