I've got an idea...



Hey so I'm new to game maker and all , but I've got an idea that I think sounds interesting.
So I've been thinking about making a game similar to Zelda , but with different classes. The classes should be ranging from 4 to 6.Every class should be different from the others ofc. but not only that , I think it would be great if they get to travel different areas (levels).The main plot should be sth. like this:
*You start by chosing a character (you dont get to name them)
*They are greated by a narrator that explains them the basics of the story and controls
*The character can travel to 3 different levels before reaching the final level
*The 3 levels should be different for each class , but the final one (or the final goal) is the fourth level which stays the same for every class
*There the difficulty is actually reduced , untill you reach the final boss
*After the final boss you get to meet the narrator again , but this time he reveals to you (basically to every class)
that what you were doing is actually wrong , and that you were damned to do so , but not by him , by yourself.
Basically the narrator reveals to you at the begining what you should have been doing and as the story goes the player should have almost no hints (except 1 or 2) that he is in the wrong.At first sight it should have a light and almost comedic character to the game and I think that having the silent protagonist (or antagonist) is not gonna work very well with the game.Also every level should be short , but also have bonus areas to make it longer in the same way.I think that in this way you can basically go through every class in 2-3 hours of gameplay.A cool feature of the game I think would be that if you complete every class you can actually get to play another class:
"The savior"
This class should be the final boss , the one who is guarding the other classes from finishing the game for their own good.Playing as this class can give you the option not to kill the antagonists, but to let them live and be "purified" in a way and revealing the "true ending".
I think the idea is cool , but the only problem is that I might need help coding and with other things that I'm not aware of (since I'm new to GM). I think I've given ideas just for the plot becouse , as I mentioned before I'm not very good with "game making". Every tip or critisism will be taken to heart , and also thanks for reading this long article. I'll be glad to know someone is interested in this project :)


šŸ§ *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
Sounds like a reasonably enough idea. You could have different rooms for the different levels and just go to different rooms depending on what class you have when you start the game.


1) You've ruined your own re-playability by dooming the game with a plot twist that results in a repetitive ending.
2) The plot twist is basically The Stanley Parable, which doesn't really work in this regard.
3) What you're describing is basically Shadow of the Colossus except without an interesting plotline and instead just some guy giving you the answers to the game.

RPG's go one of two ways. You're either playing as a specific character (in Zelda's case, this is Link) and so the plotline follows a fairly rigid story that describes what Link would do or you're playing as your own induced character. You're talking about the latter and in the latter's case, the games that have been more successfully are games like Fable and the Elder Scrolls. Games that let the player make choices, choices which the player must then question the morality of.

If you're going to have a game were the player is tricked onto a side that they would (presumeably) not want to be on, you must have a character choice at the end when this is revealed. They can then play it over and over again to question their decisions and see what they would do differently now that they know the truth.

I'm going to include an example plotline here for you to get a feel of the kind of storyline that would reflect what I'm telling you here.
The player is a Native American Indian, following a charismatic and kind chieftain in a fight to save his people from the invading colonists. It's a very noble cause and anybody in their right mind is going to follow him as the good guy in the game. However, towards the end of the game it is revealed that the chieftain is somewhat racist and warmongering, his actions (and in turn your actions) have only helped to provoke retaliation by the colonists, resulting in the near extinction of your entire race. You learn that before the beginning of the game, the chieftain was visited by "the white man" and his people (your tribe) had been offered protection but he had instead chosen to go to war. You then have the option of turning against him to claim vengeance for his decisions or to stick by him to the end and hope for the best.

The best case scenario is to avoid the rule of Sauron. Lay two options in front of the player but ensure them that neither side are inherently evil. By doing this, by putting this in front of the player, you give them the simple choice of deciding what they personally believe is the best thing to do. This is going to have a much bigger impact on the player than the random voice of god telling them "oh, by the way, you're a bit of a twat, okay, bye now".
Last edited:


Yeah, I have to agree with rusty here. This is kind of bad writing.

If you tell the player later that he is just "bad" then there is no pay off and they wont care. They would have had no investment and it comes off as really cheap and pretty stupid actually. "Good" and "bad" is always a really crappy way to tell a story as its unbelievable. That works in Mario where story isn't important. True drama comes from conflict that is relatable.

Going on rusty's shadow of the collosus. That game has a really deep and actually rather touching narrative without saying more than 100 words. You have 3 groups of conflict in that game that you can see from each parties perspective.
  1. wander: He is traveling to far and sacred lands because he believe some power there has the ability to bring life back to his love. His love is so fierce that he is willing to defy his cultures order to travel to the sacred lands. He doesn't really care about what's unknown or what consequences or challenges he will come across. He doesn't know anything when he arrives and you can sense determination and desperation to meet his goal in him through the whole game. You can see character grow in a very subtle way. He gets cuts on his skin and cloths, mud caked in and his hair gets greasy as the game does on. It's pretty ingenious. All this without saying anything the whole game. There is nothing really "good" or "bad" about what he is doing.
  2. Dormin (the demon): All he cares about is not being held prisoner in the temple. He finally has first contact to break isolation and offers the wander a deal; that he would have what he seeks if he completed the task to set dormin free, but that there would be consequences, he doesn't even hide the fact that he might do something to harm others. Wander accepts both of these, and while it may seem like at the end of the game, that he was ultimately betrayed, wander knew things may not go as he wanted after he got his wish. Dormin is actually pretty helpful to wander and makes good on his request. But he also uses wander as a host to possess once he is free. Again, not really "good" or "bad" even though its implied from the priest. He is self serving and probably would be something terrible to release on the world, but none of the narrative focuses on that. It focuses on his relation with wander and that they have an agreement to both get what they want.
  3. The priest: These guys want to stop wander and Dormin at all cost even if it means leaving the wander and maiden for dead. To them, it is far more important to keep the sacred lands closed off, and that great danger lies within it. They seem to know things about Dormin that are not revealed to the player and express great urgency in stopping wander, and they seem to have exclusive access to the lands. Wander steals a sword that acts as a key and they risk having to cut off the land completely if they dont get it back. They are more interested in keeping Dormin contained and capturing wander than just outright cutting off access to the land, but later make the decision that its just too risky that a boy was able to get in so easily and release dormin. They seal the lands and leave wander for dead in order to protect their culture. Again, not really "good" or "bad". Who knows what they did with the land themselves, and

It all comes down to perspective. Each party had a goal and all their goals over lapped. And while they all won a little, they all lost a lot. Wander gets his love, but loses his freedom and age and must deal with the implied curse. The priest seal off their threat, but lose a huge part of their culture and power by sealing the sacred lands, dormin taste freedom after countless ages have gone by, even if for such a short while. And the maiden is reunited with her love and life, but is left alone in the sacred lands.

You can relate to wanders love, dormins want of freedom and isolation and any means to get it, the priest sense of justice for their faith and duty to their culture. This is near perfect story telling.


Well , first of all , thanks. Didn't expect to have such long replies in this small ammount of time. Second of all , I apreciate the criticism. Overall the story I though of was pretty crappy , but it was just an idea.
I thank you for the tips and I'll try and see what I can work with and what I can think of.About the latter type of RPG (and yes the game was supposed to be an RPG I just forgot to mention it) I think giving the player the option to make choices is good , but I'd like to go with a more limited system of choices that will change parts of the story , but also not leting it change other things.I also want to stick with the option to play multiple heroes.Maybe the idea of making a "god-like" creature narrate you through isn't very good , or even if it is I still might consider scratching it. What if instead of making the different heroes end their journey the exact same way withouth any given choice or make them making choices at all we put them all in one place (being a camp fire,purgatory etc.) and make them tell their stories and how they got to the place they are now.
That way the player won't exactly be a part of the story , but will instead get to relive it in some way and "judge" the heroes.The judging system might determine the destiny the heroes recieve upon finishing the game with all of the classes.That way the player has a lot of time to think about it.


You could just have the players make "mini choices", choices that won't really effect the gameplay much, but will effect the narrative of the story.

For example, if you go with the campsite idea, then the story for the archer could be set between four levels. Hamlet, forest, rebellion, castle. The archer starts at the hamlet and has to defend the village from raiding soldiers, you are given a mini choice (or several mini choices) to either save village as a whole or to save your own family. At the forest, the archer has turned into a Robin Hood inspired character ambushing patrolling soldiers and stuff, you have the mini-choice to steal from a caravan that is stuck in the mud to feed your starving friends. During the rebellion, you have the mini-choice to execute the defeated guard captain who is groveling for his life or to let him go. Finally during the storm of the lord's castle, you have the mini-choice to massacre the lord's defenceless family or to leave them alone after the lord is dead.

Now this is were these choices would get interesting, by adding end game scenes that prove that not everything is black and white.
- Save your family and your family has lost their ability to product crop due to the destruction of the village. Your father ends up as a paranoid beggar being made fun of by the youths.
- Save the village and a couple months later more soldiers come claiming the villagers attacked the (previous wave of) soldiers. The village is razed and the villagers are butchered anyway.

- Steal from the caravan and the merchant's business goes bust after being unable to make a profit on his stock. He is beaten to death by his debtors and his orphan son is left responsible for the debt to work as child labour.
- Leave the caravan and your injured and starving friend dies. Enraged by his death, your other friend attacks a group of soldiers to avenge him, which leads to him being captured and sentenced to death by hanging.

- Kill the guard captain and it is revealed that the captain was the son of a wealthy merchant. With the death of his son, the merchant moves away from town, taking his business with him and the people of the town suffer in poverty as a result.
- Spare the guard captain and he becomes vengeful, taking his frustration from the shame of his defeat upon the innocent people of the town. The guards under him become abusive and the people of the town suffer under their brutality as a result.

- Leave the family alive and the lord's son grows up trying to avenge his father. In his wild hunt for you, the young lord captures and tortures many people to death who have suspected ties to you.
- Slaughter the family and it becomes a power vacuum in the region. The neighbouring lords bicker over who will get to take over the territory which quickly turns into an all out war, causing many to die in the combat.

There is no right choice and there is no wrong choice. They're just choices. All it takes it four variables to keep track of and it will personalise the player's ending to the choices they made in the game. You'll still go through the same four levels, so it will still be the same gameplay and nothing will ultimately change, it's just a matter of narrative.


I disagree with the people saying the plot twist kills re-playability. In fact, if done right, a twist like that could encourage replayability. Why?

You'll rethink every action and interaction throughout the whole game.

If I was writing this game, I would include subtle clues that would be ignored or overlooked on the first playthrough, but would have new context when the player knows that what they're doing is evil.

I've actually been thinking of a story where the player is forced to do more and more despicable things in the name of "good", in a sense coming to wield the sword of evil by degrees. It's not a twist ending, more of a slow dawning on the player that maybe they aren't playing for the side of good after all.


Now , I've got a couple of ideas in mind.I could go with the "mini choices" system and it sounds pretty interesting as a whole.Also the end game scenes are something I've thought about for a while and might come in handy for the final desing.Here are some new ideas I came up with :
*The story either begins (after the player choses a character) with the heroes grouped up or as they meet up when the story progresses
*Each hero tells his/hers story , which the player ultimately controls by making those "mini choices"
*The gameplay doesen't change , unless you chose to play another class
*The heroes have their own diverse characters , for example the Warrior - brave, strong, but also self centered and overly arrogant. On the flip side stands the Priest/Mage: calm, colected, in conflict with the warrior for his ways/perspectives.The true drama kicks in when for example the Warrior is telling his story and after completing a level , the player gets to experience (in the form of a cutscene) the conflict between the hero he is currently playing and his oposite personality.The events only kicks in if the player makes a "choice" that triggers that type of situation.The other heroes stay neutral in the conflict , because:
1. The player has to decide who is wrong , or right (if there even is anybody in the wrong)
2.So that the personalities of the other heroes stay hidden.
*In the end the final boss might be the oposite character and the winner decides the fate of the other hero
*As the game finishes the player's hero doesen't win anything, but a short relief
*In the meantime , if the player decides to play again he can do things differently , changing the story yet again , showing a different perspective or a different possible "timeline" that ultimately doesen't change the fact that there is no "good" or "bad" outcome and that stays set in stone for each and every hero.
A problem I see with a system like that , that alows the player to see the conflict behind the scenes (or the main story) and the story that the hero is telling (the one that got him/her there , where they are right now) is that you get to see one side of the character of the oposing hero, the one you haven't chose to play as yet.That way if the player decided that his hero is in right, on his second playthrough he might not chose the oposing party , simply because he is in disagree with their perspective.Another thing I want to adress , is that I got inspired (I know it might sound silly) by a Samurai Jack episode for the arstyle of the game.I think black and white might be a good choice , mainly because I think those 2 simple yet powerfull colours can give the game a more old and dark apeal.


"New to game maker"

Uhhh Kiddo, this maybe a bit to EXTREME for even you to tackle head on alone, though I don't know your level of GM experience and background in it so I will just ex-sponge my skeptical thoughts as of the moment.

Hmmm, it sounds more like a RPG. With something that would add in a few alternative paths along the way as well as an addition of character as well being a reflection of the players choices' which isn't all to terrible really. I swear that ending reminds me of Lunar Silver Star yeah you saved the world but you really didn't gain much from saving it but blood on your hands. While I do enjoy how you're explaining all of this it does put me in a void... I understand the concept stage is difficult but I'm a little to unsure of what's going on still.