Vapourware Which of these projects is best for a solo dev?

[Zanzoken]

Looking for opinions on what project I should pursue as a solo dev. I have two in mind.

Option 1: Survival Action RPG

Spoiler

Inspired by Gothic, Elex, Breath of the Wild, and Stoneshard. The premise is the Player Character (PC) is an astronaut who becomes stranded on an alien world and must journey on foot across hostile terrain in order to complete his mission.

• Perspective: 2D top down
• Graphics: Pixel art
• Key systems
  • Action RPG combat where PC wields a sword and a few magic skills
  • Character system with attributes, skills, etc with an emphasis on significant differences between builds
  • PC can choose a background with noncombat skills that affect gameplay and some quest events (NOT just skill checks)
  • Light survival elements including needing to eat / drink / sleep, semi-realistic wounds, and occasional environmental dangers (heat, cold, toxins)
  • Light crafting / cooking / camping elements
  • PC has an AI companion (think Cortana or Navi) to help on the journey
• Key assets
  • One customizable PC, can choose male or female, with a few different hairstyles / facial hair options and portraits
  • PC gets different attack animations as skill improves (like in Gothic)
  • 6 to 8 monsters with unique attack animations and basic AI
  • 2 creature robots with unique attack animations and basic AI
  • 1 humanoid robot with attack animations similar to PC, plus complex AI
  • External terrain (rocks, trees, plants, water, etc) and some internal terrain (ruined futuristic sci-fi)
  • Hand-crafted map, quests, and encounters

Goal is to be similar to Stoneshard in terms of aesthetic / production values, although replace all the inventory paperdolling with actual combat animations.

Option 2: Sandbox RPG Feudal Lord Simulator

Spoiler

Essentially a clone / spiritual successor of the old Microprose game, Sword of the Samurai. Play as a feudal lord trying to conquer the world. Possibly would incorporate some inspiration from Pirates, Mount & Blade, and Crusader Kings 2.

• Perspective: 2D top down
• Graphics: Pixel art
• Key systems
  • Gameplay is split between overworld story events and combat mini-games
  • RPG character system which affects PC's skill in combat and diplomacy
  • Combat is fought 1-vs-1 (fighting game), 1-vs-many (shmup), and army-level (RTS)
  • Complex relationship mechanics between PC and NPC lords, plus other characters / factions that lead to wars, assassinations, etc
• Key assets
  • Fighting mini-game characters (PC and enemy) and level
  • Shmup mini-game characters (PC, enemy swordsman, enemy archer, enemy lancer) and some levels
  • RTS units (infantry, archers, cavalry) and some levels
  • PC and NPC portraits
  • Event screens
  • World and regional maps

Screenshots from the original. It's a great game, just needs a few modern upgrades to the production values and mini-games.

The goal in either case would be to create a foundation where you could then take the existing assets and systems and expand them to make larger, more complex subsequent games. I think the action RPG could easily grow into a trilogy, whereas the sandbox RPG could have one sequel, maybe two.

My questions:

1) Which game would be more feasible for a solo dev to make?

2) Which game do you think would sell better?

All feedback is appreciated!

 

[RPK]

2) doesn't matter because if you're not obsessed with it and super-excited by the concept, you won't finish it.

So... which one are you more excited by? Which one will you start up the project on when you've had a shitty day and the end of the project is not in sight and you'd rather play crappy RPG #1001 that someone else already finished or do anything else really than work on your game?

 

[what am i doing]

Generally as a solo dev you're going to want to make something that is system/gameplay focused rather than asset focused. More programming and/or design work (usually), but less asset creation work. Something where you just make a system that the player can interact with for a long time and a lot of gameplay experiences can just emerge out of interaction with that system (ie Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft) without needing a huge quantity of hand-made content. So I'd broadly lean towards number 2, particularly given the (possibly mistaken) assumption that most solo devs lean more towards programming and less towards art. Option 1 sounds like it would be more asset dependent.

However, RPK's point is, I think, the most important. You are better off embarking on a big and difficult project that you're passionate about than a smaller and easier one that doesn't particularly interest you and which you only chose because it seemed more viable. The internet is full of shitty little platformers and 2D japshit RPGs that got started and abandoned partway through because some uninspired dev thought it would be easy and didn't have much passion and eventually gave up, and even if they did get finished probably wouldn't have any value anyways because they didn't have sovl. The one you personally want to make is the one you should go with, at the end of the day, as long as it's practical.

 

[Pots Talos]

2 would be easier to make and 1 would sell better.
Like others have said though, unless you are passionate about the project don't bother.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Zanzoken]

2) doesn't matter because if you're not obsessed with it and super-excited by the concept, you won't finish it.

You think so? My goal there isn't much more than to clone the original. The interesting thing to me is it's essentially 4 games in 1, but it doesn't seem like the 3 mini-games would be that complex.

• Fighting mini-game: 1 character and a couple of basic attacks
• Shmup mini-game: PC with one melee and one ranged attack, and only 3 enemy types
• RTS: Open field battles with only 3 or 4 units types

Although to be fair, these are all pretty dated by modern standards, and would need a lot of polishing.

The simulation part doesn't require complicated assets, but would probably be the most difficult in terms of programming. My guess is it would be the most challenging part of the project.

So... which one are you more excited by? Which one will you start up the project on when you've had a shitty day and the end of the project is not in sight and you'd rather play crappy RPG #1001 that someone else already finished or do anything else really than work on your game?

I know it will be a monumentally difficult task either way, but I am excited by both.

I have always been really intrigued by the Pirates / Sword of the Samurai / Mount & Blade style sandbox games. There aren't really a lot of games like those so it seems like there is still a lot of untapped potential.

But I also love action RPGs like Gothic and Morrowind. What I am envisioning there isn't necessarily as innovative, but the goal is just to make a good RPG that is fun to play and tells a good story. I don't think we can ever have too many of those.

 

[Zanzoken]

Generally as a solo dev you're going to want to make something that is system/gameplay focused rather than asset focused. More programming and/or design work (usually), but less asset creation work. Something where you just make a system that the player can interact with for a long time and a lot of gameplay experiences can just emerge out of interaction with that system (ie Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft) without needing a huge quantity of hand-made content. So I'd broadly lean towards number 2, particularly given the (possibly mistaken) assumption that most solo devs lean more towards programming and less towards art. Option 1 sounds like it would be more asset dependent.

That makes sense. However I think the availability of quality pixel art assets out there that can be bought for little or nothing makes the asset problem a lot less daunting. I think you still need original assets for the most recognizable parts of the game, such as your characters, enemies, etc. But the average person is not going to notice if rocks, grass, etc are from asset packs. Although it can be challenging to find all the assets you need and ensure they have a cohesive style.

However, RPK's point is, I think, the most important. You are better off embarking on a big and difficult project that you're passionate about than a smaller and easier one that doesn't particularly interest you and which you only chose because it seemed more viable. The internet is full of shitty little platformers and 2D japshit RPGs that got started and abandoned partway through because some uninspired dev thought it would be easy and didn't have much passion and eventually gave up, and even if they did get finished probably wouldn't have any value anyways because they didn't have sovl. The one you personally want to make is the one you should go with, at the end of the day, as long as it's practical.

I feel like either pitch could be completed by one person (more or less), given enough determination and a few years of work. I am kind of hyper-focused on this because I know 99% of devs try to take on too much, which leads to development going on forever and never getting finished.

 

[Modron]

Stop making me want to play Sword of the Samurai again.

 

[gaussgunner]

1.

 

[S.torch]

solo dev

Go back while you still can or prepare for the madhouse.

 

[Krice]

RPGs in general are demanding, because they are more complex than I guess most games. The development time is usually count in years, so be prepared for it.