|
|
|
| Weapons!!! |
|
aileron42
Member #3,184
January 2003
 |
I am working on a medieval adventure game. Basically, the player controls a group of knights that run around doing knightly things. They can also pick up new types of weapons. I have been working on drawing the graphics and I was trying to make a list of graphics for weapons that I think would be applicable. The actual graphic can be shared by multiple weapons (i.e. Sword of Pain, Sword of Power, Sword of Slicing Ye Olde Balogna all could have the same graphic as Broad Sword, they just have different values for attack, defense, etc...) This is what I have so far: Fist Any suggestions to add to the medieval mayhem? -------------------------- |
|
Carrus85
Member #2,633
August 2002
 |
If your going to have fist, you could always add-- Stick (Sub-classes: Twig, Branch, Root) Now, on a more serous note, that list looks pretty complete... Um, Ninja Sword? Technically, that is not exactly midevil, if you get right down to it. So is teh throwing star. But other than that, everything looks okay to me...
|
|
kdevil
Member #1,075
March 2001
 |
You've got a pretty complete list, but may I suggest: Battleaxe and Ye olde flamethrower ----- |
|
Carrus85
Member #2,633
August 2002
|
Throwable Object Class:
|
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
 |
BFG! There's nunchakus and a naginata if that fits your setting ... PS: From the Grand List of RPG Cliches: Rule 21: The MacGyver Rule -- |
|
Plucky
Member #1,346
May 2001
 |
dagger |
|
GameCreator
Member #2,541
July 2002
 |
Go Plucky! I cheated and did an easy search. There are many nice sites out there with weapons lists, including this one:
|
|
Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
 |
Quote:
Stone
Plucky's list looks more like mine. 'Throwing Weapons' may be a general throwing weapon class. I didn't have this at all though.. "He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe" |
|
ReyBrujo
Moderator
January 2001
 |
I divide them into five categories:
Bows could be added, but they are difficult to handle in games Zelda-like. Bare hands aren't that useful too -- |
|
Korval
Member #1,538
September 2001
 |
The question you should be asking isn't, "What weapons are avaliable?" but "what are the gameplay differences between various weapons?" Why should the player use a Short Sword rather than a Long Sword? Does the weapon change how combat works? Why would the player ever use Polearms? I've never liked it when a game has 20 different choices of weapons, but you'll only ever really use 3 of them; the rest are superfluous. If you put a weapon in the game, make sure that it has a real gameplay use. Quote: they are difficult to handle in games Zelda-like Every Zelda game, sans Zelda 2, featured bows. Well, not the Oracles, but they had seed-throwers, which were the same thing. |
|
aileron42
Member #3,184
January 2003
|
thank you for all the input. as for the gameplay, all things are handled as generic game objects, including weapons. Every player has an attack rating, regardless of whether ore not they carry a weapon (hence the fist) Objects then have rating modifiers. All a weapon is, is an object that modifies the attack rating for the player carrying it. Interestingly, a dilemma is provided by the spiked glove suggestion. One presumably could still hold a sword in a spiked glove hand. I hope to be able to implement this - that would be cool. Korval, as for the value of multiple weapons, the intent is to have the weapons get progressively more powerful as the game progresses (and your players get stronger). Like when you begin, one of your knights may only be strong enough to carry a shortsword, when a broadsword is more desirable. Also, by exploring the different combinations of attack, defense, range, and special powers for weapons, it seems that I will need a reasonable amount. I really hope to make it so that the gameplay benefits from many weapons choices. I hope to have somthing I can put into the depot soon, but school is about to start and I'm going to be working a lot, so I don't know if I will have much time to program. Thanks again for all your input! -------------------------- |
|
Me
Member #2,534
July 2002
 |
Lemme add a few more: Rocket launcher
______ Mario Twins!!!1 *** CoolText *** Free C++ Books! w00t! *** wtf is this? |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
You also will need a rideable Redeemer. -- |
|
piccolo
Member #3,163
January 2003
 |
if you put the Weapons in order it will be much easier to give them stats check out these wow |
|
Graham Goring
Member #2,367
May 2002
|
Korval: Although I'd agree that it's really nice to have proper gameplay ramifications to your choice of weapon, it's also nice to have shedloads of them just because it means there's lots to see and collect (especially worth it if you can interesting descriptions for each weapons, especially the rarer ones) and also it's a nice way of building in a difficulty curve by not giving out the better ones till later on in the game. But I'd definately have stuff like giving different weapons the power to stun, poison, slow down, etc and also some kind of elemental alignment and/or damage type (ie, "blunt" being good against skeletons who shatter, but "sharp" being crap against them as it just goes through the gaps) to further add nuance to loading out your soldiers. |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
For a good example of what Graham Goring just said about having many different kinds of weapons, go play one of the Jagged Alliance games - especially Jagged Alliance 2. There's even an option in JA2 to select how many different kinds of weapons there are - the options are either "normal guns" or "tons of guns" [EDIT] -- |
|
Korval
Member #1,538
September 2001
|
Quote: it's also nice to have shedloads of them just because it means there's lots to see and collect (especially worth it if you can interesting descriptions for each weapons, especially the rarer ones) and also it's a nice way of building in a difficulty curve by not giving out the better ones till later on in the game. That's the standard RPG convention for weapons. However, I've always felt that that's kinda silly. You know the player is going to pick up NewWeaponX at destination Y. You're giving him that weapon at that point because you want to increase his damage output. Why not just fold damage output increases into his increase in level? Then, you could have just a few swords, but getting a new one is a major event; your character's damage output increases significantly. Take Zelda, for instance. In Zelda 3, you had 4 swords throughout an 8-hour (if you know where to go) game. Each new sword brings a dramatic increase in damage output. Also, if your game is more action-based than standard console RPG fare (something more like Zelda than Final Fantasy), then forcing the player to keep switching weapons in combat, based on the type of monster, can get really annoying. It's OK to lower or raise the effectiveness of certain weapons, but the user should still be able to kill things with even the weakest of weapons. |
|
piccolo
Member #3,163
January 2003
|
Korval i disagree with that Zelda and Final Fantasy are two totally different games if you want a lot of people to play your game go with the many weapons or else you will have to relie heavily on some thing else beside battles for gameplay and it better be good or the game will suck can picture the same spite with the same weapon and same animation a major RPG gameplay killer is repetition wow |
|
aileron42
Member #3,184
January 2003
|
to clarify, although gasp i have never played zelda, i believe that this game won't be very similar. it is a turn based tile game, where it will almost be an adventure/strategy game. also, the player may control (at this point) up to 16 knights - it will be beneficial to have many weapons so that they don't all carry the same thing. also, i agree with piccolo, repetition is the death of an rpg. actually, any game in some sense. unfortunately, i won't actually be working on my game for a while. i broke my shoulder and can only type one handed. it is kind of slow (and annoying) and i'm a little delirious because of the pain killers, and frankly don't feel like it right now. so thanks again for your input - i'm sorry you won't be seeing my game for a while. i've attached the graphics file for it in case you are interested in seeing what i have done so far. -------------------------- |
|
Korval
Member #1,538
September 2001
|
Quote: if you want a lot of people to play your game go with the many weapons or else you will have to relie heavily on some thing else beside battles for gameplay and it better be good or the game will suck That is a limitted and limitting concept. There are plenty of other ways to enhance combat than just swaping weapons. For example, you could have a fighter character have a number of combat styles. Fighting certain creatures requires one combat style, other require different ones. As the fighter gains in levels, he gets new combat styles. You can also give fighter characters a number of special moves (ala FF3, with Sabin, Edgar, Cyan, or Gau, though never as overpowering as these). These can easily give them different options for dealing with various enemies. Quote: can picture the same spite with the same weapon and same animation Worked just fine for FF2. I spent a lot of time watching Cecil cut people with his sword using the same animation. I spent a lot of time watching Kain perform the same Jump attack. Didn't affect me one bit. |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
 |
Korval: Well, to be honest, they didn't have the same weapons in FF2 - the weapon sprite changed depending on your weapon. The animation was the same, though ... -- |
|
Graham Goring
Member #2,367
May 2002
|
Gnolam: I wanted to play JA and JA2 but for some reason never got around to it. Too busy on X-Com I suppose (which is an excellent example of weapons changing how you play). And don't worry about the Goering thing, my history teacher used to call me that all the time. Piccolo: Agreed in an action game it can be annoying to change very often. Castlevania: Symphony Of The Night managed to have LOADS of weapons but the changing was never really annoying and mosts of the swords were merely novelties but despite that they were a powerful reason to drive the gamer on as finding them was still a real thrill. On the other hand Vagrant Story had loads of weapons but a really clunky interface and the weapon swapping really killed what was otherwise an atmospheric and addictive game. However in a turn-based RPG where you might well be doing the loadout at the start of each level (a la X-Com) or when it's not time-critical I think having a huge variety of weapons is a positive boon because it adds stuff to see. And also I don't see it as a case of giving the player the sword at a particular juncture, as if I were designing a game I'd make it their choice to buy an expensive sword at the expense of getting better armour or I'd hide the swords so they could find them earlier in the game if they were thorough, thus dramatically improving replayability and alternate play styles. Bad luck on the shoulder, btw, aileron. Hope it gets better soon as I always like playing turn-based battlers like Chaos, Laser Squad, et al. Korval: While I agree that there are many ways you can vary things, I think having perhaps two different elements which you combine is about the most I can handle with my head. There have been some games that I've really no enjoyed because not only did I have to take into account weapon/armour of me and what I was hitting (which is fine) but also bonkers stuff like zodiac signs and all sorts of other guff, however multiple attacks where you can in effect boost agility at the expense of damage is nice, but again it's kinda' trampling on the toes of having different weapons with agility and damage modifiers. At least that's my opinion, anyway... |
|
Trezker
Member #1,739
December 2001
 |
You just have to have the twig. The only thing it can do is blind your enemy, and that requires two attacks unless you have two twigs, and the chance of succeding doesn't really exist.;D |
|
Korval
Member #1,538
September 2001
|
Quote: I'd hide the swords so they could find them earlier in the game if they were thorough, thus dramatically improving replayability and alternate play styles. What good is hiding powerful weapons early in the game? If they get them, then the game suddenly becomes easy. If they don't, then the game is experienced as it was designed. There's a reason why you don't want the player to have access to uber-gear, no matter how much they look for it, at the beginning of the game. If it's just the difference between SwordDamage 1 and SwordDamage 1.01, then the user won't care that they just found a new weapon. They only care if the weapon is significantly better/different from the one they are carrying. Quote: I think having perhaps two different elements which you combine is about the most I can handle with my head. I expect more out of players. Quote: again it's kinda' trampling on the toes of having different weapons with agility and damage modifiers. As I pointed out, it is a question of where you want to provide choices to the player. If you want a diversity of weapons, with abilities associated with them, you may do so. If you want to provide choices via a diversity of skills, where a weapon is just a tool, you may do so as well. In general, I've always felt that the latter seems more reasonable, as most people don't master both short-sword and Rapier (these are 2 fundamentally different weapons), but they are both valid choices in game design. They, also, should be mutually exclusive: you either provide choices with weapon assortment or with skills. Also, something I forgot to mention. With skills, you don't just have one attack that you see over and over. You have a multitude of attacks that you can fight with. Indeed, a fighter might have as many attacks as a wizard has spells. |
|
Graham Goring
Member #2,367
May 2002
|
I wouldn't be hiding a stupidly powerful weapon, I just mean hiding something that gets the player a little ahead of the game for a few levels. And besides, only one member of their party would have this sword so it's not like the whole squad is suddenly tooled up to the nines. I like hidden surprises in games like that. And as for the player not caring about incremental increases in damage (more than the somewhat facetious 1% you point out there), if the sword doesn't cost them a bean, why wouldn't they upgrade? It's no skin off their nose. As for expecting more out of players, I think that's a matter of personal choice of game design. I would rather convey nuance in the game through more sophisticated AI than multiple attacks. Besides, I'd hate to be the poor bugger animating all those different attacks. That said, I think something like Final Fantasy Tactics strikes an excellent balance with regards to weapons only working for certain classes and multiple attack styles. As for wizards having loads of spells, well that's true but soldiers can use many different weapons. Okay, they can't chop and change like a wizard can, but they don't lack versatility. I should point out that if I were to make a game it'd probably be more about having wizards in charge of creatures (a la Chaos) and so the creature's innate abilities would probably be what made you choose them for the job, and so multiple attack types would be much more limited. Oh, and while I agree that it makes more sense that a character would master a particular weapon in several manners rather than a wide breadth of them, I'm talking about a game with fire-breathing dragons in it so realism can go hang. |
|
|
|
