Grimrock

Belgariad wrote:i do also agree with the ideas for hardcore hardcore mode. Not stacking items makes you appreciate inventory more, but if they do end up making the game "bigger", in general, then they should add some sort of storage chest or banking system.

I think a storage or banking system in this kinda game would make it too easy. You can just horde everything. Granted people can already do this if they wanted, since items never vanish, and you can backtrack to every place and get back to the spot you dropped your items. I think that should be taken out. You can only carry so much weight, and hold so many items, so why make it easily with a storage chest? You should have to pick and choose which items to keep and which to throw away. Everyone takes potions for granted. Until you can bearly hold anything except your suit of heavy armor and huge weapon, so have to either lose a piece of armor, or some of your potions to heal.

Jirodyneof wrote:
I think a storage or banking system in this kinda game would make it too easy. You can just horde everything. Granted people can already do this if they wanted, since items never vanish, and you can backtrack to every place and get back to the spot you dropped your items. I think that should be taken out. You can only carry so much weight, and hold so many items, so why make it easily with a storage chest? You should have to pick and choose which items to keep and which to throw away. Everyone takes potions for granted. Until you can bearly hold anything except your suit of heavy armor and huge weapon, so have to either lose a piece of armor, or some of your potions to heal.

the way it is now i totally agree. i just meant if they do add more to the game, especially content wise. what if you had 2 large but very powerful swords, but you could only really take 1 with you on dungeon trips with any hope of having enough room/weight to bring back loot? it really depends on how big the game is. i do however think the bank space should be very limited so you can only leave essential/rare items there.

Snowmoon wrote: 2) Magic System Overhaul
========================
Yes, i personally disliked the current magic system implemented as i felt it was overly complicated. For this, may i suggest a simpler method of just right-clicking
on the mage's hand, select the spell you want, and just left-click to cast it. If the same spell needs to recast, you just need to left click on his hand.

Gaahh! I thought it was perfect; I wouldn't have them change a thing ~except to add a 4th column & row and some additional spells (many undocumented).

6) The Rogues don't feel like Rogues.
====================================
IMO, Rogues should be masters of lockpicking. Rogues in the current game feel more like "ranged melees" rather then doing signature rogue stuffs.
Why not have special doors that can only be lockpicked by a rogue? Or having doors that instead of having keys, a skilled rogue can just lockpick it
via a minigame. Why not also let the rogue have abilities such as setting traps or pickpocketing?

I agree, Lock picking would have made them far more useful. It was the first thing I noticed that was odd... I had a thief that couldn't pick any locks.

8) Let us be able to write notes on the auto map.
================================================
Ultima Underworld's Automap did this very well, where the game would automap for you, and you can literally write anything at anywhere you want on the map, instead of the Grimlock's current system of writing only at the icon you set. Also, i think it would be cool to just bring up a "Note Screen" while exploring to immediately write a note, instead of having to firstly go to the automap, click and then enter notes.

Yes! I suggested this during development, (along with possibly adding a page-curl conform ~if simple to do: )

13) Provide an option for both Turn-Based Combat AND Real-Time Combat
================================================== ===================
I think it would be cool if Grimrock 2 could borrow the idea from Might and Magic 7 which was a mix of real time and turn based combat. Basically, the game is
played in real time, but when enemies are encountered, the player can effectively just press a button and the game will shift to turn based combat instantly.

Turn based combat is alien to the genre... The whole point of the gameplay is the realtime grid based combat.

15) Why limit swords and other weapons to Fighters only?
================================================== =======
Why not have all weapons available to all classes so players can customize exactly how they want their own character to feel like.

Because it defeats the purpose of having specialized classes ~with esoteric skill mastery... Why play a fighter when you can play a mage with a sword and shield, and use magic buffs to compensate for low physical stats?

16) Why let the Compass take up a slot?
=======================================
Why not have a special Compass UI appear at the top of the screen if the player finds a compass?
The player would then have an additional slot free to put other things.

I would have liked this a lot; I suggested it on the blog too.

Snowmoon wrote:1) Expand on the Game's Universe, let us explore the outside environment instead of just sticking to another dungeon.

LoG is a Dungeon Crawler/Puzzle game, not a full RPG system.

Snowmoon wrote:2) Magic System Overhaul

Why? Your Mage is bound to only learn a few spells during the game, and all the spells are built with a certain logic. It really shouldn't be hard. And there are sheets posted on this forum for those that really cannot remember.

Also, if it would simply list all the spells, there would be no point whatsoever to the spell scrolls you find in the game.

What could be nice, is if you could place a scroll in one of your hands to "quickcast" that spell. IE, using a scroll would be the same as using an empty hand and then pressing the related icons. This would fill up your hand, and prevent you from casting other spells with that hand, so you'd have to keep your other hand free for general spells, giving it a downside as well.

Snowmoon wrote:3) Make the UI layout customizable.

Could be useful, I guess, especially for those with multiple monitors.

However, I'm unsure if you should be able to break apart the party's relative position, as that might confuse players who are currently in the front line and who are in the back line.

Snowmoon wrote:4) Implement Hotkeys for attacking / spell casting

Attacking, sure. Opening the spell menu, sure. Using the notepad to select the spells, sure.

One key to attack with all, or one key to cast a specific spell, no thank you. It would just be a "spam this one button" fest.

Snowmoon wrote:5) Why no "Healing Class" in the game?

The designers didn't want to force any classes on you. You can play the game with 4 rogues, or 4 mages, or 2 fighters and a rogue and a mage, or whatever combination you want. (Though admittedly, more than 2 fighters is basically screwing yourself over, as fighters are pointless on the back row.)

They would have to be very careful to make encounters possible to do without a Healer, but still challenging to do with a Healer. Adding a Healer would quickly steer towards making the Healer a mandatory member of your party.

Snowmoon wrote:6) The Rogues don't feel like Rogues.

They're Rogues, not Thieves. Lockpicking sounds interesting at first, but then think about it.

You cannot require Lockpicking for doors that are mandatory to pass, as that would make it impossible to complete the game without a Rogue. Similarly, you cannot require Lockpicking for doors that hold important treasure, because you're basically shafting anyone who didn't bring a Rogue.

So Lockpicking could then only be used to bypass content. It could save you the trouble of getting a key that's held at the end of a puzzle or in the belly of a monster. Would that really be an interesting feature? If you'd be those prisoners yourself, that would be mighty useful. But you're the player, enjoying the game, and you probably want to see all the content, so you probably are still going to explore those monster caves or trying to solve that puzzle.

Snowmoon wrote:7) Make the player characters interact with each other.

This... Could be nice, but since they're basically 4 PCs, some people make up their own background for their characters, and then having them talk with each other breaks that immersion.

It would be really nice if you could start with only 1 PC, and then find NPCs along the way. Notifications from these NPCs would flesh them out a bit, and if dialog options were possible, having some conversation between your PC and the NPCs would be awesome as well.

Snowmoon wrote:8) Let us be able to write notes on the auto map.

I think the current notes system is easy to understand. Being able to write on the map itself and in notes would cause for a confusing interface. Only being able to write on the map would make a mess of things if people would want to store a lot of notes.

Snowmoon wrote:9) Implement the ability to split the party.

What about the chain around your ankles? Also, this would seriously trivialize a lot of puzzles!

Snowmoon wrote:10) A Co-op mode?

That would require:

- General Multiplayer network support.
- Adding graphics to display the other party.
- Specific tailored dungeons as having 2 parties would trivialize most content designed for 1 party.

Snowmoon wrote:11) The ability to re-stat our ability points.

You can. It's called starting a new game. Just restating our ability points out of the blue feels really silly and not fit in a game at all. Perhaps a tome that would "forget" about your skillpoints, but then you also have to keep in mind the bonuses these skillpoints provide. Also, what if you boosted athletics, for an increase in vitality, and gained extra hit points from this vitality as you leveled up. Then if you relearn your skills and don't take athletics this time, shouldn't you be losing the extra points in health, or should you?

Snowmoon wrote:12) More exciting loot please and also... Weapon Crafting?

More exciting loot is always welcome.

Weapon Crafting at the bottom of a dungeon really doesn't make too much sense.

Snowmoon wrote:13) Provide an option for both Turn-Based Combat AND Real-Time Combat

Turnbased and Realtime are totally different games.

That's like asking for Mario to also have a Pacman mode.

Snowmoon wrote:14) Old-School Hardcore mode is not Hardcore enough

Extra hardcore features could be interesting. However:

Leave Old-School as it is. People should be able to choose making their own maps, without being forced to use all hardmode options as well.

As for food, it's tricky. Sure, lots of people got overburdened with food, but some people really had starvation issues. Hardmode has less food than easy or normal, and if you geared your frontliners for survivability over damage output, fights last longer and take up more food as well. If you do that for your first game, and still take your time exploring everything, then starvation really is an issue in this game.

Snowmoon wrote:15) Why limit swords and other weapons to Fighters only?

They don't. Anyone can pick up a sword and wield it. Fighters however learn to be better at it than Rogues and Mages, which makes perfect sense to me.

Snowmoon wrote:16) Why let the Compass take up a slot?

Why not? It is an object after all.

Snowmoon wrote:17) Make more items stackable. (Eg: Torches)

Then what's the point of bags and crates if you can stack everything on top of each other?

Also, each torch has it's own fuel value. If you put a stack of torches with different amount of fuel on top of each other, and then grab a torch from the pile, how is the game to determine the fuel this torch has?

Snowmoon wrote:18) Have a 3D feel to the dungeons

That would move away from the grid based game that it is, though it could be interesting.

Snowmoon wrote:19) Allow ranged characters to QUEUE up their throwing weapons / ammunition

Yes, something along the belt pouches system that EoB was using would be nice.

Provide each character with 3 belt slots. Then, if a character shoots the last arrow, tosses the last dagger or drinks a potion from his hand, have the item on the leftmost belt pouch move to the player's hand. This could also be used to pick up regular arrows in your pouch while holding on to flaming arrows.

Isaac wrote:Gaahh! I thought it was perfect; I wouldn't have them change a thing ~except to add a 4th column & row and some additional spells (many undocumented).

Have you actually counted the number of spells you can still make with 2 and with 3 icons, using the current 9 symbols? There's tons of possible combinations left. It doesn't need more icons.

Thels wrote:

Isaac wrote:Gaahh! I thought it was perfect; I wouldn't have them change a thing ~except to add a 4th column & row and some additional spells (many undocumented).

Have you actually counted the number of spells you can still make with 2 and with 3 icons, using the current 9 symbols? There's tons of possible combinations left. It doesn't need more icons.

If they are undocumented, then how does it matter? Adding more icons would allow for more logic 'bricks' with which to devise or deduce.
Three is plenty enough, but four could be cool.

Snowmoon wrote:6) The Rogues don't feel like Rogues.

They're Rogues, not Thieves. Lockpicking sounds interesting at first, but then think about it.

You cannot require Lockpicking for doors that are mandatory to pass, as that would make it impossible to complete the game without a Rogue. Similarly, you cannot require Lockpicking for doors that hold important treasure, because you're basically shafting anyone who didn't bring a Rogue.

So Lockpicking could then only be used to bypass content. It could save you the trouble of getting a key that's held at the end of a puzzle or in the belly of a monster. Would that really be an interesting feature?

Yes. The first thing I noticed was that my rogues could not pick locks ~why call them a rogue at all instead of an archer? I would want a lock picking rogue for two reasons. First, yeah.. if they can get through an old rusty gate by the rogue instead of a fight then good; the party with no rogue will have one more fighter or mage and can tackle the fight for a key.
Also Rogues should also be able to detect and disarm trapped chests where the mage (perhaps) only can detect and warn not to open them. Some doors in the maze should have no keys, others should require keys; still others should require higher skill to pick open.

The doors that have no keys would be side content or possibly convenience... where the door leads to another area that they would otherwise have to find the long way around to reach it. Lock picks can break. It would also be neat if some doors could be bashed instead of picked ~some even have to be bashed, as the locks are damaged.

If you'd be those prisoners yourself, that would be mighty useful. But you're the player, enjoying the game, and you probably want to see all the content, so you probably are still going to explore those monster caves or trying to solve that puzzle.

I don't have to see all of the content ~that is the bane of modern gaming ~everyone assumes they should get to see it all and do it all with one set of characters. This ruins re-playability more than anything else IMO. Designers typically don't care about it, because they don't count on anyone playing the game twice ~hence any alternate content us usually trivial; none of the show-piece work is ever left for a second session replay.

The game could be designed so that not having a thief in the party would change the path and events of the game; same for not having a mage, or not having a fighter ( ).

Isaac wrote:

Thels wrote:

Isaac wrote:Gaahh! I thought it was perfect; I wouldn't have them change a thing ~except to add a 4th column & row and some additional spells (many undocumented).

Have you actually counted the number of spells you can still make with 2 and with 3 icons, using the current 9 symbols? There's tons of possible combinations left. It doesn't need more icons.

If they are undocumented, then how does it matter? Adding more icons would allow for more logic 'bricks' with which to devise or deduce.
Three is plenty enough, but four could be cool.

I happen to disagree there. Additional spells being added to the current 3x3 grid appeals a lot more to me than expanding it to a 4x4 grid. Also, as you might be aware, there's a story behind each of the symbols. The one in the middle for example, represents balance. It wouldn't be balance if it wasn't in the middle, so a 4x4 grid would break it. I also think it would be harder to remember the locations on a 4x4 grid, and there's enough people that find the current 3x3 grid annoying.

Isaac wrote:

Snowmoon wrote:6) The Rogues don't feel like Rogues.

They're Rogues, not Thieves. Lockpicking sounds interesting at first, but then think about it.

You cannot require Lockpicking for doors that are mandatory to pass, as that would make it impossible to complete the game without a Rogue. Similarly, you cannot require Lockpicking for doors that hold important treasure, because you're basically shafting anyone who didn't bring a Rogue.

So Lockpicking could then only be used to bypass content. It could save you the trouble of getting a key that's held at the end of a puzzle or in the belly of a monster. Would that really be an interesting feature?

Yes. The first thing I noticed was that my rogues could not pick locks ~why call them a rogue at all instead of an archer? I would want a lock picking rogue for two reasons. First, yeah.. if they can get through an old rusty gate by the rogue instead of a fight then good; the party with no rogue will have one more fighter or mage and can tackle the fight for a key.
Also Rogues should also be able to detect and disarm trapped chests where the mage (perhaps) only can detect and warn not to open them. Some doors in the maze should have no keys, others should require keys; still others should require higher skill to pick open.

The doors that have no keys would be side content or possibly convenience... where the door leads to another area that they would otherwise have to find the long way around to reach it. Lock picks can break. It would also be neat if some doors could be bashed instead of picked ~some even have to be bashed, as the locks are damaged.

If you'd be those prisoners yourself, that would be mighty useful. But you're the player, enjoying the game, and you probably want to see all the content, so you probably are still going to explore those monster caves or trying to solve that puzzle.

I don't have to see all of the content ~that is the bane of modern gaming ~everyone assumes they should get to see it all and do it all with one set of characters. This ruins re-playability more than anything else IMO. Designers typically don't care about it, because they don't count on anyone playing the game twice ~hence any alternate content us usually trivial; none of the show-piece work is ever left for a second session replay.

The game could be designed so that not having a thief in the party would change the path and events of the game; same for not having a mage, or not having a fighter ( ).

Rogues can do more than just shooting bows. They have dagger skill, and assassinate, and reach attacks. They offer a wide variety of skills, and thus aren't called Archers.

They would be much more different than a fighter or a mage. A fighter or mage basically gives you a few different options in combat, and allows you to cast Light or be forced to carry a torch or stumble in the dark. A rogue with pick lock would change what part of the game you play and which content you actually get to see, making it a much bigger difference. If you create areas that can only be reached by picking a lock, then most players will seem themselves forced to bring a rogue.

Thels wrote:They would be much more different than a fighter or a mage. A fighter or mage basically gives you a few different options in combat, and allows you to cast Light or be forced to carry a torch or stumble in the dark. A rogue with pick lock would change what part of the game you play and which content you actually get to see, making it a much bigger difference. If you create areas that can only be reached by picking a lock, then most players will seem themselves forced to bring a rogue.

I think that would be wonderful; and better still if they made it that way with each character class affecting (in some measure) what part of the game you play and which content you actually get to see. No rogue... no passage through the sewer; no mage... no passage through the portal; have both, then you have a choice ~and so what?

I really don't see why it matters if some feel forced to include a class in order to gain access to content ~it's logical... If you don't have a Mage to open the magic door, then you don't get to go through the magic door. (You should get to go through the magic door with no one who can open it?)

I look at the game(s) as a total experience, and would expect that my choice of class would have a tangible effect in the game. IMO the engine should make opportunities available only because the player has a specific class in the party ~not the only opportunity... but additional ones. If I have a rogue, and there is a door to a drainage tunnel that can only be opened by a thief, (there is no key in the dungeon), then I could perhaps have access to that passage because I had a rogue in the party that could pick the lock; and if they were unconscious or currently dead then I could not open that door ~until later, perhaps... and perhaps later that door wouldn't be useful anyway; I might be on the other side of the tunnel by the time the rogue gets raised.

All that would matter is that the dungeon not be built under the assumption that the player would ever map all of it. Perhaps they will, but have it not be mandatory in order to proceed with the game, and not cripple the outcome in the event that the player missed out on some area ~and it's loot.

** And to keep the balance on the spell grid... they could always add two rows and columns; keeping the Balance rune in the center.

Seriously... three is enough, I already said... but I personally would not mind more; though a three by three grid really feels right and serves the part well.

All the talk over thieves, Lock picks, special areas for special classes... They would all be good if you could only have ONE character, and thus only ONE class. But you can have 4 characters, with only 3 classes. So more often than not, unless you're going for challenge or roleplay, You will have 1 of every class anyways, making those choices useless. Especially if the game will be as small as the first one, there wouldn't be any space.

Isaac wrote:why call them a rogue at all instead of an archer?

As pointed out by Thels, they don't have to use any missile/throwing weapons so Archer would not make sense. I can't think of any better term than Rogue for the class, certainly not one that fits so well with Mages and Fighters.

I would quite like one day (Maybe in a sequel?) to see extra classes such as Clerics and Paladins and such, and maybe multi-classes, EoB really did have a lot of good stuff in it. But yeah it would be nice to see Rogues becoming some sort of lock specialist, it would have to be balanced carefully though.

Daniel.