Design Dilemna.

Hello everybody.

I thought making this thread would be a great first post.
I’m here to request some feedback on gameplay mechanics of a flash game I am currently designing.

To keep things simple, I will list all my questions here, and feel free to give me your opinion on these subjects.

The game I am designing is an actionish RPG game, a little similar to the early Legend of Zelda games.

Question 1: Would a action rpg game be more enjoyable with a top-down perspective (Early zelda game-like) or as a platformer?

While I think Top down perspective would add some depth to the visuals of the game, I also feel that the gameplay mechanics would be better as a platformer, (ie. better physics(Shooting arrows with gravity), jumping, etc.).

So what would be the best, Top-Down or Platform?
__________________________________________________________________
Question 2: What would be a good way to prevent a player from using the same weapon again and again? (aka promoting the use of all weapons)

I think that the designers of LOZ: ocarina of time did a great job on this subject. In exemple, limiting the number of arrows you could carry prevented you from using only the bow.

I was thinking of maybe adding a bit of utility on each weapon?

What are effective(but fun!) ways of limiting the usage of say: Bows, Swords and spells?
__________________________________________________________________

I have some more questions, but I am tired right now and will write them after a good night of sleep!

TL:DR – 1: Action RPG, TOP-DOWN view or Platformer?
2: Ways to promote the uses of more than one weapon?

Question 1: I personally think platform games are going away and have been in favor of top-down or 3D games. What platformers do survive often make use of advanced graphics or 3D models to try and remain relevant. Zelda though incorporated both top-down and side-scrolling features. Platformers now represent just 2% of the market share:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_game
I think this is mainly because platformers have a linear plot with a singular goal and thus a player will feel less control over the game’s outcome. It’s the same feeling I imagine a rat running through a maze must feel, that there’s only one outcome and one right way to get there. Not many platformers even can function as true RPGs, because they are so linear, so if you’re looking to make an RPG I’d suggest top-down aspects. You could I suppose use a combination of both, like the early Zelda games, although I’m not that would work so well. Some other good games that combined 3rd person and 1st/2nd person perspectives include Shadowrun and D&D: Warriors of the Eternal Sun, both for the Sega Genesis.

Question 2: Probably the easiest way to limit the usage would be to let items break and have players go to shops to get them repaired. It might also motivate them to carry more than one weapon (if allowed) as well. Depending on how tough you wanted to make it on FAQ creators, you could even add a slight random factor to weapons so weapons of the same type would be slightly different in capability, and not show the item stats, forcing players to try and decide for themselves what weapons were most effective given their results in combat.

Personally I dislike when items are too limited or break with usage, it makes me feel like I’m wasting them when I’m using them, often leading me to just using the basic weapon, only pulling out the “heavy guns” when I encounter a boss.

A way to combat this could be to have different enemies be weak against different enemies, either though a direct effect (ice arrows hurt fire golems double) or though an indirect effect (those fast cowardly gnomes are impossible to hit with the short range sword and pinpoint precise bow, blast them all with a bomb)

Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Jzyehoshua: I came to agree that there is less place for a good plot in a platform game.
Concerning question 2, I dislike item-breaking mechanics. I think the indirect effect Drakim described is what I am looking for.

Do you guys have any more ideas of inderect effects?

Question 1:

Both are entirely workable. IMO, a platformer is easier to make ‘fun’, but harder to make ‘great’. Anyone with half a brain can make some identifiably fun platformer levels (hence why platformer level editors are so commmon). On the other hand, it’s quite hard to ‘crack’ the fun element of a topdown game (specifically a shooter), but if you do get it, it could be very good. (For example, Diablo 2. Yes, yes, it’s isometric, but that’s only different from top-down visually. I don’t include Diablo 1 because, though it is technically an “ARPG”, it’s still very “turn based” in feel).

Question 2:

All that stuff Drakim said. Note that if the player will be swapping weapons for enemies, it should be easy to do (ie: don’t make them go to the menu to swap weapons). Castlevania 1 is a good reference.

I also think something like Mardek does where you learn a passive ability as you use a weapon is pretty neat. It doesn’t encourage continuous use throughout the game, but it does make me try every weapon enough to decide if I like it. It also makes everything feel like a reward. “Crappy stick of inaccuracy -5” is no longer trash, but an item that can teach me “+5% damage” if I stick with it for a bit. I think this would be especially good in an ARPG: Personally, the loot systems (or more accurately, self improvement systems) in most ARPG account for like 60% of the reason I play them. I want to accumulate 500 passive buffs and feel like an immortal doomsday machine.