Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I'm working on this game. Its a game play idea I've had for about 2 years, and a story idea I've had for 1 year. Obviously at this point I am horribly married to it and could not possibly be able to tell if it is going to work or not. What we have here is a little powerpoint that I have built from my design document as a Proof of Concept. It explains itself, so I won't go into it to much, but rest assured it isn't like anythign you have played before.

Please be brutal, I don't want to spend the next year and a half of my life working on a game that turns out to be unplayable.

http://www.mediafire.com/?mzdefnynytg

Ok, I had to sit here for a bit and run through the power point a few times to really wrap my head around what you have going on here. I had almost 3 whole paragraphs typed out before I re-ran through it again and realized that my perception of what you are trying to do was a bit off.

In fact...just to make sure I am right this time let me tell you what I think you are trying to do here so we can be on the same page. The idea of this game is you are trying to figure out what this guy you are playing would say. The boxes on the screen are what he is currently thinking and of course his emotions are displayed on the right there. Depending on what is happening, what he is feeling and thinking, and what he hears you are supposed to type up a response that he would make. And because I'm still slightly confused on this part...it is not a multiple choice thing right?

Anyway, now that I get it..here are my thoughts. It is different, VERY different. As a video game idea...I'm just not so sure. Since this is mostly based off of human emotion I can actually see this being frustrating to some people as not everyone acts the same way in the same circumstances. Unlike a trivia game or something similar, when dealing with the human psyche there may not be a single, right answer. However, perhaps this could be potential to add another level of interactivity to the game as well. What if it were possible to perhaps not just have a single right answer, but several right answers. Perhaps, depending on how you respond the story could take a turn for the worse, or if you respond in the most correct way you could reward the player by advancing the plot in some way or some other effect. With changes like this you could add replay value to a game such as this by adding different outcomes and endings to your story, and the best outcome (the one you are probably envisioning) is the reward for making all the right choices during the game.

As is...it needs work, but this is of course just a proof of concept as well so that goes without saying. I do feel though that it is possible that you could go in a different direction with this without giving up on your original concept to perhaps make it better (although I know the programming of something like that would be rather strenuous).

Oh...and as a final note. Don't give up, especially on something you've put this much work into. You never know when something as simple as an idea could pay off.

You've got the idea, I'm sorry if I didn't lay it out clearly. This is what playtesters are for

And now you touch on the thing that has concerned me the most about the idea: lack of player interaction. I've been bouncing around the idea of multiple endings, or at least small changes in the way scenarios play out. On the one hand it could improve gameplay, but on the other hand it Sort of feels like a cop-out, since the idea is essentially to teach the player how to better empathise with people. In the powerpoint you don't really PLAY AS Albert. You follow him.

I could think about it like Heavy Rain, where the player fills in that indefineable little grey area of the character's personalities (its a little more dualist than I like, but some sacrifices must be made for gameplay). However, one of the key moments I am picturing is one where the solution is something that the player disagrees with. The overarching theme of both gameplay and story is that the player does not like where it goes, but understands why it does so.

The point is, if the player is allowed the freedom to make desicions for the character EXCEPT WHEN I SAY SO...that violates one of my core game design principles, which is consistency. I suppose if written well the desired effect could be reached, but its a tricky balance because different people will react negatively to different parts of the script, so I can't really tell at a distance which segments should be boxed off from character decisions.

I keep falling on different sides of this issue and "neither one praticularly appeals to me."

Thanks for taking the time to play through it by the way, I have had a really difficult time getting feedback.

It sounds interesting... a game in which the skill needed is not reflexes (ala heavy rain) or time (ala WoW) but is understanding and empathy for the character.

I like it.

I'm glad you appreciate it, and I'm glad that the idea comes across (those are the exact words that I use when I'm thinking about the game). You have given me hope. Lets get this guy rolling!