If you are to design a haunted castle...

[Xerxes]

Just as the title suggested, this thread is created to get everyone's thoughts on big complex interior environments that are rarely seen in today's games. The most we get in today's triple A titles are 500 square meter 3 story complexes filled with pretty much nothing.

My personal wishlist of elements for a castle level would be:
1. All kinds of traps and secretive passages. Leading to secret chambers and treasure rooms. Even some contains a bit of lore that can't be accessed from anywhere else.
2. Headless ghosts and undead knights.
3. Huge well decorated dinning hall.
4. A self-contained underground dungeon, leading to a catacomb.
5. Monsters that used to be people who were living and working here.
6. Really dark places with not much music and the only sound you can hear is the growling of monsters.
7. A giant chess board.
8. Maze like garden guarded by possessed trees and Minotaurs.
9. Optional puzzle gates leads to other areas. (kinda serves as shortcuts), the puzzle here should mostly be inventory puzzles, like put an apple on Isaac Newtons' head.
10. Secret shop, instead of common currency like gold, the shopkeeper only takes Roses or dead rats.

Another thing I want to address here is how to keep players motivated, make them want to explore.
We have quests, gold rewards, potential to get better equipment, exp.
Maybe there should be something exclusive at the end of dungeons? Or maybe major bosses are always at these places. (rather than hanging in towns or wandering in wilderness).
Or maybe many types of weapons can only be found in dungeons and castles? i.e, blacksmith only have long swords for sale, so if you want a katana, or a rapier, you have to go into those dungeons.

One last thing I would like to know is what's the planned gear progress like?
In MMOs and most ARPGs, you throw away things as soon as you get something better.
That devalues your pickups. Because most gears are just not viable.
In older rpgs, gears are harder to come by, and a magical club with +3 strength will take 500 swords to skeletons' faces to get. This makes players appreciate their effort more. However, it still limits player's choices.
I'm a big time fan of dark souls' gear progression system. You can use what ever you want, and everything is upgradable. So theoretically you can upgrade your starting weapon to max and it will not be much worse than things you picked up in the game world. This sounds like players can just stick with their starting weapon and ruins the variety. Trust me, it does not. In fact, it gives players more options. Players can always keep a few weapons at hands and switch them around to cope with combat situations.
In a game like borderlands, sure I have 4 weapon slots, but I would mostly use only 2 weapons because they are the best drops I got, and anything other than them are useless. If I want to spice up my play-style, I would have to farm for hours to get all the situational weapons.

 

[SergeDavid]

Though bravely I speak upon the matter in my heart there lay an ice cold dagger of dread poised to end my life as my eyes gazed upon the stones and crumbling mortar of the castle walls. The wind howled at my back like the baying of wolves in the distance pushing me towards the looming structure while covering the land in the darkness of an approaching storm. My companions huddle closer to me as the crack of thunder in the distance grows ever closer. There isn't much left for us to do but to proceed and seek shelter and I trudge on towards the gate.

The castle was abandoned long years, an inn keeper told us the story before we set out of the happier days before the reformation. The master of the castle crew ill and perished during the winter of hunger leaving his brother to rule his lands in his sons stead, but he was greedy and wanted more then was owed. Mercenaries gathered to maintain order as he taxed the people, and with mercenaries there came the deeds of men without conscience. The people rebelled and drove them back to the castle where in revenge for the wrongs brought upon them they butchered all those in the castle. In that day when the ground ran red with the blood of the wicked and innocent the place turned sinister.

Indeed the place looked more grim and sinister then the story told as the gnarled iron gates lay broken upon the road where the villagers threw them in their rage. Standing now at the court yard the castle loomed even higher above me blocking out the clouds that promised rain, the grounds have been reclaimed by ivy and weeds except in one spot at the front doors. The wind suddenly stopped and the heavens opened their tears in a downpour. A shiver ran down my spine as I gazed upon the spot where no plant grew, where I knew the villagers dragged the counts brother for all to see his final moments before, SWISH! A small section of the stone wall fell and hit the ground to my left and I saw eyes staring back at me from the hole in the building. Then the wind changed directions and through the doors of the castle a moaning issued as if the souls of the damned cried out as the animal face where the wall fell turned into the shadows and was lost. My companions where already past the gate before I even turned to run down the road back to town, the only thought running through my head was, "NOPE NOPE NOPE".

 

[samos]

Bravo bravo!

 

[Meaghan Ballard]

I agree with what you want Xerxes, but I also want to see how the AI of the game will handle it if you decide to go back to a dungeon/castle later in the game. Do the enemies like zombies and skeletons just respawn? Do wild animals take over the castle? Do a band of brigands take over the castle you just cleared out some time after you leave, and have they amassed a new stash of treasure for you to find? I feel like reexploring the area later should be just as interesting as it was the first time, and keep up with the general progression of the game.

 

[fluffydino2000]

I am one to give credit where credit is due so credit to Skyrim - it did what you describe really well.

In Sui Generis though, I think it'll happen for more specific reasons, obviously enemies won't ust spawn their so for it to be used AI would have to see a use in it. I guess this could encompass some of the examples you gave. We also have to take into consideration that the Underwrorld is supposed to be one huge interconnected dungeon. Whether there will be surface caves and other dungeons, who knows?

I'd like it if you could some how fill a dungeon you cleared with traps and things so you can store loot there or stop hostiles from inhabiting it.

 

[Meaghan Ballard]

I'd like it if you could some how fill a dungeon you cleared with traps and things so you can store loot there or stop hostiles from inhabiting it.

That would be awesome, just acquire a giant horde of treasure like a dragon

 

[mcmanusaur]

I am one to give credit where credit is due so credit to Skyrim - it did what you describe really well.

Hmmm... how so? Many of the elements mentioned in the OP are sorta gothic/high-medieval fantasy, while TES- particularly Skyrim- is decidedly more influenced by the classical period and dark ages (imperial legions and vikings).

Moreover, TES' dungeons have always been somewhat generic (by design to some extent, as they veer towards being procedurally generated), which leads to their "winding underground tunnel network" structure. Arguably, this is because the dungeon locations in TES are designed with the primary goal of being dungeons, rather than having existed as other structures (and for other reasons) before succumbing to overgrowth and infestation or whatever (such as the haunted castle kind of thing suggested by the OP). There are many people that quite like the classic overworld/dungeon contrast, but for me the most immersive environment is designed from a functional approach (i.e. the placement of each structure makes in-world sense, so no dungeons seemingly existing merely to facilitate adventuring) and then is populated with the baddies after the fact.

 

[fluffydino2000]

I agree with what your saying, mainly because my response was to the repopulation of dungeons and not the OP. Probably should have quoted.

 

[mcmanusaur]

I agree with what your saying, mainly because my response was to the repopulation of dungeons and not the OP. Probably should have quoted.

Oh, my bad.

 

[Xerxes]

I agree with what your saying, mainly because my response was to the repopulation of dungeons and not the OP. Probably should have quoted.

Sorry for this late reply.

My personal feel to those TES dungeons and castles is always very negative. They are small, linear, predictable, and most importantly they feels more like basements of some farms than some creepy fortresses of death.They lacks the atmosphere and epicness of real castles that give the overwhelming feel of their history and the tragedies behind them. Skyrim is one game can be best described as has some epic planning, but ultimately feels very generic. Nothing in the game has any weight, the dragons are just big flying targets, the civil war is worse than drunk battles outside bars, the vampires and werewolves are just men in suits, and the RPG element is barely implemented. That's not saying Skyrim is bad, it still stands heads and shoulders above all its knock-offs.

The only reason I go into dungeons in TES, is because they usually have a higher concentration of baddies to kill. Because, running around in the over world is boring as hell, I need some sort of stimulation to keep playing the game. I gave up skyrim after a while because of this.

On the re-population mechanics you mentioned, I feel legally obliged to give my take on the matter. I will use my usually method of communication that is listing out all the things that have been done, then make my judgement.
1. MMO style "bling, there is another group colour swapped fish dudes, kill them, get loot and move on" . This is in kingdom of amalar. You clear an area, you go back in, all the monsters magically re-appear from thin air. It does not give the play a sense of accomplishment, as what they are doing is technically similar to a failing pest control. However, this does have a few merits. It lets the play grind gears from killing the samey group of mobs, and some people like that. It is really easy to design since you don't need to worry about monster placement and atmosphere pacing. I should point out the re-spawn mechanics in dark souls is different.
2. TES style "I hope you don't notice but they will be back in a few days" mechanics. In TES, every dungeons you cleared will be rid of monsters and things within will stay the same until the game resets. This kinda serves the purpose of letting the player revisit places when they are bored, but it is utterly inferior to the "new game + " style, because killing monsters in context makes all the clicking sweeter.
3. Civilization style "conquer and control until the land is yours". This is popular but has its problems. It adds the unneeded fluffing around and drives away the immersion. A good example would be Ubisoft's dead horse assassin's creed. The fun bit in that game is planning the route then do some murdering, but all the newer assassin's creeds seem to focus more on base management and monopoly mini games.
4. Monster hunter style "Instead of pure open world, generate events in places for questing and leveling needs". This is better than it sounds on paper. It creates contexts and clear goals and gives players the option to skip all the boring bit and get straight to the meat of the pie. the goal of this mission is go in this castle and kill that dark lord. May be in the next mission you are going to rescue some pretty princess, or collect some herbs.

These are all the major mechanics I can think of. My personal preference is: Always make players' action meaningful by having two types of dungeons in the game. One type is story important dungeon. These are pre-made, and once they are cleared, monsters will not re-spawn. They will then either be closed, or re-inhabited by townsfolk (people whom you can't control but would give you quests at times), and thus giving the player a motive to clear the map and work towards the 100% completion.This is also can be used to pad the progression. Ie, you need to clear that dungeon so that plot important npc A will move in and give you the hint of what the evil dragon's weakness is and where you can find the immortality canceling arrow.

The second type is randomly generated instances. These castles are created by quests and they can not be found on the over world. You enter one and all you need to do is complete the objective and get reward.These are not story important, but will some times unlock additional npcs. I hope you can understand that the best time people have in any video games is pursuing a clear goal intensively with no gaps and down times in between. The longer time people have idling, the more they will want to stop playing. Dark souls is so addicting because it needs player to think all the time. As long as you are moving, even the weakest monster can kill you. A game on the opposite end of the spectrum would be diablo 3. This game is just so mindless and tedious; you can literally play it with holding down the left mouse button, it is the worst insult to gaming since EA decided to make syndicate a shooter and pooped out mass effect 3 and dragon age 2. I grow sleepy after even a 10 minutes gaming session. So, reduce the gap and make the gameplay intense is vitally important for a good gaming experience.

My system is superior because not only it gives player a great sense of accomplishment (rid the world of evil), but also has greatly reduced the idle time in most open world games. On one hand, you can work towards the final goal of doing every story quests and change the game world; on another hand, there will be plenty of consequence-free opportunities for you to kill bandits, orcs, zombies and some one's dog when you are bored of walking around listening to peasants whining about their missing wife and lost shovel.

This system solves the biggest problems that most open world games have, but also keeps the story progression focused. However, I'm not a game producer, and I know nothing about programming. So, it may be better to just stay with the easiest route. We are on a tiny budget so the less we hesitate the better.

 

[fluffydino2000]

The one criticism I have with your system is something skyrim has and is the entire reason I praised it. Your system doesn't necessarily lack it actually, because it doesn't really work with one stop dungeons or story dungeons. Anyway, it's the re-population with a different enemy that makes sense. I'm not sure if this is an actual example, but it fits the idea: You go through a bandit cave killing all the bandits. Then after a couple of days, a bunch of scavengers move in to loot the poor bandits. They're probably towards the end of the cave as they've worked their way through. Before them are some rats eating the corpses of the bandits.

Hopefully, this sort of thing will just happen in sui generis without being hard coded or picked from a set of options as the AI should naturally seize opportunities like the scavengers.

 

[Xerxes]

Anyway, it's the re-population with a different enemy that makes sense.

No it does not. If that group of bandits got cleared by a lone hero in that cave, then why would this group be moving into that death trap? there ain't any pirate gold buried underneath. Not only this, but also if I'm a super hero, and I go and killed a bunch of mafias. What I'm doing is clearing up the street so that the city will be a better place, not wait until another group of mobsters show up in the same place waiting to be slaughtered for their +12 fire pants.

A game does this well is Infamous, a ps3 exclusive sandbox super hero game with great story and fun world to play around in. In that game, the city area you cleared will not have monsters spawning and whenever you look at the over world map, the increasing safe area gives you a great sense of accomplishment.

Also, most players would not revisit the dungeon they know they've cleared, because it lacks an incentive. When I played skyrim, I never even go into a dungeon for the second time. Because story quests are more interesting.

I doubt you have thought this through. You are a bit less informed than I'm. I've played through countless types of games, and I know what is wrong with today's so called industry standard. One of the reasons that Modern rpgs lacks replayability is they are trying to present all aspects of themselves to the player to the point that each playthrough takes too long and have too much random repeatitive BS to be fun. BM has stated that SG will encourage players to go into NG + and beyond. Then respawning dungeons does not fit well with it, does it? Unless the game only has like 4 dungeons.

If I want to screw around, I will play skyrim. If I want to play a game with great depth I would play witcher. If I want to have an unforgiving but rewarding experience with the best stories and the coolest sword play I would play the souls game.

What SG fills is the niche of combining modern open-world sandbox rpg with old school simple straight forward gameplay. No fishing minigame, no attached on crafting system, no 10 minutes cutscene, no house keeping management. Just straight forward, easy to pick up, fun to play again and again awesomeness. It does not need to drag each of its playthrough to 40 hours, because it will be fun to play it over again and again. This is what all AAA titles today lacks. They may provide an intense 8 hours of solid linear experience, but I would never pick them up because I don't want to sit through all the needless bits for another time.

 

[fluffydino2000]

First of all, don't just assume you know more than me. You probably do, I'm only 16 and so my experience with everything is likely less than that of someone twice my age (not implying that you are), but to assume is just silly. For all you knew I could have been a professional reviewer, unlikely considering the lack of depth to my posts, but still.

Anyway, I think you may have misunderstood me again. My point is that if it makes sense in the real world it should make sense in most virtual worlds. In the world of TES, if I go through a cave and kill a bunch of bandits and leave loads of loot, scavengers will scavenge and starving animals might follow the scent of day old corpses to try and find something to eat. What your saying is as if I think it should re-populate for the sake of more stuff to kill. I want it to re-populate to give me a fresh experience and more to explore, even though it's the same dungeon.

If it were to be refilled with something that didn't make sense, a straight up respawn, it would break my immersion. Also, the dungeon doesn't have to remain exactly the same. If there were originally animals, it'd be just an empty cave. But then, maybe a cult make it their base (bad example but bare with me) it would be decorated as such. If the level design of the dungeon is good in the first place, exploring it again should be a new refreshing experience.

 

[Komuflage]

I hope you can understand that the best time people have in any video games is pursuing a clear goal intensively with no gaps and down times in between. The longer time people have idling, the more they will want to stop playing. Dark souls is so addicting because it needs player to think all the time. As long as you are moving, even the weakest monster can kill you. So, reduce the gap and make the gameplay intense is vitally important for a good gaming experience.

First of, all of this is "imo", just so I don't have to point it out in every sentence.

You're making quite a big assumption here, I honestly don't think I speak for myself when I say that down times are important. A game that is 100% action get dull fast. Even the Souls game ain't without down time.
In Demon's souls, after completing a level, you would go to the nexus, a "completely" safe place were you could theory craft, progress your character, inventory management, read some lore and so on. Dark souls also got some "safe havens" Like Firelink Shrine, Sanctuary Garden and Anor londo. (not the whole place though)
It gives you a brake from the slaughtering and is much needed for a balanced experience, that'll last for more than 5Hours. For instance, I never fast travel in the tes games, since it takes away a major part of the game, and turn it into, a mindless dungeon crawler without back story what so ever.

Another thing I really don't agree on is "that the best time people have in video games is pursuing a clear goal", Following a clear goal fells just as dull as 100% action. I play a game like ARMA 3 for the epic experiences you can have in the game, not because I want to unlock generic rifle 56. I play Project reality for the same reason. The souls game is about theory crafting, putting the builds to the test in pvp, and just enjoying the amazing combat system. Even if there was no levelling or any other type of character progression, and even if there wouldn't be any story to the game, it still would be amazing.

Back when I played Battlefield 2 and Halo 2, it was because the gameplay itself was so fun, not because of unlocks, ladders or similar.

A game can even be better without a clear goal, as it gives the player the opportunity to create their own story, instead of just following a predefined one, and replayability can severely increase due to this, since every playthrough can differ so much. Just take a look at mount and blade as a good example.

All this is not to say that I don't enjoy a great story, since it can make a bad game into a classic.
However, I believe that in order to make a game that'll last, you need to find a good balance between, action, travelling, "story time" (Cutscenes, talking to NPCs) and so on.

However, sure a Beat'em up, can be a joyful experience, but it doesn't last as long.
There's a reason why Demon's Souls is the only game I've played for over 1k Hours, and it's not because of the action itself, it's because it have a good balance.
It's leveling system is quite simple; get enough "experience" and increase a stat by 1. The goal in in one way clear; stop the old one. But it only shows in the beginning and end (and some smaller dialogues during the gameplay) rest of the game is pretty much only; start in a level, kill bad guys until u reach boss, kill boss, start over in next level. And the story is in it's core very simple. "Bad guy is destroying the world, kill bad guy", it's quite similar to super mario in that regard, but it's not necessary a bad thing.

I'm rambling quite a bit, so sorry about that, but point is (I know I've said this so many times here) we (I) need some of the "boring" parts in order to really appreciate the good parts.

 

[Komuflage]

I didn't finish the last paragraph, and the forums still don't let me Edit posts. But pretty much what I wanted to say, is that Demon's souls is in one way very simple, but every part of it has value, it's easy enough so I can pick it up after 4months and still be good at it, but challenging enough that I actually need to think a little to avoid dying. You can also make the game severely easier or harder, so I can change the experience to what I'm in mood fore. I'm beginning to ramble again, so I just stop here, hopefully you understand what I mean.

 

[Xerxes]

You can also make the game severely easier or harder, so I can change the experience to what I'm in mood fore. I'm beginning to ramble again, so I just stop here, hopefully you understand what I mean.

My take on games like arma 3 is always because it is really hard to learn but very rewarding.
Both casual games and hardcore games have their appeals, however, they are focusing on different things. It is immature to state if that works in that game, then that will make this game better.

Casual games usually have cheerful music, new introduced elements handed in every few level, a slow raising learning curve, nonsensical and not serious story and atmosphere.
hardcore games are catered towards people who can not be satisfied by pity victories. They are usually unforgiving, but give player the options to try again and again until they become better.

If Demon's souls have a difficult selection, then it will render all its charm meaningless. You no longer need to learn enemy movements, no long want to chill out at the nexus, no long would even pay attention to short cuts, and pondering the lore behind it. The game would be over within 5 hours. (it's not a long game)

Your argument of "ARMA 3 does not have a clear goal, and you enjoyed it, so my point must be flawed" is misguided.

ARMA 3 has a goal, the goal is to get better at the game. Because the game is so hard, every step you take has meaning. The same thing applies to minecraft, every block of wood you collect is meaningful. What I meant in my post is towards those stupid mini games, and micromanagement that breaks the flow of games. If I can change some aspects of skyrim, I would either remove all the mountains or make the quest marker 10 times better. I can not remember how many times I have to jump all the way up a mountain to get to where I want to go. This is the reason I use fast travel.

I would state that I had a lot of fun with killzone, resistance, uncharted. However, I would not play through their champions a second time, because I don't want to sit through all the boring bits again.

Yes we need pacing in demon souls, but that pacing is controlled by you. You can decide to spend however long time in the nexus. In most modern games, you don't have this luxury of choice. You are forced to do the same nose leading boring bits. Even the funnest dead baby joke lose its value after the third time. I don't see how these are considered as beneficial.

 

[Komuflage]

Your argument of "ARMA 3 does not have a clear goal, and you enjoyed it, so my point must be flawed" is misguided.

ARMA 3 has a goal, the goal is to get better at the game. Because the game is so hard, every step you take has meaning. T

I don't know if I can agree to this statement though, the goal of ARMA 3 is in no way (at least for me) to get better at the game, it's not a competitive game in any form. And frankly the game ain't that difficult, it got a few more buttons to learn than a standard arcade shooter, but at the time u're used to that (which shouldn't take that long) the game is no more difficult than any other FPS. And the game ain't especially rewarding either, there is no difficult boss that only skilled player can kill, you don't get any ingame rewards like new weapons. So it's not the pursuing of a goal, and get ingame rewards, nor mental rewards (Being one of the few that can kill this boss for instance) rather, it's the experience of being 30 people on Teamspeak, having a great time together, that's the beauty of ARMA3

If Demon's souls have a difficult selection, then it will render all its charm meaningless. You no longer need to learn enemy movements, no long want to chill out at the nexus, no long would even pay attention to short cuts, and pondering the lore behind it. The game would be over within 5 hours. (it's not a long game)

What I meant about this is that you as a player can chose how difficult you want the game to be, not by choosing a difficult level (Easy, Medium, Hard) but by giving urself restrictions.
For instance, if you use magic, the game becomes a walk in the park, without any challenge what so ever.
But by only using melee weapon, and giving urself 1 life through the whole playthrough, (and no farming ofc) you need to stay on ur toes. And even more so if u play the game at starting level, without ever increasing a stat.

The same thing applies to minecraft, every block of wood you collect is meaningful.

Well, the statement was that "best time people have in any video games is pursuing a clear goal intensively with no gaps or downtime" and Minecraft does not have a clear goal, it's a huge sandbox were you as a player can decide what you want to do (within the games boundaries) there is no Arrow telling u were to go, or text telling you what to do. You're free to do as you please. And people still enjoy this game.

 

[mcmanusaur]

I doubt you have thought this through. You are a bit less informed than I'm. I've played through countless types of games, and I know what is wrong with today's so called industry standard.

 

[MrActionHouse]

As long as its not too predictable or klisje, im mostly up for these ideas