Fighting in Tunnels

[Gorth]

Meh, I prefer my tunnels filled with dirty water, waste and rats. Sewers are the pinnacle of tunnels. The only thing better than sewers are swamps. That's like humongous sewers.

 

Tunnels are soo generic and mainstream

[Nathaniel Chapman]

A game where you fight monsters in tunnels can only be a Good Thing.

 

I hope to see some proper old skool values in this game.

 

even without the rest o' the "cheers" stuff, the above statement makes soooooo obvious that mc is english.... not that there is anything wrong with being a pasty-faced englishman (unless you are a bp exec.)

 

...

 

am knowing that mc is both serious AND tongue-in-cheek with his request, but if there is one thing that sends a chill down our spine when reading game development message boards, it is the oft repeated notion that there is "proper" values or mechanics. am not wanting a developer to have some hard and fast notion o' proper. is certain elements o' the rpg and crpg community that embrace gaming dogma with a disturbing 'mount of zealotry.

 

make the game fun, and let "proper" burn in the deepest and most godforsaken corner o' hell. so says Gromnir.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Obviously all entertainment media have an inherently subjective quality, and I don't necessarily think that there can be an absolute definition of the "proper" or correct course in any creative endeavor.

 

However, I do think that well thought-out mechanics have (at the very least) an advantage over haphazard mechanics. Not that bad mechanics in games are always the result of insufficient consideration in their design - obviously compromise always occurs due to schedule, implementation difficulties, or other unforseen (or poorly planned for) circumstances. But, I think that the ability to maintain a clear and consistent set of principles that inform the large and small mechanical decisions you make in light of those difficulties really is what makes a good designer.

 

The reason I bring this up is that "fun" is completely enigmatic and difficult to pin down. No game designer can really tell you what makes a game fun - they can explain what makes it interesting, how the gameplay presents interesting strategic and tactical choices, etc. I do think that trying to nail down what makes mechanics work in those ways tends towards a certain style of design, which is maybe why things start appearing dogmatic.

[Gromnir]

A game where you fight monsters in tunnels can only be a Good Thing.

 

I hope to see some proper old skool values in this game.

 

even without the rest o' the "cheers" stuff, the above statement makes soooooo obvious that mc is english.... not that there is anything wrong with being a pasty-faced englishman (unless you are a bp exec.)

 

...

 

am knowing that mc is both serious AND tongue-in-cheek with his request, but if there is one thing that sends a chill down our spine when reading game development message boards, it is the oft repeated notion that there is "proper" values or mechanics. am not wanting a developer to have some hard and fast notion o' proper. is certain elements o' the rpg and crpg community that embrace gaming dogma with a disturbing 'mount of zealotry.

 

make the game fun, and let "proper" burn in the deepest and most godforsaken corner o' hell. so says Gromnir.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Obviously all entertainment media have an inherently subjective quality, and I don't necessarily think that there can be an absolute definition of the "proper" or correct course in any creative endeavor.

 

However, I do think that well thought-out mechanics have (at the very least) an advantage over haphazard mechanics. Not that bad mechanics in games are always the result of insufficient consideration in their design - obviously compromise always occurs due to schedule, implementation difficulties, or other unforseen (or poorly planned for) circumstances. But, I think that the ability to maintain a clear and consistent set of principles that inform the large and small mechanical decisions you make in light of those difficulties really is what makes a good designer.

 

The reason I bring this up is that "fun" is completely enigmatic and difficult to pin down. No game designer can really tell you what makes a game fun - they can explain what makes it interesting, how the gameplay presents interesting strategic and tactical choices, etc. I do think that trying to nail down what makes mechanics work in those ways tends towards a certain style of design, which is maybe why things start appearing dogmatic.

 

 

am all in favor of having coherent and well-designed mechanics, but the notion o' there being "proper" mechanics offends our delicate sensibilities. as far as we is concerned, there is not some kinda universal Proper Mechanics that is appropriate for all games... or even all crpgs. for example, some folks who use the "proper" descriptor while posting at rpgcodex has argued, quite forcefully, that crpg combat shoulds necessarily be turn-based. perhaps nathaniel would care to comment?

 

as for "fun," we were not attempting to define, or even to use as a useful guideline. such nebulous descriptors is hardly useful. you will, for example, never hear Gromnir deriding a game's immersion as such an observation is far to vague as to be having any value whatsoever. 'course as we has objected to the notion o' propriety o' mechanics, we can hardly offer more specific guidelines, can we? w/o an actual game, or aspect o' game being referenced, "fun" will necessarily needs suffice as a simple recognition that there is greater concerns in game development beyond propriety o' mechanics.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nathaniel Chapman]

A game where you fight monsters in tunnels can only be a Good Thing.

 

I hope to see some proper old skool values in this game.

 

even without the rest o' the "cheers" stuff, the above statement makes soooooo obvious that mc is english.... not that there is anything wrong with being a pasty-faced englishman (unless you are a bp exec.)

 

...

 

am knowing that mc is both serious AND tongue-in-cheek with his request, but if there is one thing that sends a chill down our spine when reading game development message boards, it is the oft repeated notion that there is "proper" values or mechanics. am not wanting a developer to have some hard and fast notion o' proper. is certain elements o' the rpg and crpg community that embrace gaming dogma with a disturbing 'mount of zealotry.

 

make the game fun, and let "proper" burn in the deepest and most godforsaken corner o' hell. so says Gromnir.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Obviously all entertainment media have an inherently subjective quality, and I don't necessarily think that there can be an absolute definition of the "proper" or correct course in any creative endeavor.

 

However, I do think that well thought-out mechanics have (at the very least) an advantage over haphazard mechanics. Not that bad mechanics in games are always the result of insufficient consideration in their design - obviously compromise always occurs due to schedule, implementation difficulties, or other unforseen (or poorly planned for) circumstances. But, I think that the ability to maintain a clear and consistent set of principles that inform the large and small mechanical decisions you make in light of those difficulties really is what makes a good designer.

 

The reason I bring this up is that "fun" is completely enigmatic and difficult to pin down. No game designer can really tell you what makes a game fun - they can explain what makes it interesting, how the gameplay presents interesting strategic and tactical choices, etc. I do think that trying to nail down what makes mechanics work in those ways tends towards a certain style of design, which is maybe why things start appearing dogmatic.

 

am all in favor of having coherent and well-designed mechanics, but the notion o' there being "proper" mechanics offends our delicate sensibilities. as far as we is concerned, there is not some kinda universal Proper Mechanics that is appropriate for all games... or even all crpgs. for example, some folks who use the "proper" descriptor while posting at rpgcodex has argued, quite forcefully, that crpg combat shoulds necessarily be turn-based. perhaps nathaniel would care to comment?

 

I personally disagree with an assertion that CRPGs should always have turn-based combat, because I haven't seen (and I think it would be quite difficult to make) a logically coherent argument that supports that assertion.

 

However, when you look at what (good) game developers talk about when discussing design you generally find convergence on some core ideas that are, essentially, what could be considered "proper" design. Things like, "The player should never lose in a way that feels arbitrary or unexpected". This assertion is based on foundations of game design that are themselves fairly well agreed upon ("games are series of interesting choices", "players should understand the ramifications of their choices", etc.)

 

Of course, there are places where it's acceptable to violate these rules, which is why I think "proper" is a better term than "correct". I'd liken this to classic Hollywood filmmaking or "proper" english grammar and diction. It's okay to violate "proper" design, but you should have coherent, clear-eyed reasoning as to why you are violating it.

 

After you design your game, whether or not you follow "proper" design (but especially if you don't), you need to verify your reasoning with playtesting. This kind of audience feedback is especially important in games because they are about player participation at such a fundamental level.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

For future games, I'd like to see someone tackle the idea that the only way to defeat a giant monster is to invade its body, thus the tunnels become various parts of the body where you fight monster parasites while trying to get to the organ to defeat the creature. Imagine fighting a monster that IS the tunnel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMac7RkZmr8...feature=related

Ocarina of Time, God of War 3, System Shock 2 (?), Lost Planet 2, Halo 3, Gears of War 2 etc...

 

This ain't all that original.

Edited June 10, 2010 by WILL THE ALMIGHTY

[Gromnir]

I'd liken this to classic Hollywood filmmaking or "proper" english grammar and diction. It's okay to violate "proper" design, but you should have coherent, clear-eyed reasoning as to why you are violating it.

 

you think such is genuine analogous? how often do you see fans o' literature clamoring for proper grammar in novelist X's next work? am thinking that folks who demand proper implementation o' mechanics or crpg necessities is hardly doing so with same notions in mind as nathaniel and his rules o' grammar. a set o' general guiding principles that may be abandoned if need be? clearly that is what fans is demanding when they complain 'bout lack o' propriety... or not.

 

*shrug*

 

am all in favor of generalized crpg principles that is abandoned as frequently as joyce or twain abandoned the rules o' grammar. am doubting anybody would disagree with nathaniel. nevertheless, if propriety meant what nathaniel means, then we would rarely see such complaints 'bout the propriety, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Whipporwill]

Fans of literature may not clamor for "good grammar" but they certainly do clamor for all sorts of stuff. I would say that if fans clamor for it then it's NOT really a core principle of RPG-making, since those are mostly taken for granted. The people clamoring for turn-based RPGs are more equivalent to Potter fans that wanted Harry and Hermione to get it on. Not so much core principles as people wanting to see what they like and getting upset when the author has a different idea.

 

Come to think of it, us getting upset about Obsidian making a dungeoncrawl is the same thing. It's not that any core principles are being violated, it's just something we don't want.

[Monte Carlo]

This thread is about tunnels, dammit. And fighting in them.

 

Please stop being so high-falutin' and discuss the benefits of the 10'x10' room, spike traps versus poison gas clouds, statues that tell riddles, secret doors and other stuff.

[Gorth]

This thread needs more pictures (tunnel vision not required)...

 

[Oner]

Recognizable but generic.

[Nepenthe]

My favorite part of BG1 was always the dungeon you go through to escape after your return to Candlekeep. Neat traps and secrets to uncover, and the dopplegangers make for fun opponents.

 

They also had some of the best AI barks in the game... "Your time is done, primates!"

 

Recognizable but generic.

 

[HoonDing]

Deep Roads or Orc Caves, which is worse and why?

 

Discuss!

[Amentep]

For future games, I'd like to see someone tackle the idea that the only way to defeat a giant monster is to invade its body, thus the tunnels become various parts of the body where you fight monster parasites while trying to get to the organ to defeat the creature. Imagine fighting a monster that IS the tunnel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMac7RkZmr8...feature=related

Ocarina of Time, God of War 3, System Shock 2 (?), Lost Planet 2, Halo 3, Gears of War 2 etc...

 

This ain't all that original.

 

I never said it was original, just that I wanted future games to tackle the idea.

[Humodour]

Dragon's Eye in Icewind Dale was really great looking and from what I remember was fun to run through.

I recall my reaction being more like "Oh, great. Another pack of ****ing Cold Wights." IWD certainly had some strong elements, but a lot of the dungeons were padded out with too much same-y grinding. One way in which IWD2 improved on the first one (although it was lacking in other ways) is that it focused more on interesting setpiece battles than just throwing hordes of enemies at the party.

 

Anyhow, Fighting in Tunnels memory:

 

My favorite part of BG1 was always the dungeon you go through to escape after your return to Candlekeep. Neat traps and secrets to uncover, and the dopplegangers make for fun opponents.

 

Hmmm. I adored Dragon's Eye. Awesome.

 

In fact IWD1 was just awesome in general.

[Humodour]

I personally disagree with an assertion that CRPGs should always have turn-based combat, because I haven't seen (and I think it would be quite difficult to make) a logically coherent argument that supports that assertion.

 

Easy counter-examples: Deus Ex, VtM: Bloodlines

[Amentep]

This thread needs more pictures (tunnel vision not required)...

 

 

[Irrelevant]

For future games, I'd like to see someone tackle the idea that the only way to defeat a giant monster is to invade its body, thus the tunnels become various parts of the body where you fight monster parasites while trying to get to the organ to defeat the creature. Imagine fighting a monster that IS the tunnel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMac7RkZmr8...feature=related

Ocarina of Time, God of War 3, System Shock 2 (?), Lost Planet 2, Halo 3, Gears of War 2 etc...

 

This ain't all that original.

Lost Planet 2 (and I assume that Mario game) are kind of based around this context(you have the option to kill most large monsters in lost planet 2 from the inside) and that Mario game I guess is completely inside Bowser.

[HoonDing]

[Oner]

 

 

Are we doing an exploration story told through screenshots, or am I misinterpreting things?

 

Edited June 10, 2010 by Oner

[Gfted1]

[WorstUsernameEver]

[Amentep]

[Oner]

[Amentep]

No light in the tunnel?

[Oner]

Yep. Gotta light a new torch.