...Before doing anything I wanted to get some opinions. After getting those opinions I want to write up a proper content roadmap, which should explain in pretty good detail the ways in which the PC can interact with the world + what the game needs in order to be considered complete. So what do you think?
(Incidentally, I also considered abandoning GH2 and starting a new game...
I agree with others: It would be a very sad day indeed if you decided to give up on GH2, especially with all the work that has been put into it already.
But... is it just me, or does activity on this forum seem to have lessened significantly over the last 5 months? (Perhaps folks just have more time to spend online and play games during the Winter? I know I do...) Also, there was a whole lot of posting and participation about GH2 back in 2009, but it seems to have declined somewhat since then. And it has been a while since we've seen an update on a roadmap-type thread.
I considered changing the battle system from the original clock-based one to a DMU/SuperRobotWars style tactics one.
Please forgive my ignorance, but... what is meant by a "clock-based" battle system?
Perhaps you are thinking of the "Active Time Battle System" in Final Fantasy IV through FF9. This was similar to turn-based, but had a "time keeping system" which required the player to act before the enemy attacks. Supposedly, this was done to "inject urgency and excitement."
Also, Final Fantasy X had a "Conditional Turn-Based system", which slowed gameplay while making it important for the right characters to square off against the right monsters. There were no rounds, but you would input commands individually as each characters turn came up, and the number of turns for each character/enemy was determined by the speed stat.
Personally, I almost always prefer classic turn-based strategy games over either real-time or FF-style "Active Time" systems. For one thing, turn-based is inherently more fitting for strategy, while real-time or having a time limit is more like an action game and puts pressure on the player to think and act quickly. And since I play games to relax, I'd rather avoid pressure.
That said, I do like the idea of having the number of actions a character can make per "round" be determined by some sort of Speed stat or certain traits. (Rather like some table-top RPGs.) Also, I am rather fond of the SRW series of games. The story, maps, strategy and mech were great fun and the battle system was fine by me. (In SRW the player moves/attacks with all of his/her characters on the map, then ends their turn. Then the AI does likewise.)
On the other hand, I really enjoyed GH1 and I thought the battle system was fine as is. The only complaint I have about battles in GH1 is that I thought it was a bit too easy for the player's characters to get permanently injured or overwhelmed and wiped out - at least until the player gets used to playing the game and memorizes certain strategies. (That, and the need to intentionally lose battles occasionally to reduce the PC's reputation.)
...This would allow larger missions with multiple combat encounters, player-controlled spaceships in the missions, and flat sprites would be okay. If SRW-style Attack/Counter rules are added then different weapon types could be given non-transitive advantages over other weapon types (i.e. Missiles beat Guns, Guns beat Melee, Melee beats Missiles). I am currently leaning towards not doing this but could be pushed in either direction.
Personally, I think either system is fine. (The latter system of rock-paper-scissors-type "non-transitive" advantages reminds me strongly of Front Mission.) However, the part about Super Robot Wars that I loved the most was the gloriously beautiful artwork shown when robots attacked and counter-attacked each other. That, and the taunts and hilarious comments they threw at each other. Seriously, that's what made it addicting for me! (IMO: The animated attack graphics added a lot to the excitement.) Without that artwork and without those taunts and insults... the attack and counter-attack system would be very lacking, perhaps even boring. Also, that's what made the boring 2D sprites on the map tolerable.
So, I would consider carefully before throwing out all the work that's been done already with 3D sprites before switching to flat 2D sprites. Unless there was some other art to compensate this loss, the graphics downgrade would hurt the game. I'd recommend sticking to what you already have. And when it doubt, I'd lean towards making it more like GH1 instead of less.
I also considered changing the character rules: a character can learn all the skills, can learn more talents than before, and change some of the current skills to talents. Skills would then represent things everybody can do to some degree, while talents would be the things which make your character unique. I like this division because it marks a clear, bright line between skills and talents. If combined with the pure tactics mod above, the talents could include special attacks (Strafe, Whirlwind Attack, Alpha Strike).
This idea. I like it.
I would add that for "talents" which are special attacks I would have some sort of restriction so that they could only use them occasionally. Perhaps it should use up endurance, like Martial Arts? Or limited number of uses per battle?
Also, perhaps training up a skill should be done by trying to
use the skill, rather than just invest experience into it? Personally, I always thought it made more sense to train skills by actually using them. The experience-based system seems rather silly because a character can
suddenly become highly trained in a skill they've never actually used before just by saving up the 'experience' they gained doing other things (like combat).
Missions will probably be graded, rather than just win/lose. You can get A, B, C, D, or F. F means you lost; D means you won the mission but will still lose renown. At C there is no renown change, while B and above will increase renown as normal. At rank A you may get a special reward in addition to whatever you were promised initially. Rank will be calculated based on objectives completed, damage taken, and time taken. The victory file could include a count of how many As, Bs, etc you got throughout the game.
Another nice idea. However, would this be complicated to code? Would it delay development significantly?
The same ranking system could apply to the core story: Instead of the difficulty increasing by a set amount each time, it could be determined by the rank of the concluding battle. The game would still end after 13 episodes but your renown progress would determine the stakes/rewards of the final battle. If you get the core story to medium difficulty, you'll get a somewhat unsatisfying ending. To get the best ending you should get it all the way to extreme difficulty.
Perhaps. I just hope the difficulty to achieve the best ending is not
too high. I think that if the player made all (or most) of the right choices and got an A or B rank in each of the
key battles, that should be enough.
