[Discussion] Several versions of a game

[FireBurn256]

Greetings, everyone!

While in a mid of brainstorming for some game ideas, a little thought encountered on my mind. It was mostly a nuisance, but, unfortunately, I gave it a little bit more than it may deserved. Anyway.
We all know that Nintendo's strategy about making several copies of a game (Red and Blue, Silver and Gold, etc) is/was a purely marketing "drain-money-from-their-wallets" kind of decision. In order to catch them all, player should have bought at least two copies of a game, thus, spending lots and lots of moneys.

Many drawbacks and advantages of such idea may be seen, but I was thinking more about our kind of field - the fangames. I was thinking about why would somebody make several versions of one game? Shouldn't the financial aspect be the less motivating here (as Nintendo surely will just stomp those fellows who decided to make a pretty penny in many ways faster than one might sing the list of all 800+ pokemon)?

I, honestly, couldn't come up with the answers, and that's why I am here. I know there are such games, ones that failed miserably and others that are doing just fine, but why would the creators of such games do so? Do you have any idea?

 

[mgriffin]

Like you, I don't understand the point of multiple versions. It's not like I'm going to trade from one to the other.

I suppose the answer is that some creators want their games to have that official feel, and that's why they have two versions. But that's all speculation. I hope to hear from somebody who's actually working on such a thing!

 

[lilbluedemon]

Can Fan Games made in RPG Maker even trade between two?

I've seen it with "GTS" attachments. But I mean like can 2 windows trade between each other?

Even if possible, why?
I doubt anyone is going to play through a fan game twice, just to complete the Pokédex.

 

[Keileon]

It could potentially work for somewhat-major variances in story where it would be too much to code both versions into the same game, but that's just about the only point, I would think.

 

[FL]

I see no point on version. People try to mimic the oficial games on fangames and even the feature that aren't suitable for a computer, like dual screens.

If a developer really want two (or more) versions, I suggest making a "red mode" and a "blue mode" or something similar. This way you doesn't need to manually change both versions on every build.

 

[NewAgeSteel]

Like you, I don't understand the point of multiple versions. It's not like I'm going to trade from one to the other.

I suppose the answer is that some creators want their games to have that official feel, and that's why they have two versions. But that's all speculation. I hope to hear from somebody who's actually working on such a thing!

Lol I'm actually planning on multiple games of mine. Not versions though, but sequels. My reasoning for it is there are different aspects of my story that would be better separated. Especially if my story is so long, I wouldn't want the player of my game to be at lv100 when my story is only halfway through. Separate games also allow different play styles and experiences, sometimes with stories they can be setup starting to go in a certain direction, but you may feel like you want to incorporate other story elements that you feel are important but may not make sense in your current storyline but could fit well if told through a different aspect. Even if all 800+ Pokemon were available from the beginning, playing through the story one time would never give you the opportunity to experience all the Pokémon and giving you different scenarios while being forced to use a different variety of Pokémon allows the player to experience the same Pokémon but with a fresher feel: that's my opinion on sequels and versions

 

[NewAgeSteel]

I don't understand why anyone would want to withhold content from your players because they picked an arbitrary version of your game. Be it Pokemon selection, story differences, whatever, wouldn't you rather the player have the ideal experience playing your game?

Even if you did add trading, I don't see the appeal. It's not like a GTS adds any meaningful interaction, let alone just to get versions exclusives to fill a Pokedex in a fan game of all things.

It really is necessary sometimes. If we're talking about version exclusives, yeah that's stupid. But multiple parts is a useful tool for giving a better gaming experience. Take Pokémon glazed for example. A great game, but too long to be in one version. The part I really don't like about it is after a certain point you're stuck with the same team and out usually reach that point only about 1/4 of the way through the game. That's because your Pokémon are in the 50s 60s and any Pokémon you catch after that isn't worth leveling up to catch up to your team. Adding multiple versions or sequels is sometimes necessary to help the player enjoy your story in different ways. If Pokemon glazed split up their regions into multiple games it would give the player the chance to use different teams and have a fresh experience each time instead of using the same team to fight through 3 more regions that can never change. I dunno about you but it gets boring having to use the same team after a certain point but I also don't wanna put in the effort to change my whole team late in the game.

 

[mgriffin]

Take Pokémon glazed for example. A great game, but too long to be in one version. The part I really don't like about it is after a certain point you're stuck with the same team and out usually reach that point only about 1/4 of the way through the game. That's because your Pokémon are in the 50s 60s and any Pokémon you catch after that isn't worth leveling up to catch up to your team.

A thought I've had to deal with this is to make experience shared between all your Pokémon—past, present and future. So basically instead of giving exp to Pokémon it's all allocated to your trainer, and whenever a Pokémon is added to your party it gains enough exp to get to that number. And for party Pokémon it works a bit like gen vi's Exp Share where they all gain the same amount during the battle.

But I agree fully with the idea that regular Pokémon mechanics don't incentivize changing your team, and this gives shorter, more episodic games an edge over longer ones.

 

[juliorain]

I've only recently decided against two versions.

Tbh the only differences were which pokemon/evil team which is bad for fangames because there is both a limited player base and connectivity to the internet to trade.

I wanted it with dual regions because pokemon like Cottonee and Petilil who are mutually exclusive in their encounters wouldn't fit on the same route. I've since worked my way around that and now have found different ways to incorporate them into the encounters. It really isn't worth the effort if the only difference are version exclusives.

 

[remer]

I think there is no need for making two versions of a game(unless someone want to drain money like said before).It is a fact that giving a chance to experience all 800+ pokemon and all in a storyline is not that good an idea.But instead of making two versions of a game, wouldn't it be better to implement two gameplays in a single game?(See pokemon guardian signs for example,we can travel back in time for another gameplay in which we can't take with us our pokemon caught in real time,but we can take back our partner pokemon in the history to the real time after a certain challenge is completed.).Just like that,won't it be nice to have two gameplays in a game,in which we can catch entirely different pokemon and in total,all 800?I think it is better.