Alora Fane

This... still unnamed side project thing is a game about converting and collecting people, but to what degree should they be unique people rather than collectible types? Should it be about collecting a silly gang of archetypes, or about finding your ~soulmate~??

It's still Sunday, right?? Or Friday, or whenever I've decided I'll be writing weekly updates.

I've been distracted for the last few days, frustratingly. The same old mental health issues, combined with some circumstantial stuff I'll vaguely describe as 'family-related'.

Even before that came up, though, I was struggling with focusing on anything due to indecisiveness about what exactly I should be doing with my time. Because I felt so lost and stuck, I looked through some of my old blog posts, hoping for... I don't know, a spark of inspiration, or to make sense of some things that'd become unclear in my head.

...Which, as it turns out, is something I must have done before, as I wrote about it in a post from 3 months ago titled ∞ What am I even doing with my time? ∞ Frustratingly, everything in that post is still true now... though I suppose it wasn't that long ago in the grand scheme of things.

I wrote some long post about the steps that led me to where I am, but it all feels repetitive and irrelevant so I've decided to just scrap it. Instead, I'll focus on some uncertainty about specific design issues that I'm currently facing with this side project (which I've apparently been working on in some form or another since before Atonal Dreams, so clearly it's something I have a strong desire to finally get out in some form).

I also replayed Atonal Dreams last week for the first time in months hoping to either feel excited about returning to it, or inspired by decisions I made with it such that I could decide what to do with this other thing.

It's very narrative-driven! 'Story-rich', as people seem to say. And despite my efforts to avoid replicating the dialogue-heavy beginning of Divine Dreams, I ended up with exactly that in AD, in a way which makes it difficult to just dive in and play, and daunting to think of getting back to developing; I'm very aware of the mountain of work that needs doing to reach the end... which added weight to my desire to finally make this Belief project manifest into something more streamlined after years of going back and forth with it.

One of my intentions with this side project thing was to avoid getting too tangled in writing-related perfectionism, to basically do away with anything like a plot so I could finish the thing more quickly, but... While looking through my old blog posts, I watched (a bit of) this gameplay video of the original (unfinished) Belief for the umpteenth time:

And I'd say the bits that appeal to me most with that are the silly dialogue scenes before each encounter. Seems a shame to not have anything like that, especially for a game that's all about silly social interactions!

There's another concern I've had for a while about the way this game works. Currently, you have a party of up to six characters which is made up of the player-created avatar and archetypes you've recruited sort-of-Pokemon-style.

But switching sides is a big gameplay mechanic, and if your six slots are filled at the beginning of battle with fairly powerful characters, it's unlikely you'd ever lose any and the mechanic would rarely see any use.

It also means that if you're recruiting everyone, making bosses would be difficult since they'd join you afterwards, potentially trivialising later challenges if they were too powerful, or trivialising the challenge against them if they weren't powerful enough.

Some brainstorming has produced several possibilities:

Possibility 1 - Party of 3 Unique Characters

You create a single character, and can recruit allies, but only specific ones, with a max party size of 3. So for example you might encounter two named characters at the start (Cureah and Jane, or Zaffre and Cerise), who have their own looks and personalities and who take part in story scenes.

With those characters you might battle a party of, say, a Normie, a Hunk, and a Babe, and you'd be able to tame them over to your side - you'd have to to win - but after the battle they'd go back to their original positions on the map with maybe an icon over their heads to show they've been converted.

The named characters might mostly be the boss characters of each elemental area, who'd be named and designed like how Pokemon Gym Leaders are (when compared to trainers, who the regular opponents would be equivalent to).

Possibility 2 - Adam & Eve

You create two characters at the very beginning, who are an 'Adam and Eve', a couple. Not necessarily one male and one female; you could create two men or two women if you wanted. One would be 'you' and the other would be 'your partner'.

I particularly liked the silly effects of skills used by the Boyfriend and Girlfriend characters which go back to the very earliest experimentation with the game concept (Boyfriend using Flirt on a foe makes allied Girlfriends Angry), and this would basically be a way of focusing on that. Adding some extra dynamic of relationship drama which I feel would be particularly silly whenever your beloved partner switched sides.

You'd just have these two characters and no permanent allies, but opposing groups could be up to four people, meaning difficult battles would be more imbalanced than the 3 v 3 and potentially more satisfying to overcome.

I couldn't really do story scenes with fixed characters I'd designed, though.

Possibility 3 - Finding Your Soulmate

Essentially a combination of those two: there could be a bunch of characters that I'd make and write personalities and story scenes for, but you could only have one as an ally at a time instead of two.

I could even add elements reminiscent of dating sims (though I've never played one of those so I can't say I know the common tropes), and the whole thing could be about finding a compatible partner - your 'other half' - or something, which appeals to me as someone who's more comfortable with one-on-one interactions than group ones (and who aches from having no partner in the real world).

I'd probably approach it in a way that was more silly than heartfelt, but with enough depth to develop genuine attachments to the characters.

I'd also like to streamline some of the structural stuff I described in the previous post. Rather than having a hub that leads to six elemental worlds, instead maybe I'll just have you progress through the elemental areas sequentially but without any hub connecting them, perhaps with finding some place where the god can manifest being the goal of a linear journey.

A concern I've had about the central hub idea is where recruited people would go. In the old/current version, recruits not on your party are sent 'to the temple' (like how Pokemon are sent 'to the PC'), and I imagined them all being physically present in the temple area so you could see it becoming more crowded. It also seemed to invite ideas like having some of these recruits build buildings or run shops or things like that. All of which is more work. Having a linear adventure where most people you convince just go back to their original positions would address that.

I wrote much of this post days ago, and while finishing and editing it now I think the third possibility appeals to me most?

If I were to do that, most opponents would be the archetypes (Normie, Babe, etc), and they'd have fixed stats and skills. There'd only be a small number (six, maybe) of characters who you could recruit as a permanent ally, and they'd be able to level up and be customised and such. You could only have one at a time. The archetypes would still join your party for the remainder of the battle you encountered them in, and many battles would be designed such that converting certain opponents would make it easier to convert the others.

But then I'd be losing the Pokemon-like aspects (collecting silly archetypes), which feels like a shame and makes the decision more difficult.

Maybe I'll do some more brainstorming and dwell on it all a bit.

7 COMMENTS

GrayNine35~1Y

I think the second idea would lack replay value, and the strategies you could use would have to be limited to whatever's available mid-battle. Having some level of customization over your party before entering a battle adds variety to your potential strategies and could shake things up on a second playthrough. I could also see making *two* characters at the start feeling a little slow, especially if the game sticks to a small scope.

The first and third ideas both really appeal to me! The first idea would let the player choose permutations of party members, allow multiple permanent party members to synergize together, and let you try out a new boss you recruited while only substituting 1/3 of your normal roster, which would encourage experimentation. The third idea would enhance the game narratively, give more reasons to care about a character than mechanics and aesthetic, and put more emphasis on the battle-to-battle archetype recruits.

I see what you mean about losing the Pokemon-like aspects; it seems kind of inherent in all three ideas, since you'd be "losing" your normal recruits after every battle even if they're still converted on the map and whatnot. Continuing the Pokemon analogy, I think you could still have a "Pokedex" even if you don't have a "PC"- a checklist of archetypes as the player goes through the game could help motivate them to keep going, even if the entries don't do anything. Getting rid of the collecting part of the game may also help keep its scope in check- there would be far fewer permutations of parties to plan around, and you wouldn't need to worry about developing side content for 100% completion.

The first and third ideas both really appeal to me! The first idea would let the player choose permutations of party members, allow multiple permanent party members to synergize together, and let you try out a new boss you recruited while only substituting 1/3 of your normal roster, which would encourage experimentation.  The third idea would enhance the game narratively, give more reasons to care about a character than mechanics and aesthetic, and put more emphasis on the battle-to-battle archetype recruits.

I see what you mean about losing the Pokemon-like aspects; it seems kind of inherent in all three ideas, since you'd be "losing" your normal recruits after every battle even if they're still converted on the map and whatnot. Continuing the Pokemon analogy, I think you could still have a "Pokedex" even if you don't have a "PC"- a checklist of archetypes as the player goes through the game could help motivate them to keep going, even if the entries don't do anything.  Getting rid of the collecting part of the game may also help keep its scope in check- there would be far fewer permutations of parties to plan around, and you wouldn't need to worry about developing side content for 100% completion.

Tobias 1115~1Y

Thanks for your feedback!

I felt while finalising this post that the idea where you create two characters at the start wouldn't work, but left it in anyway. The main reason I even considered it is because it'd give the player another opportunity to use the pixel face creation thing which I feel could be one of the game's selling points. I definitely won't be going with that one though!

And I'd definitely have a Pokedex-like thing! Those seem to be common in all RPGs these days, I've noticed, and I personally have a particular fondness for them. Atonal Dreams has one too.

I really like the Pokemon-like freedom of building a party out of recruited archetypes, and it'd be a shame to lose that, but the more I think about this, the more the idea of having just a single ally stands out to me. It'd mean you might be outnumbered in many or even most encounters, so turning the tides would be more satsifying, and writing narrative scenes where just one character interjects would be way easier than dealing with interactions between potentially clashing party members...

Actually, I suppose the original version of Belief had a party of two, too... HMM.

Thanks for your feedback!

I felt while finalising this post that the idea where you create two characters at the start wouldn't work, but left it in anyway. The main reason I even considered it is because it'd give the player another opportunity to use the pixel face creation thing which I feel could be one of the game's selling points. I definitely won't be going with that one though!

And I'd definitely have a Pokedex-like thing! Those seem to be common in all RPGs these days, I've noticed, and I personally have a particular fondness for them. Atonal Dreams has one too.

I really like the Pokemon-like freedom of building a party out of recruited archetypes, and it'd be a shame to lose that, but the more I think about this, the more the idea of having just a single ally stands out to me. It'd mean you might be outnumbered in many or even most encounters, so turning the tides would be more satsifying, and writing narrative scenes where just one character interjects would be way easier than dealing with interactions between potentially clashing party members...

Actually, I suppose the original version of Belief had a party of two, too... HMM.

Kalin24~1Y

I like the idea of tamed archetypes hanging out at your temple and producing resources over time. Maybe some could have the task of researching new quips?

Tobias 1115~1Y

It's the sort of thing I've seen in other games, and which I feel would be expected if you did collect archetypes, though personally I find it a chore to deal with since I'm not a fan of micromanaging or resource management.

It'd also be a lot of time and effort, which I'm trying to minimise with this project. So I'm having to go with 'what would be practical to make' over 'what would be the fullest experience'.

Astreon152~1Y

I'm not sure dropping the pokemon collecting trope is a good idea.

I'll suggest a few things, hoping some would help:

1° cap the party to 5/6 people. Same for the opposing group (5/6 max, sometimes less).

2° During a regular battle, you win when you convert all of the opposite team. You lose when all your characters (save for yourself, are converted). The people who join form a second line behind your permanent characters, who make up the first line.

3° Once a regular battle is won, you may choose one person (and only one) from the opposite team to recruit. They can either join your "town" (they'd wait there until you need them, see further for that part), or join your party (if you're full, one other member needs to be sent back to town).

4° During a boss battle, once you convert all the boss's helpers, there is a duel between you and him. If you lose the duel, he gets back all his followers and you have to start from scratch (you could even imagine a "hard mode" where you permanently lose one of your folks). If you win the duel, either the boss joins you permanently, or if you fear this would make the game unbalanced, he becomes a friend but can't join you since he has to rule over his area, so you could only ask him to help you once (or maybe borrow an item/learn a skill from him, etc.)

5° In between battles, you manage your "town" and your "team". You can buy goodies to upgrade specific stats, items to be used in combat (ie, a spike bracelet to bribe a goth opponent) or interact with your town members to help raise their stats (like a form of training, maybe even mock battles where you could unlock new skills). You can also swap your party members, by asking people to help you (and maybe they could sometimes refuse based on their personnalities, or until you bring them something or someone).

6° If you want the "soulmate" scenario, you could make it so your battle style, the frequency with which you interact with people/use them in your team raises or lowers your affinity with another character, and once the map is fully finished you choose who you want to be your soulmate, and you get rejected or reciprocated based on your affinity level.

I'm not sure dropping the pokemon collecting trope is a good idea.

I'll suggest a few things, hoping some would help:

1° cap the party to 5/6 people. Same for the opposing group (5/6 max, sometimes less).

2° During a regular battle, you win when you convert all of the opposite team. You lose when all your characters (save for yourself, are converted).  The people who join form a second line behind your permanent characters, who make up the first line.

3° Once a regular battle is won, you may choose one person (and only one) from the opposite team to recruit. They can either join your "town" (they'd wait there until you need them, see further for that part), or join your party (if you're full, one other member needs to be sent back to town).

4° During a boss battle, once you convert all the boss's helpers, there is a duel between you and him. If you lose the duel, he gets back all his followers and you have to start from scratch (you could even imagine a "hard mode" where you permanently lose one of your folks). If you win the duel, either the boss joins you permanently, or if you fear this would make the game unbalanced, he becomes a friend but can't join you since he has to rule over his area, so you could only ask him to help you once (or maybe borrow an item/learn a skill from him, etc.)

5° In between battles, you manage your "town" and your "team". You can buy goodies to upgrade specific stats, items to be used in combat (ie, a spike bracelet to bribe a goth opponent) or interact with your town members to help raise their stats (like a form of training, maybe even mock battles where you could unlock new skills). You can also swap your party members, by asking people to help you (and maybe they could sometimes refuse based on their personnalities, or until you bring them something or someone).

6° If you want the "soulmate" scenario, you could make it so your battle style, the frequency with which you interact with people/use them in your team raises or lowers your affinity with another character, and once the map is fully finished you choose who you want to be your soulmate, and you get rejected or reciprocated based on your affinity level.

Tobias 1115~1Y

Thanks for sharing your detailed thoughts. Though I suppose my main takeaway is still indecisiveness!

Much of what you describe here has been the working idea so far, though it's only by actually playing around with it that I've noticed these issues that I hadn't foreseen.

The current party size is 6, and technically you can convert over more people, who are counted as party members but they run offscreen to reduce visual clutter (models and especially UI). It all works and everything, but feels really unpleasant to me.

Currently, after battle you choose which six people to keep and the others go back to the temple; I hadn't decided on exactly how you'd get them back on your party (maybe some menu from save points, or just going back to the temple).

Recruiting just one per battle would be less overwhelming than recruiting the whole opposing party, but you'd still end up with a full party of 6 after a handful of battles.

Your description of handling battles brought to mind summons, either from Final Fantasy etc or even Atonal Dreams. So the boss could possibly allow you to summon them as a skill equivalent or something (like how tamed figmon are used in AD). That's one possibility, though it'd require new mechanics, which I'm trying to reduce or ideally avoid.

The town (or in this case temple) management aspect seems like it'd be expected/necessary if you were recruiting many people, though personally I'm not a fan of that kind of thing so I can see it becoming this huge chore for me, which I'd also rather avoid.

I imagined some kind of affinity system with recruits like you described, though having so many allies means it'd necessarily have to be quite shallow/superficial because writing specific dialogue for every archetype would be impractical. Something I came to regret with MARDEK was how many playable characters I added, and since then I've wanted to focus on smaller parties, which having dozens of possible archetypes to recruit would be the opposite of! I also wonder how it'd feel if you had a party with two Babes and one became your soulmate (or whatever) and the other, almost identical one didn't...

The way I'm responding to your thoughts here makes me aware that perhaps I have come to something like a decision about this. Kind of like how if you can't decide whether you should do X or Y, so someone suggests X, and you just respond by groaning or arguing against it in a way you wouldn't if they'd suggested you do Y.

I'd been put off working on the game at all due to issues with the current 'recruit everyone' system, so maybe I should at least experiment with the single ally system to see if it's actually any better. Though I agree that it'd seem like a shame, in theory, to lose the Pokemon-like collection aspects.

Thanks for sharing your detailed thoughts. Though I suppose my main takeaway is still indecisiveness!

Much of what you describe here has been the working idea so far, though it's only by actually playing around with it that I've noticed these issues that I hadn't foreseen.

The current party size is 6, and technically you can convert over more people, who are counted as party members but they run offscreen to reduce visual clutter (models and especially UI). It all works and everything, but feels really unpleasant to me.

Currently, after battle you choose which six people to keep and the others go back to the temple; I hadn't decided on exactly how you'd get them back on your party (maybe some menu from save points, or just going back to the temple).

Recruiting just one per battle would be less overwhelming than recruiting the whole opposing party, but you'd still end up with a full party of 6 after a handful of battles.

Your description of handling battles brought to mind summons, either from Final Fantasy etc or even Atonal Dreams. So the boss could possibly allow you to summon them as a skill equivalent or something (like how tamed figmon are used in AD). That's one possibility, though it'd require new mechanics, which I'm trying to reduce or ideally avoid.

The town (or in this case temple) management aspect seems like it'd be expected/necessary if you were recruiting many people, though personally I'm not a fan of that kind of thing so I can see it becoming this huge chore for me, which I'd also rather avoid.

I imagined some kind of affinity system with recruits like you described, though having so many allies means it'd necessarily have to be quite shallow/superficial because writing specific dialogue for every archetype would be impractical. Something I came to regret with MARDEK was how many playable characters I added, and since then I've wanted to focus on smaller parties, which having dozens of possible archetypes to recruit would be the opposite of! I also wonder how it'd feel if you had a party with two Babes and one became your soulmate (or whatever) and the other, almost identical one didn't...

The way I'm responding to your thoughts here makes me aware that perhaps I have come to something like a decision about this. Kind of like how if you can't decide whether you should do X or Y, so someone suggests X, and you just respond by groaning or arguing against it in a way you wouldn't if they'd suggested you do Y.

I'd been put off working on the game at all due to issues with the current 'recruit everyone' system, so maybe I should at least experiment with the single ally system to see if it's actually any better. Though I agree that it'd seem like a shame, in theory, to lose the Pokemon-like collection aspects.

Astreon152~1Y

Yeah it's really to different types of game mechanics here.

The quantity + affinity would make it a "suikoden" type, which can be overwhelming both for the player and for the solo dev you are.

Minimalism obviously would make things easier to handle and maybe make the game faster paced. In a way, the bravely saga chose this approach by having fixed team members you can't switch, but the numerous jobs/skills combinations compensated this by making you "collect" said jobs/skills in the "after game" (not to mention the corresponding "ultimate" weapons and armor).

As you said, it's probably by confronting ideas that you'll identify what you at least DON'T want to do for sure, and sort it out by elimination :)