Castle Paradox

[Chaos Nyte]

Why is it that humanity, when in a panic state where bonding together will be the most effective solution, such as a world war or a serious epidemic occurs bond together in real life, but nearly never in video games.

I mean, holy crap! 90% of games, and especially RPGs, pit one person, or a small team of people, against overwealming odds, always have to do it on their own. Okay, sometimes the country in need will lend an airship or something, but the party of brave heroes is left largely on their own. They usually end up with next to no monetary support, no health support, and certainly no damn training for the super cute character that happens to bumble into the party.

And this creates TONS of problems in games! Think about it, while I'm busy saving Town A from a monster invasion, and then arrive in Town B to find that they're suffering from a drought, how many people died while I was screwing around in Town A? Wouldn't it have been a heck of a lot better to be able to mobilize the country to help solve these usually fairly simply dungeon solving issues, instead of making this small band of heroes do it slowly, killing innocents in the process because the ratio of heroes to brainless townspeople is too schewed?

The game series Suikoden manages to tackle this problem fairly well by giving you a large team base, and indeed your own castle, but what other solutions to this really stupid problem can you guys think of?

[Me]

Play a Koei strategy game?
_________________
UP DOWN UP DOWN LEFT LEFT RIGHT RIGHT A B START

[Gizmog1]

Make a game with only one town, and when you do all the deeds in town a, the road to the rest of the towns open up, only they're all dead?

I'd also consider the possibility, of the entire kingdom being turned to stone, and thus you don't have to worry about this, until you unstone them.

But seriously, this is a good question. Maybe make the foe/cause the heroes are fighting for something that only they believe in. Thus, when they ask others for help, they don't believe that whatever the heroes say is true. "A dragon? P'shaw! Dragon's never come this far west, they don't like the cold. I see you eyeing my spear, and you can forget it. I'm not giving my prized weapon to you hoodlums, to fight your imaginary dragons."

Of course, you could also do this much easier, by having every major villain splash whiskey all over the adventurers, so everyone they meet thinks they're RAGING alcoholics.

[Shadowiii]

Lacrymosa was kinda like that. You started off as a girl who was unique in one way, but in the end she couldn't do anything next to the main players (and I mean not anything. It made planning the final boss a pill).

Basically she was slightly above everyone else, but wasn't superhuman. I mean honestly. Think Kefka and Sephiroth, these guys are borderline devine and they still get beaten by some chumps.

Thats why I liked PB2. I don't think anyone ever beat it (I haven't recieved the hate mail that will ensue after one realizes what the ending is), but the story is...human. At least, I felt that way when making it. Certainly more then certain characters in other games I planed (think Infinity from Stop, who freaking doesn't die ever).

Eh. It would be fun to make a game where you were just some dude in a villiage. Heh.
_________________
But enough talk, have at you!

[Iblis]

It might be interesting to play a game where there were multiple parties of questing heroes.

This could be an MMORPG where each player controlled a party rather than just a single character, and it'd play similarly to a console RPG. You'd start out with one hero, but there'd be NPCs around the world that you could recruit upon meeting certain objectives or criteria, or maybe just by talking to them (they'd have to add more every so often so they wouldn't run out). Each player could have a set amout of characters (assuming four in a party at once, maybe they could have 8 characters in their whole arsenal at a time), to keep people from hoarding them. And you could get boats and airships and other cool RPG stuff to aid in your questing. And there'd probably be some kind of animal breeding system that's useful but makes everyone hate the game designer.

Speaking of the quests, it might be cool if other than just the random one-time quests you get in a lot of CRPGs, you could have different quests strung together in a story. And at all times there'd be a single main quest that all players were on, something huge and world-altering like the main stories of normal RPGs. And of course high-level players would want to beat this to get fame and probably cool items and such (when someone beat it, they'd have to come up with a new main quest of course, probably after waiting a while). You'd have to come up with some reason that it'd be beneficial to cooperate with other parties, rather than just working on your own.

It'd be cool if the characters you got in your party would sort of interact with you and eachother, and form likes/dislikes and such. And if you found a better character and removed them from your group they'd remember you if you saw them later in someone else's party. And as it's an MMORPG there'd be item buying/selling between players, and you might get a better price from a friend or something.

Personally, I think this game could be pretty cool. As far as I know this doesn't exist, but I don't pay a whole lot of attention to MMORPGs so I could be wrong.

Also going with what Me said, a strategy game where you were a ruler or a god or some other powerful thing and controlled a whole bunch of parties of questing heroes might also be cool. Heh, I could probably write a few huge paragraphs about that game too, but I already did one game.

If you're just wondering how it might be fixed in a regular RPG, it's pretty simple really. Just make some system of public support of your quest. You could make it pretty much the same as a regular RPG, and make it so that instead of getting money from monsters (which makes little sense anyway) you get money from the monster hunting office or something based on how many of what kinds of monsters you've killed. In the end, it could be the same amount of money for the same monsters, you'd just have to go somewhere to get it. As for other parties of heroes, this could be incentive to complete side-quests in a certain amount of time. If you don't do it quickly, computer controlled heroes might complete it first and you'd miss out on all the rewards. Of course if they tried to advance the main story they'd just fail and die.
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

[Junair Wiare]

This bugs me alot too.

I think I've nailed it though, in my games, anyhow:

There's not a particular "evil", just something the characters fight against.

In addition, in the one I'm working on now (Baselines, Book II: Duplicity, to anyone who's curious, and is in early stages), there ARE other people working with you, as you're all part of a sort of united, underground resistance, and you'll hear about what they do occasionally.
_________________
"I do believe your Squid exists. I really do, you know?"

[Machu]

My idea for my "grand project" might remind you of ideas in previous posts. In "Language of the Mind", you will have access to different bands of heroes/armies all over the world, and each day you choose which events to watch/fight, and after each is complete, you move to the next day. It's sorta like the middle of the Advance Wars 2 campaign, where you can do Blue Moon and Yellow Comet missions at the same time. The main difference is in Language of the Mind, you would do one mission for one team, then do another teams mission, and the missions can change depending on which day it's done and which missions were successful. Each band of heroes is dealing with their own problems, and even when complete, they aren't going to help out just anyone, though they may show up later when they feel they should help. I'm trying my best to make a realistic "political" situation.
_________________

[kurlumbenus]

[RPGrealm5]

That's a very popular trend set by the creators of Japanese RPGs. I've always wondered after finishing games (FFVI for example) "How did that team of misfits save the world?" (Even though that game had a massive playable cast.). Another good example would be the Zelda series, primarily Majora's Mask: How did one little kid save the all of Termina alone?

Some games I've been gathering inspiration from do things a little different. Some may not consider them a traditional turn-based RPG (They're not turn based, anyway.) but they do a good job of making you see normal.

The first game is the ElderScrolls III: Morrowind (PC, Xbox), a non-linear RPG which puts you into the role of a character you create. There really is no point or objectinve in the game, although there are ones that you find along the way. The game allowed you to kill anyone in the game, even people who would later be involved in the main quest, thus leaving the world in turmoil. You were a single person, but you could hire people to help you, purchase slaves to fight for you, or just pick up random strangers who will follow you into hell.

The second is Fable (Xbox). I'm sure many of you have heard of it, for it was hyped up to be the "Best RPG ever made." It may not be the best, but it does a good job at what it was trying to do. Your character would save the world (Or rule it if you hate being good.) alone, but in the process would have a presence felt from all of the towns people. People would stop and clap for you, shout and cheer as you fight, and praise you with other people. It did a great job of building you a reputation and making you feel not-alone and unloved in your quest.

-------------

If I myself were to think of solutions, I'd try some of these:

-Make a non-linear story, one that would allow nearly anyone to join forces with you, if you played your cards right and catered to their demands. I'd achieve this by giving the protagonist some special power that allows you to see what is needed to get them to join, or allow multiple heroes that can be chosen at the beginning of the game. Depending on which character you choose will automatically change people's views on you.

-Design each NPC used in the game with a unique appearance and identity, and each person as a playable character (To do this the world would have to be pretty small, but full of depth.). Script the entire story around different events that come up with these people. If you are able to learn each person's personality, then when trouble comes to town, whatever happens, you can place the people in whatever sitution they'd wind up in according to their personality. This would help make it more realistic to the player. You'd find the cowards hiding in their homes, and the brave people out there with you, who'd join you for the fight (Until the threat is gone.). Due to limitations, there would have to be a good amount of people who would have a good excuse not to help you. Depending on how you choose to play would help determine how these people's attitude towards you changes. If you refuse to help someone, who knows, mabye they'll get revenge on you later...

-Create a game based on hiring different and unique mercenaries for a particular task. Each one has a specialty which would make them the one to use in a particular situation. Create different ones that you can unlock with "money/points" that are earned based on performance. Hire an entire army which you can take into battle.

---------------

That's all I can think up right now, but you catch my drift. (I really like my second idea...I'd actually like to do something like that in the future.).
It's going to be hard creating a linear RPG which does this, because the event would only be surprising one time. I like it better when you are given the choice. What if I don't want people to help me fight? What if I want to show the world how strong I am? I should have that choice, but I also should have the choice to have help if I need it. I just need my choice to be noticed by the NPCs...

I like this topic.
_________________
Gyu, Doh!

[The Wobbler]

[RPGrealm5]

True, but in OaT Link had more advantages. MM may be a continuation in story, but nothing about the triforce is mentioned at all in the game, plus the way most of the people treat you with condecending respect makes it seem like you are so childish. If not MM, then look at WW (It wasn't the Link we all know, but still...).
_________________
Gyu, Doh!

[Junair Wiare]

I realize there's a fair amount of hype about non-linear stories, and all that sort of thing (GTA series, et all), but I dunno: I just don't think you can have a game with non-linear stories and also have characters and a plot that is as meaningful. It depends on if you (To use Scott McCloud's idea from Understanding Comics--great book, read it, no matter your artistic interests) are creating your game for the sake of games--games like Mario, Tetris, and GTA fall in this category--or for the sake of making a point, telling a story--Final Fantasy, virtually every other RPG, etc. They aren't completely mutually exclusive, but they come darned close.

... The topics changed, hasn't it?
_________________
"I do believe your Squid exists. I really do, you know?"

[Rpeanut]

Tactics game have some potential for solving this problem. You delegate who to send on dispatch missions, and still level up characters like in other RPGS .(alright I'm saying this cause im addicted to FFTA )
_________________
...eh?

[Sephyroth]

You could do it like "Destiny of an Emperor". Rather than having "HP", call that stat "Number of soldiers". It makes much more sense how a group of Final Fantasy characters could save the world if you imagine that each hit point represented a soldier in that character's army.
_________________
im realy ded

[Moogle1]

If you do it like that, healing spells become mass ressurrection spells, which is odd.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design