MONSTER ENCOUNTERS THAT MAKE SENSE.

Posts

Pages: first prev 12 last
Liberty, you may be right... but then if monsters are "afraid", or keep away of humans, just as a deer or whatever then they would not swarm you while you are walking on the fields close to towns or so.

I also find true what you say about villages, but then if there is something like you described, it isn't a defenseless village anymore.

This lead me to other question about making more sense in encounters. Why are enemy encounters fixed to game pace. I've never seen weaker enemies after the start point, or strong enemies roaming early. It may not defeat the realism as you may find, for example, find 1 or 2 strong enemy among 30 weak enemies (think abour Africa, lions and zebras). Strong enemies could even be a auto-pace factor for the player to say "come back later" without using a stubborn NPC or a flat weak bush.
NeverSilent
Got any Dexreth amulets?
6299
author=Treason89
This lead me to other question about making more sense in encounters. Why are enemy encounters fixed to game pace. I've never seen weaker enemies after the start point, or strong enemies roaming early. It may not defeat the realism as you may find, for example, find 1 or 2 strong enemy among 30 weak enemies (think abour Africa, lions and zebras). Strong enemies could even be a auto-pace factor for the player to say "come back later" without using a stubborn NPC or a flat weak bush.


While I do think this is something that would be worth trying in a game (especially one that goes for an extremely realistic approach, which I think would be a cool experiment), for most RPG's this would simply go too far. I actually have to side with RyaReisender here and say that in many cases, having a realistic enemy strenght curve would make a game close to unplayable. I'm sure there are possible scenarios and interesting game concepts where things like this can work, but in classical RPG's, some sense of (safe) progression is simply needed. An approach like this would most likely run the risk of destroying the gameplay. (At least, that's what I suspect.)
I remember in Final Fantasy II, running into monsters that were way beyond the party's current ability to defeat was one of the surefire signs that you were going in the wrong direction.
Well, FFXII did sort of have different tiers of monsters in areas, even though they were a bit harder. It was usually a case of lower tier monsters being at your level and higher tier ones being the challenge (like the dinosaurs at the start. >.<')

And to answer your question about swarming - the same reasons that tigers will not attack settlements but will attack small groups of people instead: animals aren't stupid. The conceit of mankind is to think that they are but they aren't. Just as they learn to avoid areas that a predatory pack lives, they know better than to attack a larger force of humans who have dug in. But in the case that a predator is alone and weakened? They will attack.

It makes perfect sense to me~
author=Treason89
I don't know if this fits on this discussion but here I go!

Another important thing to have in mind when designing encounters is the monster location. In Legend of Legaia the world was filled with monster because of the mist (or whatever name it had) but after you progressed through the game, the mist was cleaned and monsters (Seru) didn't appeared anymore in that area. That makes sense.

In the other hand, some RPG games put enemy encounters just outside the countryside of even a little defenseless town. The monsters are SO intelligent, bold and nice not to swarm against the town (even if you see them cooperating in enemy encounters), but once you put just a step outside the "WELCOME" sign they rush for your meat... That's nonsense and unrealistic for me. Why should the monsters cooperate with townsfolk but go against you? Well of course it could be justified if it is the Necromancer/Witch town mentioned before by Kaliesto.

Edit: Whoa! CashmereCat, I like that point of view. I would surely work nice if it properly fits in the game.


A lot of RPGs apply the handwave that due to the evil influences of whatever Bad Stuff is driving the plot, monster populations are increasing, or normally harmless creatures are becoming more aggressive.

Here's an idea that appeals to me; use this as a plot element, but don't make this something that's been going on for a few months or so, make it something that's been going on for decades. Human civilization has already battened down hatches to weather the storm; less defensible communities have been abandoned and people have consolidated in larger communities for their own protection. The population of humans has dropped precipitously due both to fatalities from monsters and to loss of habitable land.

Human towns are basically safe, but only because the ones that still exist are all adequately guarded. It's not that monsters politely avoid trespassing in places of human habitation, but that places of human habitation are the ones that can prevent monsters from trespassing. As a consequence, populated areas have been forced to become much more self-sufficient, since the cost of trade has gone way up due to the necessity of protection against monster attacks.

If you're going to apply genre conventions like distantly spaced towns separated by hordes of random encounters, you might as well consolidate them as story elements.
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
I did one game where there were monsters surrounding the towns, and as a result the townspeople were just all getting slaughtered. Only two towns in the game were actually defensible enough to survive this, and the others were not really proper "towns" so much as tiny camps of people in the process of getting slaughtered, who were willing to trade equipment with you and let you spend the night in a bed.
Reminds me of the one game where I had a huge highway (Medieval standard ;p ) that was used for trading but was constantly patrolled by the military orders of the country. If you actually walked on the roads you'd get no monster encounters (but would sometimes run into a military group and since you were sort-of-but-not-really-outlaws you'd have to fight them, though you could also bribe them).

Each town had a specific garrison to protect them, larger ones had more than one and sometimes you'd hear about attacks on the town by monsters if you slept at the inn (a rumour system that would update sometimes with random bits of info). When that happened you could go to the outskirts and scrounge up materials from the already vanquished enemies.

I lost that game in a computer wipe years ago and still regret it's loss. The story was hokey as hell but at least those parts were, imo, cool as shit.
Yellow Magic
Could I BE any more Chandler Bing from Friends (TM)?
3229
author=CashmereCat
I don't really care about whether I fight a slime teaming up with a wolf or not. I just care about whether the gameplay is fun. It doesn't matter how wild or wacky your game's rules are, just give me a fun game and I'll play it. You could pit me against the Boogey monster and Mr. Candy from Django Unchained and I'd be happy as long as it's a balanced encounter.

Too much focus on realism, not enough on actually making a fun game. Focus on what matters, kids.
100$ agree with this. Remember when video games were about escapism?

EDIT: I mean seriously, RPGs are the last games where we should worry about such things. In what universe do living beings battle by taking turns or looking at an Active Time Bar? "Ouch, Osama casted Slow on me? I'm gonna have to wait a while before taking my gun out and shooting the bastard"
Roden
who could forget dear ratboy
3857
Yes, we shouldn't worry about the little aspects of worldbuilding in a genre entirely dependant on worldbuilding and lore.

Why didn't I think of that?

I'm not even going to touch on the sentiment that "Video games are losing their way!" Because it's so pointlessly wrong to say that that I don't even have a discussion to bring up.
Yellow Magic
Could I BE any more Chandler Bing from Friends (TM)?
3229
author=Pizza
a genre entirely dependant on worldbuilding and lore
Is this some kind of joke?

With regards to my "remember when" comment, that was just a figure of speech. Don't read too much into it. I will say, though, that I'm concerned about the need to make an RPG so logical such that even the common enemy encounters have to make perfect sense. I didn't think less of FFVI as per Locke's example simply because I didn't fight enough guards in the Narshe mines.
Roden
who could forget dear ratboy
3857
author=Yellow Magic
author=Pizza
a genre entirely dependant on worldbuilding and lore
Is this some kind of joke?

Jesus fucking christ. I'm out.

How could it possibly be a joke? RPGs are about integrating a story with gameplay, it's literally the most story heavy genre next to visual novels. Just look at WRPGs like Skyrim/Oblivion, and the way the world is built, amd how storied the backgrounf information is. It makes those games what they are, and it makes them more enthralling. The same concepts can be easily applied to a JRPG.

I don't get it. When has an RPG been less good because it tried to present a world the player could really lose themselves in?
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
I don't know if you've played any games since 2002, but every genre of games that has characters has as much story as RPGs now. RPGs just did it first. For a period of about 10 years in the middle there, after RPGs started having stores but before action/rts/shooter/adventure/plattformer games started having stories, they were the king, but that is merely a subset of RPGs and not a defining part of the genre. Story-based RPGs are effectively a type of genre crossover, like action rpgs or strategy rpgs. Or maybe just a common flavor, like monster-collecting RPGs.

I really like the trend of adding stories to games though, and creating a believable world helps me care about what I'm doing. So in summary, y'all both stupid and we hella off topic, now shu'p.
Yellow Magic
Could I BE any more Chandler Bing from Friends (TM)?
3229
^Pretty much what LockeZ said. I don't mind if you want to add a story to whatever game you like, but to say an RPG is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on worldbuilding and lore is horribly ignorant, so please get this outdated idea out of your head.

I mean, just look at your average Crazegame.
Pages: first prev 12 last