Solo dev interested in your your opinion about a turn-based isometric RPG inspired by Fallout 1/2

[dippy]

Hi guys,

Long story short: I'm a solo dev who's developed a heavily Fallout-inspired branching narrative isometric CRPG with turn-based combat over 15 years ago. A lot of the choices back then were based on my personal preferences (never liked fantasy and cannot stand real-time combat) and technical skills (everything was in 2d with pre-rendered sprites). All narration was in Russian and the game only worked under DOS. The setting of the game was a fictional 90s Eastern European country going through tough times on the edge of a civil war. In fact, I’ve later ported it to Windows and translated everything into English (well, more like Runglish but you get the idea).

In 2019 I’ve decided to port it to modern platforms using Unity and moving to isometric 3D. However, the more I looked at the game the more I realised that it’s very outdated (graphics, core gameplay, progression system, combat etc). I guess by modern standards it’s more of a quest/adventure with non-linear elements ("choices matter") and a super basic character progression system. Approximately 90% of the game is talking to various characters in different locations. I’d say ATOM RPG is pretty close to what the game was in terms of the setting and gameplay but with a much smaller emphasis on the combat system (e.g. you can complete the game in different ways without ever getting into a fight) and a much smaller world (about 50 characters and 4 global endings).

2021 is around the corner and I feel that I’m somewhat paralysed by what to do next (ok, I’ve been only working on this in my very limited spare time but nevertheless). I.e. should I try to spend a lot of time to align with modern standards (huge tables of stats, complex weapon system, skill trees etc which would significantly increase the risk of never finishing this) or is it ok to stick to the basics and leave the game more as it was?

Hence, my questions to people reading this. Would you be interested in a game that:

• has a very basic character progression system (like attack, defence, luck, charisma)?
  
  
• is mostly focused on talking to various characters and choosing sides (e.g. giving in a character to authorities or helping him run away, join an underground rebellion movement or official authorities or just trying to find a way to leave the country)?
  
  
• has a very basic combat system (turn-based, action points, 10 types of weapons, probabilities are based on attack, defence, luck, distance and weapon stats)?
  

I know it all sounds vague but I’m basically trying to understand how much interest (the size of the niche) would there be in a game that’s mainly about completing quests by talking to different characters. Personally, I still find it playable but I may be just an old dog avoiding the new tricks (I still enjoy Fallout2 mods and for the love of god could not play any newer Fallouts because of the real-time combat; I am also put off by very complex stats systems where you have to spend a lot of time just to understand how your character can be created).

I’m attaching a few screenshots giving an idea of the current state of the game.

Characters and locations linked together:

Thank you! Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

Given that the game is something you more or less already completed a decade ago, I'd focus on just making it nice and playable and not worry about reinventing the wheel.
Although that said, I wouldn't worry too much about only having a few stats to upgrade, having too many can be just as annoying as too little. Its not just you. Since it sounds like a short game, having thirty or even twenty skills could be a detriment.

 

[tritosine2k]

 

[dippy]

Given that the game is something you more or less already completed a decade ago, I'd focus on just making it nice and playable and not worry about reinventing the wheel.
Although that said, I wouldn't worry too much about only having a few stats to upgrade, having too many can be just as annoying as too little. Its not just you. Since it sounds like a short game, having thirty or even twenty skills could be a detriment.

Thanks. The game is short indeed. I'd say about 5 hours to complete (obviously, is has certain replayability value due to non-linear choices but I am not expecting a lot of people to be that interested). Would you be able to provide a bit more info around "nice" and "playable"?
Do you mean making it visually nice?
What would make this kind of game more playable from your perspective?

 

[dippy]

I guess it's a hint about lack of animations? One thing at a time. My main focus is on producing the first vertical slice where all gameplay elements are more or less usable.

 

[tritosine2k]

Well depending on how good you re at it, can be the real deal, eg. automated fights, seamless scene transitions etc .

 

[JarlFrank]

It looks good enough for me to be interested in, and I'm a sucker for obscure shit.

 

[Kalin]

Could you post screenshots of the 2d versions?

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

Thanks. The game is short indeed. I'd say about 5 hours to complete (obviously, is has certain replayability value due to non-linear choices but I am not expecting a lot of people to be that interested). Would you be able to provide a bit more info around "nice" and "playable"?
Do you mean making it visually nice?
What would make this kind of game more playable from your perspective?

Not feeling like everything I'm looking at is bland, unpleasant and almost always exactly the same. Its more of an artstyle thing than a specific graphical issue. I'm just finishing up a RPG which isn't bad from a technical standpoint, but features a lot of the same wall textures over and over again. The concrete wall you have there reminds me of that. I realize this is supposed to be an Eastern European setting and those places are known for having ugly concrete walls, but I feel like you should try to find some way around having exclusively concrete walls. I'd also suggest adding roofs and changing the text boxes away from generic white. Feels unfinished in that regard.
Playable...well, clicking where you want to go either does that or says you can't reach there. No noticeable delay with clicking on items or dragging items. No crashing while performing major gameplay tasks. That kind of thing.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

What would make this kind of game more playable from your perspective?

UI that looks pleasant and requires as less clicks as possible for common actions. In that dialogue screen for example, being able to select the desired line with arrows or number keys. The lime green would get tiresome on the eyes after a while too. (fallout got away with it because of the black background). From what I've seen with "retro" games, people are willing to deal with shit grafix or other issues if the game isn't "clunky".

 

[Heapcleaner]

Hence, my questions to people reading this. Would you be interested in a game that:

• has a very basic character progression system (like attack, defence, luck, charisma)?
  
  
• is mostly focused on talking to various characters and choosing sides (e.g. giving in a character to authorities or helping him run away, join an underground rebellion movement or official authorities or just trying to find a way to leave the country)?
  
  
• has a very basic combat system (turn-based, action points, 10 types of weapons, probabilities are based on attack, defence, luck, distance and weapon stats)?

Progression is always satisfying, seeing the player character getting better gives a sense of achievement for the player. It has nothing to do with how complex the character system is, and on the contrary, complex system with a lot of stats that each has no meaning other than making the game "seems" complex is not fun to play (it is confusing)... e.g: having intimidate skilll where the player can only intimidate three times in the whole game, and none of the three intimidation changes the plot of the story, only giving insignificant item / funny dialog

Meaningful dialogue choices, by meaningful I mean each choice has its consequences, and I think this is the one of the main strength of Fallout games, lots of politics and meaningful dialogue choices

Basic combat system that is easy to understand but still challenging due to various reason (e.g: super hard to find a good battle companion or gaining combat skill / good items) is still fun

As for graphics presentation, it's not as important as UX... clarity and good controls...

The problem with low fidelity presentation is it would be hard to hook players to play the game via "beauty shots", but I believe that good game has a higher chance to get lucky in the market, by luck I mean someone who has decent influence liked the game and influences other people to buy/play it, there are a lot of instances where this happens... Then again, it will still be a lot better if the game can hook players at launch rather than waiting to get lucky

 

[mondblut]

modern standards (huge tables of stats, complex weapon system

...what timeline you came from, planar traveller? I want to go there.

 

[luj1]

Not interested in Fallout clones (or any clones for that matter) but you should see it through just based on the work you've put into it

Just try to be more original across the board, from the UI to systems to worldbuilding

 

[dippy]

Could you post screenshots of the 2d versions?

Sure, I've made a separate post here: https://cruxdiaries.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/more-screenshots-from-the-old-dos-version/

 

[dippy]

Well depending on how good you re at it, can be the real deal, eg. automated fights, seamless scene transitions etc .

Automated fights as in purely based on stats? Sort of mobile games casual autoplay?
Seamless scene transitions as in no long loading screens or travelling through the world for hours to get from location A to B (without the loading screens too)?

 

[dippy]

It looks good enough for me to be interested in, and I'm a sucker for obscure shit.

Yay, obscure shit it is. Stay tuned.

 

[Kalin]

Cheers for the pics man! As I suspected the old version actually looks great the way it is. If you ask me 2d will always be the superior gentleman's choice so I would recommend improving the game in other ways (combat etc.) rather than the already respectable looks department.

 

[dippy]

Not feeling like everything I'm looking at is bland, unpleasant and almost always exactly the same. Its more of an artstyle thing than a specific graphical issue. I'm just finishing up a RPG which isn't bad from a technical standpoint, but features a lot of the same wall textures over and over again. The concrete wall you have there reminds me of that. I realize this is supposed to be an Eastern European setting and those places are known for having ugly concrete walls, but I feel like you should try to find some way around having exclusively concrete walls. I'd also suggest adding roofs and changing the text boxes away from generic white. Feels unfinished in that regard.
Playable...well, clicking where you want to go either does that or says you can't reach there. No noticeable delay with clicking on items or dragging items. No crashing while performing major gameplay tasks. That kind of thing.

Ah, sure. Current graphics is just a placeholder. It's an automatically converted map from the old game where I've replaced a few sprite variations with corresponding blocks of very basic 3d geometry. I'm planning to have quite a few different brutalist buildings but right now it's all about getting a fully playable version followed by other improvements. The same applies to UI.
I'm hoping it should be pretty responsive and stable but I don't believe any developer sets out to make a game that is not

 

[dippy]

What would make this kind of game more playable from your perspective?

UI that looks pleasant and requires as less clicks as possible for common actions. In that dialogue screen for example, being able to select the desired line with arrows or number keys. The lime green would get tiresome on the eyes after a while too. (fallout got away with it because of the black background). From what I've seen with "retro" games, people are willing to deal with shit grafix or other issues if the game isn't "clunky".

Thanks for the feedback. As I mentioned above, current UI is just a placeholder. Once the basics are in I'll iterate further. I've already added support for basic joystick control as I'm hoping to be able to run this on consoles at some point.

 

[dippy]

Progression is always satisfying, seeing the player character getting better gives a sense of achievement for the player. It has nothing to do with how complex the character system is, and on the contrary, complex system with a lot of stats that each has no meaning other than making the game "seems" complex is not fun to play (it is confusing)... e.g: having intimidate skilll where the player can only intimidate three times in the whole game, and none of the three intimidation changes the plot of the story, only giving insignificant item / funny dialog

Meaningful dialogue choices, by meaningful I mean each choice has its consequences, and I think this is the one of the main strength of Fallout games, lots of politics and meaningful dialogue choices

Basic combat system that is easy to understand but still challenging due to various reason (e.g: super hard to find a good battle companion or gaining combat skill / good items) is still fun

As for graphics presentation, it's not as important as UX... clarity and good controls...

The problem with low fidelity presentation is it would be hard to hook players to play the game via "beauty shots", but I believe that good game has a higher chance to get lucky in the market, by luck I mean someone who has decent influence liked the game and influences other people to buy/play it, there are a lot of instances where this happens... Then again, it will still be a lot better if the game can hook players at launch rather than waiting to get lucky

Thanks, all great points. I do have plans to collaborate with freelance artists to make the game look good. I've hardly got any financial expectations for the game but I'd like it to get as much exposure as possible. It's a known fact that nice looking screenshots help games stand out in the huge crowd of games currently available to anyone (from zillions of RPG Maker clones to Unity asset flips to a lot of AA indie titles). So yeah, graphics is something I'll be spending more time on once the prototype is fully playable, which also makes it easier to atrract other people who can see that it's not just an idea.

 

[dippy]

Not interested in Fallout clones (or any clones for that matter) but you should see it through just based on the work you've put into it

Just try to be more original across the board, from the UI to systems to worldbuilding

Yep. Easier said than done. I think a lot of UI and other choices are repeated over and over again because players are used to them and the've proven themselves over the years. Sometimes people put something "original" just for the sake of being different and it may actually get in the way without adding anything meaningful.
I've read some posts from your footer and there's definitely food for thought.

 

[dippy]

Cheers for the pics man! As I suspected the old version actually looks great the way it is. If you ask me 2d will always be the superior gentleman's choice so I would recommend improving the game in other ways (combat etc.) rather than the already respectable looks department.

Thank you. I get your point. Hence, I'm somewhere in the middle: isometric rather than 1st/3rd person view. I'd like to avoid deterring less hardcode players who are easily put off by the outdated graphics. I feel the game is too simple for hardcode RPG fans ignoring the looks but would be too unattractive for regular gamers remotely interested in RPGs.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

TBH, the Dos version doesn't look that bad, minus the obviously lifted graphics. Reminds me of some nice freeware games from the mid'00s. But then, I don't know how a Fallout-clone would work very well in that enviornment.

 

[Skdursh]

Let me play the 2D version. It looks dope. 3D could be great, but it needs a lot more work than the 2D would.

 

[dippy]

Let me play the 2D version. It looks dope. 3D could be great, but it needs a lot more work than the 2D would.

I can make it available via a DOSBox bundle but only if you tell me you can read some Russian