Nachtfischer

I really don't see anything new or unique from the trailer on.
Its the same generic zombie setting
 
Same generic quests system where you walk up to the guy he says "Ey b0ss can I habe 500 zombie skulls pls?" and your guy responds "500 zombie heads in a dense urban area... And I get a waterbottle for that?" -"Da's right b0ss" and you respond "Fuck ye cya in 4 days" and you go and risk your life for something completely out of value anyway
 
Same generic & boring looting system where you walk up to a glowing object and drop your backpack, open it, pick it up, put it inside, close your backpack and put it back on your back in 0.0000001 nanoseconds because that's normal.
 
Same generic & boring combat system, guy swings weapon zombie plays knockback animation, since nowadays survivors are just too downright stupid to just ram the sharp weapon they possess into a zombies head like they / normal people with a fucking IQ of over 5 always do in the walking dead & co.
 
Same generic & boring promises of a so hard and unique gameplay people will team up with you and kill zombies with you /AAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH OH GOD FUCK WHY DID YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT WHEN I WAS DRINKING, MY MONITOR BAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA/ which just ends up in the same good old pvp chaos of "Hey dude watch that guy 50 zombies following him wanna shoot him" -"Fuck yeah, its not like hes a human that could be any worth or good to team up with against the 3 hit kill zombies, and its not like this will probably just be the same old server hopping system of DayZ & co where you can willingly jump out of an US into an AU server in no time instead of being bound to this server so you can actually create a fucking base and clan and have some actual realistic zombie survival experience" - Boom headshot +5 cooking skills added you learnt how to properly peel an apple.
 
However, that's just a really quick cynical review of the trailer and the 2 paragraphs on the main page, haven't bothered to read the news or forum posts yet since I'm kinda sure this is just gone be WarZ all over again.
 
Also, on a quick sidenote, when the chor kicked in in the trailer I fucking lost my shit.
Don't know what the fetish for devs is to put medieval battle music into zombie game trailers but they sure as hell make the apocalypse situation brighter and funnier if you ask me.
 
Well, that's it for this month guys! I'm going back to my Aard cave where i will spend my next month staring at your family.

In all honesty, I didn't play Fallout NV (yet). I did play Fallout 3 for a couple of hours tho, until I randomly ran into my character's daddy in some abandonned gas station... then I realized I passed a big chunk of the main scenario, I've been punished just because I had a little fun exploring the ridiculously tiny wastelands, which was the entire point of the "open world".
I just hate Bethesda, they make poor sandbox games full of non-sense and they call it RPG, they ruined Fallout so hard I was scared to try Fallout NV (even if they weren't the ones developping it, they still produced it). And lets not talk about Skyrim, it's even worst.
 
Tho I know Fallout NV feels more like the good ol' Fallouts, my cousin who have exact same tastes for videogames told me it was a cool game, I trust him and might try it someday :]

Does a game have to have a defined ending point in order to be challenging, then? Is it possible to win a game if it does not end after that 'win' condition has been met? Or does it merely need to give you an overall objective which will cause the game to end if you lose?
 
Let's take The Elder Scrolls as an example. Oblivion and Skyrim both give you an objective from the very start, the first step on a main quest that culminates with you saving the world - and, ostensibly, if you ignore this quest, the world will end/be enslaved/bad things will happen. Does that mean these sandboxes are challenging, or does the lack of a concrete "you have lost, the world is now ending, game over, please restart" mean they are without challenge?
 
What about the first Fallout 1? It could, in many ways, be considered a sandbox - you were free to explore as you chose and do as you wanted. If you ignored the main objective for too long, however (recover a water chip) the game would end in failure and you'd be forced to start over. Does that mean Fallout 1 was challenging?
 
I'm not trying to come across as being combative, I'm just genuinely curious as to how you'd define it.
 
 
 
Wouldn't trying to beat the high score be a self-imposed challenge unless the game explicitly listed it as a goal and punished you for failing that goal? In most fighting games the objective is merely to beat the level without dying; in your suggestion, if I'm understanding your definition correctly, each stage should compare your score to the highest recorded one and the game should end if you didn't beat it - assuming 'beat the high score' is the overall objective of the game.
 
EDIT - What's your opinion of Don't Starve's level of challenge, by the way? I gather you thought the game had problems, but I think most people would agree that 'beating' Don't Starve (assuming you play the Adventure Mode or whatever it was called) is legitimately difficult.

Reading through this thread I'm not even sure who is arguing what anymore, so I'm just going to frame a general response that isn't directed at anybody in particular.
 
If "A task or situation that tests someone's abilities" is the objective definition for 'challenge' being used in this thread, then I don't think it's fair to say sandbox games inherently lack challenge just because the game doesn't formally challenge you with a win/loss objective. If a sandbox game has challenging combat then the combat is challenging whether or not you choose to partake in it. Saying the sandbox game has no challenge in that example would be the same as saying a game like Dark Souls (note that I have not played Dark Souls; I just see it held up all the time as the de facto example of a 'challenging' game) has no challenge because you can choose to spend all your time sitting in the safe tutorial area... and if checkpoints/continue options after death remove challenge, then it's impossible for any game other than roguelikes with permadeath to be challenging.
 
Now, if you're imposing rules on yourself to artificially inflate the challenge in a game, say, "I'm going to attack everyone I see using only the worst weapon I possess", then obviously you would not take those self-imposed rules into consideration when you're evaluating the overall challenge of said game.
 
All that aside, and in my opinion, GTA games aren't usually very challenging on the whole. They're more concerned with being accessible and fun - lock on targeting, aim assist, things like that. There's obviously challenge there to be found, though. Surviving with a five star wanted level isn't particularly easy unless you're cheesing the game somehow like hiding in a building with only one blocked entrance. Some missions may be difficult. There may be optional secondary missions that are hard. Etc.

Now that it's finally starting to make some sense, you want to derail it? What a terrible attitude to take!

@Nachtfischer Thanks for your response! The background is just a placeholder, sorry about the confusion . I've been meaning to add tool-tips for a while now, I'll get to that as soon as I finish posting this. There is a machine gun upgrade which allows you to hold down the shift button constantly, (Not that you would know that without tool-tips) but I see your point. I'll lower the price of the upgrade at the very least. In regards to the potatoes, I agree that the first few waves are pretty monotonous, I'll try and spice them up a little bit. Also, slowing down the ninja potatoes would probably be a good idea too, as right now they are faster than the bullets.
 
Thanks for you detailed response!
~Guad

I love the theme!
 
Concerning the game:
You don't know what the buyable upgrades do until you actually buy them. I guess tool-tips would be cool! I assume the background is work-in-progress. It somehow confused me and made me think this is some lane-based game for five seconds. Is it ever viable to NOT be shooting constantly? If not, then just let the tank auto-shoot all the time, because the game is actually about positioning and dodging (and hopefully not pressing shift as often and regularly as you can). In any case: Allow the fire button to be held down instead of it having to be pressed again and again. Interesting thing that the enemies bump from the edges and the game board loops for your tank. That gives you a neat edge while battling them. I think the first waves a a bit dull since the enemies just shoot randomly (I think). You can't really do much dodging or anything. It's all about driving around targeting semi-well and pressing shift all the time. Things got much more interesting when the potatoes with glasses came in! Although these frantic fast ones made it kind of impossible to react to them in any reasonable way beyond "move as fast as you can, in any direction you can, all the time". The level where I only faced the ones with glasses was by far the most interesting to me! Yeah, just some first impressions and thoughts. Keep it up!

Is there any challenge in GTA V? You'll have to forgive the question, I've never actually gotten around to playing them. I've always kept up with them, but never played (except a bit of GTA IV at a friend's house). It's always kind of seemed like an awkward game that's somewhat confused about whether it's a true sandbox or a game-game. The one thing that always turned me off is that they're presented as a game with storylines and quests and such, but it's never seemed to be anything of a challenge (other than stuff like awkward controls- I mean true difficulty here). What I played of GTA IV there was no challenge at all.

In fact, it doesn't just miss the ideology of roguelikes, it also misses what games are actually about: You can win or lose. The thing is, in the mainstream videogame industry of today people have gotten so accustomed to being overpowered and always winning (quicksave is the most powerful weapon to ever appear in a "game") that that's been kind of forgotten. And I think that's also the reason for the guys behind Rogue Legacy being afraid of making an actual game where players can actually lose (and by extension also get better at, which is another critical quality of games that you'll see tiny amounts of at best in the AAA titles out there). That said, you can kind of lose and kind of get better at Rogue Legacy, so it's actually interesting... but with the caveat I already talked about.
 
Roguelikes are kind of this "bastion" of real games in today's "videogame" industry where every possible form of digital entertainment is just called "a game". That's also why we now call more and more games "roguelikes" or "roguelike-likes" even though they have less and less to do with Rogue actually. They just incorporate these essential qualities of traditional games that we don't see anymore today, except in roguelikes... so we attribute all these things to roguelikes whereas Rogue just incorprated them in the first place because it's just natural. If you want to make a game, you have to have a winning and a losing condition. Example: Tetris totally has "permadeath"! And Chess, too.

Admittedly, similarly to Nachtfischer I don't really see the difference between your concept, and the concept of the tens (maybe hundreds?) of other fighter games - especially those of a similar calibre.
 
In all honesty, at a glance, it looks a lot like you're trying to get money or funding for a 'spare time project'.
My reasons for this include
- It is made in Game Maker (from the perspective of a programmer, I'd consider it a bit of a 'kiddies tool', or at best something for mocking up ideas as a hobby).
- It is a stickman graphic style (I use this, and a similar style but in 3d with cubes and spheres, when a game concept is not yet complete enough to spend resources on 'decent' graphics, or if I am just mucking around with ideas to see how they play out).
- One of the goals being to release it on multiple platforms - something which you already state earlier in the description as being something you can do with Game Maker regardless, so it comes across as a bit like "If you give me this extra money, I'll make an effort to release it on multiple platforms, instead of just PC (or whatever you may be developing it on)".
- The goal involving introduction of new touch controls coming after the goal of it being released on iOS and android... How do those players play the game 'properly' on their touch devices without key inputs if the release goal is reached, but not the touch controls?
- The $50,000 goal, and others above that seem a lot like you never expect them to be reached, and there is not evidence that your game engine can even meet the goals of "Real time online fight matches", and "Open world gameplay". How do those even come into your existing concept of elemental stickman fights??
 
I think you'd probably be better to develop and release the game in your spare time, using what time and funds you have available to you - not only to prove some of your concepts are possible with whatever skills you may have with Game Maker, but to also prove to potential donators that you are actually better than the tens of thousands of other kids that use Game Maker themselves to muck around with.
Who knows, if it's half decent, and people like the concept you might get some recognition from another developer or publisher wanting to do some work with you on a sequel!!
 
Though this all might sound a bit bashful towards you, I intend it with the best intentions. I hope you can prove to us that this is something special, and wish you all the best of luck

Wow, I wouldn't have expected the Scorpions and Seether after that statement. Where's your Black Metal love?

Wow, I wouldn't have expected the Scorpions and Seether after that statement. Where's your Black Metal love?

1 - Great! Interactive tutorials are one of the main advantages digital board games have over their physical counter-parts (the other one being efficiency, i.e. "more game per second"). I play board game adaptations for iOS all the time and the ones with tutorial (missions) are surely the easiest to learn. (Although I am one of the rare kind that actually likes to read rules. )
 
2 - Yeah, I see how that's probably the biggest challenge. Especially when adapting board games for mobile devices obviously. I'd suggest looking at the work Playdek (e.g. Agricola) and Campfire Creations (Stone Age) have done on iOS. They are considered top-notch when it comes to neatly arranged interfaces with very high amounts of information.
 
3 - Well, to me they are simply insulting in both cases. It's like the game tells you: "Sorry, this time you don't matter that much! It's not that you've done something wrong, but the dice don't like your face!!!" And by the way, "dice" are essentially used all the time in videogames (they're just not called dice). Almost every RPG uses them to resolve combat (you know, to-hit-ratio etc.).
 
4 - A compromise is probably the way to go. Especially if you want to please non-board-gamers, too.
Although in my experience with serious gaming communities (like BoardGameGeek or Pocket Tactics) I've seen that most peopl that really care about the game, don't care about the presentation that much. A functional interface is much more important than flashy graphics.

Haha those songs were fun Nacht. Your vocals aren't nearly as bad as you make them out to be XD I like your "ballad" vocals especially. I always kind of forget how interesting German rock can be, then I hear something like this and it reminds me! Thanks for the post.
 
We should do a writing contest again. But Red can't join, because he'd make me look bad.

I'm gonna listen to some of those as soon as my girlfriend leaves, she's being pissy right now if any sound comes from my direction >.>

Sure, Civilization is one of the few high-budget exceptions. It's actually a game! It has other problems (mainly the endlessly dragging mid to end-game), but from a game-wise perspective it's still so much more interesting than all the "press X to win" movies.

And Project Zomboid =D
 
I personally tend to like games where losing is a huge factor. Even stuff like Dark Souls (massive losses for dying) and Eve Online (destroyed ships gone permanently) are a breathe of fresh air in a time of games that holds your hand. Hell even Civ 5 has permadeath, doesn't it?
 
Off-topic a bit: Eve Online subscriptions can be bought and sold in-game with in-game currency, so everything in-game can be valued by the dollar. Some guy lost a ship worth $ 11,000 the other day. Completely gone, forever, in an ambush by a rival faction. Mind-boggling.

In fact, it doesn't just miss the ideology of roguelikes, it also misses what games are actually about: You can win or lose. The thing is, in the mainstream videogame industry of today people have gotten so accustomed to being overpowered and always winning (quicksave is the most powerful weapon to ever appear in a "game") that that's been kind of forgotten. And I think that's also the reason for the guys behind Rogue Legacy being afraid of making an actual game where players can actually lose (and by extension also get better at, which is another critical quality of games that you'll see tiny amounts of at best in the AAA titles out there). That said, you can kind of lose and kind of get better at Rogue Legacy, so it's actually interesting... but with the caveat I already talked about.
 
Roguelikes are kind of this "bastion" of real games in today's "videogame" industry where every possible form of digital entertainment is just called "a game". That's also why we now call more and more games "roguelikes" or "roguelike-likes" even though they have less and less to do with Rogue actually. They just incorporate these essential qualities of traditional games that we don't see anymore today, except in roguelikes... so we attribute all these things to roguelikes whereas Rogue just incorprated them in the first place because it's just natural. If you want to make a game, you have to have a winning and a losing condition. Example: Tetris totally has "permadeath"! And Chess, too.

I really enjoyed Spelunky and I see what you guys are saying about Rogue Legacy. To me (without playing it, of course) it sounds like they were just a little too afraid to do a game with permanent death and so they wedged said system in the middle to make you feel like you were accomplishing something with your past lives.
 
It may be a fun game but that decision seems like it completely misses the who ideology behind roguelikes. I think I might still pick it up next time it's on sale and give it a shot, though.

I would have to agree with that.
 
On the first few playthroughs, I absolutely LOVED rogue legacy - but for me the point where becoming better as a player became less important than grinding for extra cash and skills was just ... too early - that is - being rewarded FAR MORE for just playing the game and gathering cash, rather than playing the game and gathering skill. The incentive shifted and my enjoyment went away. It's funny, because I imagine I would enjoy the game more if it didn't have much in the way of that whole skill-gain metagame, and was balanced as such.
 
Fun game though, would recommend, but for me it is not quite as elegantly done as say Spelunky, where the only thing you have is your own skill.