This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by youarebritish (5 posts) -

So, I like RPGs. I like JRPGs and I like WRPGs. What I don't like is that both of them have fallen into a rut and would rather adhere to tradition than innovate in their respective genres. The answer isn't to try to bring back oldschool games, because they went out of fashion for a reason.

Because big companies aren't pushing forward with making innovative RPGs, I decided I would make one myself. You can see the Kickstarter here.

Rather than trying to look to the past, we decided to start from scratch and throw out everything that has been done to death and makes RPGs repetitive - random encounters, grinding, silent protagonists, mystical princesses, ancient evils, etc. In Vacant Sky: Awakening, you play as the villain - or someone who will become a villain. In this game, you follow his growth from a mischievous noble ne'er-do-well to an enemy of the world.

Give it a look and let me know what you think - if you're feeling generous, I would appreciate if you would support and share it. The goal is to start fresh with RPGs and discard what it is that has been holding them back. If you have any suggestions, questions, or recommendations, I'd love to hear them.

#2 Posted by AlisterCat (5710 posts) -

Reinventing a genre by putting a twist on two decade old conventions. Right.

#3 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

You know what, I am going to say it. I plan to bring the death to the health based system of RPG's once and for all. I will make it two seperate things, Skill and Luck, Both would basically be the same but it would make a shitton more sense than losing all your health and being KO'd...

There. I said my closely guarded idea... EVERYONE HAPPY NOW!?

#4 Edited by believer258 (12100 posts) -
Vacant Sky: Awakening, you play as the villain - or someone who will become a villain. In this game, you follow his growth from a mischievous noble ne'er-do-well to an enemy of the world.

Doesn't sound any sort of reinvention to me. If all I knew was the name, I'd guess it was a JRPG set on a fantasy continent where you kill the local evil deity about 4 times by games' end.

Just because you play as the villain doesn't mean you've "reinvented" anything. You played as the villain in God of War 2 (shutup, Kratos was not remotely on any "good" side) and the protagonist of Saints Row 2 was very much a villainous person, and both of those games are very well-regarded in their respective genres. As for villainous RPG protagonists, I can't particularly name any that force you to be a villain, but you can be quite the asshole in the Bethesda and Bioware RPG's, more so in the former but the latter is no slouch.

#5 Posted by youarebritish (5 posts) -

There's more to it than just the premise. Battles can't be won by grinding up to buy better equipment or stronger skills and then mashing your strongest attacks. Instead, you have to know who your allies are - their strengths, their weaknesses, and most importantly, their relationships to other characters. Certain characters work better together than others and they complement each others' abilities. You have to create synergy between them in order to advance. Brute force doesn't work.

#6 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@youarebritish:

You mean like Fire Emblem's strategy system? Or the weakness system of Persona 4 (try brute forcing that shit)?

#7 Posted by youarebritish (5 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: Not quite. There's no MP or SP or anything. To use abilities, you're required to maintain a certain level of energy. The only way to gain energy is to act in accordance with your personality. However, if each character acts by themselves, you won't be able to use your best abilities. You have to reinforce each other by using the inter-character relationships and character dynamics.

#8 Posted by redefaulted (2801 posts) -

After checking out your kicks target page, while interesting, I don't see any phenomenal jump like you are trying to play it as. I see another RPG that may be a good play, but in the end just another RPG.

Kudos to you for starting up a game and getting out there, but be careful at how large you draw your picture because it just means a larger area for people to throw tomatoes at.

#9 Posted by DonChipotle (2810 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Vacant Sky: Awakening, you play as the villain - or someone who will become a villain. In this game, you follow his growth from a mischievous noble ne'er-do-well to an enemy of the world.

Doesn't sound any sort of reinvention to me. If all I knew was the name, I'd guess it was a JRPG set on a fantasy continent where you kill the local evil deity about 4 times by games' end.

Just because you play as the villain doesn't mean you've "reinvented" anything. You played as the villain in God of War 2 (shutup, Kratos was not remotely on any "good" side) and the protagonist of Saints Row 2 was very much a villainous person, and both of those games are very well-regarded in their respective genres. As for villainous RPG protagonists, I can't particularly name any that force you to be a villain, but you can be quite the asshole in the Bethesda and Bioware RPG's, more so in the former but the latter is no slouch.

You're kind of the villain in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. Also in Golden Sun 2 you play as one of the 'villains' from the first game but I dunno if that technically counts.

#10 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

@AlisterCat said:

Reinventing a genre by putting a twist on two decade old conventions. Right.

Also : made using RPG Maker and free assets.

#11 Posted by Deusoma (3022 posts) -
@Jay444111 said:

You know what, I am going to say it. I plan to bring the death to the health based system of RPG's once and for all. I will make it two seperate things, Skill and Luck, Both would basically be the same but it would make a shitton more sense than losing all your health and being KO'd...

There. I said my closely guarded idea... EVERYONE HAPPY NOW!?

But it's not a very good idea. Of all the aspects of videogames, I have never heard anyone, ever, complaining about the basic principle of "you have health, and when it runs out, you die". Naturally there are people who bitch against or in favour of things like regenerating health and portable medpacks and such, but nobody complains about the core concept of health. This is because it works, and it works well. People have suggested ultra-realistic things like a first-person shooter where you die or become completely immobilized after a single gunshot wound, but no one ever implements them, because they just aren't as much fun as games where you have an (admittedly wildly unrealistic) abstract representation of bodily integrity in the form of a standard health system.
#12 Posted by youarebritish (5 posts) -

@ck1nd: Fair enough. It's hard to find a pithy catchphrase to use in marketing.

#13 Posted by snowninja845 (43 posts) -

I don't know what it is but sarian just looks so weird.

#14 Posted by stonepawfox (236 posts) -

why is it you need 20,000 dollars for something you're not even making with your own tools again? also advertising your own kickstarter is kind of dickish

#15 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

Some generally interesting mechanics and ideas there, but nothing that would convince me to throw any amount of non-refundable money at it.

#16 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Deusoma said:

@Jay444111 said:

You know what, I am going to say it. I plan to bring the death to the health based system of RPG's once and for all. I will make it two seperate things, Skill and Luck, Both would basically be the same but it would make a shitton more sense than losing all your health and being KO'd...

There. I said my closely guarded idea... EVERYONE HAPPY NOW!?

But it's not a very good idea. Of all the aspects of videogames, I have never heard anyone, ever, complaining about the basic principle of "you have health, and when it runs out, you die". Naturally there are people who bitch against or in favour of things like regenerating health and portable medpacks and such, but nobody complains about the core concept of health. This is because it works, and it works well. People have suggested ultra-realistic things like a first-person shooter where you die or become completely immobilized after a single gunshot wound, but no one ever implements them, because they just aren't as much fun as games where you have an (admittedly wildly unrealistic) abstract representation of bodily integrity in the form of a standard health system.

Yet with a skill or a luck based meter instead of health could do the exact same thing!

Luck would be a meter in which bullets/arrows miss you and when it runs out you are defenseless and can die insanely easily. With skill you can dodge melee/hand to hand stuff until it runs out!

It would make sense, not cause the red jam being smeared on your screen and it would make it far far better in terms of immersion.

#17 Posted by Deusoma (3022 posts) -
@Jay444111: Oh, I see, I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about taking out the idea of buffer health entirely, so if you were in a gunfight, for example, either they miss or you die. My apologies, that's an interesting concept.
#18 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Deusoma said:

@Jay444111: Oh, I see, I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about taking out the idea of buffer health entirely, so if you were in a gunfight, for example, either they miss or you die. My apologies, that's an interesting concept.

Think Halo 2, once the shields go down you only have one or two shots till death. It would still be fairly realistic and it would prevent a lot of hassle with regenerating health and the 'Red jam on screen' effect which annoys everyone.

I think it has potential, not just in real time games but in turn based. Skill being used to dodge swords and Luck to dodge arrows, if one runs out and you get hit again, you die! Sure it would take some time but I am confident that I could get the idea working.

#19 Edited by Viking_Funeral (1859 posts) -

Fairly certain that you play as the villain in Overlord. They even made a sequel. Oh, and Dungeon Keeper. Which kind of led into Evil Genius... I won't belabor the point.

I don't mean to be a jerk, even though I think I've probably already come across as one, but it looks like a lot of other Kickstarter projects made in RPG Maker. Past that, I don't see many 'WRPG' elements, and the group of teens as the cast is fairly typical jRPG. The battle system strikes me as somewhat similar to Final Fantasy II's, the Famicom one, but with more pigeonholing. Having one character always need to land the final blow (to gain energy), or needing another character to be the one to scan enemies, seems a lot like how other old fashioned Japanese RPGs operated, but with less freedom, as players will feel forced into doing that action rather than it being a choice that they made. The latter method is obviously just an illusion of choice, but illusion of choice is very important in video games.

The music is good. I like that. Anyway, I do wish you luck.

#20 Posted by youarebritish (5 posts) -

@Paul_Is_Drunk: You raise a good point that everyone has the one thing they must do to succeed, but that's an important motif in the story, which is why I wanted to reinforce it in the gameplay. But I don't think it's taking away player choice. You can choose who you have in your party, and since each person has a unique 'nature' that they must use in battle, that's the choice of techniques you're making. Also, the context of each party member matters as much as the choice of whether or not to include them - the person who gains power by debuffing enemies will behave totally differently depending on if it's an offensive or defensive party.

#21 Posted by Gold_Skulltulla (230 posts) -

Subtitles such as "awakening," "reckoning," and "origins" are an immediate turnoff, and make the game have to work extra hard just to overcome misconceptions that come with those words; mainly that the player is in for a very conventional experience.

#22 Posted by skyline7284 (508 posts) -

@stonepawfox said:

why is it you need 20,000 dollars for something you're not even making with your own tools again? also advertising your own kickstarter is kind of dickish

I'm kinda with this...

#23 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
 
I'll pass.  
 
I do however wish you luck on this endeavor of yours.
#24 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

Twenty thousand dollars. What. The. Fuck. What you will do with that much money?

#25 Posted by BraveToaster (12588 posts) -

It doesn't look good. Also, advertising is against the rules here.

#26 Posted by believer258 (12100 posts) -

@skyline7284 said:

@stonepawfox said:

why is it you need 20,000 dollars for something you're not even making with your own tools again? also advertising your own kickstarter is kind of dickish

I'm kinda with this...

While 20,000 dollars seems fairly exorbitant for this, advertising is necessary to get any sort of endeavour like this into public knowledge. He started a thread and presented what it is and why he thinks it's worth donating to, which is enough to take it out of spamming territory for me.

Still, he probably could have done a better job of it.

#27 Edited by laserbolts (5351 posts) -

I wish you luck but I will never support kickstarter. If you do end up making the game I may support you then if it isn't shit.

#28 Posted by Trace (3576 posts) -

While I wish you the best of luck with your Kickstarter, advertising isn't allowed on our forums. Sorry.

Moderator