Faucets, Sinks, and Markets

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Personally, I don't see much of a reason for there to even be such a market in some games. I prefer the simplified methods of earning up currency to buy better stuff (Far Cry 2). Though, in Spore, I saw it to be somewhat necessary to be in place, but yet, everything seemed to get so drawn out and dull after a while.

Well one can do it easy enough say you have a normal weapon that's worth 10 and has 3 to 9 basic variants of it each go up in stats so 10 X 1, so 10 X 9= 90 a rare tiem would work off this premise only like this

Lvl of attribute X 10 on base price, so if it has 3 lvl 1 attributes the price of the item is X 30 if it has a lvl 2 and 2 lvl ones its X 40.

Dragon age shows you can make a killing...erhm.... with half a quarter price resale this will ensure that no matter how rich you are enough will not be enough.

For items or normal stock non weapon kind of things you can add 100th a percent to world prices for that item or item type buy 100 items prices go up 1% buy 1000 items it goes up 10% and so on and so forth,then when you hit certain points of the games story item prices go down if its past a certain point this tries to help not get the player stuck agisnt a wall(like it dose on dragon age constantly...) even do this with weapons if you want a really difficult game..

Now we need a gimmick to level the playing field, how about the more you buy of a time the cheaper it is but only works when you offload a bunch of loot, you unload your loot and this starts a timer where you can buy stuff from that vender to resale for a 25-50% markup the longer you hold out keeping the stock the more valuable it becomes 1 minute X 0.5% take it through acouple events and get 10X its worth. Though that might be over kill...just some thought starters .... anyway...

I ... don't think I was able to make out a single concept in your post, Zippy. As far as I can tell, you recommend an economy that is balanced by how much your character is buying or selling in a given region and enforcing a hard cost on enhancement bonuses, and that items be sold for a fraction of their buying price.

Which, if I'm not mistaken, is how most games already work. How do your suggestions relate to the point, that is, finding creative sinks to prevent players from getting bored of the game's economy?

Tears of Blood:
I think it's really much more simple than you are trying to make it. The reason we have so much money in AC2 is because we spend our time making it for the sake of completion. Really, it's the same problem as in your article on collectibles. There are going to be some people who love to do everything in the game. There are also people who are only going to play through the main storyline once, maybe twice, and then never play the game again. These people are the majority, and you probably have to cater to those people. So, do you want those people to get every weapon they want to have, or do you want to make them do things in the game that they don't want to do to get it?

How's this...

Who cares?

Single player games need be balanced ONLY in terms of the player vs the challenges the game provides. Balance between two different people playing their own games at home is not a consideration, and should never be.

The only point is... are you having fun? Yes? Good. No? Bad. And truly excellent games should not balance unfun with reward.

DracoSuave:
How's this...

Who cares?

Me, obviously.

It's not balance. When a developer makes a game, he has to make it appeal to as many people as possible so that more people will like it and be willing to buy it. Not only that, but they will tell their friends that it is good and that they should also buy it. That is the incentive. You have to make the game fun to play for a large number of people. This is why "good" and "bad" games exist, and there is a rating system.

Maybe this sucks, maybe not. I don't care. Whatever the case, there's a reason this was all discussed in the article. You could've just as easily directed that at the article writer. Though, I have a feeling you wouldn't.

It's too bad he never responded to my post, I was hoping he might.

Great responses, folks, thanks!

I agree that a market economy feature seems out of place in AC2, but given that they gave you a town and a villa and told you to upgrade it to a prosperous trading center, it's clear they're not hewing closely to the "all you do is assassinate people" idea.

And yeah, more expensive weapons is a much better idea. They're just dull to write about. :) More to the point, this trend of single-player economic gameplay in what are otherwise actiony games is interesting and worth doing better.

Tears of Blood:

Me, obviously.

It's not balance.

I'm not sure what you'd call it then... but the idea that a game must model working economies when the game is not about that is somewhat failing to realize the point. The game's mechanics are to support the game itself.

An example of this would be the difference between Triple Triad in FF8, and Tetra Master in FF9. In both games, the minigame was completely optional. You did not need to play it to get to access or 'defeat' any content in the game, it was merely one avenue in order to do so... but doing so garnered rewards and was worth the time spent mastering it. This is a good application of a minigame. The minigame supports the main gameplay, but does not overshadow it, nor does it become required to master an entire seperate game just to play the game you're there to play.

Tetra Master, on the other hand, is a complete waste of time. It is completely pointless... the only reason to play Tetra Master in FF9 is because you enjoy playing Tetra Master. There is no reward, there is no benefit. There isn't even really a story. There's just the minigame, and that's it. This is -bad- minigame design.

The villa is a minigame that's quite simple. Put money in, get money out later. That money is used to upgrade weapons and armor, and as well the villa, if you like. It's a good game as it is not necessary, gives you benefits (cheaper armory and stuff you actually use, as well as a constant source of income), but you don't need to 'beat the villa' in order to progress in the game. As well, for making money, the game provides alternatives. You could go around and collect all the treasures in the world, buy all the stuff you like, and never touch the villa.

Or something in between.

But would making the villa economic game 'deeper' improve the actual game of Assassin's Creed 2? Would it make the game better by making the action adventure of the game more fun?

An example of this phenomenon working against a game in many players' eyes is Brutal Legend. A lot of people were put off by the RTS elements of the game. They felt that it should have remained a hack'n'slash sandbox game, and the RTS stuff was simply too complex and got in the way of what they felt the central game should have been. You -can- make a game be poorly received by adding in irrelevant minigame content that does not enhance the central experience or intrudes upon it.

When a developer makes a game, he has to make it appeal to as many people as possible so that more people will like it and be willing to buy it. Not only that, but they will tell their friends that it is good and that they should also buy it. That is the incentive. You have to make the game fun to play for a large number of people. This is why "good" and "bad" games exist, and there is a rating system.

Yes, but 'fun to play for a large number of people' doesn't mean that making a kitchen sink of disparate and irrelevant game mechanics is the way to do it.

Maybe this sucks, maybe not. I don't care. Whatever the case, there's a reason this was all discussed in the article. You could've just as easily directed that at the article writer. Though, I have a feeling you wouldn't.

It's too bad he never responded to my post, I was hoping he might.

I directed my first post at the article. The post you quoted was a response to someone responding.

DracoSuave:
I directed my first post at the article. The post you quoted was a response to someone responding.

You quoted me in the post, man, I simply assumed you were just talkin' to me.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here