Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

[Ogre]

I drew up an idea and concepts for a text based castle seige game where you are a lord and have to protect the villiagers and non-soldiers/knights/warriors from the invading army sieging your castle.

I pitched the idea to my friends and they didn't like the idea that it is a "no win" scenario in the respect that you will die, your soldiers will all die.

The best ending, or success of the game is if you are able to hold out long enough, and do enough damage to the enemy that they will allow you to surrender, and you and your family (two small children and a teenage son and your wife) are all executed, and your soldiers still alive are all executed as well. But you save the women and children in the castle, and MAYBE the men if you play well enough and you have luck.

I was thinking about including a VERY VERY BAD (coward's) ending where you can find a way to escape with your family, but you leave the villiagers and your own soldiers to certain death.

Is the concept of a "no win" you must die game too depressing/frustrating and not interesting to do in an rpg, and it should best be left to tragic novels and movies?

[MRevelle83]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

I don't think so. Hell, I have a game planned where the protaganist's goal is suicide.

[Rodak]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

What do you mean by "text based"?

This could work with multiple endings and all, but it would need great cinematics to make it worth playing unless you meant a traditional text based game with no graphics. Hey... don't knock 'em. Everytime there's a poll or something about your favorite computer game ever I vote for The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy text game for the PC which came out in the '80s.

If you plan on doing this RPG style I think you'd need RPGM2 for the cinematic ability. 3 has prettier stuff, but it is all stagnant and barely moves on screen.

Good luck with it.

Peace.

[WilliamKirk]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

It's good to go out of the norm and do stuff you won't find in a commercial, blockbuster rpg. Your friends will agree someday if they don't yet. Don't hinder yourself and your game making because your friends aren't as far down the line in rpg playing and creating as you. Alas, I will need to know more to decide, since usually a game needs at least 1) really good story, 2) really good gameplay, or 3) really clever comedy to entertain well, and we can't really see any of those three yet from what you've posted.

[Jamos' Old Account]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

How's this for a bad ending: You save your entire kingdom (or whatever) from the enemy and peace returns... until everyone dies from small pocks. Having the player think you have saved everyone, only to have everyone die sounds like an enteresting ending to me. Also if a game is rewarding enough people would be willing to overlook the bleak endings. Maybe having a new game+ option once you beat the game and once you have beat the game again you could get a chance of seeing an ending where everyone lives (if they manage to complete nearly impossible tasks.)

[Aminveloscasin]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

What your saying Rhen is a quite a bit different than what Ogre is proposing.
In a rpg where the main character commits suicide...the game typically begins
at the end and the entire time your trying to figure out how he gets there...or
he defeats his (main foes) and then for some reason or another kills himself
J.R.R. Tolkien (Turin Turumbar)

Personally...I don't like the idea...I'd perfer to made all the bad decisions and live...and making all the right decisions and having the womena and children
survive wouldn't be that much of a motivator...u know why? Because it wasn't a choice...you could make it to where u decided whether you could escape or die and save your people...

But without the choice...it sux...otherwise I'm making military decisions in hopes of saving my castle and self...only to find I die...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck if you try it btw! That is way too many tree's for me

Assuming u always have 3 choices each of which follow three more different choices and there are ten total choices to make u will have to type 59049 different choices.

[Jamos' Old Account]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

Saying "sux" is a bit strong of a word, but you do have a point. What is the point of trying to save yourself and everyone if you know from the start you are going to die? In my opinion, maybe you shouldn't start off showing that the main character is going to die. Just surprise us with having him die at the end unexpectedly. Usually games where the main character dies don't do too well, but if done just right you could have quite a game.

[Shard]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

I think the end result, whether the hero dies or not, isn't really at issue. It's whether the player feels the sacrifice was justified or not. I don't mean to single out Jamos here, but the idea of having everyone die of small pox at the end as sort of a "gotcha!" ending...it's gimicky, and as a player, it would really **** me off. If however, your hero dies, earning something tangible, then it's a noble self-sacrifice, and the player's much more willing to accept it. Either way, I think the player should be kept unaware of the hero's fate until the end, otherwise you run the risk of making the game's challenges seem meaningless.

[Ryner]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

You dont really want to play a game where you spend your time saving the world only to find out the ending has everyone die anyway.

[Jamos' Old Account]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

I think the end result, whether the hero dies or not, isn't really at issue. It's whether the player feels the sacrifice was justified or not. I don't mean to single out Jamos here, but the idea of having everyone die of small pox at the end as sort of a "gotcha!" ending...it's gimicky, and as a player, it would really **** me off. If however, your hero dies, earning something tangible, then it's a noble self-sacrifice, and the player's much more willing to accept it. Either way, I think the player should be kept unaware of the hero's fate until the end, otherwise you run the risk of making the game's challenges seem meaningless.

The ending idea that I thought of was mostly a joke. That could be an interesting ending depending on how it is done, but I don't really think that would be a good idea unless if it was meant to be comical. You are definitely right that it would **** people off, I know I would be. Also, the sacrifice of the hero always should be for a good reason, as you already said. It would seem wierd if the hero was like "We'll I defeated the enemy so I guess I might at as well end it all."

[Ogre]

Re: Question on a game that is a "NO-WIN" scenario.

Of course I wouldn't say it is a NO-Win situation, but as the game progresses it would become apparant through sheer numbers and problems.

By "Text-based", I mean I would only use the rpgm3 engine (I thought 1 might actually work better for this, but that kind of means I wasted my money, which I'm not willing to admit yet), there would not really be battles, but through choices and probabilities based on your selections on deploying troops and using certain tactics for defence, you would get different results, which I would have some animations for, but mostly the game would be about talking to people, strategizing based on reports (spies, etc.) and managing resources (If it can be worked in, what is a seige without having to worry about supplies?).