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)
BATTLING IN GAMES, BUT.. WHY?
Posts
calunio
View playlists
CloseCaz, you clearly don't like games without battles, so just add battles. If you don't think they fit into your game, just make them more abstract, less objective. Like, instead of your characters actually fighting someone, make them battle "math homework" or something. You can replace ordinary real-world tasks with battles that represent something, but are not really fighting.
Of course you could also add a whole lot of other gameplay elements to replace battles (as just removing them would not be a good idea), but you clearly state you don't like those.
Of course you could also add a whole lot of other gameplay elements to replace battles (as just removing them would not be a good idea), but you clearly state you don't like those.
You could even abstract it a level and have them play videogames against each other as the "battle".
VIDEOGAMECEPTION
VIDEOGAMECEPTION
author=calunio
Caz, you clearly don't like games without battles, so just add battles. If you don't think they fit into your game, just make them more abstract, less objective. Like, instead of your characters actually fighting someone, make them battle "math homework" or something. You can replace ordinary real-world tasks with battles that represent something, but are not really fighting.
Of course you could also add a whole lot of other gameplay elements to replace battles (as just removing them would not be a good idea), but you clearly state you don't like those.
I don't dislike games without battles, I actually really enjoy a lot of the ones I've played. I'm just finding it difficult to find an alternative that would still keep the game playable and interesting, while still giving a sense of action and achievement. I think I have a few good ideas now, though, and a lot of this has really helped. I just wasn't comfortable before with the idea that there'd be little to no action involved, but I see and understand now that that's not all there is to it. I was just been moronic and close-minded, and had obviously lost all touch with how to make games at all or even how to enjoy them properly. I was starting to panic that I could come up with a brief story but there'd be nothing enjoyable to drive it.
But this topic has been super helpful, and despite me being a complete 'tard about all this, I'm still thankful to everyone who's given their insight. ^^
author=kentona
You could even abstract it a level and have them play videogames against each other as the "battle".
VIDEOGAMECEPTION
That's a pretty cool idea, you should use it for your new project. :O
No, videogames don't need battles, rpgs however are expected to have battles, the old pen&paper rpgs were created with battles in mind. But you don't need battles to make a good game.
On a side note, I loved Persona 4.
On a side note, I loved Persona 4.
This might sound stupid, but why is your game a game? The reason my game is a game is that the plot requires combat, and I'm not very good at writing combat, so I want to see if it's easier to immerse the player in combat scenes by having them actually play through those scenes. When I don't need for my stories to be games, I create them in different media instead.
Short stories, in the traditional sense of the phrase, are my preferred medium. You might like writing graphic novels, or stage plays, or even puppet shows. Just find whatever you're good at, and whatever works well for the story you want to tell.
Short stories, in the traditional sense of the phrase, are my preferred medium. You might like writing graphic novels, or stage plays, or even puppet shows. Just find whatever you're good at, and whatever works well for the story you want to tell.
Hmm, I guess I phrased a lot of this fairly wrongly. I guess what I was trying to ask in all is how people explain why there's fighting in their games: monster invasion, hero gets a kick out of killing things, other psychotic reasons. Sometimes I'm put off by games with mindless violence (strange, isn't it?!).
I know that a game doesn't need battles, I was never trying to say, "there's no battles?! WELL IT'S NOT A GAME! *quit* " because that would be dumb. There are a lot of games I really, really enjoy without any fighting at all. But I wanted to know how other people got away with that kind of thing in their own games while keeping gameplay gripping and interesting.
I ought to get better at expressing what I actually mean..
Despite me lacking basic communication skills, I have actually gotten a lot of replies from this which I'm happy about. While writing a story or something would be a lot better in terms of my brain not melting trying to come up with good gameplay, I think I'll try and progress a bit in the world of games without fighting and the world of quicktime events and NPC dialogue choices.
And hells no, I called it. :P
I know that a game doesn't need battles, I was never trying to say, "there's no battles?! WELL IT'S NOT A GAME! *quit* " because that would be dumb. There are a lot of games I really, really enjoy without any fighting at all. But I wanted to know how other people got away with that kind of thing in their own games while keeping gameplay gripping and interesting.
I ought to get better at expressing what I actually mean..
Despite me lacking basic communication skills, I have actually gotten a lot of replies from this which I'm happy about. While writing a story or something would be a lot better in terms of my brain not melting trying to come up with good gameplay, I think I'll try and progress a bit in the world of games without fighting and the world of quicktime events and NPC dialogue choices.
author=calunioauthor=kentonaThat's a pretty cool idea, you should use it for your new project. :O
You could even abstract it a level and have them play videogames against each other as the "battle".
VIDEOGAMECEPTION
And hells no, I called it. :P
Crystalgate
694
Explaining why there's conflict at all is easy, you just need a story with a bad guy that has to be stopped via the use of pointy objects. The random/touch encounters are harder. Often there isn't any explanations at all as to where all those cannon fodder monsters come from. If the bad guy is some sort of demonic being, you can hand-wave it away by assuming that he's somehow corrupting the world. In other games, such as the Suikoden series, we pretty much has to assume the monsters are part of the ecological system.
Personally, I've so far stuck with a magical setting, which makes it relative easy to explain monsters. The exact details of the explanations varies though.
Personally, I've so far stuck with a magical setting, which makes it relative easy to explain monsters. The exact details of the explanations varies though.
Yeah, it's pretty easy for the main baddy because your conflict with him is likely to be resolved through fighting/debating/something that eventually gets the hero's point across.
In terms of the grind "fodder" and monsters being part of the ecosystem, don't you think it would be a bit harsh if you left your home to go to work or something and beat up a few dogs and birds on the way? :P While it's easy to explain that for areas where a lot of the monsters are pretty aggressive or where hunting rules aren't so strict, it doesn't fit the modern setting quite so well unfortunately..
I guess your biggest enemy in the modern world is other humans, so I suppose you could have to defend yourself from thugs, etc..
In terms of the grind "fodder" and monsters being part of the ecosystem, don't you think it would be a bit harsh if you left your home to go to work or something and beat up a few dogs and birds on the way? :P While it's easy to explain that for areas where a lot of the monsters are pretty aggressive or where hunting rules aren't so strict, it doesn't fit the modern setting quite so well unfortunately..
I guess your biggest enemy in the modern world is other humans, so I suppose you could have to defend yourself from thugs, etc..
Crystalgate
694
Having monsters as part of the ecosystem would alter the community, most likely drastically. Farming, as well as transporting goods, would pose far bigger challenges with the presence of monsters. Few games (I can't even recall a single one right now) addresses that issue.
As for thugs, it will quickly look ridiculous if the heroes encounter 20+ muggers while searching trough the back streets. Monsters are usually used because, among other things, we imagine them as unreasonable aggressive creatures. We can also to some extent turn off or brains if we enter a bandit cave and the bandits show an amazing lack of self preservation. However, I don't think it will work with thugs in a modern setting. The closer the setting is to our real world, the harder it is to not notice how much the cannon fodder enemies don't make sense. So, if you do have a modern setting, you're probably better of inserting a few monsters rather than going for criminals.
That or you could just do like the Yakusa series and say "stop caring and just smash some heads!"
As for thugs, it will quickly look ridiculous if the heroes encounter 20+ muggers while searching trough the back streets. Monsters are usually used because, among other things, we imagine them as unreasonable aggressive creatures. We can also to some extent turn off or brains if we enter a bandit cave and the bandits show an amazing lack of self preservation. However, I don't think it will work with thugs in a modern setting. The closer the setting is to our real world, the harder it is to not notice how much the cannon fodder enemies don't make sense. So, if you do have a modern setting, you're probably better of inserting a few monsters rather than going for criminals.
That or you could just do like the Yakusa series and say "stop caring and just smash some heads!"
you could also just not have cannon fodder enemies and instead focus on fewer battles, but have them all be interesting and varied
i mean
just a thought
i mean
just a thought
Yeah, I did consider that running into a giant group of criminals might seem a bit unbelievable in a game setting, unless it was a very crime-based game. I'm being reminded of things like HoboWars.. which wasn't intended to be taken seriously anyway. :P Not that it necessarily has to be a serious game.
You could fight innocents or something - very GTA-esque - in order to get money and have fun playing the game. The part that bothered me about GTA games was that it was all "kill this guy" and "run over that guy," but there was no alternative way of doing things like being a helpful pansy or something. It'd be nice if you could be less of a criminal in those games and turn the page entirely.
As for fewer battles, that could be something to consider. I quite like the idea of just having one complex fight where you have to think of tactical advantages such as weaknesses, debuffs, etc. instead of five consecutive curbstomp battles where you annihilate everything instantly.
You could fight innocents or something - very GTA-esque - in order to get money and have fun playing the game. The part that bothered me about GTA games was that it was all "kill this guy" and "run over that guy," but there was no alternative way of doing things like being a helpful pansy or something. It'd be nice if you could be less of a criminal in those games and turn the page entirely.
As for fewer battles, that could be something to consider. I quite like the idea of just having one complex fight where you have to think of tactical advantages such as weaknesses, debuffs, etc. instead of five consecutive curbstomp battles where you annihilate everything instantly.
Zephyr
1241
If the setting is the normal, typical city, I think it could work pretty well by making it oppressed by criminal gangs to some noticable degree. But also as mentioned, keep the encounter rate low.
You could do something Chrono Trigger-like were all encounters are scripted, but sometimes still optional depending on what you do.
In that sense you'll also get rid of the pesky random encounters,
You could do something Chrono Trigger-like were all encounters are scripted, but sometimes still optional depending on what you do.
In that sense you'll also get rid of the pesky random encounters,
I'd definitely want combat to be very understated if included, and maybe I'd make a few sort of "alleyway entrance" events which ask if you want to adventure there. It'd then be random if you got an enemy encounter or a treasure find/story or quest based event/something. Kinda makes it feel as if you've got some input as to whether or not you're going to fight or avoid it, and if you do choose to fight, there's a potentially rewarding side to it.
It's a strain to picture any of the protagonists of the GTA series helping old ladies across the street, but maybe that's because the game you envision hasn't been made yet!
I like the idea of long single battles instead of frequent strings of short battles. You just have to figure out what to do for a leveling system. Short frequent battles do facilitate grinding so it's easy to see why they're popular. If battles become optional, you essentially have the same issue to address. How much is the player expected/required to level up?
One thing I'm experimenting with in my current wip is leveling based on item pickups. The reasoning is that I don't want the player penalized by having a weak character for having overcome enemies through unconventional (read "non-violent") means. I originally intended there to be no combat at all, but got sucked into the combat trope after all. I support anyone trying to make a combat-less rpg; it requires some careful planning.
I like the idea of long single battles instead of frequent strings of short battles. You just have to figure out what to do for a leveling system. Short frequent battles do facilitate grinding so it's easy to see why they're popular. If battles become optional, you essentially have the same issue to address. How much is the player expected/required to level up?
One thing I'm experimenting with in my current wip is leveling based on item pickups. The reasoning is that I don't want the player penalized by having a weak character for having overcome enemies through unconventional (read "non-violent") means. I originally intended there to be no combat at all, but got sucked into the combat trope after all. I support anyone trying to make a combat-less rpg; it requires some careful planning.
Avee
5794
author=flowerthief
One thing I'm experimenting with in my current wip is leveling based on item pickups.
You might want to take a look at Granstream Saga. It executed this idea, although badly: You "find" LV Ups when acquiring a specific item or reaching a certain point in the current dungeon/beating its boss.
The good: You never have to grind or fight tedious battles over and over again to get stronger.
The bad: You can skip pretty much every fight except for boss battles, which makes all the enemy fights nearly pointless and the game boring.
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
Metroid games have levelling up via item pickups. Many action, adventure and platform games don't have levelling at all. The non-boss battles don't become meaningless; they're in your way and you have to either escape or kill them. If you can win, fighting is often the safer approach due to the fact that the enemy will keep attacking you as you try to run; this can actually be simulated pretty well in menu-based combat by either disabling escaping or causing the player to be subjected to a round of damage when he flees.
Also enemies tend to drop healing items or ammunition when they die in those games. Another thing you can easily do in an RPG.
If you want battles to exist and be rewarding but for the player to never be forced to fight them, you can definitely do it. Or you can just give XP for overcoming an enemy regardless of how you do so...
Also enemies tend to drop healing items or ammunition when they die in those games. Another thing you can easily do in an RPG.
If you want battles to exist and be rewarding but for the player to never be forced to fight them, you can definitely do it. Or you can just give XP for overcoming an enemy regardless of how you do so...
That's almost like the Bethesda approach -- you level up for everything you do. If you are overcoming your foes by sneaking past them (or behind them for a one-hit kill) your sneak aptitude will increase and you'll level up that way. In Oblivion you'd even level up just by walking around.
There was a fight every day at my high school, I don't see how it doesn't make sense in a modern setting.
Also, Craze is extra angry/ranty as of late. Wuzzup?
Also, Craze is extra angry/ranty as of late. Wuzzup?
Crystalgate
694
And obviously, in all those fights, a single person was involved who kept winning all those fights against people who would attack him despite the fact that they had a snowball's chance in hell to win.
Games don't have to make sense in a real life setting, they only have to make sense within their own setting. If you have a warrior in your game who can defeat twenty veteran soldiers in a single combat without having any other advantage than simple being a better fighter, then it makes sense that he can defeat those warriors under those conditions. However, if now the hero's sworn enemy shows up, have four warriors surround him and the hero surrenders, then the player will notice that the hero's actions doesn't make any sense even though it would have made sense in real life.
Having a modern setting doesn't change that. Even though it's a modern setting, it's still not a real life setting. A set of rules, which doesn't exist in real life, are introduced and those rules makes the fighting (hopefully) make sense within the game. In Caz's case however, he asked himself "Okay, where can fighting come into that?" which means that no such rules exist within that setting yet. With a sword and sorcery medieval setting, these kinds of rules are introduced by default. With a modern setting that resembles real life a lot, this is not the case.
Games don't have to make sense in a real life setting, they only have to make sense within their own setting. If you have a warrior in your game who can defeat twenty veteran soldiers in a single combat without having any other advantage than simple being a better fighter, then it makes sense that he can defeat those warriors under those conditions. However, if now the hero's sworn enemy shows up, have four warriors surround him and the hero surrenders, then the player will notice that the hero's actions doesn't make any sense even though it would have made sense in real life.
Having a modern setting doesn't change that. Even though it's a modern setting, it's still not a real life setting. A set of rules, which doesn't exist in real life, are introduced and those rules makes the fighting (hopefully) make sense within the game. In Caz's case however, he asked himself "Okay, where can fighting come into that?" which means that no such rules exist within that setting yet. With a sword and sorcery medieval setting, these kinds of rules are introduced by default. With a modern setting that resembles real life a lot, this is not the case.
