Aims and objectives?

[ianpwilliams]

I've played a few short games of this so far, and I really like it (I've always liked roguelikes, and I've always loved the zombie apocalypse genre).

I do have a question though, which may sound stupid, but what are you supposed to do? As far as I know, you are just supposed to survive as long as you can, right? There are no missions or goals?

I know that in standard roguelikes your aim is to get to the lowest level possible, and maybe even win by killing a boss. But in this, I just find myself wandering around not knowing what I should be doing.

(this bit could go in the "Suggestions" sub-forum).

If there are no missions or aims in the game other than to survive, then I wonder if it would be worth adding missions. They could be randomly-generated, and could be things like take a random object (unique quest items could be introduced) or escort a person from location A to location B, and maybe sometimes within a certain period of time (i.e. the average number of steps from location A to location B including allowing for fighting, plus a few extra steps). Location A and Location B could be different distances apart, and the further apart they were, the harder the mission.

You could even take it a step further, and have it so that your "home base" was an actual home base like in State of Decay, which required food, medicine, ammo, materials, fuel etc, and you would have to go out scavenging to keep in maintained. This would require more work than introducing missions though.

What do people think?

And back to my question, what are the aims and objectives in this game, and what do you do?

[nope]

The Aims and Objectives in this game? Survival.

That's it, Survival, and an optional mission.

[ianpwilliams]

But do you have to go to the different areas of the city to survive? Are you supposed to travel around, or form a base and scavenge from there? I'm trying to get into the right way of thinking so I can enjoy it like other people do.

[nope]

There is no definite method of survival.

The fun of Rogue Survivor is that there is no true and best way for survival, it's really up to the player to determine which style suits them best, whether being a normad, a raider, a traveler, homemaker, defence, etc.

And that is how a survivor should be thinking, not that there is one way to survive, but many ways, and it's up to a survivor to use whichever is best for him.

[ianpwilliams]

Makes sense. I'll admit I'm starting to "get it" the more I play.

[tao]

I just find myself wandering around not knowing what I should be doing.

This is probably the biggest issue and relates directly to the fact that this is a rogue like. I've reached the point where I think thats part of the charm. So the question stands, how to fix it while staying true to the original?

The solution I've come up with is simple.
1. Look at the original game, come up with a bunch of mechanics and features that could be added.

2. Ask, "does this feature significantly alter the gameplay possibilities, or move away from the original mechanics in a big way?" If so, consider the trade off, and remove it from the list if there is not a significant and vital reason to keep it.

3. Play RS and note all the implicit details, the information that exists but is not presented aesthetically. Look at the implicit information that isn't presented in an accessible way. Consider the implicit information not already part of a fun gameplay mechanic.

4. Look for the juncture between the new compatible mechanics/features list and implicit details.

5. Ask, "would making this implicit information explicit radically alter gameplay?" If so, strike it from the list, otherwise, implement it.

A good example is the controls. There are a TON of them by the standard of most games today. On the other hand, the learning curve is part of the charm for many players. I have a lot of fond memories from playing Dwarf fortress. I also have a lot of hair pulling memories from DF. Most of the fond memories, in retrospect are from actually playing the game, where the stressful bits were almost invariably from not knowing how to accomplish something when I needed to, by using the interface.

So a potential feature set for the UI would be

• simplify the interface by redesigning gameplay
  
• add mouse support
  
• include short rollover help text
  
• make RSR entirely mouse based
  
• Reduce the command set, or redesign it to be both simpler and more flexible
  

Of course, the tradeoffs for some of these are big, despite not being compatible. I've chose to stick with authenticity to the original Rogue Survivor, so I've crossed out the first option, the third and the fourth. The crossed out options just deviate way too far from the original.

Mouse support, despite being incompatible with the original RS, offers huge benefits that I can't overlook. Mouse input makes the UI transparent in the sense that, if you are new and still learning, you can opt to use the simpler input method. By providing mouse input things that were normally a pain become easier, and I can combine this solution with the fifth option so that actions which were hard to perform are now only minor difficulties.

Now I'm not sure I'm actually going to implement ANY of these. The list above is an example only. But now you understand why it is important to be careful about how I go about redesigning different parts. It is a balancing act between fixing the flaws of the original, while maintaining fun, and staying true to the original, because some of those flaws are what gave RS it's original flavor and charm.

[ianpwilliams]

The controls confuse me a bit to be honest. I'm supposed to use the numpad and the mouse, but then I have to use various letter keys for other commands. I would probably prefer no mouse support, and just using keys, maybe WASD for movement, and right-hand for actions or something.

[rafe]

no, please, no wasd. I just can't get used to it, not matter how hard I try. The numpad is good enough for this game.

[hunteralpha1]

definitely needs missions/questlines, some reason to survive, some goal to work towards. in real life war zones people who loose hope for a better future simply roll over and die. the whole "struggle and fight until you die" thing is complete and utter bullshit; if the world is doomed, and you know extinction is immediately inevitable you will give up and die. there must always be that hope that things will get better.

[nope]

Whilst people who lose hope sometimes just decide life's not worth it, a majority of humanity has the instinct to not die.

So even if there is no point, humans are determined to live.

[rafe]

To live is an end in itself, hunteralpha1.