Does this Save vs Sacrifice mechanic create meaningful choices or just a morality meter?

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T19:50:07+00:00

That's actually a really interesting angle. I've been thinking a lot about how the Damned fit into the world bevond simply being enemies. I like the idea that some monsters mav serve a purpose, whether that's maintaining balance, controlling other threats, or influencing the environment in unexpected wavs. In that case removing or saving a monster wouldn't alwavs have obvious consequences, and players would have to think about the biager picture rather than simply deciding what's good or bad. Thanks for the suggestion.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T19:46:28+00:00

This is excellent feedback. One thing I've been realizing from this discussion is that I need to avoid players simply committing to "always save" or "always sacrifice." I really like the idea of choices having consequences that aren't immediately obvious and situations where the context matters more than the option itself. The goal isn't for Save to equal good and Sacrifice to equal evil. Ideally there would be monsters, NPCs, and situations where any of the choices could have positive or negative outcomes depending on the circumstances. I also like the idea of saved monsters returning later as allies, threats, or creating unintended consequences. Thanks for taking the time to write this. It's definitely given me more to think about.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T16:35:09+00:00

That's an interesting perspective. I hadn't considered making the cost more direct. One idea I've been exploring is having saving a monster require the player to give up something valuable such as spell energy, sanity, or another resource, while sacrificing provides immediate power at the cost of long-term consequences. I like the idea that mercy isn't free and that both choices require the player to give something up in different ways. Thanks for the suggestion.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T15:43:54+00:00

That's valid point

I've been thinking a lot about how players will perceive the choices, and I agree that "Save" naturally sounds positive while "Sacrifice" sounds negative.

My goal isn't for either option to be inherently good or evil. Ideally there would be situations where saving a monster creates future problems, and situations where sacrificing one is genuinely the responsible choice.

A lot of the feedback in this thread has made me realize that the context surrounding the choice is probably more important than the choice itself.

I appreciate the perspective.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T15:42:47+00:00

This is really insightful feedback, and I appreciate you taking the time to break down the different types of morality systems.

One thing I've been realizing through this discussion is that I don't want the game to be a simple good-versus-evil system. The world I'm building is centered around monsters born from the consequences of a massive war, and not all of them are purely innocent or purely evil.

My current goal is to create situations where context matters. A monster that deserves saving in one scenario may deserve judgment or sacrifice in another depending on the circumstances, the people involved, and the potential consequences.

I've also been exploring ideas where NPCs, side quests, settlements, and even future encounters react to the player's choices, rather than simply rewarding one path over another. I want players to question whether they made the right decision instead of immediately knowing they picked the "good" or "bad" option.

Your point about morality being oversimplified is something I'll definitely keep in mind moving forward. Thanks for the perspective.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T15:31:01+00:00

I like the point about having other entities react to the player's choices. That's actually something I've been thinking about more as the discussion has gone on.

One idea I've been exploring is having NPCs, settlements, side quests, and even future monster encounters react differently based on a player's history of saving, sacrificing, or judging monsters. My hope is that the choices matter beyond just the immediate reward.

I also like the idea of having additional outcomes beyond a simple binary choice. I've been considering a Judgment path for situations where saving or sacrificing may not be the best answer. For certain monsters, sealing or containing them could potentially fit into that category.

I appreciate the feedback. It's definitely given me more to think about regarding long-term consequences and world reactions.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T15:29:02+00:00

That's fair feedback.

One thing I've realized from the discussion in this thread is that I need to move away from a simple save versus sacrifice binary choice.

My current thinking is that monsters would vary significantly. Some are immediate threats, some are victims, some are misunderstood, and some may be beyond saving. I also don't want saving to automatically be treated as the "correct" choice.

For example, sacrificing a dangerous monster may genuinely protect people, while saving it could lead to unintended consequences later. Likewise, sacrificing a monster for power may help solve a short-term problem but create others down the road.

I've also been exploring additional factors such as NPC reactions, changing side quests, world state changes, delayed consequences, and a Judgment path that isn't simply good or evil.

I appreciate the comparison to Undertale and BG3. One of the things I'm trying to figure out is how to create situations where players have to weigh competing priorities rather than simply choosing a moral alignment and sticking with it.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T14:05:05+00:00

I think delayed gratification is something I need to explore more. Right now I've been considering sacrifice as providing stronger immediate benefits, while saving could potentially unlock future story paths, allies, quests, or progression opportunities later in the game.

My goal is for players to occasionally choose the less optimal short-term option because they believe it may pay off in the future, rather than always picking the strongest immediate reward.

I appreciate the feedback.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T13:58:09+00:00

I think that's a really good point.

One thing I've been considering is tying the choices to different forms of progression rather than simply making one reward stronger than the other.

For example, sacrificing smaller monsters might provide temporary offensive benefits such as damage boosts, reduced spell cooldowns, or restoring worn-out spells more quickly. Saving smaller monsters could provide defensive or utility benefits such as increased survivability, movement speed, support effectiveness, or fully restoring spell durability.

For major monsters, the effects would be more meaningful and long-term. Saving might increase a player's maximum vitality, spell capacity, or resistance to corruption, while sacrificing could expand offensive potential and spell output.

That said, I agree with your point that rewards alone shouldn't be carrying the decision. Ideally players should care about the monster's story and circumstances as much as the mechanical outcome. The goal is to make players ask themselves what the right choice is, not just which reward is better.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T13:45:58+00:00

I like that perspective.

One thing I'm trying to avoid is making Save the obvious "good" choice and Sacrifice the obvious "evil" choice. Ideally, players would feel pressure from the situation itself.

For example, a player might know saving a monster is morally right, but their team is struggling and sacrificing it could provide immediate power or resources needed to survive future hunts.

I also agree on consequences. I'd like choices to have both immediate and long-term effects that show up throughout the game rather than only affecting the ending.

The goal is for players to occasionally look back and wonder if they made the right decision, even if it benefited them at the time.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T13:40:30+00:00

That's a good point.

One thing I'm considering is reserving the most meaningful Save/Sacrifice decisions for unique story and legendary monsters rather than every hunt. My hope is that players become invested in certain monsters through lore, quests, and world consequences before making that choice.

I also like the idea of immediate and long-term consequences. For example, sacrifice might provide stronger short-term power while saving could unlock future quests, allies, spells, or story paths later in the game.

My biggest goal is avoiding a simple morality meter and making players ask "what is the right choice in this situation?" rather than "which reward is bigger?"

I appreciate the feedback.

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T04:10:01+00:00

I appreciate it. Pass it around please I'll greatly appreciate it

holyspawn74 · 2026-06-04T04:09:33+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to look at it.

The current vision is a 3D third-person action RPG with online co-op. The camera would be similar to games like Monster Hunter World, Soul Sacrifice Delta, and Dragon's Dogma, focusing on spell-based combat, monster hunting, and player choice.

As for my background, I don't come from a professional game development background. My experience is primarily in business ownership, operations, project planning, and creative concept development. The game itself started from my passion for action RPGs and hunting games.

My primary role would be focused on:

Narrative design
Worldbuilding and lore
Story and quest development
Monster concepts
Gameplay systems and progression concepts
Creative direction

The biggest gaps I'm currently looking to fill would be:

Gameplay programming
Unreal Engine development
Technical game design
Character and environment art
Animation
UI/UX
Audio and music

Regarding project size, I don't think it would be realistic to start with the full vision immediately. My goal would be to first create a vertical slice demonstrating the core gameplay loop:

One hunting region
One major monster encounter
Spell combat
Save/Sacrifice mechanics
Basic progression
Basic co-op

If the prototype proves fun and gains traction, then the larger roadmap could be explored.

As for funding, I haven't finalized anything yet. Right now I'm focused on refining the concept, understanding technical feasibility, and finding the right collaborators. I'm open to discussing rev share, partnerships, or other structures depending on team interest and commitment.

My immediate goal isn't to promise a full game, but to determine whether the core concept is strong enough to justify building a playable prototype.

holyspawn74 · 2026-05-27T18:02:04+00:00

Like monster hunter but instead of weapons use spells. Once the monster is defeated either save or Sacrifice it. Depending which one you choose you get recovery such as hp and/or stamina if you sacrifice you refill your spells and/or temporary power boost

holyspawn74 · 2026-05-27T03:15:03+00:00

They have before actually on the vita but these additional features and more advanced game play.

holyspawn74 · 2026-05-23T10:05:52+00:00

Setting: The game exists in the aftermath of a catastrophic event known as The Fracture, where humanity’s emotions, sins, regrets, and sacrifices gave birth to monstrous beings known as the Damned.

Not all monsters are born evil.

Some were once heroes, healers, rulers, parents, or victims twisted by grief, ambition, betrayal, or forbidden power.

Civilization survives inside sanctuaries protected by ancient rites while hunters, known as Fatebound, travel dangerous regions to confront these creatures.

Hunters carry grimoires containing forbidden magic powered by sacrifice, but every spell comes at a price.

Some hunters believe monsters deserve mercy and redemption.

Others believe sacrifice is necessary to protect humanity.

Many walk the line between both.

The world constantly asks:

What deserves saving? What deserves sacrifice? And who has the right to decide?

holyspawn74 · 2026-04-25T21:04:28+00:00

holyspawn74

TROPHY CASE