Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to FFH, where all your dreams come true!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cheetah

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 181
1
Spriting / Re: Seushiro's Sprites... Redoing some sprites
« on: March 21, 2014, 08:58:49 PM »
Nice to see some great spriting happening on this site again. I'm particularly exciting for Besrodio, I made an attempt many moons ago but the cane was too much for me.

2
Tethical / Re: Name Entry State, Multi-Language Support
« on: March 05, 2014, 03:43:32 PM »
You are getting better at making videos, it was a good plan to do the short minute one and the longer one. Is this tech going to be transitioned to in game text in general as well? What is up with the crazy emoticons?

3
Tethical / Re: Plan for Difficulty and Story "Battles"
« on: February 21, 2014, 12:38:44 AM »
In terms or story paths, here is an example. If you decide to negotiate with an enemy general instead of kill him, that could have major implications to your story. In FFT, if you hadn't kill Miluda things would have been real different. If you allow for this much choice in how you play the game I think there would be a corresponding amount of variation in story. Thus, good and bad choices are not physically exclusive; but it does impact the story. Or at least it doesn't make sense for the story to not match your play style.

Your second paragraph. The trick here is that brute force is always the option, because that is what battle is about. Obviously there is some flexibility there and we talked about mission variety earlier, the gameplay of FFT and most RPGs is about the battle system which is about killing stuff. If you want to have alternative ways of conflict resolution, then you need equally engaging gameplay systems to support this play style. This also relates back to how I was pointing out that allowing players this much freedom could make it so they create an unfun experience for themselves. For instance if you as the general chose to sneak in spies to poison the water supply of the enemies instead of facing them in open combat. You can't just have a text box choice to choose this tactics, you need engaging gameplay surrounding this tactic. Otherwise many players are just going to tend towards the most efficient way of finishing a game, because that is part of playing a game, and then they wouldn't really be experiencing the game. So you could design engaging gameplay where you have a stealth mechanic built in around a single unit avoiding being detected and getting poison slipped into all the water wells. The problem is, that for everyone of the vast number of options you are allowing players to make you need another kind of engaging gameplay alternative. Thus leading to feature drift and basically to huge of a game.

The solution I see is as follows, and really it is pretty much Tactics Ogre with more mission variety. Have an in depth and engaging battle system that allows for mission variety and varied tactics, to an extent. Offer players different approaches to battles, not just path A or B, but with meaningful mission variety. Have these choices lead to directed story paths based on player choices and actions during battle. Then add the morality system, or something similar, so that these choices have a cumulative effect that influences aspects of gameplay beyond just story and is visible in the world the player is interacting with. Thoughts?

4
Tethical / Re: Plan for Difficulty and Story "Battles"
« on: February 20, 2014, 06:50:30 PM »
This example is definitely more in a scale I can comprehend. I still hold two assertions.

1) You can have choice just for the sake of variety, but it will also likely be linked to narrative branches that could really complicate things. You could make most of these choices mostly relate to non-narrative aspects of the game, like shop keepers, but eventually how you play the game differently will have to also alter the story.

2) The more of these battle choices that you can have be organic in that they unfold during battle and aren't choices chosen before a battle the better. I personally find the planning aspects of battles in games tedious. As always there is a balance between providing a player with information they can use to prepare for a battle and leaving unknowns so that what happens is still exciting and dynamic.

Having choices in how you play the game influence more than just the narrative is a cool idea. I like the shop keeper and blackmarket examples.

5
Tethical / Re: Character Generator Proposal
« on: February 20, 2014, 03:11:15 PM »
Thank you for the thorough answer. You basically confirmed what I was thinking, even in terms of division of work load. The face expression idea is slick too. We were also thinking of having some equipment show up on characters, like a sword slung to their belt, and that would have to be a similar system anyways. Could you take this kind of thing too far though? Just thinking through it here are some potential divisions:

Simple: Head, Torso, Right Arm, Left Arm, Legs

Complex: Head, Face, Torso Front, Torso Back, Right Arm, Left Arm, Right Hand, Left hand, Legs

Then there is all the potential areas where you could be adding equipment, layering it all could be a bit complex. Though I suppose if you just start with basic sprites and then start building onto them it would become systematic after not too long.

6
Tethical / Re: Character Generator Proposal
« on: February 20, 2014, 03:29:41 AM »
I can only vaguely begin to follow this flow chart, but my question is actually a slight aside. So lets say you wanted to add some unit variability to "generic" enemy units. You have the standard sprite, and then a couple alternate heads, a short sleeve version, and a long sleeve version. Now you could have the sprites separated into pieces in the first place and then just put the pieces together in various arrangements. This saves a lot of space and is efficient in many ways, but somewhat limits the degree of difference you can easily introduce and introduces constraints in graphical development that could be a bit of a headache. The alternative would be to just have a whole bunch of character sprites with the variations added to the full sheets. This avoids some graphical restrains, but adds a lot of manual reworking and takes up a lot of space. My main question is, which would be faster in terms of computing?

7
Tethical / Re: Plan for Difficulty and Story "Battles"
« on: February 20, 2014, 03:17:06 AM »
I guess you are just moving to player freedom then. As I said I think it is all really cool sounding, but I don't think big budget games like GTA and Fable even get to this degree of freedom and world interactivity. Beyond that, I'm not sure it would necessarily be fun. How would you even begin to wrap a narrative around all this choice. I think Tactics Ogre actually has a great balance, there is player choice explicit (option a or b) and implicit (how individual battles progress) while still maintaining a coherent narrative thread. I'm all for variety and choice to an extent, but you can easily go to far in this direction as well. It just comes back to the balance between gameplay and story, which I really believe is paramount in a RPG. I do love the thought experiment in developing game play variety.

8
Tethical / Re: Plan for Difficulty and Story "Battles"
« on: February 19, 2014, 04:19:33 AM »
A response to your response will be coming soon.

3) Scalable Difficulty:
Obviously you can always up the enemy's level, number of units, quality of equipment, and other techniques to simply make the same basic battle harder. My thought here is making battles harder by changing what the player is trying to achieve in the same battle, which relates to items # 1 & 2. I think a lot of the dynamics and enjoyment of the game is adjusting to the shift and change of battles. Planning is great, but it can easily all go to hell once the battle actually starts. I also like changing difficulty for replayability. Additionally, the concept of scoring or grading a players performance to dull out different rewards to encourage multiple replays of the same battle is also very interesting to me.

4) Morality System:
This is a pretty high concept. I think it is really cool, but really increases the scope of a game. For whatever reason I see it working better in a RTS than an SRPG, because it almost seems like your choice of attack plan is more important than the actual battle. It also seems really susceptible to feature drift and could be difficult to balance and keep fun. But at the same time if you could get it right it would be pretty amazing.

9
Tethical / Re: Plan for Difficulty and Story "Battles"
« on: February 18, 2014, 05:02:38 PM »
Many really fantastic ideas here. I want to break it down into smaller components for further analysis.

1) Basic Mission Variety:
I think mission variety is an interesting double edged sword. Having it can definitely make things more fun and less repetitive, but at the same time these gameplay variations also need to be as engaging as normal battles or their really is little point. For instance, escort missions are a videogame trope that is often despised. It adds variety, but they are often too slow paced to actually be engaging. So while variety for the sake of variety isn't necessarily true, I think creating mechanics that allow for interesting battle objects is a must and then trying out many different things and seeing what works. Capturing locations, protecting stationary objects, grabbing a briefcase from enemies and then escaping, etc. I would love to see just a giant list of potential SRPG mission objectives. Your going undercover story gave me an idea for a battle where you control your team and then character that is pretending to be the other team, and the goal is to have your infiltrator achieve objectives while appearing to fight for the enemy.

2) Choice of Battle Tactic:
This is an interesting one and I think can come in two forms. The more common one is having the ability to choose tactics based on how you act in battle. In classic FFT it would be the difference between an assassination mission where you kill every enemy before the "boss", or just go straight for the boss. The other is where you choose your approach before the battle starts, and the objectives and battle layout adjust so that this approach can be implemented. I like the first approach more because it allows for more dynamic changes, and the outcome may not have even been an explicit choice of the player. However, I imagine it would be difficult to allow all these different approaches and objectives with a single battle setup. The second approach is interesting as well, but if provided in large doses I worry that a player might end up making the game unfun for themselves. Too much freedom can be a bad thing. However, at proscribed points it could be excellent. "Tactics Ogre: Let us Cling Together" is an excellent example of this kind of stuff.

3) Scalable Difficulty:
More coming soon.

4) Morality System:
More coming soon.

10
New Project Ideas / Re: Patch Ideas Proposal Thread
« on: February 16, 2014, 03:48:55 AM »
That is really amusing LD, I kind of like it. Can you control all those units though or would you get capped out at like 5 or 6?

11
General / Re: Yasumi Matusno new kickstarter!
« on: February 13, 2014, 06:50:19 PM »
I'm still pissed about a terrible kickstarter campaigne, but they still have my support.

12
Tethical / Re: Camera-Locked Map Proof of Concept
« on: February 13, 2014, 03:03:45 AM »
I disagree about different systems making little impact beyond graphical and user interface. I think it can make drastic differences in gameplay and game design, particularly in the logic that drives them. I'm struggling to organize all my thoughts around it without some graphical representation, I will do some mockups to continue the conversation.

I like the way you are thinking here with the fire and lightening examples. Gameplay diversity is key, with cost and benefits related to various choices that can also alter situationally. However, I do believe that various Grid Systems to have a significant impact on what can be done, how it is done, and the logic behind it. For example: What I'm currently intrigued about in regards to the Equilateral Triangle system is how the six connections to each vertex can relate to team attacks or synergy between multiple characters. Such as in this image:



Now this system can and has been done with a grid system (Joan of Arc), but it is more flexible and intuitive with the triangle system.

Regarding baseball and throwing spears. I like your ideas, but I'm struggling to fit them into a traditional SRPG format. Turn order is just so crucial with single character turns at a time and no real time combat. Valkyria Chronicles is close to what you are talking about, and Frozen Synapse is kind of closer but also much farther away. Both games and strategically very cool and different than FFT. I guess what you are looking for is more AI driven passive/reactive skills for your units.

13
Tethical / Re: Camera-Locked Map Proof of Concept
« on: February 12, 2014, 06:52:02 AM »
Unlike the pure Isometrics of FFT, mirrored sprites don't actually completely work with the triangle system. So it is actually a more angles that are also odd/inconsistent in relation to the camera.

I get what you are saying about combining the isometric movement with the triangle grid, but I'm just not sure it is worth it. Lets change this around a little bit. What are the benefits in terms of gameplay of these various systems?

PS: You completely lost me with the baseball metaphor stuff. Some clarification on your thoughts on making SRPG combat more dynamic would be interesting.

14
Tethical / Re: Camera-Locked Map Proof of Concept
« on: February 12, 2014, 05:00:06 AM »
Ack how did I miss that awesome youtube video update. Lirmont you work crazy fast, setting up those different systems probably took you less time to do than for me to make a map of equilateral triangles. I'm still just getting the basics of blender down.

Anyways, I did my little test image to see what the triangle system would look like in a 2D isometric view. Not great, but pretty decent. The concept of vertices as opposed to the center of squares is pretty interesting. I think I need to do some sketches to really help my brain absorb how this would alter level design in terms of spacing objects. However, the largest problem is the spriting of the characters. The attack angles along the connections between vertices are just at odd angles. Neither the normal isometric sprites or the direct angle sprites we are so accustomed to really work with the triangle arrangement. Perhaps there is some amount of rotation that would make it work better? Hmm opening photoshop.

15
General / Re: Kickstarter- Starcrawlers, a sci-fi RPG
« on: February 12, 2014, 02:17:27 AM »
Thank you for acknowledging the redundancy haha.

Game looks good, but not my flavor of RPG. I look forward to it having incredible success however.

16
General / Re: Yasumi Matusno new kickstarter!
« on: February 11, 2014, 02:49:14 PM »
Have have never come across drastic differences between the code of the Japanese and the US releases.

They have announced that the dream team of Hitoshi Sakimoto will be joining Yasumi Matsuno, Akihiko Yoshida regardless of stretch goals. So dream come true and they deserve more support in my eyes.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/482445197/unsung-story-tale-of-the-guardians/posts

17
General / Re: Yasumi Matusno new kickstarter!
« on: February 10, 2014, 07:52:30 PM »
They clarified to say that it was Matsuno's response. I agree with your thoughts Xifanie, definitely some kind of misunderstand or mistranslation.

18
General / Re: Yasumi Matusno new kickstarter!
« on: February 10, 2014, 05:36:43 PM »
Xifanie please do a thoughtful rebuttal to this bullshit:

http://kotaku.com/final-fantasy-tactics-wasnt-supposed-to-have-casting-t-1519947150

I'm really trying to stay positive and this really shouldn't be a big deal, but it just continues to make me loose faith in the project that doesn't even understand it's own history. I believe that there was some kind of error in this response but they really need to correct it. It makes no sense that the charge system was completely dependent on system limitations.

19
General / Re: Yasumi Matusno new kickstarter!
« on: February 09, 2014, 02:29:33 AM »
I think they should cancel the kickstarter and start fresh in a couple months.

PS: OMG I have been hacking FFT for over 6 years...

20
Tethical / Re: Camera-Locked Map Proof of Concept
« on: February 08, 2014, 06:10:44 PM »
I like much of your logic here. It has taken me a while to absorb it all. I'm a huge proponent of efficiency and you are definitely focusing on decreasing redundancies and consolidating data and processes. However, will you ever truly get a perfect native resolution display using your approach? What about processing power? Man power, cutting up the sprite into layers isn't that hard either?

Also what are your thoughts on the equilateral triangle vertex movement proposed by Matsuno? I think it is pretty ingenious right now. It seems much more natural than a grid, while still structured. I'm not sure it would work in a strictly isometric view however. I'm going to start some experiments.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/482445197/unsung-story-tale-of-the-guardians/posts/740862?ref=dash

This also brings up a new strategy for our current discussion around using 2D sprite maps. Instead of planes the character is restricted to, it could simply be vertices. Thing 3D points as destinations with paths of movement between each vertex. That would have to be much less process intensive. However, then the question of accounting for projectiles hitting obstacles would also be needed. There would still need to be some plains to account for obstacles and calculating trajectories. OR! You could have all this data pre-calculated for all the permutations between vertices and just grab it from an array.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 181