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)
YOUR TOP FEATURES IN GAMES
Posts
eplipswich
2728
eplipswich
View playlists
CloseAll right, let me go through some of the points mentioned here via my own opinions:
1) I don't mind Save Anywhere, actually. This is seriously useful when something crops up IRL and you have to leave quickly, in which this will come in handy. Screw those who think this sucks. At first, I had that mindset, but now, I think this feature is no big deal.
2) Again, I don't mind non-random encounters either. I think touch encounters are actually the best type of encounter systems in RPGs. Random encounters tend to be very annoying, after all.
8) Avoid Grinding for EXP, well...this actually depends. As long as I don't feel the need to absolutely have to grind before I can defeat a boss or something, I'm fine with it. I tend to fight almost all enemies that I encounter in a dungeon and hardly escape, unless it becomes too much of a toll.
4) I don't have too much qualm over reused sprites, but if I see an overuse of reused sprites from the same source, and it doesn't fit well into a game, I'll rage quit.
5) Unique abilities certainly help. While they may seem minor, they spice up the gameplay.
No comment about 6), and...
7) Minigames just really depends, as long as they are not overused or stray too far away from the main theme, plot at hand. The safest approach, of course, is just to make them optional. Even then, they have to be optional for a good reason.
Other than those, here's one I find to be top features in games:
Plot. A very important reason why I play RPG is not much the gameplay, but more of the plot. If the plot is boring or so, I'll lose interest. I tend to prefer plots that have excitement and tensions much of the way. Fairy-tale-like RPGS are not really the thing for me, unless there's some twists or something.
1) I don't mind Save Anywhere, actually. This is seriously useful when something crops up IRL and you have to leave quickly, in which this will come in handy. Screw those who think this sucks. At first, I had that mindset, but now, I think this feature is no big deal.
2) Again, I don't mind non-random encounters either. I think touch encounters are actually the best type of encounter systems in RPGs. Random encounters tend to be very annoying, after all.
8) Avoid Grinding for EXP, well...this actually depends. As long as I don't feel the need to absolutely have to grind before I can defeat a boss or something, I'm fine with it. I tend to fight almost all enemies that I encounter in a dungeon and hardly escape, unless it becomes too much of a toll.
4) I don't have too much qualm over reused sprites, but if I see an overuse of reused sprites from the same source, and it doesn't fit well into a game, I'll rage quit.
5) Unique abilities certainly help. While they may seem minor, they spice up the gameplay.
No comment about 6), and...
7) Minigames just really depends, as long as they are not overused or stray too far away from the main theme, plot at hand. The safest approach, of course, is just to make them optional. Even then, they have to be optional for a good reason.
Other than those, here's one I find to be top features in games:
Plot. A very important reason why I play RPG is not much the gameplay, but more of the plot. If the plot is boring or so, I'll lose interest. I tend to prefer plots that have excitement and tensions much of the way. Fairy-tale-like RPGS are not really the thing for me, unless there's some twists or something.
Vaizer
0
1. Save anywhere. This is an extremely reasonable feature. Allowance to distinguish between life and game. A game is played for the purpose of being someone else or doing something else to take your mind off current.. 'things' Why make a game not enjoyable by preventing you to save before something bad happens? Why play the game at all if you can't go back and change the outcome?
2. Random Encounters. I think these are essential in any RPG. The Aesthetics of older games is the sheer beauty of not knowing when you'd be in a fight. That way you are always at your best.
3. Story. The downright meat and potatoes of any game. This is also the center of many game-oriented controversies. Modern games are now supremely known for delivering high quality but short lived story lines with derivative branches or side-quests. Even worse is for the Xbox 360 and their hideous need for DLC to play more of the game you already bought. I fully would back a developer who would sacrifice the high end graphics for a high end 60 hour story line.
4. Unique features, dynamics and mini-games. This ties in those little quirks every game has such as: Seawatch for Kingdom of Amalur, Castle upgrades for Recruiting Stars of destiny in Suikoden and sending Einherjer to Valhalla and then getting periodical reports on their achievements in Valkyrie Profile. I believe mini games or little crazy features like these shouldn't be incorporated into the story but available to do. Perhaps even expanded upon. Like suikoden for example, you recruit say 20 people to go to your castle... castle upgrades, gains a few more rooms.. it's a little more clean ya know nice. Get more, more is done to it. (personally if I had my way if you recruited more people or side characters you'd increase the size of your army through side quests)
2. Random Encounters. I think these are essential in any RPG. The Aesthetics of older games is the sheer beauty of not knowing when you'd be in a fight. That way you are always at your best.
3. Story. The downright meat and potatoes of any game. This is also the center of many game-oriented controversies. Modern games are now supremely known for delivering high quality but short lived story lines with derivative branches or side-quests. Even worse is for the Xbox 360 and their hideous need for DLC to play more of the game you already bought. I fully would back a developer who would sacrifice the high end graphics for a high end 60 hour story line.
4. Unique features, dynamics and mini-games. This ties in those little quirks every game has such as: Seawatch for Kingdom of Amalur, Castle upgrades for Recruiting Stars of destiny in Suikoden and sending Einherjer to Valhalla and then getting periodical reports on their achievements in Valkyrie Profile. I believe mini games or little crazy features like these shouldn't be incorporated into the story but available to do. Perhaps even expanded upon. Like suikoden for example, you recruit say 20 people to go to your castle... castle upgrades, gains a few more rooms.. it's a little more clean ya know nice. Get more, more is done to it. (personally if I had my way if you recruited more people or side characters you'd increase the size of your army through side quests)
author=prexus
No, Messi. That doesn't work.
The point of on-touch encounters is that you can avoid them by running around them. If you are then given a second opportunity when they touch you, that is redundant and non-sensical. Unless it was a special ability of a character or item you have equipped, then maybe.
Redundant and non-sensical? You've never been caught by an on-touch encounter that you wanted to avoid? How about if there's 3 or 4 of them chasing you in an area? The point is to let you skip it if you want by choice.
I remember games like Lunar Eternal Blue had on-touch encounters that were very hard to avoid.
My skip battle prompts are borderline minigames. It's more like fight alternative than fight skip(you're rewarded exp and moneys that you would have earned from the fight by winning), but it's quick and you don't have to do the fight. It's certaintly not redundant to running around them.
Muninn
2233
author=Sauceauthor=prexusRedundant and non-sensical? You've never been caught by an on-touch encounter that you wanted to avoid? How about if there's 3 or 4 of them chasing you in an area? The point is to let you skip it if you want by choice.
No, Messi. That doesn't work.
The point of on-touch encounters is that you can avoid them by running around them. If you are then given a second opportunity when they touch you, that is redundant and non-sensical. Unless it was a special ability of a character or item you have equipped, then maybe.
The point was that if you're given a chance to evade the encounter by dodging the on-map sprite, and then given another opportunity when caught to not fight the encounter, then the whole "show the sprite on the map so that the player can try to avoid it" bit is unnecessary, and it may as well be a random encounter with an option to skip the battle.
From Lucidstillness' list, the only ones I could really consider "good game design" rather than "one possible option of game design" are Unique Abilities (or at least unique combinations of nonunique abilities), Clear Story Progression (to any extent, anyway. A story shouldn't be overly padded with mandatory filler content, but optional content that gives the possibility of padding a story is a different case, due to being optional), and Avoiding Grinding (once again, to an extent. I'm in favor of the idea of grinding as difficulty modification, so ideally players should arrive at a difficult section of the game slightly underleveled, so that the section is doable but difficult, and will become less difficult if the player grinds. I'd also support the idea that instead of grinding by pacing around in patches of grass for hours on end, a better idea would be for a variety of sidequests to become available for the player.)
My top features:
Save anywhere: I may get tired of the game eventually. The time between this moment and the moment I save is the time I'll be hating the game. The shorter this time is, the better.
Not too hard: Games don't have to be too easy, but if they're too hard, I'll get frustrated easily.
Character customization: This rarely fails in making me interested in games.
Custom graphics: I rarely get interested in games with familiar graphics.
What I DON'T mind:
Story branching, multiple endings: Don't care.
Multiple endings: Don't care, it's unlikely I'll play more than once.
Non-random encounters: Of the many things that may annoy me about battles, being random is not one of them. Frequency is more likely to annoy me.
Minigames: What? I like minigames, even if they're mandatory.
Custom sound/music: Though I like custom graphics, I don't mind reused soundtrack.
Save anywhere: I may get tired of the game eventually. The time between this moment and the moment I save is the time I'll be hating the game. The shorter this time is, the better.
Not too hard: Games don't have to be too easy, but if they're too hard, I'll get frustrated easily.
Character customization: This rarely fails in making me interested in games.
Custom graphics: I rarely get interested in games with familiar graphics.
What I DON'T mind:
Story branching, multiple endings: Don't care.
Multiple endings: Don't care, it's unlikely I'll play more than once.
Non-random encounters: Of the many things that may annoy me about battles, being random is not one of them. Frequency is more likely to annoy me.
Minigames: What? I like minigames, even if they're mandatory.
Custom sound/music: Though I like custom graphics, I don't mind reused soundtrack.
I think we've hit most of the biggest issues people seem to have with RPGs. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that games need these features to be good, or that games should implement some or all of these features just because they are popular, regardless of whether they actually work in said game. This is just a list of common complaints we've all seen over and over again with RPGs, and they are often used as the main points of any bad review of a game. Here is one such article from Screwattack about the apparent "rise and fall" of JRPGs, which hits the same points we've brought up:
http://www.screwattack.com/news/rise-and-fall-jrpg
Frankly, I'm not sure where whoever was writing this got their facts; assuming that he is talking about the appeal of the original JRPG from the 80s, the modern sales figures for JRPGs far exceed the sales of their progenitors. You can see all of Final Fantasy's sales figures here(though this article doesn't appear to cite its sources.) Moreover, modern JRPGs generally have far more of a plot, but I digress.
You can see the same old complaints: random encounters, random drops, grinding, railroading, and a lack of a regular save feature. Personally, I don't think the mechanics alone have lead to a, "decline in popularity," but I'm sure you can find dozens of articles like this one across the Internet.
http://www.screwattack.com/news/rise-and-fall-jrpg
Frankly, I'm not sure where whoever was writing this got their facts; assuming that he is talking about the appeal of the original JRPG from the 80s, the modern sales figures for JRPGs far exceed the sales of their progenitors. You can see all of Final Fantasy's sales figures here(though this article doesn't appear to cite its sources.) Moreover, modern JRPGs generally have far more of a plot, but I digress.
You can see the same old complaints: random encounters, random drops, grinding, railroading, and a lack of a regular save feature. Personally, I don't think the mechanics alone have lead to a, "decline in popularity," but I'm sure you can find dozens of articles like this one across the Internet.
jnf1985
0
1. In the middle on this one. Save Anywhere does help but just having this doesn't help when you have a major boss battle you cannot beat and painted yourself into a corner. I suggest the saving system in Tactics Ogre. It has a hard save feature for when your in between battles but a temporary save when your in a battle and can start right back from it when you turn on the system again. This IMO works best.
In the case of RM games I would suggest to have Save Points so the player can know "MAJOR BOSS/CUTSCENE BEHIND THOSE DOORS" while the temporary save option will allow them to stop and then start again when they can.
2. I've played RPGs with Random Encounters and Visible Enemies. Visible Enemies work out if you can actually run from them. Alot of them make it damn near impossible. It does help although that you can clear a whole floor and then walk around without issue. But in reality most floors cannot be fully explored without leaving the area going up/down some staircase/ladder which then resets the monsters..so yea...damned if you do..damned if you don't. But I like RPGs with Random Encounters. Thats just me.
3. I would rather see alot more Tree Dialogues which actually affect the storyline and what happens and what you get in terms of missions, items etc. I've seen games have alot of "Choices" but in the end it just changes a bit the NPC's reaction. FAIL! Going to see if my game can incorporate at least some Tree Dialogues with Story Impact.
4. It depends on the sprites and how much they are reused. I hated this in FF 13 with the monsters and the music. Very little originiality and that gets me real angry considering how much money and manpower they had behind this.
5. This gets harder and harder as time passes since even when you create a "Unique" ability someone compares it to a more well known ability so people can understand it better.
6. This really depends on the game and what you are collecting. Although in part without an example I'm kinda left confused as to what you really mean by this. I've never seen a game where you collect stuff and it is not relevant.
7. This is kinda toss up. They are forced minigames in FF 7 which I liked and to me do not take away from the game. Yet God of War III has a small "puzzle" which was like Guitar Hero that I hated and felt took away from it. Also in FF 9 where you had to play their stupid card game THREE TIMES to make the plot move along. Got real annoyed there.
8. Avoiding grinding? The last RPG that I played which I had to grind was FF 13. All the other RPGs I've played I can go through with little to no grinding as long as I fully explore the dungeons/areas/towns and don't run away from any or little battles. I think this is more an issue with the player then the game itself.
In the case of RM games I would suggest to have Save Points so the player can know "MAJOR BOSS/CUTSCENE BEHIND THOSE DOORS" while the temporary save option will allow them to stop and then start again when they can.
2. I've played RPGs with Random Encounters and Visible Enemies. Visible Enemies work out if you can actually run from them. Alot of them make it damn near impossible. It does help although that you can clear a whole floor and then walk around without issue. But in reality most floors cannot be fully explored without leaving the area going up/down some staircase/ladder which then resets the monsters..so yea...damned if you do..damned if you don't. But I like RPGs with Random Encounters. Thats just me.
3. I would rather see alot more Tree Dialogues which actually affect the storyline and what happens and what you get in terms of missions, items etc. I've seen games have alot of "Choices" but in the end it just changes a bit the NPC's reaction. FAIL! Going to see if my game can incorporate at least some Tree Dialogues with Story Impact.
4. It depends on the sprites and how much they are reused. I hated this in FF 13 with the monsters and the music. Very little originiality and that gets me real angry considering how much money and manpower they had behind this.
5. This gets harder and harder as time passes since even when you create a "Unique" ability someone compares it to a more well known ability so people can understand it better.
6. This really depends on the game and what you are collecting. Although in part without an example I'm kinda left confused as to what you really mean by this. I've never seen a game where you collect stuff and it is not relevant.
7. This is kinda toss up. They are forced minigames in FF 7 which I liked and to me do not take away from the game. Yet God of War III has a small "puzzle" which was like Guitar Hero that I hated and felt took away from it. Also in FF 9 where you had to play their stupid card game THREE TIMES to make the plot move along. Got real annoyed there.
8. Avoiding grinding? The last RPG that I played which I had to grind was FF 13. All the other RPGs I've played I can go through with little to no grinding as long as I fully explore the dungeons/areas/towns and don't run away from any or little battles. I think this is more an issue with the player then the game itself.
author=Lucidstillness
Frankly, I'm not sure where whoever was writing this got their facts; assuming that he is talking about the appeal of the original JRPG from the 80s, the modern sales figures for JRPGs far exceed the sales of their progenitors....
It might not be that JRPGs have fallen but that WRPGs have risen. Yeah, "fall" is a strong word for games that are still selling millions!
But these kind of responses make me sad:
author=calunio
Story branching, multiple endings: Don't care.
For thousands of years we've had linear story-telling in its many established forms. Now, in the digital age, we can finally tell stories with complex and interesting branching, and I think we're just beginning to discover the possibilities of this new artform.
But consumers are saying "don't care" and publishers are giving them exactly what they want in that regard. It makes me sad. Thank goodness for WRPGs like Dragon Age which are trying to explore this potential.
Shinan
4314
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/12/29/the-complete-rules-for-games/
is really the top features for any game, anything else is just gravy.
The approach I like is to have at least three different quicksaves and three autosaves in any game. So that you always overwrite the oldest first with any new quicksave/autosave. Even better is if every "game" has its own set of quicksaves and autosaves so when I play the game I have my saves and when my brother plays the game he has his saves.
Also godsdamn you don't have limited save slots! I have a computer, there's room for more than three profiles on it!
is really the top features for any game, anything else is just gravy.
1. In the middle on this one. Save Anywhere does help but just having this doesn't help when you have a major boss battle you cannot beat and painted yourself into a corner. I suggest the saving system in Tactics Ogre. It has a hard save feature for when your in between battles but a temporary save when your in a battle and can start right back from it when you turn on the system again. This IMO works best.
The approach I like is to have at least three different quicksaves and three autosaves in any game. So that you always overwrite the oldest first with any new quicksave/autosave. Even better is if every "game" has its own set of quicksaves and autosaves so when I play the game I have my saves and when my brother plays the game he has his saves.
Also godsdamn you don't have limited save slots! I have a computer, there's room for more than three profiles on it!
author=flowerthiefauthor=calunioFor thousands of years we've had linear story-telling in its many established forms. Now, in the digital age, we can finally tell stories with complex and interesting branching, and I think we're just beginning to discover the possibilities of this new artform.
Story branching, multiple endings: Don't care.
But consumers are saying "don't care" and publishers are giving them exactly what they want in that regard. It makes me sad. Thank goodness for WRPGs like Dragon Age which are trying to explore this potential.
I understand that it's a feature with potential, I'm just saying that I don't need it to enjoy the game. And the FACT is: games with the best stories don't branch.
author=calunioThat is false. Sorry. Both kinds of "best stories" exist.author=flowerthiefI understand that it's a feature with potential, I'm just saying that I don't need it to enjoy the game. And the FACT is: games with the best stories don't branch.author=calunioFor thousands of years we've had linear story-telling in its many established forms. Now, in the digital age, we can finally tell stories with complex and interesting branching, and I think we're just beginning to discover the possibilities of this new artform.
Story branching, multiple endings: Don't care.
But consumers are saying "don't care" and publishers are giving them exactly what they want in that regard. It makes me sad. Thank goodness for WRPGs like Dragon Age which are trying to explore this potential.
author=flowerthief
But these kind of responses make me sad:
This whole thread makes me sad. ...I'll be damned the day the 'industry' goes: "Hey, we realize you're old and jaded now, but you still insist on keep playing videogames. So, here, have your save anywhere, and your skip everything option. Please, keep giving us your money."
Seriously, is like the line between actual game design and just catering to the peculiar whims of players is getting more and more blurry every day. I mean, I believe plenty of the things mentioned on this thread have their roots on good game design. But the actual justification that is given often leaves something to be desired... i.e. Saving anywhere is probably good game design for a number of reasons. But if you're gonna 'hate' a game, or just outright refuse to play a game because it won't let you save where and when you want, they maybe videogames aren't your thing anymore.
author=somerandom
feel free to let me quick save. I know, I know, you’re very proud of your checkpointing, but as it happens I don’t really want to repeat any fight in the game seventeen times...
This, for example. If the 'checkpointing' is done right. If it has thought behind it, and it works as intended, then it's good game design if only by definition alone; and that makes it excusable. Just because you're a lousy player and you die seventeen times in a row doesn't mean games have to adjust for your convenience... This kind of pet-peeve deal-breakers somehow make me feel ashamed of both being a wannabe game designer and a player.
real life is too inconvenient. So I demand convenience from my media (books, movies, games, tv). I don't feel ashamed of this and demanding that my games capitulate. Gimme my save anywhere/pause anytime feature. I am (probably) not going to savescum. (And if I do, why would you care?)
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=kentona
(And if I do, why would you care?)
Because it makes the game less fun, and my job is to keep you from doing things that would make the game less fun.
author=LockeZIt makes it more fun for me.author=kentonaBecause it makes the game less fun, and my job is to keep you from doing things that would make the game less fun.
(And if I do, why would you care?)
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
No, it really doesn't. You do it because you think it will. But then in the long run it just cheapens the whole experience.
Or maybe your brain doesn't work like most people's and it really does. But I'm still going to design the game I think is fun.
Or maybe your brain doesn't work like most people's and it really does. But I'm still going to design the game I think is fun.
author=LockeZNo, it really does. Or maybe sometimes it does. To assume that what makes a game fun for someone is a static thing (even for that one person consistently all the time) is a little presumptuous on your part.
No, it really doesn't. You do it because you think it will. But then in the long run it just cheapens the whole experience.
Or maybe your brain doesn't work like most people's and it really does. But I'm still going to design the game I think is fun.
It's like "I see that you are having fun, but you are supposed to be having fun this way. jeez. what's wrong with you? Is your mind not working like most people's do or something??"
Shinan
4314
author=alteregoI refuse to buy Orcs Must Die! a game I'm semi-interested in, because I found out you can't remap the keys in that game. I'm a leftie and damned if I'm going to learn how to play a game completely from scratch just so I can play a game that seems like a bit of fun. Some (seemingly small) things really are gamebreakers like that. I also did quit the Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising single player campaign at a certain point because I couldn't quicksave and there was a bit that I just couldn't get past but had to redo "too much".
This whole thread makes me sad. ...I'll be damned the day the 'industry' goes: "Hey, we realize you're old and jaded now, but you still insist on keep playing videogames. So, here, have your save anywhere, and your skip everything option. Please, keep giving us your money."
Seriously, is like the line between actual game design and just catering to the peculiar whims of players is getting more and more blurry every day. I mean, I believe plenty of the things mentioned on this thread have their roots on good game design. But the actual justification that is given often leaves something to be desired... i.e. Saving anywhere is probably good game design for a number of reasons. But if you're gonna 'hate' a game, or just outright refuse to play a game because it won't let you save where and when you want, they maybe videogames aren't your thing anymore.
Yeah. You as a game designer might feel that stuff like that is completely intentional and it lessens the game experience if you have remappable keys, quicksave buttons, support for windowed play or no DRM.
Fortunately there's loads of great games out there that cater to me as well. You might get enough people playing/paying for your game without some of these features that I find essential. But I'm not giving you any of my money/time.
I mean.
author=alteregoI vote with my wallet. If a game insists on only supporting gamepads, being played 640*480 in full screen, having three save slots and requires an online connection to play in single player...
"Hey, we realize you're old and jaded now, but you still insist on keep playing videogames. So, here, have your save anywhere, and your skip everything option. Please, keep giving us your money."
I'm not going to buy it. It might be the greatest game ever made. But there's plenty of those.
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
Well I make the games I believe are fun. I am sure what I believe is fun isn't always actually what's fun, but I'm doing the best I can. I am sure some people have aversions to things that are fun for most people, due to their personalities or their past experiences, but I don't think it's really intelligent to design around that possibility if doing so makes the game less fun for the primary type of player the game is actually designed for. Is making something playable for 10% more people worth making it less fun for everyone else? I say... no.
This is now totally off topic. I LIKE SKILLS WITH COOLDOWNS AND SIDE-EFFECTS AND OTHER BEHAVIOR THAT MAKES ME NOT USE THE SAME ONE OVER AND OVER. GIMME SOME OF THAT. TOP FEATURE HELL YEAH. I've beaten FF4 somewhere around 25 times though so obviously not a must have.
This is now totally off topic. I LIKE SKILLS WITH COOLDOWNS AND SIDE-EFFECTS AND OTHER BEHAVIOR THAT MAKES ME NOT USE THE SAME ONE OVER AND OVER. GIMME SOME OF THAT. TOP FEATURE HELL YEAH. I've beaten FF4 somewhere around 25 times though so obviously not a must have.
