I’m working on the character/party creation system in my game, and having a bit of a puzzle with this. The party consists of 5 characters, all randomly generated at initialization, but each editable by the player before starting (kinda like XCOM).
There’ll be models inside those boxes representing the characters, with a form of perspective to suggest the center character is closer than the others. Is this sufficient indication that the center character is the player? Or do I need some type of icon, text, or other indication saying as much? It’s sort of important because if other party members die, you’re fine going on, but if the player dies, it’s game over.
Maybe you could make it even more pronounced, with the player’s model slightly overlapping the adjacent models, and perhaps with a different background (e.g., glowing white vs. muted gray). I think the best way to figure out if it works, though, is to playtest it with as many players as you can get.
True. This is one of those things I should just take notes on for now and keep an eye on later. Always worrying about designing the UI correctly the first time, distracting me from finishing the game itself.
Why should the player care? Does the player control the party or does the player only control this one character? If it’s the former, then it doesn’t matter who the player is because every character is equal. If it’s the latter, then isolate the PC and make the UI scream “THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE.”
I get what you’re saying, and I understand how it’s the correct answer. I’ve more or less started my project over because I realized how easily I fall off the track of focusing on the important elements. And I do understand how playtesting is the most effective way of determining if it’s clear or not. I guess I was asking more for your gut instinct, and whether anyone had experienced something similar that they solved in a clever way.
What I’m trying to avoid is making it so spelled out that it’s boring and embarrassing to look at. Like this:
Plus, that’s just a damn waste of limited screen real estate!
That’s a critical mechanic. You want to hit the player over the head with this multiple times. Repeatedly.
I would suggest tackling this by completely separating the player character from the party ones. Look at how Mass Effect does it. You spend a lot of time just playing Shepard, with no companions. Then you go through cut scenes from Shepard’s perspective, with other characters popping in and out. Then Shepard gets promoted to be a Spectre who doesn’t have to listen to anyone and is totally above the law. By the end of the early levels, its super obvious that Shepard is a big deal and the others are just along for the ride.
You don’t have to use the same mechanisms to drive your point home. But you do need to drive it home.
You guys are all right, of course. But I do feel like I’m doing a poor job explaining the game and why I’m torn on how to display this particular screen.
The best way I can succinctly describe the game is “The Oregon Trail with RPG elements in a procedural world.” Party members are important in that they provide bonuses from their occupations, and in certain situations the party’s attributes are determined by the sum of its members. I may or may not get around to adding something where events can be focused on a party member.
You, as the party leader, are the real focus, yes. Which will become clear enough once you actually start playing. Since this screen is one of the first ones they’ll see, I was just looking for a way to first indicate that when the game says “You”, this is the character they mean. But I want the player to feel just as attached to their party members as their own character, and understand from the start that you’re a team, so I was trying to avoid having them on separate screens or otherwise splitting the group up. In the game world, at the start of the game, you’re all equals.
Has nobody played The Oregon Trail? Does nobody feel the way I do when you lose a party member? Sure, the game only ends when you die, but that doesn’t mean you don’t care when lose one of your members, too. Especially if you named them after friends or family members.
I’m not saying they won’t feel something. But it just won’t be the same. It can’t, if the gameplay mechanics themselves aren’t the same (for the main character vs. side characters).
That’s what I want! Although, much like The Oregon Trail, if the player dies, that’s it. You’ll have to start a new game.
That’s all getting a bit ahead of where I’m at right now, though. For now, I just want to try and indicate which character is the player without being heavy-handed.
You have a point. And I certainly wouldn’t argue that companion deaths can’t be meaningful (my favorite types of games have a heavy narrative focus with strong party characters). But I’d wager a whole, whole lot more people were worked up over Shepard’s death than Mordin.
Of course, some (a great deal?) of that is related to other issues but there’s a fundamental attachment there you can’t have with someone you have no agency over.
I suppose those games, however, muddy up the issue a bit with the side characters and the main character having unique personalities which might interfere with an objective assessment of “attachment” based on whether the character is the main character or not. If they were all had no personality or the same personality, but you only controlled one and they alone brought a “game over,” then we could safely assess whether a player feels a unique attachment to that character.
A slightly unique example is Dragon Age, where you can control any character in your party both in and out of combat (though dialog is still from the PC’s POV), and where the game is not over until all party members die (rather than simply the main character).
Bioware fans are really, really into their characters either way, but I suspect that DA had a more…balanced split of perceived importance of the main character vs. party members. I imagine you have something similar for JRPGs where you can avoid using the “main” character (such as VII). Though in JRPGs you can have interesting situations where basically all of the party has equal importance, such as in FF XIII…I’ll stop myself now. Sorry Schneider21.
Why not make the player’s outline a different color. Like a deep red would look good with that. It would also be a good reason to have some color in the screen
Yeah, I’m mostly laying things out still, but I have a tendency to get stick in bichromatic menus. A bit of colorization wouldn’t be a terrible idea. Especially if the player’s highlight color matched the primary color of the game’s branding, whatever that ends up being.
In a game with a similar name Orion Trail - they have a star trek like layout and when the player selects characters they are placed in the selected jobs - of course the captain is chosen first.
Is there a type of setting where the player could be placed on a ‘throne’ while the other selections are placed in supporting roles - around/below the player?
SPOILER ALERT!! Jeesh! Just kidding. How long does forum decorum state we have to wait after a game is released until we can - just - talk about how it ends? Cause - you know - the boy in the new God of War game! Yeah.
Thanks for the ideas, @theANMATOR2b . The throne idea won’t exactly work per se, since ostensibly the party’s members are all equals at the start of the game (but the player’s character will soon make that not the case…), but I think I can use the general idea of that to throw a few subtler indications together that, as a whole, may get the message across. Stay tuned for progress on that front!
Also, how have I not played Orion Trail yet, especially given my affinity for Trek-like games?!
