Breadth or Depth

[coldwar]

Is it cooler to have a lot of towns in the world with a lot of simple NPCs for the epic exploration feel, or only a single town with only a handful of NPCs that are complexly programmed to behave diversely?

Things to consider: There aren't a lot of shop and inn templates in RPM3 and the game can only handle 100 characters.

[hitogoroshi]

Re: Breadth or Depth

QUALITY OVER QUANTITY ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Okay it can go both ways. But I much prefer smaller, higher population towns cause that leads to shorter, more awesome games. Sure you can strech and get a fun game if you're good (see: Series 1 and Shadows of the Towers) but usually it's like, look at this 2 plot centric people per town! and five shopkeepers!

Plus I don't like long games as much.

[ezz1692]

Re: Breadth or Depth

In my opinion, the player (by this I refer to myself, I don't know other people) likes to discover. I like to, you know, enter a town I've never been before, talk to everyone, enter every house. Explore. Having only a little amount of towns makes the player "focus" only on the main mission, instead of wasting time talking to people and all. This can be good or be bad. I would like it to have many towns, because that makes the game longer and if I wasted hours and hours a day making my game work, I wouldn't like for it to be over in an hour or so.

[MagusMartovich]

Re: Breadth or Depth

I hate this argument, as for the most part, RPGs are filled with NPCs that say nothing that is of any use whatsoever. It is possible in just about every RPG I've ever played to go through the entire game without talking to anything that wasn't part of a plot driven event.

I say, make a game without any NPCs at all, only Inns/Shops/etc and concentrate your energy on building a good story, then worry about everything else as it comes along.

"You can't cross a bridge until you reach it," my uncle always says, and he makes a good point.

[DarkwingChuck]

Re: Breadth or Depth

I agree with Magus. Focus on what's necessary to the game then add in extra stuff later. A few important towns with a handful of dynamic NPCs is a lot more enjoyable than a bunch of towns that are there just to be there. Like ezz said exploration is a big part of the fun in a game but if most of the people just say "Nice day, isn't it?" every time you talk to them most players won't bother anymore and the game will end up a lot less fun. So I say you probably want more than one town but anything that isn't useful or interesting get rid of it.

[ezz1692]

Re: Breadth or Depth

You also may want to add a handful of sidequests. I like to play a part that I know it isn't necessary to win an armor or something to make the rest of the game easier. A game without sidequests is also very empty.

[Dusk Raven]

Re: Breadth or Depth

Weird, I thought I posted this before now....

My game has 1 field and 3 towns, so I can afford the luxury of giving almost everyone a character portrait.

[MagusMartovich]

Re: Breadth or Depth

You also may want to add a handful of sidequests. I like to play a part that I know it isn't necessary to win an armor or something to make the rest of the game easier. A game without sidequests is also very empty.

Whether or not you get anything that is actually useful for the entire rest of the game or not, sidequests are always good. I'm hevily into sidequests, and the entire sidequest/collect everything aspect of a game is sometimes the only thing that draws me to play a game!

I really do not the any of the Zelda games, but the fact that they are so laden with sidequests and "optional" items has caused me to buy every Zelda released (as well as some systems) just to see if the people at Nintendo did anything new/original/cheap that hadn't been in the last game.

You do have a point, however, about the "best" equipment usually involving a sidequest, but that seems to be becomming more and more of a cliche recently... Most espically if the sidequest involves several steps (talk to person A, find item X, trade for item Y, give Y to A in excange for Ore, combine Ore with Ghostly Spirit item that may/may not be dropped 1/255 kills...) because I find that sometimes these come quite easily and sometimes they never happen...

[ezz1692]

Re: Breadth or Depth

Another important aspect of the game are jokes. I would feel so good to know that when someone plays my game he/she is laughing and having a good time. You should add a few of these, like a character falling in love with another character and saying funny things. Being able to act them instead of using the storyteller would be great, but that would be asking too much.

[Wavelength]

Re: Breadth or Depth

I don't like to feel like I'm being strung along, forced to keep running from A to B to C and then to D. It also cheapens the experience when there's only a single time where you can really do anything in a town. So in that line of thinking, I hate when there's a lot of towns but nothing to do in them, and I'd rather have a single deep, populated, and interesting town.

But I do like exploring, and I do like variety--so the middle ground is the best way in my eyes. At least four or five towns is nice--fill them with lots of interesting activities, have them change a bit over time, and make sure the plot has you visit most of them more than once. Essentially, make it a TOWN, not just a waypoint that you have to visit to see a certain person and then move on.

Tales of the Abyss did the best job of this that I've ever seen.

[ezz1692]

Re: Breadth or Depth

What do you mean by a TOWN?

[Pagerron]

Re: Breadth or Depth

He means a town with a variety of shops, houses, treasure chests, people moving about who says things besides "Rainy day, huh?" You know, a place worth taking the time to explore. He'd rather have a "single, deep, populated, interesting town" than one that just makes you hold down the run button to find the one NPC worth talking to.

[ezz1692]

Re: Breadth or Depth

Well, I agree with that.

[Dusk Raven]

Re: Breadth or Depth

That's what my town will be. All character portraits, whoo!

[Ωbright]

Re: Breadth or Depth

Is it cooler to have a lot of towns in the world with a lot of simple NPCs for the epic exploration feel, or only a single town with only a handful of NPCs that are complexly programmed to behave diversely?

They're both potentially pretty cool. The thing is to decide what kind of game you want to make/play, and just make that. Believe me...the chances of you actually finishing the game will diminish otherwise.

Ideally, BOTH things could be in the game, but when you have a data size limit like with RM3, you kind of have to choose one or the other. Like others have already said in this thread, it's best to complete the basic skeleton of the game, and then go back and add the superfluous details afterward. I did that in my first game, and found that I'd run out of room for NPC's in my numerous towns. That was ok though, because they weren't what the game was about anyway...that game is about world exploration.

But that's the thing...you have to decide what the game is going to be about and go with it. If you make a game about world exploration, there will be people who love it, and people who resent having to pick up and move all the damn time, not to mention the inevitable sparseness of the game. If you make a game about 1-2 towns, with rich and diverse populations, there will be people who love it, and people who will stand on the highest peak, and look at the horizon longingly.

Can you compromise, and make a game which is BOTH? Sure, but you might wind up pleasing less people...rather than more. Just please yourself! The result will be a great game, that others will like as well. Not everyone will appreciate it, but that would be the case even if you bent over backwards to please them.

This is not to say that a game which has a little of both HAS to be a bad thing, but with a console maker it can be REALLY hard to pull off.