Magic & Mercenaries: The Curse of Eternal Darkness

[Ysaye]

It’s something to think about. I’d like to hear a few more opinions. I’m always torn between sticking to my vision and trying to make the best game possible, and sometimes that’s a really fine line.

Agree with Dorateen, if Gold Box is what you were going for stick with it how you have it. Interfaces are always tricky for these styles of RPGs, but the target audience I suspect will appreciate the nod to tradition (and having the stats nice and clear!).

I would also say if your gut feel was that the interface you have now is the right one and disgarded the experimental one, go with it.

 

[ProphetSword]

The Gold Box style window doesn’t seem too small when I play the game. Then again, I’m used to that style of game, though, so what the hell do I know?

It’s possible it doesn’t seem as large in small screenshots compared to a large screen. The video probably gives a better representation of how it actually is if you watch it in full screen.

 

[anvi]

I don't get why anyone would want something to look deliberately old. Old games only looked like that because they had no clue how to make a UI and because of technical limitations at the time. If I could play a reproduced Dark Queen of Krynn with CryEngine I would much prefer that and so would 99% of people. Maybe there is a retro audience I don't know about who want games to look the 80s. But I think it makes no sense. I love KOTC because the gameplay is great and nothing else provides that sort of gameplay. But if I could have KOTC in TOEE engine, I would choose that every time.

I think indie devs should make games that keep the good stuff and improves everything else. Like this game:

 

[Strange Fellow]

I would much rather he focus on implementing high-quality content than waste his time trying to improve on visuals that are already perfectly adequate for the target demographic.

 

[anvi]

I would much rather he focus on implementing high-quality content than waste his time trying to improve on visuals that are already perfectly adequate for the target demographic.

Resizing the UI isn't "wasting time trying to improve the visuals".

 

[Strange Fellow]

I would much rather he focus on implementing high-quality content than waste his time trying to improve on visuals that are already perfectly adequate for the target demographic.

Resizing the UI isn't "wasting time trying to improve the visuals".

True enough, but you segued into talking about games that "look old". Resizing the UI won't change that, it'll just emphasise the fact that the environment is a bit crude graphically, that there are no wandering enemies, et cetera. I'd much rather have more information on the screen.

 

[ProphetSword]

Resizing the UI isn't "wasting time trying to improve the visuals".

No, but it does lead down a rabbit hole where people start to see it in less abstract terms. This is what my last project looked like (notice it looks very much like the resized experimental version of the current game that I posted):

Notice how the style isn't that removed from what I'm trying to do now (the system for the current game is far more complex, though, and has a different combat engine). I got many comments from people right here on these forums who told me that it ruined their immersion that these buildings didn't have roofs, even though the buildings in the Gold-Box games didn't have any roofs. They said that the game wouldn't work if you couldn't see the monsters or NPCs before they appeared in the text, even though the Gold-Box games and many others got away with it. And on, and on, and on...

Since people didn't get that I wanted to create something in the vein of a Gold-Box game (my favorite series of games), I had to retreat, start from scratch and try to mimic the same feeling of those engines without outright copying them. I went full abstraction with the blue version, but over time people asked me to make it color...so I did...and I admit it looks about 1,000 times better that way. But I have to draw the line somewhere.

The Gold-Box games worked due to the text descriptions. You would often walk into an empty room and have nothing but text to carry the scene. As a single developer who might not have artwork for everything I want to put into the game, I may have to do the same. This only works if the game uses high abstraction, which means that the 3D window plays a smaller role in the game.

So, yes, on one hand the game is trying to evoke a retro feel. On the other hand, it is doing so by following some of the same limitations. If people will play Gold-Box games in this day and age in DOSBox (and sales prove that they still do), I don't see where someone wouldn't play the game I'm making for the same reason.

 

[smaug]

How did I miss this thread?

More gold box?

 

[The Red Knight]

Gold Box games always reminded me of text games, except with graphical quality-of-life improvements to make the navigation and the like easier. The little what-you-see box is primarily used to give you a rough idea/reminder of where you are without spamming "you are in a desert" area descriptions where unnecessary, and often there's little to no difference between exploring the area in first person and using the area map (you don't have to watch out for obstacles blocking your path nor for easy-to-miss items that could be picked up, there are no enemies that you could see in the distance and sneak around, there's no verticality to take into account, events telling you important things will trigger either way, it's not a hiking selfie simulator, etc). The eye candy from seeing stone walls in a castle and spooky impenetrable walls of trees in a forest at night is there to stimulate your imagination a bit in addition to event descriptions and an occasional picture/portrait, and as such any graphic whorism should be left at the door for this type of a game.

 

[anvi]

Resizing the UI isn't "wasting time trying to improve the visuals".

No, but it does lead down a rabbit hole where people start to see it in less abstract terms.

Whatevs, I can't be bothered trying to convince codexers a 90% / 10% ui to game is a bad idea. But if you want to actually make any money, I suggest you show the two screenshots to people on some other forum and do a poll. Not that it matters much anyway if the combat is not done in a different screen.

 

[The Red Knight]

If he wants even more money he should instead make the view/map box even smaller and make the text box big enough to accomodate for overly verbose sex scenes on battle loss.

Spoiler

 

[Alchemist]

It’s something to think about. I’d like to hear a few more opinions. I’m always torn between sticking to my vision and trying to make the best game possible, and sometimes that’s a really fine line.

Personally, I think you should 100% stick to your vision and make the game you want to play. I've mentioned previously in this thread why the small 3D view is a perfectly fine and valid design decision.

It serves as a quick reference / impression of the environment and need not be something to get "immersed in". Let the text carry the immersion, let players use their imagination.

 

[ProphetSword]

Took some time this weekend to figure out how to make the combat walls have a bit of perspective instead of just being flat against the battlefield. I think this looks a lot better:

As a consequence of working on this, I managed to get the combat screens to load about 5x faster than before due to eliminating some code that I don't need now. So, that was a nice bonus.

 

[CappenVarra]

looks lovely, keep up the good work

(and stick to a character system of your own creation, that's half the fun of developing an rpg - just like creating a character is often half the fun of of playing one)

 

[ProphetSword]

Playing around with dynamic lighting options in a dungeon. Trying to decide if I want to keep this in the game or go for lighting that is consistent (which is what old games had). What do you guys think?

 

[Merlkir]

Are characters going to carry torches? (so you could perhaps spot enemies far off? Is there a stealth system?) Will spells cast light?

Or what do you mean by dynamic light? Moving lightsources, or just light flickering?

 

[ProphetSword]

Are characters going to carry torches?
No.

Can you spot enemies far off?
No. (I take it you haven't read anything about this game?)

Is there a stealth system?
Yes.

Will spells cast light?
No. At one time they did, but I removed it as unecessary.

Or what do you mean by dynamic light? Moving lightsources, or just light flickering?
Maybe dynamic isn't the right word. How about "alternating light sources" instead of just static light that has the same brightness across 100% of the game?

 

[ProphetSword]

Well, I wish I hadn't posted anything about it now. Ultimately, there were some issues. Some of those issues aren't apparent in the screenshots I provided, and they may not be able to be fixed. I know I don't want to waste a bunch of time on it.

So, with that in mind, I'm going to use consistent light (like the Gold-Box games and FRUA use), and just make it appear that the torches are giving off light by using graphic trickery (also like the Gold-Box games did).

Here's what it looks like with consistent lighting:

 

[anvi]

Lol Dynamic Lighting in a 12x14 pixel window. Needs Raytracing.

 

[Lagi]

Looks nice. Love combat screen (im not fan of combat in blobbers FPP style)

I like that you go for Spi(rit?) instead Wisdom - it make some clear distinction between the stats. So its not (fully) based on ADD, a big +. How Armor works?

UI could be better arrange. Remove big buttons on top & the panel below with location/time, to gain more space for Map in the center, more char stats (resist, dmg..) or even inventory
My experience with blobbers is that I ignore the first person view, and focus on minimap.

If one of my char is reduced to 0 hp, is he "dead" (need costly resurrect in city temple), or do you foreseen some "unconscious" state?

 

[ProphetSword]

Didn't see this response. Let me try to answer some of your questions:

Looks nice. Love combat screen (im not fan of combat in blobbers FPP style)

There are merits to both styles. I prefer tactical Gold-Box style combat, though, and I just wanted to see if I could replicate a similar engine.

I like that you go for Spi(rit?) instead Wisdom - it make some clear distinction between the stats. So its not (fully) based on ADD, a big +.

It's different than D&D while still being somewhat similar (no different than some other old school games did back in the day). Modifiers are done differently and how they affect play is also different. I don't think anyone who's familiar with D&D will have a problem grasping most things, though.

How Armor works?

The higher the number, the less likely you are to be hit. Depending on your skill in the armor, it may also provide you with some damage reduction against incoming damage, depending on type.

UI could be better arrange. Remove big buttons on top & the panel below with location/time, to gain more space for Map in the center, more char stats (resist, dmg..) or even inventory

People need to get over this. The UI is set at this point. I'm working on actual story content, building dungeons and encounters, etc...so I don't really want to go back and rearrange the layouts. If I make a sequel, it's something I'll consider.

Honestly, if someone sees this game when it's finished and literally goes: "Wow, a new Gold-Box style game! I'd really love to play it, but I'll pass because I don't like that there are big buttons at the top," then they should seriously do the world a favor and go jump off a fucking cliff.

If one of my char is reduced to 0 hp, is he "dead" (need costly resurrect in city temple), or do you foreseen some "unconscious" state?

Dead. But, a character can be raised in the temple (cost starts low and goes up based upon the character's level) or with spells. Players also have the option to go to the Traning Hall and ditch the character and create a new one instead. I considered using a negative hit point option as well as an unconscious option, but none felt right for this system. Plenty of old school games (including the original D&D) killed you at 0, so I don't feel that bad about it.

Thanks for the questions.

 

[ProphetSword]

Just popping in to let everyone know that progress is still happening. Most of my time is spent in creating content, building areas, tweaking systems, etc. Game is starting to come together nicely.

I try to avoid spoilers, so the best I can do is just show off some areas from time to time. For example, these sewers that I'm currently fleshing out...

 

[Morkar Left]

If he wants even more money he should instead make the view/map box even smaller and make the text box big enough to accomodate for overly verbose sex scenes on battle loss.

Spoiler

I guess the Codex button is nothing less than a direct link to rpgcodex.net

 

[ProphetSword]

For those that are interested, the work continues.

Decided this week to knock out the thing I dreaded the most...a system that would allow the player to both Save and Load games in progress. Turned out not to be nearly as hard as I thought it would be, so I knocked it out rather quickly.

There are six save game slots (probably more than most people will need). As you can see in the image below, the game both offers an automatic naming scheme (location and game time) as well as the option to name the saves yourself. If you're like me, you probably prefer to give a descriptive name rather than just leave it at location and game time, but I don't speak for everyone, so both options are available:

Not that you can tell from just this picture, but here I have loaded a game I saved previously. Took the screenshot right after loading it. If you look up at the games saved in the previous picture, though, you'll see that there's a save set to the "Farming Community" at game time "11:25 AM," and that's the game I loaded:

So, it's another thing I can take off the checklist, I suppose.

 

[Dorateen]

The outdoor view looks good!