🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Player Character being a secondary leader
Author
So, I am currently finishing up my notes on a computer game called clan that im hoping to one day create... one day... and I have the idea to make the main character a prince, under his father, the king, of one of many clans that survive basically a universal apocolipse. My question is simple, do you have any thoughts on making the players character a subordinate to another in an RTS/FPS/RPG hybrid style game? Im preatty sure this has been done before in many types of games, though I would appreciate any input.
What do you mean by thoughts? You already said he is a prince and his boss is the king, who is also his father.
Do you mean thoughts such as whether he likes his father in the story?
Or do you mean thoughts on other relations that gives you a main character that is second-in-command?
Do you mean thoughts such as whether he likes his father in the story?
Or do you mean thoughts on other relations that gives you a main character that is second-in-command?
Author
I appologise, I will clarify.
What I meant was thoughts about the overall gameplay where the computer is your superior. Having a computerised king would mean that what ever your doiing the computer would be overseer of in real time. On what level would you give the computer control? how much would the computer control your characters destiny and real-time strategic choices before if becomes overwhelming and no longer fun?
That line of questioning. Feel free to make up your own questions, and answer them :-)
What I meant was thoughts about the overall gameplay where the computer is your superior. Having a computerised king would mean that what ever your doiing the computer would be overseer of in real time. On what level would you give the computer control? how much would the computer control your characters destiny and real-time strategic choices before if becomes overwhelming and no longer fun?
That line of questioning. Feel free to make up your own questions, and answer them :-)
Re:
It seems that it doesn't matter as long as the player gets to play the role of his character. In your game, you could define an organization structure for the clan, and specify the role of the player's character in the clan. Once the role is defined, let the player play that role.
Example:
King:
o Responsible for assigning missions and resources
o Responsible for assigning a field general to a prince
Prince 1:
o Responsible for carrying out an assigned mission
o Responsible for reporting intelligence to the King
o Responsible for proposing missions
o Responsible for assigning duty for a general
o Game ends if Prince 1 dies (Prince 1 is the player's character)
Prince 2:
o Same as Prince 1, but they are in competition
o Plots against Prince 1.
General (multiple):
o Responsible for carrying out tactics
o Responsible for reporting intelligence to the assigned prince
o Responsible for protecting the assigned prince at all cost
o (Has a hidden loyalty/preference toward either prince.)
o (Game does not end if a general dies)
Quote: On what level would you give the computer control
It seems that it doesn't matter as long as the player gets to play the role of his character. In your game, you could define an organization structure for the clan, and specify the role of the player's character in the clan. Once the role is defined, let the player play that role.
Example:
King:
o Responsible for assigning missions and resources
o Responsible for assigning a field general to a prince
Prince 1:
o Responsible for carrying out an assigned mission
o Responsible for reporting intelligence to the King
o Responsible for proposing missions
o Responsible for assigning duty for a general
o Game ends if Prince 1 dies (Prince 1 is the player's character)
Prince 2:
o Same as Prince 1, but they are in competition
o Plots against Prince 1.
General (multiple):
o Responsible for carrying out tactics
o Responsible for reporting intelligence to the assigned prince
o Responsible for protecting the assigned prince at all cost
o (Has a hidden loyalty/preference toward either prince.)
o (Game does not end if a general dies)
It does seem normal to have another character who gives orders to the player which determine the player's mission objectives or otherwise establish what goals the player needs to accomplish within the game. Starcraft 1 is the first example that springs to mind, but it is a classic folk tale structure to have a king set a task for a hero to accomplish.
This is how Suikoden games from Konami is like. You are the leader, but you don't make any real decisions. Your tactician does all of that, you just sort of carry things out and act as the light of hope.
I like the ideas posted above, but I had another that might be worth considering.
Depending on how exactly you want the gameplay to be structured, it could work to have an additional layer concerned with things like alliances/standing between clans, strategic value of territories, etc. which the player can influence. The player's main concern in this layer (to my mind) would be to either support or subvert his father the king. Perhaps the player forges alliances with other clans through subterfuge, gaining power and influence while also risking discovery. Or the player could flout an immediate command from the king in order to secure a result in the long run that the king values more highly.
There are a lot of ways to implement ideas like this, depending on your vision. But allowing for conflicting motivations that impact the game world gives a sense of freedom and control to the player, while still being under the authority of his/her superior. The problem is that a story can be harder to structure and write this way.
Depending on how exactly you want the gameplay to be structured, it could work to have an additional layer concerned with things like alliances/standing between clans, strategic value of territories, etc. which the player can influence. The player's main concern in this layer (to my mind) would be to either support or subvert his father the king. Perhaps the player forges alliances with other clans through subterfuge, gaining power and influence while also risking discovery. Or the player could flout an immediate command from the king in order to secure a result in the long run that the king values more highly.
There are a lot of ways to implement ideas like this, depending on your vision. But allowing for conflicting motivations that impact the game world gives a sense of freedom and control to the player, while still being under the authority of his/her superior. The problem is that a story can be harder to structure and write this way.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
