Design Game Design Theory, a brute, a ruute, and a gruute

[shandor]

Welp, normally, a game balances around combat as a reward, and pacifism as a devicive path to death, but in my mostly unpopular games, it's not really a matter of either.
They weren't unpopular for the mechanics, but the lack of completion, or... a lack of cohesive game code (as in the codes became too complex to maintain.

Now, what I like to do, is make it so, not fighting, has a reward, and fighting does too. The issue with a situation of complexity known as, e -> r is that effort is expected to be a roouge, or a brute head on devicive means to domination. This breads, as my friend acknowledges in his well writ chatter bot (secrets ) is that it leads to something that will inevitably outwit you, either in software evolution, or as we acknolwedge on earth.

Sorry, too philosophical.

The point is, imagine a game, where everything relies, on the existence, of something else, and the player, is not the polar coordinate to the universe.

That's essentially the game I'm reviving, in two separtate apps, one's a jargon algorithm playground, and the other, the actual game. I like having a library of knowledge separate from one project, i"m well known for experimenting in odd avenues of gaming tech.

It is an escape still, in my opinion, to not need an e -> r system involving strictly one play style. if you would, I would acknowledge a game of mine, that is exactly built on this premise.

kalvgv by sandstone studios

A proof of concept to build up from

sandstone-studios.itch.io

please do not mind the cherokee.

this is an older developer studio of mine, I've since closed, in starting Indiana GRD.

anyways, I am curious to see any other games that have similar e -> r systems.

I do accept the game listed is incomplete, do to a coding maintence issue known as , n +32, for every line of code, 32 rewrites/more must be added.

 

[shandor]

The result of approaching this with a team, is like a Star Wars story almost... You are a space wizard, with the ability to destroy, or create... Using the two, creates new forms of ways...

i.e.

Creation -> Life && Destruction -> Fire
----------------------------------------------
Creation and Destruction -> A new spell, Transmutation
Transmutation of Fire -> A new spell, Power
Transmutation with Creation -> A new spell, Resurrection

this is just a small list of ideas...
BUt the idea, is that you start with base 2, and grow into a more learned and wiser one...

Those are just a few ideas of how it can be handled. Most D&D players know RP is completely reasonable for winning an engagement...

 

[shandor]

we start with room_null

you move, x and y, and interact, jdg->infinity...

the potential for jdg to end in infinity depends on how you define a finite state of existence

now imagine, you have a data struct at n, n_fin...etc
you seed the data with you x y and jdg...

now you only need a table of data to represent what your jdg are in results, or commands...

when you are finished, you have effectively played a world, that is changed through you, and the resulting future world, is of you...


-----

for now, I have a few data structs to evaluate for a species ai that I wish to exhibit more intelligent behavior...

 

[shandor]

phrases[0] = "How's it been?"
    phrases[1] = "I was busy with, some things. " + string(memed)
    phrases[2] = "Let's be friends..."
    phrases[3] = "My name is: "
    phrases[4] = "Hey, I'm lonely, are you?"
    phrases[5] = "Nah man, I'm gouchi!"
    phrases[6] = "Tcha brayngo!"
    phrases[7] = "What's a nutt got to do with us?"
    phrases[8] = "Oh cheeze wiz, you haven't been the same since the baby"


I think, it's 0->1:2, 2->5:6, 4->5:6:7:8

ya, fun stuff!

 

[shandor]

In our studio's project, the player can destroy, and create. The reward isn't really something that is there for either. Without destruction, their remains an imbalance (which this video does not go into), and without creation, the resources eventually dwindle, as in a 1 hour gameplay has shown on sped up time.

The decision to use either is up to the player ultimately. A world without a tree, eventually becomes baren of all life, as this particular ecosystem cannot sustain very long, and aside from that, another branch of mechanics, is the use of incendiary creations. As in a sacrificial fire embalmment. I.e the placing of earthly wears in fire.

IN the main line of the game's plot, is the use of recreating the world's ecosystem, into a more sustainable one.

The terrain has a bit of data to it, which encompasses a deathly, to lively to dry to wet state of existence. If you never destroy a tree, it is nearly uncertain as to how it will recover. And if you do not plant more, it is most certain that all the trees eventually die off. As the planet's herbivores are a bit heavy on their appetites.

Needless to say, destruction of herbivores is not entirely impossible, and their corruption, neither so.

 

[Yal]

I can barely understand your english so I'll just cling on to the one sentence I can comprehend.

Now, what I like to do, is make it so, not fighting, has a reward, and fighting does too.

There's two main schools of thinking here: positive and sideways feedback.

• In positive feedback systems, doing a thing should make it easier to do more of the same thing. E.g. if you sneak around and lockpick, you get experience points in those skills, and it becomes easier to sneak past enemies and pick locks.
• In sideways feedback systems, doing a thing makes it easier to do other things, but not the thing you did. E.g. if you sneak around and lockpick, you find tons of weapons and armor, and since enemy inventories are based on the actual stuff in the game world, enemies you fight will be weaker.

(There's also negative feedback, where doing a thing makes it harder in the future - e.g. if you stealth past enemies, in later levels all the vents will be boarded up and there's more security cameras. It can work out well too, since the player's skills will be challenged and it keeps the dominant strategy from ruining the fun, but if you fail the balance the player will feel like they're being unfairly punished)

So you should figure out which one of these systems you want. Do you want players to pick one playstyle and commit to it for the entire playthrough? Focus on positive feedback. Do you want players to mess around with every system in the game? Focus on sideways or negative feedback.