Making selling your items make sense.

One of the small things that has bothered me about countless RPGs and other games is that player is able to sell their items to general stores and weapon/armorsmiths.

Wouldn't it make more sense to sell all that junk to the pawnshops or collectors?

This would be one mechanic that would be in my roleplaying game. you are not able to sell your junk to normal vendors you need a fence or a pawnshop, or if it's a historical, religious or magical artifact you can sell at insane prices.

But it does make me wonder if that makes fun gameplay (point of my game isn't really "fun" tho so I don't know if that is a great argument against my idea for my game)? Reason player is able to sell their junk to normal vendors is because it is quick and easy and gets the player back to game quicker even tho it doesn't make that much sense.

 

Simulations always in a balance of "Real vs Fun". Quite often doing something that is realistic is either not very fun or turns a common action into a chore. In most RPGs, there are a lot of time saving mechanisms created to simply allow you to complete the unfun goals you are trying to achieve so you can get back to whats actually fun in the game. Fast travel is another similar function here.

If your RPG is based on interactions like that, then it might work for you but in most RPGs the NPC seller/buyer is simply there to fulfil the need. Games like Elder Scrolls do incorporate some sort of selling limitations but they have attempted to balance this with the fun of the game too.

 

Yeah, it is about interacting with an NPCs (it is a reason i am not planning voice acting in a first place. YOU WILL READ AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!!!!!!) and it would make skills like "barter" that are really useless so I think i need to find a way making reason to have barter be separate to speech potentially fun when you are arguing about the price of a "sword of awesome penis shrink" to a stingy pawnshop owner who tries to rip you off. (then again some people who aren't into insane roleplaying games like daggerfall like i am, might be turned off by such potentially intimidating or potentially chore feeling of simple action)

 

You must be crystal clear about what you want to make and why. If you make your RPG require a lot of reading you will cut your sales 10 times. People don't like to read. People who do, tend to read books rather than play games.

 

In most cases, even having to go back to a shop owner seems like pointless busywork to me. I hate filling my backpack with gems, goblets, statuettes, and other assorted treasure until I can't carry any more, and then shlepping back to town just to convert them into coins (which for some reason I seem to be able to carry an unlimited amount of).

I'd be just as happy if looting the corpse just produced coins. Or if the designer feels they must introduce some color, it could say something like "You found a jeweled ring, a fancy goblet, and a precious gem totaling 42 coins!" And then my inventory gets just the coins.

But in my own RPG (which I swear I'm going to move back to the front burner Real Soon Now — just as soon as I push Rocket Plume out the door), I won't be that bold either. Instead I think I'm going to have a spell/scroll you can use that converts treasure into cash, wherever you are.

 

Doesn't Skyrim do it that way? As far as I remember, blacksmiths only accept non-magical weapons/armour/ore, alchemists only accept ingredients/potions, mage shops only accept magical items...the general shops will accept anything, but there are some who call their treasures "junk".

It's been a while since I played that, so I might be off.

 

Depends on the niche market you are aiming for with your game. I prefer reading to a bunch of canned voice acting or bad voice acting. Getting enough voice actors to make a large RPG actually sound/look good will be quite expensive for an indie game, especially if you have a lot of quests or NPC interactions.

I do suggest keeping the conversations short.

 

I can't remember the game (I got it on sale on the Xbox 360 ages ago) but it was a rogue like dungeon with a really confusing dungeon layout. You could do a mini fishing game to get special fish to feed your pet. When you had heaps of loot you could send it all back to town with your pet who would be unavailable to help you for a certain period of time before they returned with your treasure.

Skyrim could have done something similar with Lydia, you could command her to go back home, stay there etc so it shouldn't have been to hard to load her up & send her back to the nearest town to sell everything. You would just continue playing alone until she magically found where you'd moved to while she was away (perhaps they could've prevented her finding you in tombs etc, she only found you when you were in the world surface. You could be fighting a bandit town & Lydia charges in to save the day etc).

 

That sounds pretty cool! A fine use for a trusty pet.

That would've been epic awesome. Makes me think of this.

"She swore to carry my burdens. But some burdens…you just have to bear yourself."

 

Sounds like Torchlight or FATE or other Diablo-like game.

 

I've heard that story so many times in various forms from Skyrim. I'm not sure if the 'only the player can kill minions' was a deliberate design choice, or an accidental consequence. But its certainly made some good stories.

Skyrim did do this. Vendors cash was also limited, which helped. But it was still pretty easy to offload a large amount of useless junk to an average vendor.

I think the key reason for the sell in the kill/loot/sell/buy/kill loop is to encourage players to interact with NPCs. If you aren't going to have a loot drop and inventory system, you might just as well just give the player experience and let them level up with custom stats. No need for gear at all.

The whole premise of looting doesn't make much sense. The average RPG character is thin at best. You wander around. You kill some people. You take their stuff. You wander on to the next area. If you are going to challenge the concept of a murderhobo, you are going to be attacking the very foundation of traditional RPGs.

Nothing wrong with challenging existing concepts and game play. Just be aware you will have to unwind the traditional mechanics of an RPG a long way to eliminate looting. Your game may very well not look much like an RPG at all once its done.

 

I have this overwhelming desire to make an RPG and call it "Murderhobo" now.

 

That's a thin line that can easily explode the scope of systems you'll need to incorporate.
As others (and other topics) said, Realism != Fun. There are a couple of obvious things that cause it, mostly that reallistic simulations in an RPG would be just as boring as watching paint dry, but one that is often omitted that really makes me twitch is if you're aiming for realism, it's incredibly easy to break the immersion.

If you really want to aim for a reallistic world, that could be understood by real-life logic (and not gamer-logic), you need to make it consistently "real" in all aspects. If it's coherent, those little things the player will need to do are ok, as they reinforce the realism. If it's a mix bag, they will just feel like a chore, because in all honesty - they are.
That's why a lot of games do away with it, they're simply not fun for the player.

This of course depends on your target audience, but I don't know anyone who would say that ~20 min dungeon raid followed by ~30 mins of running around trying to sell the loot and reequip for next one is fun.

Aye.
Inventory management being one of the biggest - even with weight and/or space constraints, how it's ok to run around with a couple swords, axes, bows and sets of armor, numerous powders and other alchemical ingredients, not to mention dozens of potions, considered ok as long as you're within your (arbitrary) weight/space limit?
But if you do away with that, how to make the player not need to go to nearest settlement after hunting just 1 deer? In "reallistic" world, bearing in mind you still have a bow, arrows etc., after 1 shot you just reached your capacity and need to go back...

As a little sidenote, if you're going for a text-based story telling, get a proof reader (and a good one at that). Don't take it as an offence (English might not be your first language etc.), but the amount of mistakes in this sentence alone would put me off the game if I'd be "into insane roleplaying games", as you called it yourself.
If you're aiming for a demanding niche, anything less than stellar will be pointed out. By definition that audience will set the bar much higher than your run-of-the-mill "let's shoot stuff" playerbase.

 

Torchlight, that was the one. I sunk way to much time into fishing.

 

On the off chance that you get serious about the idea, there is existing IP that might be interesting to license: "Hobo with a shotgun".

Here are 2 trailers that might be considered NSFW because of graphic violence. Looks like a typical trash-splatter movie.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

This is really a broad statement. I love to read books. I also love to play games that have deep lore and things to read. I have played games with many people who feel the same way.

The reason that people think gamers don't like to read or like deep gameplay or lore is because those games are far and few between these days. So if you target your audience based on what games are already out there, which most people do, then you will believe that players won't read lore or won't engage in dialogue with NPCs or don't need a deep story.

That is fine. But since no one is targeting the group that has given up on WoW, you won't get those players who are actively looking for a game. I suggest you look around. You find a lot of people dissatisfied with the "dumbing down" of role play games and MMORPGs.

 

You draw you conclusions from personal experience. I draw mine from sales statistics. Action/shooter genres account for more than 50% of ALL video games sales. RPG (story-driven) games account for around 5-10%.

It's stupid and arrogant to try to change the market. It's wise and prudent to adjust to its realities.

Even cult classics like Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn were not huge sellers. That game had a 200 page manual in the box.

Nerds and developers love RPGs but general population prefers dumb CoD any day.

 

Suggesting that small indie devs should all make COD-clones because it's what the "general population prefers" is just ridiculous on so many levels. No indie dev is able to come even close to delivering what COD has to offer, and thus most gamers don't give a sh!t about all the poor-man's-COD games. Indie devs however are able to craft compelling narrative games that serve a niche audience, don't require multi-million dollar production values, and have a much bigger chance to be financially viable for the developer.

And while we are at cherry-picking examples: Undertale!

 

Actually, it is wise to target audiences that are under served.

 

When certain audiences are underserved there is a reason for that. The reason is very often that it's not profitable to serve them. RPGs are very hard to design and build: much harder than most shooters. At the same time they sell much less on averge.

 

Absolutely!!! We were recently at a game conference and I talked to a woman who did marketing. She said the best way to succeed is target a niche group with a passion for the type of game you are developing. They will be loyal, willing to pay more for the game, and eager to crowdfund to see the game to completion. Since she runs a very successful company and helps game developers market their games, I tend to listen to people like her.

Supply and demand, my friend. lol

Hmm....Skyrim, Morrowind, Dragon Age, Witcher series, NeverWinterNights, WoW, etc. Seems like a lot of rpg games that are very popular.

Shooters are easy, yeah. But there are so many of them that an indie game will be lost among the masses.

Some of us have the skills to create rpgs, including writing.

However...I commend you for sticking to your guns. It is too bad you feel the need to call the rest of us "stupid" and "arrogant". I think it is somewhat arrogant to feel the need to impart your warnings to the rest of us, but hey, whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

Most indies can only make a "wall-of-text" style RPG. That's not what people want IMO. Every single popular RPG you mentioned was made by a big AAA-class company.

I never said that indies should make CoD clones. XD

 

Thank you for your opinion. It is always valuable to learn what others think.

 

You mean that's not what the majority want. The distinction is important because the minority have shown that they are willing to repeatedly purchase games from developers like Jeff Vogel even when the games only show minute improvements with each new title (eg Avernum is a remake of Exile, Geneforge titles are all the same premise repeated multiple times, etc).

 

Honestly i think this comes down to a question of knowing your target market and understanding how saturated that market is. EA just made a blunder recently by releasing Titanfall 2 right in between Battlefield 1 and COD. Releasing a game into a market at the wrong time, or into a market with too many choices compared to the player base will certainly lead to poor sales.

The size of a market isn't a reason to avoid a whole genre, but it is certainly worth making a consideration on a cost/benefit. This is something an indie dev has more flexibility with, especially if its a passion product.

Earlier in the thread it was insinuated that people don't like to read and that will cut sales. There is no way this is correct. If you make your game impenetrable without walls of text, players will often become disengaged. Having deep lore and text as more optional features of a game allows a best of both worlds and has made for many successful titles. Even MMOs have huge walls of text but there is a TLR showing the important information that the player needs/wants. No one loses out this way.

The problem is never the reading, its about forgetting it needs to be a game first. The same can be said for cinematics and other non-interactive parts of a game. Some players just want to play and will avoid games that take control away for too long.

 

I also wonder about this focus on the percent of sales. If 50% of the games being released on Steam are first person shooters, then it would make sense that they make up a large percentage of the sales. Shooters are casual games, not super deep. They are easy to make, no story, and one can get the entire framework off the asset store and just replace the art.

Even if only 10% of the games out there are story driven rpgs and another 5% puzzle games, that doesn't mean that you can't sell rpgs or puzzle games. The market is smaller, but competition is less.

Now, I realize that the top selling games, whether shooters or rpgs are usually AAA games. I don't feel the need to compete with AAA games. Many people will never play Indie games, some might try a few, and some might actually prefer Indie games. But...as an indie game developer, I can take risks that a AAA game can't do. I can put things in the game that are unique and while it might further narrow the market, I will have even less competition.

The worst thing we can do as game developers, imho, is to convince ourselves that we can only make certain kinds of games. Doing that severely limits the creativity of indie developers. We lose the "art" aspect of the business, and just become like the guys that knock off famous purses and sell them at the train station. Flooding the market with the same type of game sets a standard for Indies. Do we really want to be known only for making games like everyone else? Or do some of us want to break the mold, even if we don't get 5% of the sales.

I guess it depends why you do this. I don't do this to get rich or even to support my family. I do this because I have something to say by making my game. I want to hear what other indies have to say. I don't want to be pigeonholed into a box and told "this is the only game that sells so make this". How boring!

 

I know that many indies approach making games like making art. IMO it's a recipe for business failure. My main goal is to build a powerful studio. I admire Valve and Blizzard a lot.

 

Failure? I think you are focused on the money aspects. Not all of us are. Some of us do this for the passion. I wonder how many shooters it takes to make a powerful studio?

I do suggest that you realize that not all people have the same goals you do and try not to call us stupid and arrogant for following our own dreams. It would be such a boring world if we all dream the same things.

 

I'm not sure, but one failed attempt might be enought to kill a studio ^^.

Well, actually I would disagree on most of those statements (although I certainly understand why things might look that way). But when we say "shooters" we might be thinking of very different things. I'm thinking mostly AAA games. Titles like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Bioshock, ARMA, CS:GO, Overwatch, Dying Light or Crysis certainly are not easy to make, and don't attract what I would consider a "casual gamer". And games like DeusEx, System Shock 2 or Dishonored also have a lot of high quality lore. ( https://www.videogamer.com/news/deus-ex-features-200-000-lines-of-dialogue ). But maybe you'd count those under RPGs or stealth action games? Multiplayer-only shooters might not need much lore, but maintaining a healthy playerbase when you are in direct competition with COD, Battlefield, Overwatch, Counterstrike, etc., is a really big challenge. Overwatch basically killed Battleborn by drawing too many players away from that game. Making a shooter is what I would consider a very very risky investment, unless you are at AAA level and have an established annual franchise like COD or Battlefield.

For indies I think with narrative-heavy RPGs you are making the much more financially viable and safe choice for a number of reasons that you already mentioned.


Fun fact: one of the most successful (as far as I can tell) games made with the uFPS asset from the assetstore is "Gone Home", which has no shooting or combat in it.

 

I hear what you're saying.

Rob Marshall's movie Nine contains a great bit that pertains to this.

If you never "screw your courage to the sticking point" and kill your dream- you'll never write it down. you'll never be able to submit it to the production process where things must be cut and cut and re-arranged to be something that is first, able to be made, and second- has every opportunity to sell well.

The dream, the art the soul of the thing is necessary for the inspiration and the motivation of going through the pain of production. If what you make is only your product, you perhaps lack the drive to make it exceptional, or make it mean something significant- you don't have a reason to pour yourself into it, if that makes any sense.

At the same time, production demands that you be willing to distance yourself from your project. You be quick to abandon something that is failing, you be flexible to cut it up and make it something that actually serves a purpose. You have to be able to see it as a product and NOT as an extension of yourself and treat it as such.

 

Ironically both those studios got big because they didn't follow mainstream development. Blizzard made RTS and ARPGs and never charged for the online component, with continued support and updates. Valve created the online platform steam, which was initial met with consumer backlash but they stuck to their guns because they had a vision.

If your main goal is to build a powerful studio, EA is the money focused company you should aspire too. They very much deal in safe bets and getting every dollar out of their customers. Blizzard and Valve are much more art and customer focused.

 

Except look to EAs early history. They were once a small indie group too. When it started EA made unique strategy games noone else was touching. They were considered a paragon in terms of promoting the programmers and artists that made their games.

 

This is a good point and they were a very good game company back then, but nothing like their present form. I certainly feel their early success put them on a path to greater things but their dominance of the market has been their choice of business direction over the last couple of decades.

 

I'm going to disagree with you there. Virtually all of the dominant studios today started by doing something unique and different that people liked. Once they became dominant, they use their money to stay dominant. But that strategy doesn't work in the beginning.

If you want to get big, study how things were done when the studios were small and growing. Staying big is quite a different proposition to getting big.

Anyway, that's enough hijacking this thread from me.

 

I think this is an interesting point of discussion on its own, perhaps something for its own thread. We certainly agree that how they use their money is why they are able to stay dominant and that they got into that position through being good studios. Where i see a difference is that this path is not available anymore as these studios were essentially pioneers in an empty landscape. The path to the position of an EA is now only available through large capital and a hunger for profit over product.

 

The visual novel market tends to disagree with you, quite strongly. On top of that look at how well the old JRPGs did without any voice acting (Every final fantasy before 10 for example)
I don't think reading is a problem, I think making reading boring is. If it's just two guys standing in the middle of a grey room talking about paint drying, yeah no one wants to read that.

But if it's a argument in the middle of a battle while the forest burns around them. People might be invested. I don't see why voice acting would improve something like this, people who play dialogue heavy games are normally cool with reading quite a lot that's WHY they are playing them.

If games like hearts of iron can make a huge profit, which are very complex games with tutorials that are hours long with no voice acting in the early versions, I am sure people can read a little story when that's why a lot of people play RPG games. To be in a story they can interact with, nothing like a book.

By your argument I can say "why would anyone play a game with loads of voice acting that's why we have movies!" and it's just as valid.

 

Speaking of text heavy games, the Fighting Fantasy series seems to be doing well. Which proves there is a niche for everything.

 

Something of note. The successful JRPGs limited the amount of text on screen at any one time, which feels more approachable. I remember as a kid skipping the text in RPGs that were complete walls in tiny fonts. I'd look at it like "Arg, F*** that". The J approach is much more bite sized and "fun" fonts. It felt manageable and engaging.

 

Am I the only weirdo who collects all the books from around the realm in the Elder Scrolls games (items taking up item slots ((weight)) to be taken back to my abode), and reads them intently, interested in the lore and history, that ties all the games together?

 

Certainly not! I'm sure there are at least two or three of you.

 

For a long while I collected them because I thought "maybe I need them later?", but most of them I didn't read. Just like in real life...

 

Absolutely.

I hear the old "people hate to read" all the time. But you know, there is a segment of the market that includes people who love to read. Unfortunately, because we tend to tell ourselves that people hate that, we don't make games for them. Visual novels are very popular, especially among the teen/young adult set.

Besides, people like me started with pure text games. We loved them and I have actually had people suggest to me that I make a text game. So there is a market out there for readers and games.

But when we say things like "people don't like to read" we are making assumptions about every person who plays games rather than realizing that "people who like to read" may be a market segment we are missing.

Actually, I did that when I said that shooters were easier. Many shooters are complex games with stories, such as Bioshock, Call of Duty, etc. I was thinking of those simple ones I see on Steam made by indies. Basically, run around and shoot your friends or NPCs. But @Martin_H is right and a shooter can be complex and just as difficult as any other story driven game.

So, sorry I made a general assumption about a genre of games.

 

I did that too! But then I am a writer who has written reams of lore. So I guess that makes sense.

 

I thought it was a cruel design decision to make a small selection of books give you bonuses. So I then had to open every single one, just in case it was a bonus. And once I started reading, I might as well finish it.

I do know a couple people that prided themselves in having collected the entire Skyrim library. I never got that far in, but I might of given enough time.