Okay, someone talk me down from this idea

Doom meets Metroidvania

-100 weapons
-100 enemies types
-100 pick ups
-100 secrets
-100 Achievements
-Scaling difficultly (between 1 and 100)

-Final score is weapons picked up, plus types of enemies killed, plus pick ups, plus secrets found, plus the final difficulty completed on, plus achievements, minus reloads (deaths), divided by time.

-No saves, just save rooms.

Tell me that bullet point list I just made isn’t the perfect trailer!

Opinions?

 

The last three new posts I've seen from you in this forum seem to follow a pattern: Ridiculously complex (probably overly ambitious) ideas that feel more like excel spreadsheets than games. Whether they're good ideas, or promising ideas, I'm not going to try to decide. However, they're all so complex and "all or nothing" that it feels like you're setting yourself up to be unable to complete any of these projects.

I think most successful games start with something simple, and organically build on it as you testing things out and see what works and what doesn't. It feels more like you want to design a full game on paper, to the smallest details.

Can you really say that a game with 100 weapons would be more fun than a game with 50? 25? If so, are you sure it shouldn't be 250 weapons? I feel like your choice of 100s is dangerously arbitrary: Dangerous because it sets you up for failure. I can imagine someone building out a game with 10 of all the things you listed. Now, they've only completed 10% of their game, with 90% left to go. Will that remaining 90% make the game 9x better than it is at 10% completion?

Anyway, I don't want to ruin your fun if it's simply enjoyable to think about ideas like this and do some design work. But, if you're really considering making one of these ideas into a game, I would definitely not start with so much complexity.

 

Have you finished your previous ideas?

My work here is done

 

Making 100 guns will take what? 200 hours to make it slightly more interesting? Wouldn’t those hours be better spent play testing a tight sandbox and making it fun?

 

- 100 levels..
- 100 lives max (allowed to lose 1 per level, more than one is game over)
..could be 1 secret each, 1 new weapon each, 1 achievement for completing each etc.
..the boss of each could always be a new enemy since you plan 100 enemy type

 

Pretty much what others have said, it sounds like you're more interested in coming up with ideas than actually implementing them. Nothing wrong with that of course, but for me personally it makes me less inclined to engage with the ideas.

 

I like it.

 

Watch Mark Brown’s video on what we can learn from Doom. He makes several points that would be relevant here.

 

This isn't really a game idea. What's the gameplay loop? It's just the 3rd or 4th tier incentive that nearly all games got of keep playing and collect achivements, weapons guns, cosmetics, etc..

If your game sucks with 5 guns, 100 guns or 1000 guns isn't going to help it. Nor will any gigantic number of achievements or power ups.

 

Take off the jetpack, Teddy Bear. I think the ability of your forum icon to fly is perhaps making you get up too high on various ideas. Start small and finish something. Keep the soaring on a flaming, smoking column for later on down the road.


Edit: Make a game around that character. I really love your patchwork forum icon and have always wanted to see it as a main character in a game or cartoon.

 

@Socrates - it is a great icon.. the things we could do if we looked like that

 

Yeah, don't drink and post kids.

I'm not completely off of the idea.

I'd like to get a functioning enemy and weapon prefab that can be used to get multiple weapons and enemies.

And just keep the art extremely basic.

 

Clearly you weren't drinking enough if you didn't think of a Borderlands-style procedural weapon system. Just imagine running into a boss after having discovered your weapons have some bizarre quirk to them thanks to random number generators trolling the player.

 

I thought the "stupid meme guns" were hand crafted so that many players get to experience them. Like the one that was fairly strong but said annoying stuff the whole time. I don't remember "random" pcg quirks, but it's been a long time.

 

I hated weapon scaling (damage) in borderlands. Randomization of properties was actually quite fun.

 

You really should look back at least to times of Diablo 1/2. Could learn a lot on the topic of randomisation loots, geras and maps.

 

I think randomized weapons works for borderlands, but I’m not wanting to make borderlands.

Im wanting to make an open map that opens up as you progress, where the gameplay mutates from iron site military weapons with a huge emphasis on critical hits, into a rapid paced rocket arena shooter with an emphasis on movement and keeping enemies in a state of shock.

All the while, moving from checkpoint to checkpoint will be about resource management and self preservation.

 

That's an easy way to get to 100 guns, but is it compatible with a metroidvania? The designer needs tight control over what each new thing provides access to, so variations can't be

I can think of some ways to make it achievable. For starters, 100 guns does not mean that they all have to be 100% bespoke. You could make that by implementing 10 "styles" (melee, shotgun, automatic rifle, launcher, etc.) and 10 "damage types" (kinetic, poison, electric, heat, cold, etc.) and having the game generate each combination from those things.

However... that will give neither the interest of a game such as Ratchet and Clank where all of the weapons are uniquely whacky, nor the subtlety of a game such as Borderlands where players care about the details of the generated variations. That's ok, because this isn't either of those games, but I'd think carefully about how to make that "grid based" approach tie specifically into your game.

Throwing ideas for that around:
- Instead of 10 x 10, have 5 x 5 x 4 or something. In other words, add an extra way in which your weapons can vary.
- Make the grid bigger, but don't fill every slot. This is more work, of course, but adds some unpredictability back in.

 

No, I’m not at all interested in an inventory system.

I want 4 slots to equip weappns.

When the player discovers a new weapon it is automatically available from then on at every checkpoint/save room.

When you equip a weapon from the room you get full ammo for that weapon.

By the time the player reaches the next save room, I want them to have exhausted most of their inventory and have been forced to pick up other weapons along the way.

That way players HAVE to use a variety of weapons, but still get to use their favorites.

 

If a player replenishes their ammo at the save room, how is this an impetus to pick weapons other than their chosen 4?

 

Because they will run out of ammo before reaching the next save room.

 

I'm not suggesting you change your current project. I was responding purely to the achievability of what was described in the OP.

 

Well, actually...

you’re insights are really invaluable.

I’m now scrapping the current controller and starting from scratch.

I’m now leaning on the idea of only two guns to emphasis adaptation, AND two grenades, and a one time use item, and a limited use flashlight on the dpad.

But no crouch!

crouch is stupid and pointless.

that leaves:
-primary fire (R2)
-secondary fire (L2)
-grenades (R1)
-grappling hook / gravity gun (L1)
-jump (X)
-Use / Reload (Square)
-Blink / Invisibility (Circle)
-Slow time (triangle)
-Melee (R3)
-Sprint (L3)

And right now im pretty happy with that.

I’ll show you. I’ll show you ALL come feedback Friday.

Not this fbf, but soon. And for the rest of your lives!

Now I just need to just get like more than two hours a week to work on it.

My main competitor in the locksmith world just had an employee attempt to murder another employee and I’ve been crazy swamped.

wish that was a joke.

 

Now I'm going to jump on board with some of the others.

Don't.

If you're always scrapping stuff to chase The Next Great Idea you'll never finish anything. Just finish the thing you're working on in it's minimal complete form. That is the top priority. Unfinished implementations of would-be-great things are worth nothing.

Discussing ideas is great, but leave it at that until you've finished the thing you're working on. Then pick the best of your ideas at that point and make one, and so on.

Changing your design as you go should usually be done in response to player feedback rather than Great New Ideas, at least until you're in the habit of finishing things.

 

I know, I know, I know...

I post a LOT of ideas, and if I’m being honest I love the process and have a mental aversion to finishing anything.

My wife, who is amazing for her understanding, has watched me invest a ton into Bravely Bear just to walk away when the finish line came into sight.

But I’m doing all this for me. If it’s not satisfying I walk.

And I think all this experimenting is actually turning into something big.

I know it sounds delusional, but I really think that what I’ve got is going to make huge waves once I pin it down.

I do a LOT of prototyping and really think I’m on to something that is going to straight up melt faces when it comes together.

There’s absolutely no reason why anyone should believe in me at this point, but I do.

I don’t want to release anything that doesn’t have my entire heart behind it and I’m still figuring out what that means, but I’m getting very close.

Feel free to mock my enthusiasm, but I really think this is going to be one of the biggest things to come out when it does.

EDIT: if it’s not clear at this point, I have a central mechanic that I have not shared that will absolutely define this game and will almost certainly get several imitators after its release.

Not to share too much, but it’s something that seems very obvious and has somehow alluded everyone all these years.

Players will immediately get it.

It will be extremely gratifying.

And it will be the good kind of addictive.

@angrypenguin if you want I can dm you more details about the mechanic, but it’s going to be a big read.

 

Why not crouch?
Crouch means you can duck under the standing opponents bullet fire or laser shots, and while it passes over your head, you can fire under them at your opponent, without getting hit. But if you are crouching, and the opponent crouches and fires at you, obviously you will get hit from the bullets.

 

Because the human mind can keep about five processes going at any time and the orthogonal gameplay I’m angling for is going to demand the brain power.

I want players to be thinking about spacial arrangement, resource management, effectiveness of weapons in situations, the application of their skills, and my mechanic.

I don’t want them fiddling about with a mechanic that frankly slows everything down.

Also, the idea of considering crouching into level design bores me to tears.

Quake 3, aka the most perfectly designed game of all time, nixed it and I think they were on to something.

This game is going to be heavily centered around aggression. Not cowering.

When I want the player to soil themselves, and I will, I want them running in a panic. Not dig in.

 

Okay.

 

Honestly I was ready to snark, but if you're that hyped for your idea, I can only say "go for it!". I remember the feeling, it's something money can't buy. Have fun!

 

I guess he is the player and get feedback from himself. By the way, I like the author's desire to create a game that will be so engaging and interesting for him. that he won't get bored even he play it every day while developing or after publishing.

Well, here are my 2 cents, Not_Sure:
- 100 minutes to run through all levels
- 100 steps per level

Why? These will add to your idea about dynamic gameplay, and will ensure that the levels will be small enough to build all 100 of them within few years.

 

Crouching is very interesting mechanics, which adds extra depth to a game play. Requires from a player think more strategically. Cover, hide (crates, short walls, under stairs in dark, etc.), sneak and surprise, reloading, grenadeing. Better aiming, i.e. for snipers, Also specific areas, which can be accessible only by crouching. Tunnels, vents, pipes, cracks in walls. Becoming an easy target at these points. See for example CS and Unreal series.

Liero game had over 20 weapons, from grenades, machineguns, to crackles, mines, basookas and highly explosive nukes like.
Also see Worms series, for weapons selections.

But my question is, what is so magical about number 100? Is that make game any special?

 

LOVE Liero!

LOVE THAT GAME!

But I promise you crouching is simply not what this game will be about.

And 100 weapons is what I landed on after 12 beers.

I realize now that it’s not that important, but to me “This game has 100 weapons” is a good way to turn heads and put “asses in seats” as a certain director would put it.

I can’t make AAA content, so I better make damn sure to have some killer hooks. Seats and asses in alignment.

 

It really isn't. Gamers have been burnt enough by such claims, they'll think "100? must be boring samy variations then, because no game ever had 100 meaningfully different weapons". Numbers are possibly the worst way to advertise your game. You play the numbers card when you have nothing else to offer, like Fallout 76 with it's promised "16 times the detail" or whatever it was.
It's all about emotions and stories, and I don't mean narrative stories, I mean the stories the players can tell after playing the game.

That unique mechanic that you haven't told us about, make damn sure it's clear from a single description sentence or a single screenshot, what that thing is and why it's cool. E.g. a grappling hook as movement mechanic is much more interesting than 100 weapons imho.

 

"Will"?

That sounds concerning to me, because it tells me you haven't tested it and are basing decisions on an assumption.

Test it.

And that's before I even get to "gratifying" and "addictive".

I'm glad you're feeling good about things. However, temper it as well. Keep in mind that many people have similar feelings, including loads of games that end up being just "pretty good" or "alright" or... going largely unnoticed.

Even if it is face meltingly good, if you're not testing with real people and getting feedback then you're putting yourself at real risk. What happens when you release an ok implementation of a great idea? Someone better resourced steps in and makes a great implementation and wins most of the market. (See: PUBG and Fortnite for one example.)

I'm not saying you should spill the beans on your idea. I am saying that you need to check your assumptions, including those about how awesome you think your stuff is. An untested idea is a liability.

Also... again, finish stuff.

 

Well if it's just a hobby

 

Maybe if your game's entire theme/plot/purpose is around the magic number 100. If there's a reason you've got 100 weapons, a reason for a 100 enemy types, a reason for 100 pickups - because for a player to actually traverse through 100s of things, there's gotta be a reason. Unless you're targeting the completionist gamer which I don't think is a grand idea.

Not a crazy idea. I'm pretty sure the concept of a boss rush sounded ludicrous back in the day. I mean a game with just boss fights ? But hey Furi did pretty well. But Furi has a draw - it's got music, great art design, great world building etc.

You could still get this happening if you give it soul...but you might wanna automate the process because you're practically going to create thousands of game objects and if you're alone - Godspeed.

 

100 weapons is just stupid.. In our game we dont have two weapon with same specs. That will just be a cosmetic difference then. For us too choose two weapons with same caliber, they need different barrel length (muzzle velocity) or have different type of actions etc

 

100 different types of breakable melee weapons scattered around in a 100 man battle royale. You can also craft weapons, for example you find nail gun, and pen that can shoot pencils

 

I really don’t think 100 weapons is undoable.

You have a few scripts that have a lot of reusability and just tweak the variables.

You can get a lot of mileage out of a handful of scripts.

And as far as modeling goes, it’s going to be very basic. Like quake 1 basic.

Also, Fiverr is a thing. I’m certain I can pay someone $20 a model and have lots of takers.

Even if I turn down half of them, that’s only $4000.

 

The discussion focus so much on (3) 100 'Spartans'.
But what about actual game mechanics. Do you have anything on that front?
Any initial game concept?

 

I do.

It starts off as an iron sites type shooter with an emphasis on critical hits, then mutates into a rocket arena shooter with an emphasis on movement.

All of this is layered with my central mechanic that I’m not ready to share.

 

But 100 weapons with just small changes to stats are no use. It's just cosmetics. Take our two 5.56 assualt rifles for example. One is a compact cqb rifle with alot of attachment points and the other one is a full length barell for longer engagements, one is 3 burst only and the other one full auto etc. Stuff like that.

 

You really aren’t getting how to use multi-purpose scripts if this is what you think.

Make a script that works for a pistol.

Then add functionality as you need it.

So it’s a shotgun?

Add spread function.

Then do the same for a projectile script.

And do the same for enemies.

It’s not just about “making small changes to stats”.

 

haha, dude, our game is component driven, there is zero change between a pistol or a shotgun in our game. But you still dont get it. There is not 100 variations of weapons that will be big enough to warrent them. it will only be different skins of the same weapon

 

Made a video too show you what I ment

 

Honestly not sure about the purpose of this thread at this point lol you ask people to talk you down about this 'idea'.

People did so and you're counter arguing. Do you even want to work on this idea? Do you doubt yourself? If so, show something.

 

Yeah, I’m not really sure what the point of this thread is at this point either. Probably a few posts past needing to be locked. Sorry.

Also, @MDADigital is think I see the disconnect in what we’re both saying. I’m not looking to make a military shooter. I plan on several weapons that are more akin to Doom, Quake, or Halo.

The idea is that it starts are hitscan military weapons, but gradually introduces weapons that have orthogonal functionality.

And I want each section of the map to be like a puzzle with multiple solutions.

Tight sections? Get a shotgun.

Open areas? Get a rail gun.

Lots of cat and mouse? Get a plasma sword.

 

@MDADigital it looks OP don't want attachments, but rather something like i.e. Worm Armagedon

Here is close to 60 weapons / utilities list.



Liero had close to 40 weapons.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/pc/577341-liero/faqs/15717

Spoiler

a. Bazooka
b. Big Nuke
c. Blaster
d. Booby Trap
e. Bouncy Larpa
f. Bouncy Mine
g. Cannon
h. Chaingun
i. Chiquita Bomb
j. Cluster Bomb
k. Crackler
l. Dart
m. Dirtball
n. Doomsday
o. Explosives
p. Fan
q. Flamer
r. Float Mine
s. Gauss Gun
t. Grasshopper
u. Greenball
v. Grenade
w. Handgun
x. HellRaider
y. Larpa
z. Laser
aa. Mine
ab. Minigun
ac. Mini Nuke
ad. Mini Rockets
ae. Missile
af. Napalm
ag. RB Rampage
ah. Rifle
ai. Shotgun
aj. Spikeballs
ak. Super Shotgun
al. Uzi
am. Winchester
an. Zimm

In either case, options were quite exhaustive with that numbers. Specially for someone, who do not understand English well.

Is not that simple.
Unless wanting making player bored to death, with 5% stronger weapon B against weapon A.
To make even interesting, there should be significant difference.

Or indeed, go for attachments / upgrades, and count as variations up to 100.
Simple upgrades system of weapons, in tons of existing games, can give far more variations than 100.

 

It doesnt change the fact much though. 100 weapons still mean many will be reskins of others. You only listed 3 types, you have 97 more to-go Take that Team 17 game thats based off the hold Qbasic gorilla game. They had alot of different weapons. In the end you might use 5 or 6 of them,

edit: Actually there were Artillery games before Gorillas

 

@Antypodish gets it.

Oh, I can easily get to 100 weapons and have many of them be very different and unique.

And while some of them would admittedly be stat tweaks, you can just make sure to exaggerate the differences.

I’ll give an example of my most similar weapons I currently have in mind. I want a sawed off super shotgun and a full length super shotgun.

They are both going to shoot the same amount of pellets that do the same damage each.

But the long barrel is going to have way less spread and twice the range.

While the sawed off will reload significantly faster and allow the player to move much faster.

With lots of factors to consider, I can get lots of signature weapons.

-firing speed
-clip size
-reload speed
-ammo consumption
-Reload all at once or one at a time
-kick
-sway
-spread
-player movement speed
-iron sites or alt fire
-noise
-light

The with the scripts for the projectiles.
-velocity
-drop
-deceleration
-bounce
-force on impact
-damage on impact
-armor piercing
-does it explode
-explosion size
-explosion force
-explosion damage
-explosion armor pierce
-noise
-light

And of course there will be custom scripts for unique situations that just don’t cover things, like lunging forward with the plasma sword.