Hardcore game name

[Shadow]

So I'm thinking about the name for the next game. I really don't like naming things; it's a pain and I don't think I'm that good at it. I'm actually more and more tempted to name it Din's Curse 2 and be done with it since there are plenty of similarities with Din's Curse. There are also some differences though.

A quick rundown of the next game: you play as one of the Mutated, characters are hardcore (permadeath) and mutate over time, the next generation of character is evolved from his/her parents and most of your total power carries over, you do have a lot of control of guiding your character's development (picking parents, picking skills, getting rid of unwanted mutations, etc), each world has a random setup and win conditions, and your goal in each area is to prove to the world that the Mutated is a "good" and powerful race.

Similarities to Din's Curse:

• Overall goal is to move to an area, more often than not to help the local people, and move on to the next area
• Both have same kind of resurrection mechanism thanks to the gods (Din in this case)
• Tighter focus than most of our other games (not controlling a clan)
• They are both cursed (DC your character is directly cursed by Din, in the new game basically the entire race is cursed because they are split off from Orcs)
• Random, dynamic world (this is also true of all of our games except Kivi)

Differences with Din's Curse:

• You're not playing a human, but a mutated (race introduced in Zombasite: Orc Schism)
• You're not forced into redemption, but simply trying to prove your new race is good and powerful
• It's not a true resurrection, but mutated and carry on from "parents"
• There are no direct hybrids, but guided mutations/evolution
• Not just a town and a dungeon (although many scenarios do this)

I didn't start this game as a sequel, but it fits pretty well; mostly just a change from Humans to Mutated as the focus. So what do you all think? Do you think I should go the Din's Curse 2 route or make this a separate game? Is it too different to be a Din's Curse game? Or do you not care what I call it as long as I hurry up?

UPDATE: I decided to go with Din's Legacy.

[pseudo310]

Maybe like Din's Curse 2: Children of Din or something like that to denote the multigenerational aspect? But I think straight up calling it Din's Curse 2 is 100% fine.

[Bluddy]

I think referring to Din in the title is good since it'll let people who liked Din's Curse find the game more easily, but on the other hand, sequels titles sound uninspired. I like the 'Children of Din' suggestion above -- 'Lineage of Din' would also be good.

There's a game called Rogue Legacy that has generations of heroes in a roguelike setting. This game has a huge audience -- around 1.3 million owners according to steamspy. It wouldn't be a bad idea to stay close to that name, thus hinting that you have a similar mechanic, while also keeping resemblence to the original Din's Curse name, so 'Din's Legacy' has my vote.

BTW, have the original Din's Curse win/lose conditions remained as an option? Actually I care more about the lose conditions (ie. losing all questgivers), which I thought were a really tight design mechanic. It would be nice to have an option to play a world with those specific lose conditions, rather than random ones, as an ode to DC.

[Caal]

DC has always been my favorite Soldak game (I still play it) so anything that builds on or expands this title I'm all in favor of. As suggested above, I think incorporating the Din name would be good. One (probably miserable) suggestion for a name would be to key off of the mutation aspect, something like - DNA: Din's Notorious Abnormality.

[pseudo310]

Oh yeah Din's Legacy sounds cool.

[Castruccio]

Isn't Din's Legacy a little too derivative? It's like naming it Dincraft or something, if it was an RTS. I don't think the name of the game has to reference other games with similar mechanics.

You could use a subtitle like "Din's Curse II: Heirs of the Mutated." Or "Din's Curse II: Dark Descent" (a double play on going down in a dungeon, and on the word 'descendant' and the game's theme of lineage).

Or you could go with a different game title altogether that subtly references Din's Curse but doesn't actually use Din in the title. Perhaps a two word title as simple as "Cursed Generations".

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Bluddy

... so 'Din's Legacy' has my vote.

BTW, have the original Din's Curse win/lose conditions remained as an option? Actually I care more about the lose conditions (ie. losing all questgivers), which I thought were a really tight design mechanic. It would be nice to have an option to play a world with those specific lose conditions, rather than random ones, as an ode to DC.

I kind of like Din's Legacy. I don't know if you guys know this or not, but boardgames are having a Legacy movement right now (your current game can affect future games) so there are quite a few games with Legacy in the title.

Each scenario has different win and lose conditions. While there aren't any that are exactly like Din's Curse, there are several that you have to protect the town.

[Cyberneticist]

DC is also my favorite, followed closely by DO (if the latter had a more motivating skill system with more meaningful choices and options, it would take the crown).

I love the pressure DC puts on the player. In Diablo, you joke about Big D torching Tristam and slaughtering the citizens while you struggle to kill the Butcher ... in DC this really happens.

Have a good look at the skill/class system for the new game. It is one of the main sources of motivation in an ARPG.

[Bluddy]

Originally Posted by Cyberneticist

Have a good look at the skill/class system for the new game. It is one of the main sources of motivation in an ARPG.

I agree and I think this is still the weakest part of the Soldak formula, but presumably this hardcore game will have to change it heavily.

This is getting really off-topic, but I heartily recommend watching Tom Chick's recent playthrough of Zombasite expansion here. The whole thing is enjoyable, but at 27:50 and 30:15 you'll see some of what I see as valid criticism. This video (for Orc Schism) and the previous one for Zombasite are very much worth watching. He notes that the open approach to skills just doesn't make sense -- you can't balance the skills this way. He also opened my eyes to some of the really cool things in Zombasite.

BTW Shadow, speaking of board games, it'd be interesting to consider having victory points - which board games have transitioned to - rather than win conditions. For example, sometimes wiping out everybody is a real pain, or doing all the quests is too much work. But if different approaches yield different amounts of victory points (obviously requiring some balancing), you can kind of find your way to a fun victory the way you want to. It also makes the 'other clan' AI more realistic, since it's not actively trying to wipe you out -- just to dominate and get its own victory point win. It would also make sense at that point to have competitive multiplayer, since players could race to a victory point win without having to literally fight each other.

For this game, you may want to weight victory points differently per world (e.g. quests are worth only 1/4 of their normal victory points), or to have some new things generate victory points. I'm not sure this particular suggestion fits this game, but I do wish Civ moved in the victory point direction (so you don't have to wipe out everyone as a victory condition), and I think it would really have helped Zombasite.

Victory points could also help with the quest system. Normally, quests have a percentage chance of getting worse over time. You could make it so that the more victory points you have, the better the chance of a *good* outcome happening, or at least nothing bad happening (a message that a negative event was avoided would be great). This would also occur for other clans as they build up victory points (in the games that have other clans). It represents your 'fighting back' against the Nemesis/dungeon and succeeding. So you're not just putting out fires -- you're also making things a little better, which is an element I currently miss in Soldak games.

EDIT: Consider also the impact victory points could have had on Drox Operative. Rather than struggling to achieve one particular objective, you'd be a true mercenary and accomplish different things, getting victory points as you go, until you reach the required amount. Having this one currency just makes sense and you can see why board games have moved in this direction. Accomplishing a mix of this or that or the other thing is much more fun than either this or the other thing. It's also really fun if you can suddenly pull ahead with hidden victory points against competing humans (as you do in Catan and other board games), making the prospect of semi-competitive allies really doable.

[bailey4500]

I think Din's Curse 2 is the way to go. Lets face it Zombasite was a terrible name, and probably cost you sales.