ChickenMcOwnage on 15/4/2005 at 19:32
Hey all, I'm currently working on a game similar to the UW games: first person view, walking through the insides of a volcano, similar fighting and inventory management, etc. The biggest difference is that all the levels will be randomly generated (sort of like diablo). At the moment, I'm thinking that you'll start at the top in the mountain, where it's all icy and snowy, then travel down to a more watery area, then to a dirty catacombs area, then to the lava pits. I'm planning on having random quests, as well; some will be small, some large, and of course there will be a main quest for the game (what it is I have no idea yet).
What I'm looking for is what you guys would like in a game like this, and what things you think I should stay away from. What kinds of quests, areas, inhabitants, things like that. Also, weapons and armor ideas, character skills/development (shrines?), ways magic could work (I'm thinking runes... it would be fun trying to find all the runes), etc. etc. I'll take any and all advice/ideas/wishes. The maps, by the way, will be fairly simplistic: everything is in squares (no diagonal walls) but there can be different floor/ceiling heights with ramps and stairs. Don't worry, it still looks awesome, even in its early stages.
Though not directly related to UW or arx, I thought you guys are the right crowd to come to for ideas, and you're the kinds of people I'm making this game for anyways. So please, unload your ideas! I'll really appreciate them.
Digital Nightfall on 15/4/2005 at 21:48
I've found that the three things we look for first in any game is quality, quality, quality. (HAHAHA... no, I'm serious.) I think that pretty much anything you do on the creative scale will be cool as long as it's high quality work.
ChickenMcOwnage on 17/4/2005 at 01:21
I'm shooting for a good solid game. The graphics and sound won't be the best, probably around UW quality (although much higher screen and color resolutions) because it's only me doing all the work. Luckily, I'm artistically and musically talented, but it's still a lot of work for one guy. I'm more wondering what people would like to see in this kind of game, as if they were making one of their own. I'm curious about what people like and dislike. What things they wish they could have in a UW-like game.
The_Caped_Eluder on 17/4/2005 at 17:23
Hmm... I'd think you need to demonstrate that you are capable of producing a likeable first effort pretty much autonomously before you'll have people giving their time to offer advice and wishes. Not to discourage you, but that seems to be the way it goes, pretty much... I could be wrong though, I suppose. :/
I'd suggest reading through the Arx / UW-forum here, as well as other forums where fans are discussing UW-like games if you are looking for some inspiration. There is quite a lot of stuff to read.
=)
Shadowcat on 17/4/2005 at 23:31
I really want to reply to the question with something useful, but I'm drawing a bit of a blank. What springs to mind is...
"quests, areas, inhabitants" ought to come somewhat naturally with your development of the storyline. I don't really have any suggestions because I think anything can work... it's the execution that determines whether it does work. I'd certainly like it if you didn't skimp on the quality of the writing (quests, conversations, etc). Good writing can make a game and bad writing can break it (and always sticks out like a sore thumb... I think with budget graphics we can use our imaginations to make it better, but you can't really do anything about bad writing... it's there and you just have to deal with it).
I couldn't really suggest which skill and spell paths were good or bad in Underworld, but my memory does throw up one lovely instance for your consideration... I always remember the first time I went swimming in the Stygian Abyss and even though you couldn't submerge, the view would toss and turn while you were in the water, and water currents made it hard or impossible to swim in certain directions. It was super cool for the time. Then I found the runes for 'walk on water' (and I think I even guessed the spell as a logical possibility), and must have had a grin from one end of my face to the other as I was then able to run over the surface of the water as if it were dry land, currents be damned! :) So... that would be nice to have :)
I agree that the Rune system is probably the way to go, both because it's a nod to Underworld, and because it works with your semi-randomisation plan. You probably wouldn't want to completely randomise the runes and positions for the sake of game balance, but it could certainly change the game experience if they were not always in the same places, and maybe (some care would be needed here) were not always the same set of runes.
ChickenMcOwnage on 23/4/2005 at 00:26
thanks very much for your ideas so far. I totally agree about using runes for magic, you made good points. Good writing is also a good point; I will keep that in mind when I start designing the quests. I'm certainly no professional writer, but I think the dialog should be at least close to UW2 quality (UW, imo, had superb writing) although I should add that there will most likely be less dialog paths.
To show you guys what I've been working on lately, I'm gonna to stick up this screenshot that I took. There's a potion displayed (a billboarded sprite) and some cobwebs down the dark corridor. All of the textures are pretty much placeholders at the moment. The interface will be similar to System Shock 2, using right-click to pick up a highlighted item and put it in your inventory. It will be possible to grab an item and throw it in some direction. You can walk around and look with the mouse. Note, the reason I'm not using models is because I'm definitely not a modeler. Good modelers are very hard to come by. What I'll be using for pretty much all the items and baddies are billboarded sprites, some with animations. Well guess that's it. I hope the screenshot (though this is only after a week or so of programming) will inspire some fresh ideas!
Inline Image:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v407/KungFuSich/underworld_3_small.jpg Inline Image:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v407/KungFuSich/underworld_4_small.jpg~Mark
edit: added the picture on the right with the spooky ghost. As you can see, the monster sprites will look very similar in quality to the UW games. Even though pixelated, I hope they're easy enough to recognize. By the way, this ghost is not a placeholder graphic like the rest of the graphics: it's my own work and I think that's about the quality I'm shooting for (sorry it's so dark and badly jpeg encoded :erg: ).
Raf on 26/4/2005 at 19:56
Keep going Chicken, let us know when you have anything that can be tested, and we'll be gald to help !
rogermellie on 28/4/2005 at 14:16
Chicken, I'm glad that someone is still prepared to write this type of game. I believe the best games I own are from this genre. My personal favourites of the genre are Dungeon Master I/II, EOTB I/II, U7/U8, UW1/2, BG2 and Arx. If I could point to one single game that had everything it would be Ultima Underworld 1 (though, I've got my fingers crossed for Arx2).
My friends and I don't mind new fantasy game worlds as long as the author doesn't start introducing modern(ish) technology, such as steam pistons and flying sourcers. I remember DM3 and Thief having steam powered devices...and I can remember an old SSI flick screen game that had a character that arrived by hover craft. Oh dear.
BTW Have you considered writing your game as a complete modification using an existing game engine? The reason I ask is that very few people ever finish the technology, let alone the games and you could just concentrate on the game play. For example, I bought UT4 just to play red orchestra.
ChickenMcOwnage on 28/4/2005 at 15:43
The engine will be pretty simple, with nothing fancy like lighting (what you see in the screenshots is just black fog :p), shadows, crazy 3d models, bumpmapping, or anything else like that. I was thinking of using crystalspace, but I thought it's a huge engine with tons of features that I won't need and it will probably take as long to learn how to work it than write my own simple engine. Creating a mod for an existing game (like HL/HL2, for example, which I have experience in) has a few cons. For one thing, you'll have to own that game in order to play mine. Secondly, my game will look like whichever game I modify, and I'm really liking my semi-pixelated UW look. Thirdly, it's actually more work. I'd have to create models, create a whole interface and inventory system that interacts with the base game code, and all sorts of other nuisances. Plus, the way I'm writing the engine is to incorporate the complete randomness of the levels. I'm not sure how I'd go about randomizing a level for Half-Life... With my engine, if you've ever played nethack or angband or any other rogue-like, I could essentially make levels like those games and the engine will convert it into what you see in 3d, with added benefits like a heightmap and ramps and things like that. The levels, by the way, will certainly not be as simple as those games'. So basically, the foundation of the graphics engine is already complete. It's pretty simple, and looks old-school like UW but still clear and smooth, so I'm liking it a lot! Maybe in the next week or two I'll put up another screenshot. It's already changed a lot from the screenshots that are already up there, mostly because I'm using all of my own graphics at this point.
I totally agree about your stance on industrial aspects in fantasy games. I think they just don't fit at all. I thought arx was a pretty cool game, but I didn't really like the parts with all the Dwarven machinery. Same goes with a lot of other games, like the early Final Fantasy games and even in BG2, the very first area I really didn't like (it just wasn't... medieval enough). So yeah, in my world, the most technologically advanced thing will probably be a crossbow.
So anyways, the game is coming along. I'm really glad to see there's at least a little bit of interest for it. No inventory, quests, dialog, AI, or good randomized dungeons yet, so that's what I'm workin on. The graphic engine is more or less complete (although the particle engine is non-existent at this point), items and NPCs are implemented, and some of the physics is done. Thanks to those who are giving support! :thumb:
rogermellie on 29/4/2005 at 13:57
Chicken,
Fair enough, it sounds like an awful lot of work to use a 3rd party engine.
You're right about the features, I buy lots of games that dazzle me with their technology only to reveal limited game play. Anyway, by keeping it simple you'll have more time to spend on the game. :) I'd much rather have better games with less technology. I really like the sound of your ideas on the mountain and the different areas. Also, the early screens shots look promising.
Oh, and in answer to your original question. What I liked most about UW/Arx was the following:-
The close combat in first person with the weapon blows being animated.
The ability of enemies to retreat when they're badly injured.
The tree dialog for bartering and conversations.
The sub quests that fleshed out the worlds inhabitants.
The ability to annoy and provoke a NPC to the point where combat was initiated (superb).
The use of ranged weapons and spells.
The sprawling levels with each having its own distinct theme and races.
The deterioration of the objects.
The satisfaction and reward of levelling up in order to find and use more powerful weapons.
Exploring a dark underground world.
The auto mapper.
The context sensitive music.
I realise that Arx didn't have all of the above, but it still didn't stop me buying it twice in support of a great product. Unfortunately, I hated Diablo as it felt like a dumb hack/slash affair with random levels and without a believable world.
I hope my list doesn't put you off. Just stick to what you will enjoy and I'm sure people will like it. Anyway, I wish you all the best and I look forward to reading your progress. :thumb:
