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)
NUMBER OF CHARACTERS?
Posts
emmych
817
emmych
View playlists
Closeauthor=Biggamefreak
Pokemon is a terrific example for craploads of characters. You are always playing with stats, moves, and elemental types. When it came to the game's story, I have to make my team strong to beat the game. When the game is beaten, I have to worry about the competitive players. Now I must really know my Pokemon.
It is tough making an optimum strategy in Pokemon. When I was playing with other people in the battle tower, I had to change my strategy and Pokemon choices to trump the other Pokemon trainers. Then when someone else finds out something new, it becomes popular and I must either fit in with that strategy or figure out how to beat that strategy. I have learned that with competitive environments, even an unrecognized Pokemon can turn the tides of the entire match.
I think other games can emulate that experience. Some characters can help you greatly, but when a new character surprises you, then you want to learn more about how to use this character or find characters of that same class It's like building a strategy that really works, and then a goo accident happens. Then I am exploring a brand new strategy. Ahh..The wonders of the Psychic and Dark Type Pokemon
Also, I love FF9 as well. Every piece of the game fits for me.
Nah, you misunderstand. I'm talking about how there are hundreds and hundreds of Pokemon, but in the end, there are maybe like... 50 worth using? There are some Pokemon out there that just suck. Like, not in a "lololol Pikachu is DUMB" kind of way, but like "why the fuck are you using a Pansear when you could be using a Vulpix".
You defs shift Pokemon around depending on the situation, but there are very few worth using. I've stuck with some crummy Pokes just because I've liked them, but then again, I don't play competitively. I guess what I'm getting at is there's no need to have hundreds or even 50 characters if some are going to be objectively better (as in, better skills or stats) than others; in that case, they're just wasting space on the team roster and are better off as NPCs if you need them to be in the story.
(and yes FF9 is brilliant <3)
eplipswich
2728
To be honest, I don't exactly call Pokemon "characters". They are more of "pets" or "familiars" that don't have much personalities per se (except a few, most notable being Pikachu). I think what the TS is talking about in terms of "characters" is "characters" with personalities, backgrounds and such. The Pokemon game isn't exactly a good example of using Pokemon as characters because technically, they aren't...
BUT I must agree that they are the ones that contribute to the main theme of the game itself.
Characters don't just exist in a game for the sake of existing (what people call filler characters). There has to have a reason why they exist. Of course, not all characters have to have detailed backgrounds. These are saved for the main characters. But even then, there has to at least have some sort of backgrounds for the supporting characters.
Mockingbird, if you want references to games that have a large cast of members:
1) Suikoden/Fire Emblem, like Locke mentioned, are great examples.
2) And, if you want a RPG Maker game reference, Exit Fate is a great example, with a whooping total of 75 playable characters (this game's based off Suikoden, by the way).
BUT I must agree that they are the ones that contribute to the main theme of the game itself.
Characters don't just exist in a game for the sake of existing (what people call filler characters). There has to have a reason why they exist. Of course, not all characters have to have detailed backgrounds. These are saved for the main characters. But even then, there has to at least have some sort of backgrounds for the supporting characters.
Mockingbird, if you want references to games that have a large cast of members:
1) Suikoden/Fire Emblem, like Locke mentioned, are great examples.
2) And, if you want a RPG Maker game reference, Exit Fate is a great example, with a whooping total of 75 playable characters (this game's based off Suikoden, by the way).
Biggamefreak
1799
Have some Pokemon be NPC's? The great thing about Pokemon is that any Pokemon you can see, you have the potential to have them. If there is a cool Pokemon I like, I can work hard and have it. Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire showed us that if we can't get all of the Pokemon, we get upset. With every Pokemon in the list, I can be any kind of Pokemon trainer I want. The Pokemon games are a playground for the young at heart and a constantly changing tournament for an RPG gamer seeking the multiplayer challenge.
Many Pokemon have the potential to be good in many different ways. I was shocked that Electrode had a speed faster than almost any Pokemon. It turned out that my Victribell saved me and made me Pokemon Master for the first time. Pokemon is full of surprises. The game pushes you to learn more. (and then you eventually fall in love with the series.)
I looked up Pansear and Vulpix. It turns out that Pansear has better HP, ATK, DEF, Spec. ATK, where Vulpix has better Spec. DEF and Speed. Both of them are fair game for different strategies. Get the best stats and moves for your particular strategy.
Here is a list of the top 100 Pokemon in all stat categories. There is a really big blur on what are good and bad Pokemon (except for maybe this Pokemon) Almost all Pokemon vary in favorable stats, diversity in moves, EVs, and Pokemon types. In competitive battles, you don't see all top players dedicating themselves to that list. The best players know how to make the best kind and most surprising party using more variables than just stats.. That is what I learned when playing competitively online. It's not just 100 good Pokemon, it's a ton more.
Many Pokemon have the potential to be good in many different ways. I was shocked that Electrode had a speed faster than almost any Pokemon. It turned out that my Victribell saved me and made me Pokemon Master for the first time. Pokemon is full of surprises. The game pushes you to learn more. (and then you eventually fall in love with the series.)
I looked up Pansear and Vulpix. It turns out that Pansear has better HP, ATK, DEF, Spec. ATK, where Vulpix has better Spec. DEF and Speed. Both of them are fair game for different strategies. Get the best stats and moves for your particular strategy.
Here is a list of the top 100 Pokemon in all stat categories. There is a really big blur on what are good and bad Pokemon (except for maybe this Pokemon) Almost all Pokemon vary in favorable stats, diversity in moves, EVs, and Pokemon types. In competitive battles, you don't see all top players dedicating themselves to that list. The best players know how to make the best kind and most surprising party using more variables than just stats.. That is what I learned when playing competitively online. It's not just 100 good Pokemon, it's a ton more.
eplipswich
2728
author=Biggamefreak
Have some Pokemon be NPC's? The great thing about Pokemon is that any Pokemon you can see, you have the potential to have them. If there is a cool Pokemon I like, I can work hard and have it. Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire showed us that if we can't get all of the Pokemon, we get upset. With every Pokemon in the list, I can be any kind of Pokemon trainer I want. The Pokemon games are a playground for the young at heart and a constantly changing tournament for an RPG gamer seeking the multiplayer challenge.
Many Pokemon have the potential to be good in many different ways. I was shocked that Electrode had a speed faster than almost any Pokemon. It turned out that my Victribell saved me and made me Pokemon Master for the first time. Pokemon is full of surprises. The game pushes you to learn more. (and then you eventually fall in love with the series.)
I looked up Pansear and Vulpix. It turns out that Pansear has better HP, ATK, DEF, Spec. ATK, where Vulpix has better Spec. DEF and Speed. Both of them are fair game for different strategies. Get the best stats and moves for your particular strategy.
Here is a list of the top 100 Pokemon in all stat categories. There is a really big blur on what are good and bad Pokemon (except for maybe this Pokemon) Almost all Pokemon vary in favorable stats, diversity in moves, EVs, and Pokemon types. In competitive battles, you don't see all top players dedicating themselves to that list. The best players know how to make the best kind and most surprising party using more variables than just stats.. That is what I learned when playing competitively online. It's not just 100 good Pokemon, it's a ton more.
All that you've typed only state that you love Pokemon because of gameplay only. However, from what I see you type about Pokemon in this topic, none of it talks about you loving them because of their personalities. Maybe I would like to see if you have any reasons you love certain Pokemon based on personalities alone, which, other than Pikachu and certain others, hardly any of them actually has personalities.
I do get your picture, though.
Biggamefreak
1799
author=eplipswich
To be honest, I don't exactly call Pokemon "characters". They are more of "pets" or "familiars" that don't have much personalities per se (except a few, most notable being Pikachu). I think what the TS is talking about in terms of "characters" is "characters" with personalities, backgrounds and such. The Pokemon game isn't exactly a good example of using Pokemon as characters because technically, they aren't...
BUT I must agree that they are the ones that contribute to the main theme of the game itself.
Characters don't just exist in a game for the sake of existing (what people call filler characters). There has to have a reason why they exist. Of course, not all characters have to have detailed backgrounds. These are saved for the main characters. But even then, there has to at least have some sort of backgrounds for the supporting characters.
They technically are characters in the game rules. You level them up, fight with them, manage a team by adding and removing characters. These are the same actions an RPG player would with characters in other RPGs. You are gonna hate me on this one too, but Pokemon actually have those backrounds and personalities.
Pokemon #132: Ditto
Backround: Routes 13, 14, 15, 23, Cerulean Cave
Personality:
Red Blue: Capable of copying an enemy's genetic code to instantly transform itself into a duplicate of the enemy.
Yellow: When it spots an enemy, its body transforms into an almost perfect copy of its opponent.
Stadium: Capable of reorganizing its cells to transform into an exact duplicate of its enemy. It is usually a shapeless blob.
Source:http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pikachu_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29#Game_locations
The Pokemon games actually follow all of the rules of what we desire. They even love. Maybe they don't kiss in a flying school, but they can breed and give babies.
I do want my great story games, but the Pokemon games do hold water when talking about multiple characters in RPGs. They are up there with Chrono Cross, Suikoden, Fire Emblem, and games that let you invent multiple characters like Disgaea. Some game designers encourage limits on main characters, but these games made it work.
The question is: What can we learn from these games, to make our own good games with ton of characters?
Looking at many of the examples, one of the lessons would be allowing the player for great customization of their characters.
EDIT: The personalities of Pokemon are a combination of what the games gives us(text, disposition towards player, health) , and our experiences of failure and success with our Pokemon.
I dunno, I enjoy having a choice of who to use in battle. That's why I enjoyed Suikoden so much. You could choose many different parties to fight and while at the end of the day they did the same things, cosmetically and characteristically they were different.
I mean, would breaking in to the Academy in Suikoden 2 be as memorable if you hadn't had children characters?
As for the lack of character depth... that's arguable. There have been characters where you'd think they were pretty shallow, but if you investigate them you'll find they have a lot of history and thought put into them. Take Georg for instance. Just some random guy you find in the mountains, and yet after investigating him you find out he was a key person in the previous war as well as being a major character in Suikoden V.
Then you take someone like Killey - he's been mentioned in most of the games as well as playable. Yet he's just some guy that showed up because you investigated the Sindar ruins.
The thing is, when making lots of characters, to remember to give them a history. Make them real. Do they have family, friends, history in the area or abroad? Why are they fighting? What reasons do they have for joining your group? What are their motives? What's their favourite colour? Food? Music? Animal? What flaws do they have? What is their best and worst feature?
If you can't answer this for each 'main character' then they should be demoted to NPC. Hell, I'd even give NPCs at least some background history. It makes them feel complete, not just random people with no reason for life except to welcome you to an area and warn you that snakes poison you.
I mean, would breaking in to the Academy in Suikoden 2 be as memorable if you hadn't had children characters?
As for the lack of character depth... that's arguable. There have been characters where you'd think they were pretty shallow, but if you investigate them you'll find they have a lot of history and thought put into them. Take Georg for instance. Just some random guy you find in the mountains, and yet after investigating him you find out he was a key person in the previous war as well as being a major character in Suikoden V.
Then you take someone like Killey - he's been mentioned in most of the games as well as playable. Yet he's just some guy that showed up because you investigated the Sindar ruins.
The thing is, when making lots of characters, to remember to give them a history. Make them real. Do they have family, friends, history in the area or abroad? Why are they fighting? What reasons do they have for joining your group? What are their motives? What's their favourite colour? Food? Music? Animal? What flaws do they have? What is their best and worst feature?
If you can't answer this for each 'main character' then they should be demoted to NPC. Hell, I'd even give NPCs at least some background history. It makes them feel complete, not just random people with no reason for life except to welcome you to an area and warn you that snakes poison you.
It's too bad pokemon don't die. That's a good way to freak out the player.
Anyway, have as many characters has you have stories for them to be in your party. Preferably good stories.
Anyway, have as many characters has you have stories for them to be in your party. Preferably good stories.
author=Gourd_Clae
It's too bad pokemon don't die. That's a good way to freak out the player.
Anyway, have as many characters has you have stories for them to be in your party. Preferably good stories.
Ever tried a Nuzlocke challenge? It's a self-imposed challenge in Pokemon where when a Pokemon dies it must be permanently boxed. You can only catch one Pokemon per route and usually it has to be the first one you run in to. There are variations of the rules - some don't allow buying any items but pokeballs, others won't let you have duplicate pokemon, while others make you have to have what you caught, no matter if you've already got 20 ratatas or bidoofs.
It's an interesting challenge. You can read more on it HERE
Biggamefreak
1799
author=Liberty
The thing is, when making lots of characters, to remember to give them a history. Make them real. Do they have family, friends, history in the area or abroad? Why are they fighting? What reasons do they have for joining your group? What are their motives? What's their favourite colour? Food? Music? Animal? What flaws do they have? What is their best and worst feature?
If you can't answer this for each 'main character' then they should be demoted to NPC. Hell, I'd even give NPCs at least some background history. It makes them feel complete, not just random people with no reason for life except to welcome you to an area and warn you that snakes poison you.
I agree completely. However.....What if there was a game where you could hire anyone in the game as your teammate if you interest them enough. I'd want "Beware of snakes guy" in my team. He could warn me of other poisonous creatures if I encounter them. The local drunk will be useful and motivated, but only if you keep him sloshed. If he's sober, he leaves the party. Their starting stats should make sense, and I could try to change their class to what their character can allow. The guard would be a good warrior as he should be. The children...hmmmmm
There should be a maximum teammate limit and you can think about how towns and other areas can be dynamic when hiring different teammates. Now that can be fun. Everyone can be a hero. "Hello local beggar...1 coin?...you bring in income this way???...You can be a useful teammate when I go town to town."
