How does interface work?
This is one of the most difficult challenges of the game design; making an interface that is streamlined and usable while being flexible enough to let the player design any machine they can imagine.
I think the best way to keep the interface streamlined is to find most important aspect of creating these battle machines and designing around that. The designing of the machines is essentially about transferring of forces, but there are various ways to approach that.
One, more realistic approach is to have a lot of different forces that could be used for different machine parts. Each part could have one or more inputs and outputs. For example, an engine could have inputs for fuel and heat, and output angular motion. A gatling gun might have inputs for angular motion and bullets, and output bullets at higher velocity.
A simpler method would be to have only a single generic type of force that machine parts need to function. This allows for the actual way that the machine is going to work to be more transparent to the player, rather than forcing them to worry about how to convert coal into angular motion into directional motion. Instead of force converting parts, there could be machine parts that increase the power of the force that goes through them, or splits it in two, allowing one power source to control multiple devices.
The second option is more appropriate. It allows players to build machines with a purpose, rather than worrying about technical details.
The interface needs to let the player complete these tasks:
- choosing machine parts to place
- placing machine parts
- rotating machine parts
- connecting the machine parts together
These will be achieved as follows. In the machine designing view, there will be a section on the side of screen on which the currently available machine parts are visible, divided into categories of devices for movement, defense and attack, or something similar. The machine parts visible on in this section are draggable into the main machine design screen, and draggable from the main screen back into the parts list.
Once in the main screen the parts can be freely moved around but will pop into place if the mouse is let go while the part is overlapping another part. When clicked without dragging, the part will be selected. When a part is selected, a ring will appear surrounding it, which can be grabbed to rotate the machine part. Also when selected, a circle will appear over any input and output points on the machine part. A filled circle shows a filled input or output, and clicking it will remove the connection between that part and the one it is connected to. An unfilled circle shows an unfilled input or output. Clicking and holding on an unfilled input circle will show all unfilled output points that the player can connect the part to. Letting the mouse go over the output point that the player wants to will join the two machine parts.
Game world? Seamless world/two games? How does battle game tie into world game?
I don't think that the different parts of the game can be tied together perfectly. There are some ways in which the connection between the game modes can be tightened. There are essentially three game modes -- designing machines, battling machines and the strategy section where the resources to create machines are gathered.
In the strategy game mode, each town the player controls will have a factory that can create machine parts. Thus the more land the player controls, the quicker they can build machines and create the parts to repair old machines. When the player creates a battle machine, it will become a token that can be moved around the map, be used to attack enemy's lands and defend the player's lands.
The battle mode is initiated when the player's land that is being defended by a machine is attacked, or when the player attacks an enemy position.
Story? Is there one? How does the world work? Linear story?
I don't want to create any kind of detailed storyline... I think a more procedural, gameplay based approach would be better. Giving the player the goal of finishing the game or overcoming the more close at hand challenges is usually motivation enough, without needing an artificial MacGuffin to collect or destroy.
However, the moral position of the player may need to be modified with a storyline. Waging war simply to gain control of land and power is not exactly morally virtuous. In this case, it may be preferable to have the player fighting to destroy and mad scientist who wants to force the entire world into mindless servitude. Though making the player *not* morally virtuous is also an option I'm quite willing to explore... so I'm still not sure about the actually sure of the game's storyline, or lack thereof.
Conlusion: You need one right?
In the case of the game events defining the story, and not the other way round, the conclusion will occur
Strategy game on map? Mission-based?
The strategy part of the game will take place on a two-dimensional map, behaving much like a traditional wargame.
Is world linear? Or freeform.
In the case of the strategy game section being a 2D map, the world is a more freeform construction. The player is free to concur the land as they wish.
Does player have avatar? Or just behind a mouse cursor?
I feel that the player's connection to the world and to the game is stronger if they have an avatar that is part of the world. I feel that the game is best if seen as a lot of fairly equal mad scientists fighting for control of the world.
Gravity - does anybody need it?
After discussion with Seb & Heather, I feel that using gravity in the battle view (and thus a side-on view) is more fun from a gameplay perspective, and adds more tactical depth while keeping the battle machines constrained.
Setting/time period?
Using a steampunk type setting is most appropriate for the game design. In the reality of a steampunk world, crazed inventors building battle machines designed to crush their foes is just normal everyday occurrence. A steampunk setting also allows for fun designs of machine parts, and for science-fictional twisting of physical reality if need be.
Does terrain effect game? Is it deformable like everything else?
In the strategy game mode, the terrain will have effects... Such as mountains creating areas that are more easily defended, seas making passage impossible, etc.
I don't think terrain needs to play such a significant part in the battle mode of the game... Just controlling unwieldy machines and trying to not let the enemy crush you is probably challenge enough.
Enemy? Intelligent? Do they have machines as well? Are they monsters? Little men?
It would be ideal to have the enemy be an equal match for the player. Also, the player wants to fight on equal grounds with the enemy... they want to build a battle machine that will subvert the weaknesses of the enemies battle machine, not build a battle machine that will be tested against something completely different, like little soldiers or such.
AI for strategy games is essentially a solved problem, so that shouldn't be too much fuss.
The AI for the battle game mode may prove a little more difficult though. I think the problem is made much easier by the understanding that the enemy AI doesn't need to understand *how* to create an effect, just the effect that it desires (destroying the player), and the set methods it can use to achieve that, such as moving around with rockets, or shooting it's gun. The AI doesn't need to be inventive, just interesting to play against.
Physical puzzles as well?
Probably not. Would make a nice addition, but acts as a distraction from the main game.
Will I add a sandbox mode? Random battle type thing?
Yes. Once the core game systems are done, creating a random/quick battle mode for players who don't want to get involved in the main game is easy.
How will you give player drive/motivation?
I don't think there needs to be too much external forces to motivate the player. For players who get enjoyment of games from winning, playing to beat battles and win the final game is enough. For players looking for something more creative, the sheer joy of building machines and using them to smash things is enough for me at least, and I suspect many other people enjoy it as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment