inherit
356
0
Aug 17, 2016 7:21:09 GMT -6
18
alialkhiro
18
Jul 13, 2015 11:39:45 GMT -6
July 2015
alialkhiro
|
Post by alialkhiro on Jul 15, 2015 7:03:10 GMT -6
You're approaching this with a bit too much of a "this would be cool" mindset rather than one of sound game design. Stupid enemies are fundamental to the genre and allow the player to play the game at their own speed, from dungeon crawls to speed runs. After all, the game's main focus is exploration rather than depth of combat, hence the lack of combos and the like. Enemies in this genre are meant to be obstacles rather than necessary encounters, and how those obstacles are approached is at the discretion of the player, which is really one of the stronger points in these games. Well, of course I'd be approaching this with a "this would be cool" mindset, that mind set is what brought about video games and continues to drive innovation and evolution in the gaming world. The "sound game design" mindset is the job of the devs, not me (I wouldn't be able to do that even if I wanted since I have little to no information about what the devs want to do with their game at this stage). It is the job of game designers and developers to fit in all the cool and fun ideas together in ways that make a good game. "Stupid enemies" are mostly the result of limitations rather than an active design decision. Intelligent enemies would not change anything from what you described as the core of this genre; they would only raise the skill level and thinking required to over come the obstacles of the game. As for the bosses, the example you used was a bit gimmicky and binary. If the harder version is actually interesting, you're losing a lot of strong design by giving the player the power to just ignore the fight's gimmick. If the more difficult mechanic is not interesting, you're just wasting the player's time making them go to another room to avoid something that wasn't worth having in anyway. If anything, more fights like the crab in Order of Ecclesia would be great; but multiple room-spanning fights just don't seem like a strong choice. The example was made with the intent of clarifying the idea rather than suggest an implementation to it. I don't know what you mean by "binary" but I feel that you are contradicting yourself a bit here; fixed boss battles create an obstacle that can not be "approached is at the discretion of the player, which is really one of the stronger points in these games." And I am sure those speed runners would prefer an enemy they can run from or ways that make some boss fights shorter. The strong point of the game is exploration, not many would disagree on that. But what is the reward you get for exploration? An optional boss, a stronger weapon or a story set piece, anything else? If the combat is not satisfying then getting bosses or weapons wouldn't mean much. If the game atmosphere isn't intriguing and immersive then the story wouldn't mean much either. Enemies that act alive and threatening benefit both aspects (story or combat) and a more challenging foe would provide higher satisfaction for overcoming that obstacle rather then wasting my time slowing down to overpass a speed bumps. As I said in the OP, I don't expect nor want all enemies/bosses to be like this. I just want that sense of surprise when the game does something that I did not expect it to do (other than crashing or bugging  ) and that the world of the game is alive and acting independently rather than just reacting to what I do. |
|
inherit
22
0
Aug 10, 2019 9:52:39 GMT -6
308
ghaleon
611
May 29, 2015 8:48:14 GMT -6
May 2015
ghaleon
|
Post by ghaleon on Jul 15, 2015 9:33:21 GMT -6
Actually I dont think intelligent enemies dont exist due to hardware limitations. Enemy intelligence at an even remotely respectful level are actually quite complicated to program. Much more so than many other things I see people state would tske too long to program to be worth it (such as a customizeable room).
Just think of how many games have poor pathfinding... Now consider pathfinding is one of the easiest things to code for AI (aside from typical charge toward the player spamming attack AI). Real enemy intellligence not only has to pathfins to dynamic areas related to the player, but also has to limit how based on the player attack range and whatnot. And all of this has to be kindw custom made to suit player movement speed, attack range, hitbox size, etc. Any time the player changes in this regard a good Ai will have to too.
Its very possible to be sure but I can see why it gets left out so often.
One game where the enemy AI is quite good though is fortune summoners... Even a lowly blob will punish you if you arent careful.
|
|
inherit
382
0
Sept 13, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
15
helluminatus
18
Jul 13, 2015 20:19:58 GMT -6
July 2015
helluminatus
|
Post by helluminatus on Jul 15, 2015 11:43:59 GMT -6
You're approaching this with a bit too much of a "this would be cool" mindset rather than one of sound game design. Stupid enemies are fundamental to the genre and allow the player to play the game at their own speed, from dungeon crawls to speed runs. After all, the game's main focus is exploration rather than depth of combat, hence the lack of combos and the like. Enemies in this genre are meant to be obstacles rather than necessary encounters, and how those obstacles are approached is at the discretion of the player, which is really one of the stronger points in these games. Well, of course I'd be approaching this with a "this would be cool" mindset, that mind set is what brought about video games and continues to drive innovation and evolution in the gaming world. The "sound game design" mindset is the job of the devs, not me (I wouldn't be able to do that even if I wanted since I have little to no information about what the devs want to do with their game at this stage). It is the job of game designers and developers to fit in all the cool and fun ideas together in ways that make a good game. "Stupid enemies" are mostly the result of limitations rather than an active design decision. Intelligent enemies would not change anything from what you described as the core of this genre; they would only raise the skill level and thinking required to over come the obstacles of the game. As for the bosses, the example you used was a bit gimmicky and binary. If the harder version is actually interesting, you're losing a lot of strong design by giving the player the power to just ignore the fight's gimmick. If the more difficult mechanic is not interesting, you're just wasting the player's time making them go to another room to avoid something that wasn't worth having in anyway. If anything, more fights like the crab in Order of Ecclesia would be great; but multiple room-spanning fights just don't seem like a strong choice. The example was made with the intent of clarifying the idea rather than suggest an implementation to it. I don't know what you mean by "binary" but I feel that you are contradicting yourself a bit here; fixed boss battles create an obstacle that can not be "approached is at the discretion of the player, which is really one of the stronger points in these games." And I am sure those speed runners would prefer an enemy they can run from or ways that make some boss fights shorter. The strong point of the game is exploration, not many would disagree on that. But what is the reward you get for exploration? An optional boss, a stronger weapon or a story set piece, anything else? If the combat is not satisfying then getting bosses or weapons wouldn't mean much. If the game atmosphere isn't intriguing and immersive then the story wouldn't mean much either. Enemies that act alive and threatening benefit both aspects (story or combat) and a more challenging foe would provide higher satisfaction for overcoming that obstacle rather then wasting my time slowing down to overpass a speed bumps. As I said in the OP, I don't expect nor want all enemies/bosses to be like this. I just want that sense of surprise when the game does something that I did not expect it to do (other than crashing or bugging ) and that the world of the game is alive and acting independently rather than just reacting to what I do. Limitation is the mother of invention my friend. In the original Castlevania did you think enemies were placed willy-nilly? These limitations created an identity for the game as they had to use clever placement and patterns to create an enhanced difficulty to their platformer. All of this clever placement and intentional obstacle creation would have been for naught if the enemies were easily lured from their intended position. As such, no, they don't raise skill level. More advanced AI is just as easily exploited as enemies with simple pathing due to the high mobility found in these games. And no, I was not contradicting myself. Bosses are and always have been tests of pattern recognition in Castlevania games. They're a set challenge that force the player to play by the boss's rules. This not only provides variety but also gives bosses a sense of grandeur, due to the player being forced to adapt to the current situation rather than offering the player the option to run as with most enemies. And yes, that is the reward for exploration, and it's plenty. Combat is satisfying, the worlds are intriguing. Fact of the matter is that these games are founded on pattern recognition and handling of obstacles. Wanting to make the game more akin to a beat 'em up detracts severely from the rest of the game design as traversal means a hell of a lot less since enemy "posts" won't exist as you could just lure them out and make their placing and attack patterns meaningless. In short, these changes might seem cool to you, but they have consequences on a scale much larger than you might think. |
|
inherit
356
0
Aug 17, 2016 7:21:09 GMT -6
18
alialkhiro
18
Jul 13, 2015 11:39:45 GMT -6
July 2015
alialkhiro
|
Post by alialkhiro on Jul 17, 2015 5:17:58 GMT -6
Limitation is the mother of invention my friend. In the original Castlevania did you think enemies were placed willy-nilly? These limitations created an identity for the game as they had to use clever placement and patterns to create an enhanced difficulty to their platformer. All of this clever placement and intentional obstacle creation would have been for naught if the enemies were easily lured from their intended position. As such, no, they don't raise skill level. More advanced AI is just as easily exploited as enemies with simple pathing due to the high mobility found in these games. And no, I was not contradicting myself. Bosses are and always have been tests of pattern recognition in Castlevania games. They're a set challenge that force the player to play by the boss's rules. This not only provides variety but also gives bosses a sense of grandeur, due to the player being forced to adapt to the current situation rather than offering the player the option to run as with most enemies. And yes, that is the reward for exploration, and it's plenty. Combat is satisfying, the worlds are intriguing. Fact of the matter is that these games are founded on pattern recognition and handling of obstacles. Wanting to make the game more akin to a beat 'em up detracts severely from the rest of the game design as traversal means a hell of a lot less since enemy "posts" won't exist as you could just lure them out and make their placing and attack patterns meaningless. In short, these changes might seem cool to you, but they have consequences on a scale much larger than you might think. Actually, need is the mother of invention and thank you for considering me a friend  . Limitation encourages creativity, but how much creativity is left in those no longer real limitations that have been repeated through the many castelevania games and their like? Wouldn't a breeze of fresh air be appreciated? You don't like new things? And trust me, people who are creative under limitations can be creative under a different set of limitations (even if self imposed), the intelligence of the enemies (regardless of how it is designed) is not going to change that. I was not satisfied by the combat in SotN, I don't know if other castelevanias are better in that regard. The enemies only managed to harm me because I didn't know what they were going to do; no enemy was a threat to me after the first encounter. Enemy formations were a different story, I site a room at the collisioum where a skeleton rifle squad were hiding behind a number of strong enemies making the room really difficult and challenging to clear (though clearing it was not necessary) and I liked that. I would like more of that even if in branching rooms that are not part of the main path. And it feels like you are forgetting that this is NOT castelevania, Bloodstained is a new game and we have no idea how closely it would resemble its ancestor game and how much new things will appear in it. I don't really want to make the game anything, the game devs will be doing that. I am just stating what I would like to see. Feel free to disagree, I understand what you are trying to say though I disagree with it. You have probably played more castelevania games and have a stronger feeling/vision/expectation of what the game should be and that is all OK. I hope you can understand that there are people who feel/think differently and would like different things in their game. I would like to know what kind of enemy behavior you would like to see in Bloodstained. Your point of view, when explained, may turn out more appealing than the one I have now. |
|
inherit
382
0
Sept 13, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
15
helluminatus
18
Jul 13, 2015 20:19:58 GMT -6
July 2015
helluminatus
|
Post by helluminatus on Jul 17, 2015 16:04:44 GMT -6
Actually, need is the mother of invention and thank you for considering me a friend . Limitation encourages creativity, but how much creativity is left in those no longer real limitations that have been repeated through the many castelevania games and their like? Wouldn't a breeze of fresh air be appreciated? You don't like new things? And trust me, people who are creative under limitations can be creative under a different set of limitations (even if self imposed), the intelligence of the enemies (regardless of how it is designed) is not going to change that. I was not satisfied by the combat in SotN, I don't know if other castelevanias are better in that regard. The enemies only managed to harm me because I didn't know what they were going to do; no enemy was a threat to me after the first encounter. Enemy formations were a different story, I site a room at the collisioum where a skeleton rifle squad were hiding behind a number of strong enemies making the room really difficult and challenging to clear (though clearing it was not necessary) and I liked that. I would like more of that even if in branching rooms that are not part of the main path. And it feels like you are forgetting that this is NOT castelevania, Bloodstained is a new game and we have no idea how closely it would resemble its ancestor game and how much new things will appear in it. I don't really want to make the game anything, the game devs will be doing that. I am just stating what I would like to see. Feel free to disagree, I understand what you are trying to say though I disagree with it. You have probably played more castelevania games and have a stronger feeling/vision/expectation of what the game should be and that is all OK. I hope you can understand that there are people who feel/think differently and would like different things in their game. I would like to know what kind of enemy behavior you would like to see in Bloodstained. Your point of view, when explained, may turn out more appealing than the one I have now. You'll have to forgive me, I misspoke. Limitation is the mother of Innovation. Now that that's out of the way, let's get this going. You talked about how you quickly caught on to patterns of enemies and were able to not be harmed by them after you did. Congratulations, you're playing the game correctly. And no, this ISN'T Castlevania, but only in the regard that mighty no. 9 is not Megaman, or Yuka-Laylee isn't Banjo-Kazooie. These are games made by the original perveyors of beloved franchises, and they're funded because they're promising more of what made the originals classics to begin with. Hence, since enemy placement and level design are so paramount to the game's design and feel, he really couldn't market the game as an Igavania, no unless he turns heel and goes back on having the game be an Igavania, you can expect this much (the core) will stay the same. I recommend that you take a look at Mirror of fate. It's more in a beat 'em up action/platformer type of vain. That's the game I think you're looking for, and simply put, it's not the game you'll get here. As for behaviors, nothing besides basic patrol paths and proximity is necessary as long as enough enemies have distinctive patterns of attack. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you or your ideas; I'm just saying that these particular ideas may not have been thought through as deeply as they could have. |
|
inherit
22
0
Aug 10, 2019 9:52:39 GMT -6
308
ghaleon
611
May 29, 2015 8:48:14 GMT -6
May 2015
ghaleon
|
Post by ghaleon on Jul 17, 2015 20:12:14 GMT -6
Actually I wanna jump in to the side-debate hellumunajumphatbbtha why is your name so hard to spell started. Note that I think debates are healthy, so don't go on the defensive just cuz of what I said already =P..
When I first read this thread, I had a similar opinion as you hellum. I thought the suggestion was pretty unrealistically ambitious, not to mention unusual, and I still think these things. I'm not really convinced it would be a good thing to impliment still...
However I have objections to your opinion that such opinions are made out of the school of 'that would be cool' rather than 'that would be good game design'. The thing is people all too often thing that just because a good game did something a certain way, that it must be the right way. One example is Diablo 2 and skill trees... I think skill trees are one of the most awful form of character customization that ever befell games, and just because diablo 2 was an otherwise good successful game, skill trees are absolutely everywhere now. Skill trees all too often have no-brainer cookie cutter builds, lack real customization rather than general choices (such as what tree you specialize in more often than not, and where if you have points in other trees, they are almost always invested exclusively to focus on things that synergize with the 'primary' tree. So despite the fact you see all these skills and branches and whatever, reasonable builds are often very limited. Before the skill tree fad that grew after diablo 2 (I don't know if diablo 2 'invented' skill trees, but if it didn't I'm quite certain it's what popularized them), character customization often had a large selection of skills that were not in trees, which were often balanced against each other individually, and where there wasn't a way to focus on one with everything else built exclusively to synergize with them. So you had far more basic in appearence, but advanced in depth forms of customization like found in Fallout, Sacred 2 (I realize sacred 2 came later but it's more like the style I'm talking about), warlords battlecry, dungeons and dragons (though ever since 3rd edition they are kinda moving towards trees, though not enough to really ruin anything).
Basically, my point is I got the impression you were against the op's suggestion because you kind of exuded that mindset where anything different that isn't hailed as 'innovative' (that's another beef of mine altogether.. innovation for the sake of bragging about innovation in games DRIVES ME NUTS, they often are very shallow in the long run IMO, and lose value once the initial novelty wears off) is likely not good game design, and over idealistic rather than functional or practical, which I completely disagree with.
I also want to point out that there are many games where enemies chase you indefinitely, but they all seem to have one thing in common...They're in games that are not divided into 'rooms'. Objectively, I can't really see why implementing such AI in a game with rooms would be some kind of big no-no over implementing them in games that don't have set 'rooms'. However I think part of the reason TO make a game with set 'rooms' is so that level designers and such can have a nice quick and easy template of placing enemies and obstacles on a room by room basis, rather than have some borderless world where things aren't quite so modular and easy to adjust.
I just want to say though I have no disagreements about your points about carefully designed rooms and topography that the enemies are placed into with the room's features in mind.
Also to add to your agument, by having enemies that chase you and ones that look for you and all that, you would require most enemies to have functional animations and AI for opening doors, climbing up stairs, jumping across platforms, etc, etc. Those would be significant amounts of extra work needed.
Of course the OP wasn't asking for these exclusively, they were also asking for the simple FEELING like enemies were aware of you and were trying to reduce the mayhem you do to their castle (though it is techincally Miriam's, but whatever). For that I have no problems with the game simply having something like a % per room that causes some kind of 'hunter' encounter to spawn and force you to battle them before proceeding in peace...This particular hunter enemy can chase you, and does jumpa cross platforms, climb stairs, etc (only these specific enemies would require these animations and AI so no biggie), etc. I feel like there should be a small variety of such enemies though, not just the same kind every time.. I'm not really dying for such a feature though. I think it's reasonably sound, but not really something that would greatly benefit the game either. If it was added cool, if not, meh.
|
|
inherit
382
0
Sept 13, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
15
helluminatus
18
Jul 13, 2015 20:19:58 GMT -6
July 2015
helluminatus
|
Post by helluminatus on Jul 17, 2015 20:41:16 GMT -6
Yeah, my name trips people up at first, what can I say, I was a super edgy kid in highschool and the name kind of stuck  . Anywho, I can see your skepticism in my assertion; in fact, many modern outlets are entirely too attached to certain concepts and only keeping old ways for the sake of security. However, this is not why I approached the situation as I did. Metroidvanias are hand-down my favorite single-player gaming experiences, so much so that I convinced my capstone group to make one for our Senior project. Countless hours in the lab have taught me that as far as level design and enemy intelligence go, you typically have to sacrifice one for the other, like rocks on a scale. For example, could you imagine trying to platform on pendulums over a spike pit while reactive and intelligent bats flew at you? To make this at all possible, you have to A: remove the bat altogether or B: remove the pendulums/make them static. However, they can be easily dealt with if the bats in this equation are on a simple patrol path or are hard coded into a specific pattern once in proper proximity to the player. That seemingly minor change removed the possibility for this interesting and moderately challenging obstacle and restricted it to either being boring or simple. Even in broad stokes, if enemies have to be approached in more complex ways, the general flow of the level is put off. With enemies like we're used to, though you are taking the time to fight enemies (IF you choose, which has become a well-loved option in these games), enemy attack pattern make you play in rhythm, meaning that even though you're not spatially progressing, you feel like you're not missing a beat, like jogging in place waiting for cars to pass as opposed to stopping your run flat at every intersection. TLDR: I made the call on research and experience rather than a kneejerk reaction. |
|
inherit
22
0
Aug 10, 2019 9:52:39 GMT -6
308
ghaleon
611
May 29, 2015 8:48:14 GMT -6
May 2015
ghaleon
|
Post by ghaleon on Jul 17, 2015 22:20:17 GMT -6
Yeah, that's clearly an example why intelligent enemies absolutely everywhere could be a problem, but I still don't think it really proves anything for more limited cases kind of like how I proposed (note I don't mean only my example, that's just a random example, I'm not sold on it or anything). Obviously, having a random squad of 'hunter' miniboss-esque enemies show up in the room you mentioned would be problematic too, but It would be easy enough to simply flag such rooms as having no chance of said encounters (like they would likely implement anyway for boss/friendly/shop/save rooms for example).
Not that I'm trying to force you to concede anything, I find your opinion to be agreeable to some extent moreso than the op (though I don't 100% disagree with the op).
I WOULD think a limited case of 'smart' enemies would be beneficial overall in the roguelike mode though. Naturally you'd end up with some brutally unfair rooms but...that's the charm of roguelikes IMO, you never know when you'll get absolutely spoiled, or doomed. Kinda tired of modern roguelites normalizing the 'good' and 'bad' case scenarios more and more because entitled gamers blame the game when they die in it or something and claim bad design...and these designers seem to listen to some extent by making roguelikes more and more forgiving and fair ='(.
|
|
inherit
382
0
Sept 13, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
15
helluminatus
18
Jul 13, 2015 20:19:58 GMT -6
July 2015
helluminatus
|
Post by helluminatus on Jul 17, 2015 23:17:26 GMT -6
Yeah, that's clearly an example why intelligent enemies absolutely everywhere could be a problem, but I still don't think it really proves anything for more limited cases kind of like how I proposed (note I don't mean only my example, that's just a random example, I'm not sold on it or anything). Obviously, having a random squad of 'hunter' miniboss-esque enemies show up in the room you mentioned would be problematic too, but It would be easy enough to simply flag such rooms as having no chance of said encounters (like they would likely implement anyway for boss/friendly/shop/save rooms for example). Not that I'm trying to force you to concede anything, I find your opinion to be agreeable to some extent moreso than the op (though I don't 100% disagree with the op). I WOULD think a limited case of 'smart' enemies would be beneficial overall in the roguelike mode though. Naturally you'd end up with some brutally unfair rooms but...that's the charm of roguelikes IMO, you never know when you'll get absolutely spoiled, or doomed. Kinda tired of modern roguelites normalizing the 'good' and 'bad' case scenarios more and more because entitled gamers blame the game when they die in it or something and claim bad design...and these designers seem to listen to some extent by making roguelikes more and more forgiving and fair ='(. Here's the thing. There are a few outcomes based on the balance of these proposed finder-hurters. 1) They make little impact on a room: then why bother having them function as you propose they do when they could simply be placed deliberately as any other enemy? 2) They make great impact on a room: they can maker certain rooms a) unwinnable or b) non-existent to prevent case a. Now, if these incidences were scripted to certain ares, like say, the SA-X from Metroid Fusion, in which the rooms used in a chase would be empty for the actual encounter and then have enemies placed in them subsequently, we'd be cooking with portals. I also disagree for the sake of the roguelike mode. It's much more intuitive to watch players make the most of the items they are given as their challenge rather than see that struggle while forcing unworkable numbers of enemies up their buttholes. |
|
inherit
22
0
Aug 10, 2019 9:52:39 GMT -6
308
ghaleon
611
May 29, 2015 8:48:14 GMT -6
May 2015
ghaleon
|
Post by ghaleon on Jul 18, 2015 0:38:03 GMT -6
Well I was thinking they could potentially make a great impact on the room but... like... they follow you so you can just avoid them until you find a room that wont be so nasty in dealing with them, ditto for roguelike mode.
Not sure what you mean by unworkable numbers of enemies, I never mentioned #s of enemies being high or whatever, nor do I think anyone else did.
|
|
inherit
382
0
Sept 13, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
15
helluminatus
18
Jul 13, 2015 20:19:58 GMT -6
July 2015
helluminatus
|
Post by helluminatus on Jul 18, 2015 10:13:11 GMT -6
Well I was thinking they could potentially make a great impact on the room but... like... they follow you so you can just avoid them until you find a room that wont be so nasty in dealing with them, ditto for roguelike mode. Not sure what you mean by unworkable numbers of enemies, I never mentioned #s of enemies being high or whatever, nor do I think anyone else did. Doing this would likely be disastrous for flow, especially since Igavanias are all masses of modular obstacle courses. As such, if these enemies are high-impact they very well could create inescapable situations if encountered in areas that have multiple adjacent challenging rooms. As such, you didn't need to mention numbers of enemies, it's bound to be an issue unless the designers purposefully gimp their design to accommodate the eventuality of these guys showing up. |
|
inherit
356
0
Aug 17, 2016 7:21:09 GMT -6
18
alialkhiro
18
Jul 13, 2015 11:39:45 GMT -6
July 2015
alialkhiro
|
Post by alialkhiro on Jul 18, 2015 11:07:18 GMT -6
I recommend that you take a look at Mirror of fate. It's more in a beat 'em up action/platformer type of vain. That's the game I think you're looking for, and simply put, it's not the game you'll get here. As for behaviors, nothing besides basic patrol paths and proximity is necessary as long as enough enemies have distinctive patterns of attack. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you or your ideas; I'm just saying that these particular ideas may not have been thought through as deeply as they could have. How can you tell what Bloodstained is going to be and what it is not going to be? Do you have inside sources? Bloodstained is going to have a 2player coop mod, does the static level design you are hoping for fit for a game that can be played 1p or 2p? And no I never thought you were attacking me or my ideas. If anything, I thought you were surprisingly desperate to defend your own. ...I thought the suggestion was pretty unrealistically ambitious, not to mention unusual... Of course the OP wasn't asking for these exclusively, they were also asking for the simple FEELING like enemies were aware of you and were trying to reduce the mayhem you do to their castle (though it is techincally Miriam's, but whatever). For that I have no problems with the game simply having something like a % per room that causes some kind of 'hunter' encounter to spawn and force you to battle them before proceeding in peace...This particular hunter enemy can chase you, and does jumpa cross platforms, climb stairs, etc (only these specific enemies would require these animations and AI so no biggie), etc. I feel like there should be a small variety of such enemies though, not just the same kind every time.. I'm not really dying for such a feature though. I think it's reasonably sound, but not really something that would greatly benefit the game either. If it was added cool, if not, meh. I don't know why you think it is unrealistic when it has been done in many games. Unusual ideas are the ideas that are not done to death in every game we've played so far and I think all unusual ideas deserve the consideration. Are they good enough for Bloodstained? We don't know much about the game to make such judgement, the devs will be the ones to do that. But you get what I am pointing at exactly. This thread was never meant to convince people that I have a GREAT idea. I just wanted to create a place where enemy behavior is suggested/discussed. Countless hours in the lab have taught me that as far as level design and enemy intelligence go, you typically have to sacrifice one for the other. TLDR: I made the call on research and experience rather than a kneejerk reaction. I don't know what kind of research you were doing, but you have a big misunderstanding if you think that level design and enemy AI are opposing concepts; AI and level design are complementary. An intelligent enemy uses the designed level to its advantage while the player uses the abilities and tools available to the character to counter that advantage. If you can't see any possible way for that to happen then you need to reevaluate your understanding of game design; I think you have focused too much on something that you no longer can see anything else. At its best, the AI will win against a human player 99% of the times, but that is not the AI I am talking about. I am talking about a bit of intelligence to give the feel that the enemies are an actual threat and not wandering idiots running into your fist face first. I don't expect bats and zombies to do anything other than run into your fist face first though, these things are not meant to be intelligent. But I would like an enemy every now and then to appear and make me think this guy has a trick up his sleeve and prove right in that thinking. If you still think that such a thing is too much to ask for and should not be allowed in this game than that is ok. We can disagree and still be friends. Now let's drop the discussion of my stupid, unrealistic and utterly bad idea and hear the ideas of other people, OK? FOR THE LAST TIME, what kind of special enemy behavior would you like to see in Bloodstained? You said something about a cool crab fight, what was that like? |
|
inherit
382
0
Sept 13, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
15
helluminatus
18
Jul 13, 2015 20:19:58 GMT -6
July 2015
helluminatus
|
Post by helluminatus on Jul 18, 2015 11:37:26 GMT -6
Let's break this down quick. Don't go expecting something nothing like what we've ever seen before. Bloodstained was marketed to us as an Igavania, that's what we'll get. And yes, classic Igavania does work for multiplayer as seen in Harmony of Despair, though it can stand to be refined. Also, watch your tone. . You look at my level Vs. AI argument out of context. Igavanias are built as obstacle courses, and as such, obstacle courses loose their effectiveness if the obstacles in question can be systematically removed from the equation by being lured from their post. As such, the purpose of rooms has to shift and the game starts changing genres. I'm talking in terms of keeping the game as an Igavania. Here's your crab. |
|
inherit
22
0
Aug 10, 2019 9:52:39 GMT -6
308
ghaleon
611
May 29, 2015 8:48:14 GMT -6
May 2015
ghaleon
|
Post by ghaleon on Jul 18, 2015 11:51:18 GMT -6
Well I was thinking they could potentially make a great impact on the room but... like... they follow you so you can just avoid them until you find a room that wont be so nasty in dealing with them, ditto for roguelike mode. Not sure what you mean by unworkable numbers of enemies, I never mentioned #s of enemies being high or whatever, nor do I think anyone else did. Doing this would likely be disastrous for flow, especially since Igavanias are all masses of modular obstacle courses. As such, if these enemies are high-impact they very well could create inescapable situations if encountered in areas that have multiple adjacent challenging rooms. As such, you didn't need to mention numbers of enemies, it's bound to be an issue unless the designers purposefully gimp their design to accommodate the eventuality of these guys showing up. So basically, you're one of those people who think a game is bad if it is capable of making the player lose if the player isn't being flat out bad. I'm personally sick of people thinking good game design means the game has to hold your hand all the time and a game over is a fault of the game if the player wasn't being a complete bozo. That's also assuming there will be large streaks of challenging obstacle course rooms, which contrary to your opinion, I felt is NOT something I typically see in these games. Plus that's completely disregarding the whole 'can't spawn in this room' portion I mentioned already. Again I'm not saying this is assuredly a good idea, I'm just trying to theorize potential cases of it being interesting, but like I said to begin with you seem hell-bent on making sure everyone is convinced any portion of it at all is terrible (I mean you're even throwing dramatic words around like disastrous!). I apologize, I should have said I think the full most extreme case scenario in your op was unrealistic and ambitious to me. I'm not saying the idea of making the player feel like they had intelligent enemies looking for them was bad. But making it so every single enemy in the castle could detect and look for you was ambitious and unrealistic. However I conceed that you were not asking for that most extreme scenario only, I don't think it's ambitious OR unrealistic to have a less extreme example. Also, you shouldn't be so upset, people are being civil here... and yes, I'd say you're upset, why? And in the same post you write: I most certainly didn't say your idea was stupid or bad, and you say yoursellf that hell didn't insult your ideas.. so where is this insulting view towards your opinion coming from? And why is it the last time in all caps? You said yourself that I god the right idea that you were looking for examples for behavioral changes. Honestly I like debating things like this, and I think it's been pretty civil so far, but now I'm scared that people are going to hold it against me. Am I really offending you that much? Am I permitted to try and debate with someone else? |
|
inherit
382
0
Sept 13, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
15
helluminatus
18
Jul 13, 2015 20:19:58 GMT -6
July 2015
helluminatus
|
Post by helluminatus on Jul 18, 2015 12:13:23 GMT -6
Doing this would likely be disastrous for flow, especially since Igavanias are all masses of modular obstacle courses. As such, if these enemies are high-impact they very well could create inescapable situations if encountered in areas that have multiple adjacent challenging rooms. As such, you didn't need to mention numbers of enemies, it's bound to be an issue unless the designers purposefully gimp their design to accommodate the eventuality of these guys showing up. So basically, you're one of those people who think a game is bad if it is capable of making the player lose if the player isn't being flat out bad. I'm personally sick of people thinking good game design means the game has to hold your hand all the time and a game over is a fault of the game if the player wasn't being a complete bozo. That's also assuming there will be large streaks of challenging obstacle course rooms, which contrary to your opinion, I felt is NOT something I typically see in these games. Plus that's completely disregarding the whole 'can't spawn in this room' portion I mentioned already. Again I'm not saying this is assuredly a good idea, I'm just trying to theorize potential cases of it being interesting, but like I said to begin with you seem hell-bent on making sure everyone is convinced any portion of it at all is terrible (I mean you're even throwing dramatic words around like disastrous!). To begin, I'd like to apologize if I have seemed particularly hard-headed or combative. I'm a game design student and a lover of a good debate,so I can bet a bit... impassioned. I just like to see discussions through to the end, and I know that can be easily seen as combativeness. Anywho, moving forward, I never said anything about being apologetic to bad players. Simply put, if there is anything to be gained from having these enemies appear randomly, why not just have them as a static element to begin with? Why not just make a room intentionally hard rather than hard only sometimes based on RNG? All this mention of specificity in which rooms they can appear in just begs the question: why mark that room as a possible target when they can just be flat-out mandatory? Now, specifically speaking of rooms possibly becoming too hard, I don't say this because I want the player to not have a hard time in the game. Rather, my fear is that a player will see these enemies randomly appear, immediately assess that the room is harder than they want, and just keep resetting the situation until they don't have to worry about it, negating the purpose of these enemies. I simply feel that even though it is on the player to make this choice, the game should be made in such a way that flow won't be thrown off for the sake of exploitation. |
|
inherit
356
0
Aug 17, 2016 7:21:09 GMT -6
18
alialkhiro
18
Jul 13, 2015 11:39:45 GMT -6
July 2015
alialkhiro
|
Post by alialkhiro on Jul 18, 2015 16:28:05 GMT -6
My experience with debates online (and offline as well) has mostly been negative; the discussion often turned ugly at certain points and we appeared to be reaching that point. That is why I attempted to change the subject before that happened since this thread has been very civil so far and I didn't want that to change (though I ended up ruining that  ). I seem to have underestimated both of you and for that I sincerely apologize: I am very sorry. At no time did I feel offended or upset. In fact, I was happy that some one thought my idea is worth a discussion (not that I invented the idea). I would appreciate it if you would highlight where I sounded off tune so that I would avoid doing that in the future. It was not my intention to offend you. Don't go expecting something nothing like what we've ever seen before. Bloodstained was marketed to us as an Igavania, that's what we'll get. You seem to have a solid understanding of what defines an Igavania and considering that you have more experience in that regard I'll take your word for it. You look at my level Vs. AI argument out of context. Igavanias are built as obstacle courses, and as such, obstacle courses loose their effectiveness if the obstacles in question can be systematically removed from the equation by being lured from their post. As such, the purpose of rooms has to shift and the game starts changing genres. I'm talking in terms of keeping the game as an Igavania. Unlike Super Meatboy, which is a real obstacle course game, Castelevania allows you to destroy parts of the obstacle course, namely the monsters. In Castelevania, you do systematically remove elements from the course by killing them, I see no reason why luring them is not allowed (and I am sure you do that with some enemies already). And I was not talking about standard room enemies when I suggested the following mechanics. I was talking about specialized enemies who would do that adding a layer of challenge to the game; they would only be encountered in previously explored rooms and are not going to follow you indefinitely. Didn't the player just exploit the crab's AI into breaking the ceiling? Isn't this fight an example of multi room boss fight? I'm a game design student and a lover of a good debate,so I can bet a bit... impassioned. I just like to see discussions through to the end, and I know that can be easily seen as combativeness. I am also an aspiring game designer (though the place I attended to study the field was a scam) and I am happy to meet you. Also, you shouldn't be so upset, people are being civil here... and yes, I'd say you're upset, why? I wasn't, believe me. I most certainly didn't say your idea was stupid or bad, and you say yoursellf that hell didn't insult your ideas.. so where is this insulting view towards your opinion coming from? And why is it the last time in all caps? You said yourself that I god the right idea that you were looking for examples for behavioral changes. That was my own ill-mannered attempt to change the subject and I apologize for my poor behavior. Honestly I like debating things like this, and I think it's been pretty civil so far, but now I'm scared that people are going to hold it against me. Am I really offending you that much? Am I permitted to try and debate with someone else? I am very happy that you feel that way and you should not be scared from people holding anything against you. You have, neither did Hell, offend me in anyway. And you don't need my permission to debate anything with anyone. Both of you have been really great and I feel very ashamed of myself for showing such disgraceful behavior. I hope that you would forgive me and continue with this discussion as much as you want. And I would appreciate it if you would continue to warn me whenever I step out of line, it is never my intention, but I have been exposed to too much negative behavior that it is rubbing on me. |
|
inherit
22
0
Aug 10, 2019 9:52:39 GMT -6
308
ghaleon
611
May 29, 2015 8:48:14 GMT -6
May 2015
ghaleon
|
Post by ghaleon on Jul 18, 2015 16:58:24 GMT -6
So basically, you're one of those people who think a game is bad if it is capable of making the player lose if the player isn't being flat out bad. I'm personally sick of people thinking good game design means the game has to hold your hand all the time and a game over is a fault of the game if the player wasn't being a complete bozo. That's also assuming there will be large streaks of challenging obstacle course rooms, which contrary to your opinion, I felt is NOT something I typically see in these games. Plus that's completely disregarding the whole 'can't spawn in this room' portion I mentioned already. Again I'm not saying this is assuredly a good idea, I'm just trying to theorize potential cases of it being interesting, but like I said to begin with you seem hell-bent on making sure everyone is convinced any portion of it at all is terrible (I mean you're even throwing dramatic words around like disastrous!). To begin, I'd like to apologize if I have seemed particularly hard-headed or combative. I'm a game design student and a lover of a good debate,so I can bet a bit... impassioned. I just like to see discussions through to the end, and I know that can be easily seen as combativeness. Anywho, moving forward, I never said anything about being apologetic to bad players. Simply put, if there is anything to be gained from having these enemies appear randomly, why not just have them as a static element to begin with? Why not just make a room intentionally hard rather than hard only sometimes based on RNG? All this mention of specificity in which rooms they can appear in just begs the question: why mark that room as a possible target when they can just be flat-out mandatory? Now, specifically speaking of rooms possibly becoming too hard, I don't say this because I want the player to not have a hard time in the game. Rather, my fear is that a player will see these enemies randomly appear, immediately assess that the room is harder than they want, and just keep resetting the situation until they don't have to worry about it, negating the purpose of these enemies. I simply feel that even though it is on the player to make this choice, the game should be made in such a way that flow won't be thrown off for the sake of exploitation. Why not have static elements instead of random ones? Well I was talking about static AND random, not all 100% random, which I'm pretty sure you already know, but it needs repeating after such a question... Which to answer, some people LIKE random elements as well as static, and by some, I don't mean some super niche minority, a pretty sizeable portion that I honestly have no clue the % of but if it was small randomization in videogames wouldn't have been a staple since forever. Random elements help make a game challenge the players judgement and reflexes on a case by case basis, rather than develop a conditioned reaction that they can use over and over 100% of the time without fail. That being said, one argument against random enemies is I imagine it might offput speedrun competitions. Given speedrun is its own separate game mode in BS however, perhaps that can have its own rules regarding randomized enemy elements. A similar but not exact example of random enemy challenge is what you see in games like diablo 2+, binding of isaac, etc, where...well, the enemies are already pseudo random as is in these games, but sometimes you get EXTRA random spice of them being elite. I'm pretty sure this is something most people enjoy since they keep doing it more and more these days, though they kinda failed in diablo 3 to begin with where they had elite enemies with absolute bogus combinations like prisoner (Which prevents you from moving at all for like 3 seconds with absolutely no means of escape, not by spell, nor by items...maybe some classes could using a move or something, but many classes could not, and no, it was not some kind of projectile you could dodge, it just appeared around your character with no warning or means of avoidance), in addition to another move which was basically "stand here for more than a second and you die", and them being perfectly able to use both at the same time. One really old game that kinda had intelligent elite enemies spawning was a game that many people feel is awful, but I don't think anyone thought it was specifically for the element mentioned here... but Friday the 13th for the NES... Having Jason come along and attack you virtually anywhere really intensified the feeling of the game (though him doing it in the canoe is bogus). Of course the terrain in the game was pretty much empty and flat all the way thru but I'm just trying to bring up how such an element can be fairly exciting. Also...about game design... I've known and met more than a few people who think they know the 'right's and 'wrong's of game design myself. They kind have jaded my opinions on game design schools. Far too often they push their subjective opinions like they are the only correct option when it comes to game design. I know not all are like that I mean with no disrespect, someone who brings up game design as education to me doesn't really mean anything. I don't think less of them, or better. It really means absolutely nothing to me because it really is dependant on the specific circumstances IMO. That said I learned some basic C++ programming from Rick Smith, the assistant designer for Total Annihilation.. He's a really cool guy, AND he likes randomized elements virtually everywhere =P. He even likes pretending to use dice in his code. Like instead of rand(100) he'd do something like (rand(11)-1) ten times and think of it as 10D10 (only with 0s.. so like 10D11). If you're wondering what the point of that is, it's to make the chances of rolling a 50 much higher than a 0 or 100. Personally I wish I could design a game of my own, but such things are difficult to convince others to let you do when you have no games under your name qq. 1-man crewing your own is an option but my home is no work environment, I absolutely cannot do anything productive at home other than housework, cooking, etc. My family is too much of a distraction, I absolutely NEED to do computer work in an actual office away from home qq. |
|
inherit
382
0
Sept 13, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
15
helluminatus
18
Jul 13, 2015 20:19:58 GMT -6
July 2015
helluminatus
|
Post by helluminatus on Jul 18, 2015 17:05:21 GMT -6
I'm going to be 100% honest and say I have no idea how the hell to get the quote function here to work the way I want it to, so I'm just going to do this raw. just imagine each new paragraph as quoting your responses to me in order.
I was a bit offended when you claimed I was desperate to defend my point. Game design is, like, the one thing I'm good for; and I kind of take it personally when people talk like that. Say my idea's bad, short-sighted, whatever, and I won't mind. This is how I look at things in a new way and grow in my view on certain topics. But if you say I'm desperate, it suggests that I'm denying that I'm wrong so hard that I don't believe what I'm saying any more. But don't worry about it, it's cool and I may have personally read too far into it anyway.
There's really no way to say it that isn't conceded as hell, but simply put, Igavanias and fighting games were pretty much my life. I played all of the DS titles to their absolute limit, Even that stupid old axe armor mode in portrait of ruin where you had to kill 1000 old axe armors (of which there are only a handul in the game) just to unlock it. Igavanias have been one of my greatest inspirations as a game designer and as such, pride myself on being very familiar with the ins and outs.
I disagree. Meatboy and Castlevania are both about traversal and overcoming obstacles. Meat boy stresses speed and terrain, whereas castlevania stresses precision and timing (which factors in combat). The problem that would arise would be that in theory, players could just run through every room, get all the AI opponents to chase them until they form a cluster, and then just unload a powerful attack and kill a great deal of them, which would beg the question, why bother designing rooms and placement for synergy between monsters if they're just going to be lumped into a massive ball anyway?
Yes, but not in the way you suggested. Your suggestion was to give the player the option between a gimmicky and more difficult fight or have them take the fight to a second room for a more simple one. Here, the progression is decided by the crab. Shanoa couldn't just climb to the top of her own choice, she had to play the crab's game to work up to it. This is why I offered this as an intermediate option between what you suggested and most bosses, as it's very mobile and transition-heavy, but still noticeably fluid with the rest of the game.
It's good to meet you too, it's not often that I get to talk in-depth game design outside of school.
|
|
inherit
382
0
Sept 13, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
15
helluminatus
18
Jul 13, 2015 20:19:58 GMT -6
July 2015
helluminatus
|
Post by helluminatus on Jul 18, 2015 17:27:49 GMT -6
Why not have static elements instead of random ones? Well I was talking about static AND random, not all 100% random, which I'm pretty sure you already know, but it needs repeating after such a question... Which to answer, some people LIKE random elements as well as static, and by some, I don't mean some super niche minority, a pretty sizeable portion that I honestly have no clue the % of but if it was small randomization in videogames wouldn't have been a staple since forever. Random elements help make a game challenge the players judgement and reflexes on a case by case basis, rather than develop a conditioned reaction that they can use over and over 100% of the time without fail. That being said, one argument against random enemies is I imagine it might offput speedrun competitions. Given speedrun is its own separate game mode in BS however, perhaps that can have its own rules regarding randomized enemy elements. A similar but not exact example of random enemy challenge is what you see in games like diablo 2+, binding of isaac, etc, where...well, the enemies are already pseudo random as is in these games, but sometimes you get EXTRA random spice of them being elite. I'm pretty sure this is something most people enjoy since they keep doing it more and more these days, though they kinda failed in diablo 3 to begin with where they had elite enemies with absolute bogus combinations like prisoner (Which prevents you from moving at all for like 3 seconds with absolutely no means of escape, not by spell, nor by items...maybe some classes could using a move or something, but many classes could not, and no, it was not some kind of projectile you could dodge, it just appeared around your character with no warning or means of avoidance), in addition to another move which was basically "stand here for more than a second and you die", and them being perfectly able to use both at the same time. One really old game that kinda had intelligent elite enemies spawning was a game that many people feel is awful, but I don't think anyone thought it was specifically for the element mentioned here... but Friday the 13th for the NES... Having Jason come along and attack you virtually anywhere really intensified the feeling of the game (though him doing it in the canoe is bogus). Of course the terrain in the game was pretty much empty and flat all the way thru but I'm just trying to bring up how such an element can be fairly exciting. Also...about game design... I've known and met more than a few people who think they know the 'right's and 'wrong's of game design myself. They kind have jaded my opinions on game design schools. Far too often they push their subjective opinions like they are the only correct option when it comes to game design. I know not all are like that I mean with no disrespect, someone who brings up game design as education to me doesn't really mean anything. I don't think less of them, or better. It really means absolutely nothing to me because it really is dependant on the specific circumstances IMO. That said I learned some basic C++ programming from Rick Smith, the assistant designer for Total Annihilation.. He's a really cool guy, AND he likes randomized elements virtually everywhere =P. He even likes pretending to use dice in his code. Like instead of rand(100) he'd do something like (rand(11)-1) ten times and think of it as 10D10 (only with 0s.. so like 10D11). If you're wondering what the point of that is, it's to make the chances of rolling a 50 much higher than a 0 or 100. Personally I wish I could design a game of my own, but such things are difficult to convince others to let you do when you have no games under your name qq. 1-man crewing your own is an option but my home is no work environment, I absolutely cannot do anything productive at home other than housework, cooking, etc. My family is too much of a distraction, I absolutely NEED to do computer work in an actual office away from home qq. I may have miscommunicated, so my bad. When I was talking about static vs. random, I didn't mean everything, I was specifically speaking about these hunter enemies we've been talking about. And I'm not saying random is necessarily bad, but going with a random element like this means one of two things. 1) The room must be designed to accommodate the enemies, which means that it may be too tame if they don't show up or 2) risk messing up the balance of a room. I simply believe the value of having everything at 100% all the time is just greater that having it at 90% some times and 110% at others. This is just how I value it, and if that's not how you like it, that's cool. Hell, I could be flat-out wrong on the matter. As for my schooling, I 100% understand your skepticism, but I didn't just wander bright eyed into a university and took some classes to suddenly see myself as an expert. I actually went in for economics, but my roommate made me rethink this as I always ended up helping him out and giving insight on his game design homework. Simply put, game design is straight-up my life's passion, and schooling to me was a way to refine my knowledge, not the entire basis of my knowledge itself. So think of me as you will, but know that I'm not hiding behind a degree (or rather, the prospect of the one I'll be getting in a couple months). |
|
EbonAnimus
Ancient Legion 
[TI0] Sorry 4 bad english,only learnd from Games and Anime subtitles ;)
Posts: 96
inherit
190
0
Oct 1, 2021 14:20:51 GMT -6
56
EbonAnimus
[TI0] Sorry 4 bad english,only learnd from Games and Anime subtitles ;)
96
Jun 24, 2015 10:15:15 GMT -6
June 2015
ebonanimus
|
Post by EbonAnimus on Jul 18, 2015 17:34:53 GMT -6
We need more skeleton guards and walking armors^^
Sometimes a named elite monster too^^
|
|
) and that the world of the game is alive and acting independently rather than just reacting to what I do.
. Limitation encourages creativity, but how much creativity is left in those no longer real limitations that have been repeated through the many castelevania games and their like? Wouldn't a breeze of fresh air be appreciated? You don't like new things?
.
).
yey