Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
THE RISE OF THE COMPLETE HEAL AFTER EVERY BATTLE GAME
Posts
kentona
View playlists
CloseAngry Birds Epic does this, and is a lot of fun. And it is completely turn based, and you always go first, and your birds only have 2 abilities. And it is still fun, because they all have multiple classes that have two different abilities and all of the abilities play off each other in neat ways and you guys should all get it and friend me so that I can get more Friendship Essence.
CrystalgateCrazeWhat if you could use the RNG make it so that what actions the two wolves and a robot takes alters what actions the player needs to take to defeat them? A second encounter with the same troop is not the same unless the RNG happens to make it the same then.
the most important thing to keep in mind when making a game with healing post-encounters is that you should give the player something new every single encounter. only of my biggest complaints about ff13 (and i know i'm not alone) is that you would pass the trial of TWO WOLVES AND A ROBOT, showing that you could beat that encounter. then you would fight that exact same encounter three more times. when attrition is not an issue, this is a slap in the face to player because they've already proven their abilities.
I don't know how that would be done, but it sounds like something that might work. If you reaches the point where you feel like you know how to make two different troops require different tactics in a meaningful way, then maybe trying to figure out how to make the same troop require different tactics if you encounter it multiple times would be a plausible next step?
well, you can easily spice up the "same" fight by making it not the same. i was complaining about ff13 specifically.
if you fight two wolves and a robot, and then later on you encounter two wolves and the robot's up a cliff where only ranged attacks can reach it, that's a different challenge! or maybe you encounter two wolves and a robot inside a volcano, where you're taking fire damage every turn (and the wolves are hellhounds so they absorb the fire as healing). same enemies, different scenario.
or enemies that use different buffs / abilities depending on a random factor.
An enemy that can either start the battle on Offensive or Defensive mode, for instance, and remains like that through the remainder of the battle.
Or an enemy that uses different types of shields, so much can be done from that xD
An enemy that can either start the battle on Offensive or Defensive mode, for instance, and remains like that through the remainder of the battle.
Or an enemy that uses different types of shields, so much can be done from that xD
i would never have it look the exact same, though. a similar but far more transparent result can be achieved by having a pool of random enemies to choose, some of which are purple Offensive Kobolds or green Defensive Kobolds. having an identical-looking enemy that changes its strategy wildly just seems like an awful design decision
turkeyDawg
195
I've heard of games like this, but I haven't played any other than a small bit of Motrya. I'll admit LockeZ kinda has a point about many other games being essentially this due to massive item stocks and frequent other kinds of full-heals.
How often is there any attempt to justify it, plot-wise? Yanno, like some Onimusha-style "YOU CONSUME THE SOULS OF THE DEFEATED" or something? It sounds like it could lead to some minor aesthetic silliness when you're at 1 HP and drained of everything, but then the enemy dies and you're suddenly totally fine. Or, opposite scenario, you beat a boss or something, but then in the cutscene right after, you're all bruised and battered, even though the battle's over and you're probably at full health and everything now.
I guess Craze's FF13 example would highlight one big difference with this style, however. Without a full heal after each battle, you are required to do better than merely survive each battle, so a repeat encounter can still feel fresh, as it represents an opportunity to try new strategies to win more cleanly.
How common is it for these games to allow all encounters to be infinitely retried? Because this is basically what most people who play older games that you had to beat in one go (or at least big chunks at a time between save points) would complain about most newer "save-state"-styled games like Super Meat Boy, or the use and abuse of save-states in emulators.
How often is there any attempt to justify it, plot-wise? Yanno, like some Onimusha-style "YOU CONSUME THE SOULS OF THE DEFEATED" or something? It sounds like it could lead to some minor aesthetic silliness when you're at 1 HP and drained of everything, but then the enemy dies and you're suddenly totally fine. Or, opposite scenario, you beat a boss or something, but then in the cutscene right after, you're all bruised and battered, even though the battle's over and you're probably at full health and everything now.
I guess Craze's FF13 example would highlight one big difference with this style, however. Without a full heal after each battle, you are required to do better than merely survive each battle, so a repeat encounter can still feel fresh, as it represents an opportunity to try new strategies to win more cleanly.
author=Kylalia
I always feel like not getting any downside from losing is taking away from the fun. In the end, if you can repeat it continously, you can often make up for last missing bits with luck. You can also often just come back later.
How common is it for these games to allow all encounters to be infinitely retried? Because this is basically what most people who play older games that you had to beat in one go (or at least big chunks at a time between save points) would complain about most newer "save-state"-styled games like Super Meat Boy, or the use and abuse of save-states in emulators.
author=turkeyDawgauthor=KylaliaHow common is it for these games to allow all encounters to be infinitely retried? Because this is basically what most people who play older games that you had to beat in one go (or at least big chunks at a time between save points) would complain about most newer "save-state"-styled games like Super Meat Boy, or the use and abuse of save-states in emulators.
I always feel like not getting any downside from losing is taking away from the fun. In the end, if you can repeat it continously, you can often make up for last missing bits with luck. You can also often just come back later.
Yeah. I feel like removing the wait period between each failure state is a good thing. Yes, you can say that forcing the player to wait is a good way of instating a consequence on them, but I don't like waiting. Generally, I don't think people should wait or replay long sections of game again just to get back to the place they were.
I guess that only works in games where the strategy is per battle rather than dungeon wide, though.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
People complaining about something because they're bitter that newer gamers have access to better designed games than they did as a kid is not the same thing as people complaining about something because there is a legitimate argument against it. Some people are just upset that modern gamers only have to succeed at beating the game instead of also having to succeed at forcing themselves to keep playing it.
Mind you, there are legitimate reasons for disabling this level of frequent retrying. But it's not like FF7 and DQ5 actually prevent you from gaming the bosses through retrying until you eventually get good dice rolls. They just make it so unenjoyable that it's not worth it, by making you spend an extra ten minutes for each attempt. But, like... I'm not sure what the purpose of that is, really. If your game is difficult enough that you really expect players to die to a single boss more than three times, then holy shit, don't make them walk through all that crap. If your game isn't that difficult, then that means the player won on their second or third try. If you win an RPG boss battle on your second or third try, I can basically guarantee that the difference was not entirely due to nothing but better dice rolls.
Battles in these games take a couple minutes to beat anyway. I mean a single battle in FF Tactics or Fire Emblem, or even in a non-tactical RPG that uses this system like Wine & Roses or Precipice of Darkness, is significantly longer than an entire level in Super Mario World, right? It's not like starting over from one and a half seconds ago in Super Meat Boy.
Mind you, there are legitimate reasons for disabling this level of frequent retrying. But it's not like FF7 and DQ5 actually prevent you from gaming the bosses through retrying until you eventually get good dice rolls. They just make it so unenjoyable that it's not worth it, by making you spend an extra ten minutes for each attempt. But, like... I'm not sure what the purpose of that is, really. If your game is difficult enough that you really expect players to die to a single boss more than three times, then holy shit, don't make them walk through all that crap. If your game isn't that difficult, then that means the player won on their second or third try. If you win an RPG boss battle on your second or third try, I can basically guarantee that the difference was not entirely due to nothing but better dice rolls.
Battles in these games take a couple minutes to beat anyway. I mean a single battle in FF Tactics or Fire Emblem, or even in a non-tactical RPG that uses this system like Wine & Roses or Precipice of Darkness, is significantly longer than an entire level in Super Mario World, right? It's not like starting over from one and a half seconds ago in Super Meat Boy.
turkeyDawg
195
Yeah, if you're being healed after every battle, having to replay previous battles upon losing would be largely pointless, since there's no resource momentum. Likewise, RPG battle systems tend not to have a heavy element of player execution, so "learning to win consistently" isn't much of a thing, either (I mean, I guess dealing with RNG could be something, but whether or not that'd actually be enjoyable is another question). The same could be said of the puzzles that show up in RPG dungeons, and field exploration in general, really.
Otherwise, I'm fine with, and sometimes prefer, to be sent back more than a few inches when getting pwned. If there's any depth and/or variability to a game, then getting back to where I last failed isn't merely "waiting", since I could set new goals for myself like "lose less health", "score more", "get more headshots" (for shits and giggles), and so on to make things interesting again.
e:
Otherwise, I'm fine with, and sometimes prefer, to be sent back more than a few inches when getting pwned. If there's any depth and/or variability to a game, then getting back to where I last failed isn't merely "waiting", since I could set new goals for myself like "lose less health", "score more", "get more headshots" (for shits and giggles), and so on to make things interesting again.
e:
author=LockeZThe complaint is more that you only have to beat a section once, even if its by sheer dumb luck, and so could be argued that you're not really "beating" the game. I personally dislike the piecemeal fashion of Meat Boy and the like fro pure action games because a) the flow feels more stilted, and b) Repeatedly retrying a tiny segment a dozen times in a row tends to frustrate me more than the older "retry from the start/beginning of level", because with those when I game over I just turn the game off and come back tomorrow, usually doing a little better than last time. Granted, I've yet to actually beat any of those kinds of games.
Some people are just upset that modern gamers only have to succeed at beating the game instead of also having to succeed at forcing themselves to keep playing it.
author=CashmereCat
Hey guys
I'm not sure what it's called, but I've been witnessing a rise of the "complete heal after every battle" style of game. You can see it in Wine & Roses, World Remade, The Heart Pumps Clay and Born Under the Rain, as well as probably many others that I haven't played or haven't recalled in this list. What characterizes this game is usually standing encounters, complete heal of party after win/loss/escape, and no game over condition.
From what I've seen the model creates an experience where you take battle by battle strategically. There is little to no consequence when you lose a battle, because it just heals your party and does not bring up a game over screen. It does not require healing items outside of battle, and thus there is little to no resource management required. This is good for some, because sometimes resource management can cause certain people stress. For others, it's a thrill that's missed in these kind of games. Other characteristics of this model are the greater possibility of controlled non-linearity, the treatment of battles as being more like puzzles than linear grinding material, and the more swift and efficient trial-and-error process of trying different equipment combos.
My question is - what do you think of these games? What are your theories surrounding these games in the future? Is it a good model to follow? Do you like games like this? Do you hate 'em? Why? It'd be nice to hear some opinions.
Hate 'em. Well, actually, I've only played Wine & Roses, but yea. Horrible mechanic. Mainly because of both being in battle. You can have auto-restore. You can have games with no gameover. But to have both is like the creator is afraid of disappointing his own players with a loss.
For another thing, this does not induce strategy. Strategy comes when you have the difficult effect of enemies that are much stronger than you, regardless of how you grind, forcing you to think in a way other than raw power. As in, an example of a situation requiring strategy would be elemental immunity, or a breakable armor monster (usually a boss).
Making the game easy actually just encourages mindless button-mashing, and grind user interest to a halt. You could in theory disable total death (or add respawn points) to particularly hard games, but still, that means the game is broken.
Housekeeping
3571
author=bulmabriefs144
Hate 'em. Well, actually, I've only played Wine & Roses, but yea. Horrible mechanic. Mainly because of both being in battle. You can have auto-restore. You can have games with no gameover. But to have both is like the creator is afraid of disappointing his own players with a loss.
I don't understand why you would hate both of these things in unison. A full restore just means that each battle is about using your skills effectively instead of worrying about long-term resource management. All a game over screen does is give the player a time penalty. You have to wait for the game over screen to fade out. Then you have to reload your save, and, if you haven't been saving regularly, you might have to replay some of the game over again, which is frustrating and boring. If you're worried about there not being a failure state, the player fails by not being able to get past an encounter.
RyaReisender
200
author=CashmereCat
My question is - what do you think of these games? What are your theories surrounding these games in the future? Is it a good model to follow? Do you like games like this? Do you hate 'em? Why? It'd be nice to hear some opinions.
My favorite game ever is SaGaFrontier and ever since I played it I've been praising on how much better this system is. If there is no resource management and you can save at any time, it allows each battle to be a challenge. This is simply a lot more fun than if you just fight 100 easy battles that slowly drain your resources just to realize you don't have enough left to beat the boss.
I wouldn't go so far and say all games should have this system, but most should.
Resource-management based games require really good game design (especially dungeon design) to be good and hardly any game designer can really pull it off well. Some of the things that should be in these games is:
1. Flat dungeon design instead of deep dungeon design or in other words, many different possible paths but once you know the correct path its short. This makes having to leave the dungeon because you ran out of resources less frustrating as your next trip to the dungeon will be different again.
2. A way to quickly escape. Like a spell that instantly brings you back to the last town you visited or at least to the dungeon entrance. Or a new system just recently designed by the SaGa dev team which I really like - if you run away in combat you are automatically brought to the entrance of the dungeon. Or simply make death without any penalty except that you have to restart the dungeon (but keep exp/gold).
3. Limited items you can carry at once - because grinding and then buying 99 of each potion type is not fun. Better just allow e.g. 15 potions to be taken with you but design the dungeon so that it can be beaten with that many.
Summary - If you suck with dungeon design, better make a full recovery after every battle system and make each battle interesting and challenging instead. However if you are good with dungeon design and maybe not so good in making battles interesting, then a resource-management based game might be better for you.
author=bulmabriefs144author=CashmereCatHate 'em. Well, actually, I've only played Wine & Roses, but yea. Horrible mechanic. Mainly because of both being in battle. You can have auto-restore. You can have games with no gameover. But to have both is like the creator is afraid of disappointing his own players with a loss.
Hey guys
I'm not sure what it's called, but I've been witnessing a rise of the "complete heal after every battle" style of game. You can see it in Wine & Roses, World Remade, The Heart Pumps Clay and Born Under the Rain, as well as probably many others that I haven't played or haven't recalled in this list. What characterizes this game is usually standing encounters, complete heal of party after win/loss/escape, and no game over condition.
From what I've seen the model creates an experience where you take battle by battle strategically. There is little to no consequence when you lose a battle, because it just heals your party and does not bring up a game over screen. It does not require healing items outside of battle, and thus there is little to no resource management required. This is good for some, because sometimes resource management can cause certain people stress. For others, it's a thrill that's missed in these kind of games. Other characteristics of this model are the greater possibility of controlled non-linearity, the treatment of battles as being more like puzzles than linear grinding material, and the more swift and efficient trial-and-error process of trying different equipment combos.
My question is - what do you think of these games? What are your theories surrounding these games in the future? Is it a good model to follow? Do you like games like this? Do you hate 'em? Why? It'd be nice to hear some opinions.
For another thing, this does not induce strategy. Strategy comes when you have the difficult effect of enemies that are much stronger than you, regardless of how you grind, forcing you to think in a way other than raw power. As in, an example of a situation requiring strategy would be elemental immunity, or a breakable armor monster (usually a boss).
Making the game easy actually just encourages mindless button-mashing, and grind user interest to a halt. You could in theory disable total death (or add respawn points) to particularly hard games, but still, that means the game is broken.
I don't know why you'd hate them when you have only played one game with them in it. Try Pale Echoes and Cope Island before you judge - both good examples of the play in question. But yeah, you can't judge a whole x based on one of them. That's just silly. It's like saying you hate all jellybeans because you had a black one once.
bulmabriefs144
Hate 'em. Well, actually, I've only played Wine & Roses, but yea. Horrible mechanic. Mainly because of both being in battle. You can have auto-restore. You can have games with no gameover. But to have both is like the creator is afraid of disappointing his own players with a loss.
like housekeeping said, in a game designed around being difficult and requiring puzzling out a strategy, it saves you time when you lose. in WaR you can also escape any battle with 100% success. should i have a crying baby face come up whenever you do that?
i think my biggest issue with this statement is that you thing that players should be disappointed. i mean, maybe, in some mediums (i'm thinking a weighty-choices game like The Walking Dead or The Banner Saga) but that's not my goal as an entertainer. i'd much rather keep the game going than say "bzzt u suk, load up the save." why not save the player some time and frustration? the system also lets the player know "hey it's okay if you forget to save before every battle, because you have nothing to lose here". this is a positive thing in my mind because the game doesn't rely on surviving a stretch of gameplay, only single encounters at a time.
bulmabriefs144
For another thing, this does not induce strategy. Strategy comes when you have the difficult effect of enemies that are much stronger than you, regardless of how you grind, forcing you to think in a way other than raw power. As in, an example of a situation requiring strategy would be elemental immunity, or a breakable armor monster (usually a boss).
i have literally no idea how this cannot apply to a game without grinding or potion-buying or whatever? WaR and Teenage Costume Squad both have elemental bosses, and also bosses that are far more interesting than "lol elemental immunity" (well, more WaR than TCS).
if anything a game without grinding/with full restores helps facilitate strategy because the dev knows the exact power level of the party and can summarily design encounters around that. if you want players to "think in a way other than raw power"... man i can't even understand your argument at this point
if you're worried about a lack of progression, well, both WaR and TCS were designed 100% around the idea of equipment and skill progression, so idk what more you want bulmabriefs144
bulmabriefs144
Making the game easy actually just encourages mindless button-mashing, and grind user interest to a halt. You could in theory disable total death (or add respawn points) to particularly hard games, but still, that means the game is broken.
how does this make the game easy ?? so, a game that heals after battle, that is explicitly designed around making a full restore after baattle, is automatically easy? this is an extremely narrow view that makes me wonder if your imagination gears are in check. i'm a little offended that you think a very purposeful and potentially well-utilized mechanic automatically "breaks" a game.
i like games that full-heal and are designed around that. i like more traditional games that require you to heal up with your 99 potions. i like games that restore hp/mp by 20% after battle and only let you carry a few items. i think that all of these styles can be well-designed, and also that none of your points make any sense whatsoever
author=Housekeepingauthor=bulmabriefs144I don't understand why you would hate both of these things in unison. A full restore just means that each battle is about using your skills effectively instead of worrying about long-term resource management. All a game over screen does is give the player a time penalty. You have to wait for the game over screen to fade out. Then you have to reload your save, and, if you haven't been saving regularly, you might have to replay some of the game over again, which is frustrating and boring. If you're worried about there not being a failure state, the player fails by not being able to get past an encounter.
Hate 'em. Well, actually, I've only played Wine & Roses, but yea. Horrible mechanic. Mainly because of both being in battle. You can have auto-restore. You can have games with no gameover. But to have both is like the creator is afraid of disappointing his own players with a loss.
Because it's hand-holding. Also, you fail to understand the point of an RPG.
I've played a Sailor Moon RPG called Another Story, which had auto-heal. It was okay. Actually, I liked the game. But I couldn't see the mechanic going mainstream, and I believe it may have been MP restore only. (Plays for a battle) Yup, just MP, and just after battles. Meaning any MP you use between battles, you may need to win a battle to restore. If you indeed can use magic outside battle, that is. I've also played rpgs with infinite MP cheats (pro action replay). They usually end up being less frustrating, yes, but well I'm cheating. That's what it feels like if you're sorta led through stuff like that. I mean, if the game is hard, maybe you need it. But this is difficult to pull off without the player feeling led along. Also, the point of not restoring is that even though rats deal like 15 HP, enough groups can wear you down by attrition. That is the point, thinking past just that battle being difficult, and thinking about the entire dungeon. For this reason, any restoration should be as small as possible (Final Fantasy XII with its Chain items had a nice mechanic, restoring health and MP only after you slaughtered a ton of enemies in the same screen).
The point of an RPG is balance and resource management. It arose from the pen and paper rpg genre, where every item was written down and accounted for. You're basically playing the character, and it isn't realistic to believe that not only do you make it every battle fully recovered, but never suffer complete loss. People are scarred by life, they can heal, but sometimes they have lasting wounds. And while outright gameover is a source of frustration, there are a number of games that allow a continue (with half gp/reduced exp/some penalty) or quit menu. Now, if you want to remove frustration, you can add MP restore, or like Earthbound, you can add no gameover. But doing a full heal and no gameover, no, this is broken balance (what paper RPGs would call "munchkin"). It's enough if you can keep going without a gameover maybe at a penalty, or it's enough if just MP restores. I would even so far as to say that you could have a "long rest" mechanic like D&D, and save anywhere so as to minimize loss of items and experience.
But no, let me demonstrate why this is not a good mechanic.
- The character enters a battle, employs no better strategy than "use best spells." They win.
- After battle, having learned nothing and lost nothing, because are effectively rewarded for using the most expensive spell, and fully healed with HP/MP.
- On the off chance they do lose, they also have no gameover.
- Congratulations! There is no loss, challenge, or tension to your game. Your game is now boring.
Now, we could do the conventional gameover + no freebies thing of most Square games, but that is tired, as you correctly point out.
The idea is to give the player a sense that they are in danger, even if you actually intend them to be capable of finishing the quest. The above model I showed, however, fails completely. Bravely Default manages this despite having a number of features, like the ability to change monster difficulty, and control frequency of battles from 200% to 0%. A better mechanic?
- Battle event (hero loses 185/200 hp, and has used 19/20 MP on attack spells)
- After battle MP either reverts to full, or restores by either one or your level (in this case, also 1). Depending on how much a jerk you are as a programmer.
- Assuming the former case, you can heal full hp using the magic you have, but then you will start the next battle without full mp, and it may be hard. In the latter version, 2 MP may be enough for one healing spell. Use it wisely.
- The next battle, you die. You are given a chance to try again. If the programmer is a jerk like me, this might involve a penalty of some sort (in my game, it might be easier to give up, unless you have rare items). But you have a way to gameover, by simply giving up on yourself. In which case you'll have to start from the last save.
I don't know why you'd hate them when you have only played one game with them in it. Try Pale Echoes and Cope Island before you judge - both good examples of the play in question. But yeah, you can't judge a whole x based on one of them. That's just silly. It's like saying you hate all jellybeans because you had a black one once.
That would be true, except there is a difference between knowing why you hate something, and hating it simply because you haven't tried it enough. I've played a few games (once from RpgMaker, true, but actual commercial games also had this design). I'm not saying the individually you couldn't make a good game, with careful planning. By careful planning, I mean, picking one of these and fleshing it out to be well balanced. It was good with one or the other, but I know why it feels wrong together.
It's sorta the same feeling that Rand got at the end of Wheel of Time when he tried to make a perfect world and... well those of you who have read the book know how that went. You can make things better in design, but you fundamentally cannot remove challenge from your world without something also being lost. You could conceivably make the challenge more bearable somehow though.
Also, black jellybeans are evil. I will never eat jellybeans again.
It's great when it's used well.
When each battle is shown as it's own entity within the game.
When battles are more about that particular battle than the sum of them.
When battles actually count towards progress instead of being a way to fill your levels for artificial stops.
When boss battles aren't the only ones that count in the progress of a game.
When there's puzzle aspects to the battles.
When battles are built around using everything at your disposal to continue forward.
Whenever, where ever, we're meant to be together.
When the only battles are boss battles.
When what matters is the journey, not the ending.
When battles are just a sideline to the rest of the game.
When battles are designed around the idea of giving your all instead of mashing the attack button a few times.
When MP doesn't matter.
When Life and MP don't matter.
When you just want to breeze through a game for the story but still have reasons for battles to exist (collectables and the kind).
When you don't have items existing because fuck people who never use them when they're given in any case. Seriously, fuck them. Might consider doing this for my next game since people never bother with items even when they need them. Fuck people.
When what matters are the skills being used in certain ways, not that you have x health at the end of battle.
When new stuff should be given a go.
Also, BD would have been improved immeasurably with a system like this. Just sayin'.
Seriously, go play Cope Island and Pale Echoes. Go. Play.
When each battle is shown as it's own entity within the game.
When battles are more about that particular battle than the sum of them.
When battles actually count towards progress instead of being a way to fill your levels for artificial stops.
When boss battles aren't the only ones that count in the progress of a game.
When there's puzzle aspects to the battles.
When battles are built around using everything at your disposal to continue forward.
Whenever, where ever, we're meant to be together.
When the only battles are boss battles.
When what matters is the journey, not the ending.
When battles are just a sideline to the rest of the game.
When battles are designed around the idea of giving your all instead of mashing the attack button a few times.
When MP doesn't matter.
When Life and MP don't matter.
When you just want to breeze through a game for the story but still have reasons for battles to exist (collectables and the kind).
When you don't have items existing because fuck people who never use them when they're given in any case. Seriously, fuck them. Might consider doing this for my next game since people never bother with items even when they need them. Fuck people.
When what matters are the skills being used in certain ways, not that you have x health at the end of battle.
When new stuff should be given a go.
Also, BD would have been improved immeasurably with a system like this. Just sayin'.
Seriously, go play Cope Island and Pale Echoes. Go. Play.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=bulmabriefsI've seen several other people in this thread post the same thing. It's SO STUPID. Why would this strategy ever work in any RPG? This is the worst fucking combat design I can imagine in an RPG, whether you have to manage resources or not. Games like that are the reason everyone hates RPGs.
The character enters a battle, employs no better strategy than "use best spells." They win.
That's like saying all the player ever has to do to win in chess is use a strategy of "attack with best piece". No! That's not how chess fucking works! There isn't a best piece! The opponent is actively hampering you at every step! Go play a goddamn video game some time so you can see how combat works. You aren't just using Firaga over and over unless the gameplay is an utter pile of shit. You have an OPPONENT. That opponent is TRYING TO STOP YOU.
Housekeeping
3571
I know that RPGs have traditionally been about resource management, but shifting to this model just means going from long-term resource management to an emphasis on single battles. It's not wrong; it's just a different way to think of RPGs, and if all you're doing is "picking the strongest spells to win," then it's a poorly designed game, not a problem with the concept itself.
I have to agree that this system works great as long as a talented developer makes the battle challenging and fun on a per-battle basis. I've seen it used to great effect in several games on this very site and I think it's very cool, and plan to give it a try myself at some point ^_^
author=LockeZauthor=bulmabriefsI've seen several other people in this thread post the same thing. It's SO STUPID. Why would this strategy ever work in any RPG? This is the worst fucking combat design I can imagine in an RPG, whether you have to manage resources or not. Games like that are the reason everyone hates RPGs.
The character enters a battle, employs no better strategy than "use best spells." They win.
That's like saying all the player ever has to do to win in chess is use a strategy of "attack with best piece". No! That's not how chess fucking works! There isn't a best piece! The opponent is actively hampering you at every step! Go play a goddamn video game some time so you can see how combat works. You aren't just using Firaga over and over unless the gameplay is an utter pile of shit. You have an OPPONENT. That opponent is TRYING TO STOP YOU.
author=Housekeeping
I know that RPGs have traditionally been about resource management, but shifting to this model just means going from long-term resource management to an emphasis on single battles. It's not wrong; it's just a different way to think of RPGs, and if all you're doing is "picking the strongest spells to win," then it's a poorly designed game, not a problem with the concept itself.
Thank you both for making the perfect points. In a good game your enemy will require different requisites in order to beat them. It may be that they required you to use hard hitting spells, yes, but it should also require you to think about each enemy as different entities - just like they're supposed to be.
There's a reason games put resistances on enemies - so you can't just spam death spells and win every damn battle by cheesing it. If you run into a game that allows this, leave. It's a bad game. If you design games like this, please don't. You're the reason people look down on RPGs.
Quite frankly, since the naysayers don't seem to actually want to try the two short games that actually prove this game mechanic to be good, let me detail it for you.
Cope Island depends on the weapons you have at your disposal. You attack with weapons, your skills are tied to those weapons and each monster you encounter requires you to think about which weapon to use on it. But it isn't just that! Weapons use a hefty chunk of your energy (mana/magic/whatever) and this requires that you actually bother to defend to gather more. That would be pants... if you didn't need to do it to heal as well. Defending will restore decent amounts of health and energy, as well as put up your defence against attacks coming your way. This means that you depend on that skill as much as you depend on attacking because enemies hit hard and fast and each battle is one of attrition - will you hit harder than the enemy? Can you defeat them before they kill you?
It's fast-paced and action-heavy and it's amazing. Go play the fucking game. Why aren't you playing it? Go FUCKING PLAY ALREADY! There is a reason it was one of the winners of the IGMC when it used RTP mapping that most people on this site could beat. Because the battle system is omg, so great and fun. This game, go fucking play it now! It's free, it's fun, it's short.
Pale Echoes is also a game that uses this system, but does it in a very different way. Each battle is a puzzle. You have souls that you can use in battle. Each soul has skills tied to it and you know the weaknesses of the enemies based on the colour of their name. You also know the strength of each souls' attack based on the colour of their name. You have to try to keep yourself alive while using these souls to defeat the enemies. You can find souls scattered around the in-game world. Some require thought to get.
Thing is, part of the gameplay demands you remove souls from your soul pool to progress (but powering time portals... because time travel is awesome). Oh, and you can only take three souls into each battle turn so if you make the wrong choice, you WILL lose... but at least it has a handy retry feature~
You are collecting the souls of people you meet in the past, to battle against enemies that require you to think about your skill choice and power portals in order to progress the game.
If that doesn't sound fun, you don't know the meaning of the word. It is also a reasonably short game (2 hours tops).
In neither of these games will using the 'most powerful attack' work because there is not most powerful attack. There are attacks that are better than others in certain situations. There are attacks that will deal more damage if something happens or if a certain enemy is hit (but will actually heal the enemy if you hit the wrong one with it). Hell, neither allows you to just attack and be done with it, either. You have to make choices and think about those choices. YES YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? Nope. That's what makes it fun~
Go play both of these games. Now. You owe it to yourself. ffs. I am not dialoguing with any nay-sayers until that is a thing that happens. You and your posts in this topic/about this system shall henceforth being ignored until you do.
