Considerations in Designing Side Scrolling/Platform Strategy Games

The hybrid of a side scrolling strategy or platform strategy game is rare, but not unheard of. Worms is probably the most popular turn-based example. Awesomenauts is a popular 2D sidescroller MOBA. Here are some considerations in designing a hybrid of both sidescrolling/platforming and strategy.

Sidescrolling Consideration:
Y-Axis: Movement and positioning in the Y-Axis. Top down and other games have an equal positioning advantage as the X-Axis, but in sidescrollers, the Y-Axis is special.

A game that does not or does little to utilize the Y-Axis most of the time eventually becomes boring unless by design that is prevented with other considerations such as spacing and formation.

Terrain: Related to the Y-Axis, however, has to do with if terrain affects the sidescrolling gameplay. terrain can be platforms or flat or destructible (like Worms) or a combination. Terrain also may offer gameplay advantages, especially with gravity enabled.
Gravity: Also related to the Y-Axis. If gravity has an effect, then it will affect movement in the Y-Axis.
Spacing: Spacing refers to the fact whether or not objects can overlap with each other or displace each other or a combination (allies can overlap but enemies can't, for example)

Platforming Considerations:
There's not much difference in considerations with sidescrollers, however, platformers have a more focused with physics, so things like gravity is a given with a platformer.

Platforms: The consideration is not about the actual platforms themselves, but the mechanics of the platforms. Platforms here are more in line with dynamic terrain, such as moving platforms, spikes, and the like.
Physics: Just simple or more complicated ragdoll physics? More complicated physics may lead to unpredictability.
Jumping and other Movement Mechanics: Platformers have mechanics such as jumping, dashing, walljumps, crouching, climbing, and other acrobatics.

Strategy Considerations:
Formation: Will a formation of units be more effective or will a doomstack of units be more effective? For example, having archers in the back while having spearmen in the front and has to do with Spacing.
Positioning and Cover: Y-Axis and Terrain placements (ie having archers on higher ground) and also has to do with Gravity and Spacing.Will terrain prevent weapons from hitting?
Timing: Will timing be necessary for any of the strategy?
Pathfinding: Since strategy is about sending units with orders usually, how to handle pathfinding over weird platforms or terrain.
Construction: Will structures be constructed and how to aid a strategic effort? Will they be on terrain or platforms?
Time: Will it be real time or turn based?

InDev: Conveyor RTS

 

Conveyor RTS is an RTS based on Command and Conquer 4 Crawler system + Factorio style construction/crafting + Warrior Kings faction system + Warzone open world. Resources are limited and players must always be on the move.

Problems With Video Game Sequels (The Dawn of War Trilemma)

So often, we play an original video game and expect a sequel. And we expect that sequel to live up to our expectations. Unfortunately, while sequels are often better on paper, with better graphics or technology or added gameplay mechanics or a storyline, our expectations are often shattered.

Gamers have a feeling of gameplay that is very unique for each game. A balancing, if you will. There's a rhythm to a game. A high then a low, a push and a pull.

Unfortunately, game feel, as vague as it is, is a very important, if not the most important thing to a player. Violate that with a sequel, you as a game designer will be the subject of ridicule. A player buys a game for more of the same thing.

If you violate a player's balancing and rhythm, you will pay.

He will not listen to your cries of innovation or your logical reasons for such-and-such addition. He will go to Steam, to the reviews, to the internet and attack.

Game feel is so important that many games market themselves as recapturing the game feel of a previous game. Many indie RTSes since Command and Conquer's downfall market themselves as having Comand and Conquer gameplay. Critics of the recent spate of "Dark Souls of..." game reviews are missing the point. A game feel of Dark Souls was subjectively captured by a reviewer who played... say.. Cuphead, for instance. Ignore the difference of genres and graphics and sound and whatnot. It's the feeling that's important, and Cuphead delivered on the boss pattern studying feeling of Dark Souls. At least to some people.

Speaking of Command and Conquer, its fourth installment greatly violated their audience's game feel expectations. Now it is dead. Even if justified by lore, even if it works as a standalone strategy game, it just doesn't work as a game in the series. It should have gone to the way of its Free-To-Play C&C online game Tiberium Alliances and should have been its own thing, rather than the 4th installment. It would be received better, or if not, as least it would have not tanked the franchise as much. (No pun intended)

Dawn of War is in a unique position where all titles in the series have very different gameplay from each other. The first one was the most traditional RTS of the three, having base building. The second one focused on more micromanaged units, squads, and tactics system that removed base building. The recent third is being accused of having too much MOBA elements. Each has a very distinct feeling to them.

A solution I propose is if a company wants to make games set in the same universe as the original game with whole new gameplay is not include the game in a numbering sequence and have the main series name as the subtitle. For example, Red Alert is technically part of the Command and Conquer series, but Red Alert is the main and standalone title. A more obvious example is The Bureau: XCOM Declassified. Fans hated when the FPS was just called XCOM, but now it has a more positive welcome when the name was changed to The Bureau as shown by positive Steam reviews.

Sequels that are well received are often "remasters" and minor improvements of the same game. Not remasters in the traditional sense, but rather, having the same exact game, just with better graphics, audio, more story, and more maps. No gameplay features are subtracted or added. The Call of Duty series is a great example of this: the more futuristic its sequels were, the more it was derided. Gamers wanted a "boots on the ground" experience. The "boots on the ground" was a game feel that couldn't be violated. Infinite Warfare shattered that game feel, ultimately. World At War, Modern Warfare, and Black Ops didn't stray too far from the original game feel that they were well received as sequels.

The XCOM series in general usually has a great naming convention for its spinoffs, except for the aforementioned snafu with Bureau. Its FPS and flight simulator spinoffs were made clearly different from the other games in the series. Even XCOM: Enemy Unknown is a whole new different naming convention from the original XCOM.

The problem with game designers is that they often have new ideas for new game mechanics, especially from playing other games in the genre, or from studying the problems of previous games in the series and correcting those problems wrongly. Optimizing game mechanics for a sequel is fine. Adding new mechanics carefully to a sequel is fine. Adding new mechanics to a game set in the same universe but is marketed as its own things is fine. Adding new mechanics that change the game feel for a sequel is not fine.

In theory and on paper, the Dawn of War III developers had good reasons for doing what they wanted to do, from their experience with the previous Dawn of Wars and Company of Heroes, as evidenced by their interviews. but they ignored the game feel in adding and subtracting game mechanics. They removed cover and retreating systems, which was a big part of the gameplay. They added a whole new victory condition, which was a big part of the gameplay. The stuff about commanders and customizations were mostly fluff. Those could have been added as it doesn't affect game feel.

A better transition for game feel is the Dark Souls and Bloodborne differences. Bloodborne doesn't greatly change its mechanics. It simply removes shields from the game and adds parrying, making the player more aggressive. But even then, it is not technically part of Dark Souls, so that's a win for marketing as well. Dark Souls 3 apparently incorporates this new playstyle to great effect. However, at no time did Dark Souls nor Bloodborne game feel of a well-timed, boss pattern gameplay was ever violated.

So, just because a game sequel is better on paper, doesn't mean it should be a sequel. If it is drastically different, it should stand as its own thing and marketed as such.

Game designers, learn how to optimize game mechanics without changing the game feel drastically for a sequel. And if you do change the game feel drastically, consider marketing the new game as its standalone thing, not a sequel.

Game Design: The Inky Darkness, A Horror Real Time Strategy Game (subject to change)

Originally from Faction Calculus, my blog about Real Time Strategy games.

As my bio states, I am a game developer of sorts. I often do game jams occasionally, where one will try to make a game in under a prescribed time limit. Not a lot nowadays, but I used to.

So, with Asylum Jam coming up from Game Jolt with the theme of psychological horror or mental issues outside of a context of an asylum (which makes the name ironic), I had a lot of ideas: A game based on writer's block; a game based on the Five Stages of Grief; a 2-D version of Luigi's Mansion; etc.

I recently was playing around with an unfinished RTS engine of mine on Game Maker, and so I thought, maybe I should create a small horror RTS. RTSes are hard to make, but I have done them at least twice for different game jams. Also, I've been fascinated by Lovecraft recently.

Introducing, the Inky Darkness RTS concept!

Story:
You are a commander of a small military base outside a settlement. Whether suddenly or with warning, a dark fog has covered the lands and is increasingly darker and darker. In the fog are terrible, slithering things, and areas covered with the fog are impenetrable. The few that come back from the fog have been reduced to one babbling with insanity... or worse. Escape, get rescued, turn back the fog, or succumb.

Setting:
Deciding whether Victorian steampunk, World War I, Cold War, or the modern era.

Cold War has the advantages of the Soviet Red Menace atmosphere, and earlier wars such as the Vietnam War as a backdrop for flashbacks.

World War I has gritty trench warfare and gray drab atmosphere. Since chemical warfare was commonplace, the Fog is not out of place.

Modern era can be molded to anything, but has no context to history. Technology such as drones would be available.

Victorian steampunk is just cool, and fits the Lovecraftian sensibilities.

Gameplay:
The Fog of War is your enemy. Literally. Once it is thick enough, you can shoot at the fog which might grow shadowy tentacles and hold it back until you run out of ammunition.

Strong lights can also hold back the fog. The fog is more of a "liquid" fog than an airy fog that covers everything. Think of Zerg creep or the Creeper World creep combined with a Fog of War.

The thicker the fog gets, the more aggressive the enemies it spawns will be and your range will get smaller.

You will have limited ammo, limited fuel, limited supplies, and limited men. You may venture out in your own peril to find supplies and survivors.

There will be a day/night system, though a thick fog will make daylight very scarce. Your men, and yourself, will need sleep. And sleep causes nightmares, not only on your men, but on you.

Units can hide or take cover behind something to ambush or not.

You and your men are affected by insanity as determined by the thickness of the fog; eldritch horrors each men has encountered; loss of morale, supply and troops; and nightmares at night.

Sort-of fourth wall breaks as evidenced by the insanity and the monsters in-game.

Some sort of random generation for characters and other things. Small bios for the characters to relate to.

Enemies include lumbering Lovecraftian zombies/mutants, lots of tentacles, and other cosmic horror. Enemies can corrupt your infantry units and even vehicles.

Insanity might also be an infestation/corruption meter, or separate.

Sort-of open world sandbox RTS as there is a city nearby for looting and other landmarks.

Flashbacks of previous wars. Maybe the commander has PTSD. Increases the hallucinations. Flashbacks are interactive and playable. Provides practice for player commander for warfare.

Instead of a bird's eye view like a satellite uplink, there will be only surveillance cameras. Or even, the increasing activity destroys the satellite uplink and that player now has to rely on surveillance cameras.

Insanity affecting the landscape. Things will become more out of place as time passes by. Might flash into an alternate dimension.

Commander being attacked in the command station. Structures are not small, but huge enough to warrant firefights inside. Indoor gameplay.

Base-building is standard RTS building, however, structures have interiors aforementioned, sort of like Prison Architect with preset building layouts.

Planned rhythm. To shake off predictability, squads may be sent missions to check on completely harmless things. And the harmless things may clue in to a darkness coming, or actually something completely random comes out that is not harmless.

Undertale-type 4th wall breaks and game hacking.

Risks and Challenges:
The trick is how to make a strategy game scary. The survival part should theoretically lend to that idea.

Inspiration:
Call of Cthulu: Wasted Land
Fear Equation, Deadnauts, Zafehouse: Diaries
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Darkest Dungeon
Creepy World series
Don't Starve
Escape from Aliens from Outer Space!
Nullpoint
Blood Roofs
Undertale
Other games which I do not remember the name of.

Useful Links:
https://www.quora.com/Im-creating-a-horror-game-and-want-to-know-What-elements-make-games-scary-Good-ideas-will-get-you-a-free-copy-when-I-release-it
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/03/six-elements-that-make-for-a-quality-survival-horror-game/
http://tay.kinja.com/six-things-the-new-silent-hill-needs-to-have-to-succeed-1626630082
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/223931/game_design_deep_dive_amnesias_.php
http://tay.kinja.com/what-makes-the-perfect-horror-game-1619847904

InDev: Grandfather Paradox Part #2

"The Grandfather holds the watch to his gaze. Soon..."

Another blog post in developing Paradox, Grandfather. It is a casual time travel RTS game, or it probably can be more accurately called an RTT (Real Time Tactics) game.

Previously, I introduced the basic gameplay and the two main warring factions. But there is a special "faction", so to speak (Actually, two, if you count the neutral civilians as a faction). The Grandfather "faction" is the source of the blessings, or woes, of time travel in this world. It is composed of the Grandfather unit and his various incarnations. In 192X, he is a young man, who invented the time travel machine and set into motion the events culminating into the war between the Imperiarchy and Republicorp. In 195X, he is an old man, armed with a steampunk army of sorts.

The Grandfather "faction" only let's you play with one unit directly, the Grandfather. You can even control him with the WASD keys and shoot with the mouse button. He can enter any time machine. You have to avoid the Imperiarchy and Republicorp from killing you, or stealing your plans, or otherwise messing with history.

You can upgrade the Grandfather unit. He can be armed with a Chronogun that erases units from existence. When he is still, he is cloaked and invisible. His speed can also be upgraded. But he is weak constitutionally, so take care when manuevering into areas of heavy fire.

The Imperiarchy and Republicorp factions are with through five equivalent units each through four attributes. They are all infantry units. I did not want to add in vehicles and things to the lineup, although in another future version of the game, I might. Possibly the post-experiment version.

Now, I will explain the time travel system, more. In Skirmish battles, after winning, it saves the game, and you can load it, and play against yourself, as if trying to alter history. Or you can play as yourself, and finish in a lower time limit. The Campaign will work the same way. It will be interesting, or at least I hope so.

I decided to cut off the Campaign until the post-experiment version, which I might sell. The version for EGP will include only the Skirmish mode.