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)
CONSISTENT MAGIC SYSTEMS
Posts
Treason89
360
Treason89
View playlists
CloseI don't know if this has been discussed before, probably yes. But may be it can be discussed again? Anyway...
What do you consider a Consistent Magic System? Many use: water, fire, wind, earth, dark, light. In pairs, or in a circular relationship of weak/strong.
Some may separate water form ice, use thunder as wind, dark as earth/gravity, fire as light/holy, etc.
Also Pokemon, as a particular case, don't use a predictable system.
So what do you consider a consistent magic system? What magic/element system would take its potential as far as possible (say, don't overpowering some element or making it useless)? Which characteristics you think a good magic system should have or what kind of characteristics you would like a magic system have?
What do you consider a Consistent Magic System? Many use: water, fire, wind, earth, dark, light. In pairs, or in a circular relationship of weak/strong.
Some may separate water form ice, use thunder as wind, dark as earth/gravity, fire as light/holy, etc.
Also Pokemon, as a particular case, don't use a predictable system.
So what do you consider a consistent magic system? What magic/element system would take its potential as far as possible (say, don't overpowering some element or making it useless)? Which characteristics you think a good magic system should have or what kind of characteristics you would like a magic system have?
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 definitely prefer when there' some tension involved in choosing which elements to use. Something that makes it a real choice instead of just me inevitably always using what the enemy is weak against.
Pokemon does this by giving each character a severely limited number of skills, and making it cost a round to change characters. Chrono Trigger does it (for part of the game) by giving each element's spells a different area of effect, so you can sometimes hit different enemies with different spells, or hit one more enemy with lightning than with physical if you wait 0.8 seconds before casting. Shin Megami Tensei does it by attaching ailments to a lot of the skills, which are situationally useful. Warcraft 3 does it by giving skills wildly different effects, and never having similar skills of different elements. Final Fantasy doesn't do it.
Pokemon does this by giving each character a severely limited number of skills, and making it cost a round to change characters. Chrono Trigger does it (for part of the game) by giving each element's spells a different area of effect, so you can sometimes hit different enemies with different spells, or hit one more enemy with lightning than with physical if you wait 0.8 seconds before casting. Shin Megami Tensei does it by attaching ailments to a lot of the skills, which are situationally useful. Warcraft 3 does it by giving skills wildly different effects, and never having similar skills of different elements. Final Fantasy doesn't do it.
I prefer magic systems where the elements Actually Matter. If you're going to have fire, ice, and thunder, the distinction is arbitrary if they all do the same damage. There should be monsters that are weak to those elements, and others that are resistant to them.
Intuitiveness is important as well. It should be easy to understand the pros and cons of using any given spell. If the player can't interpret what a spell's supposed to do or analyze its effects accurately, then the lack of transparency could turn them off from using it.
Even more important than intuition: make sure every spell is worth whatever it cost to cast. Not just MP cost, but even the turn the player spent using it. If a magic attack does less damage than a physical one, then there's no point to it. If a spell with a status problem fails 75% of the time, it's not worth it to try. It's one thing if the spell the player chose was unfitting for their situation, but then the spell's failure should give them clear feedback that "Hey, this didn't work. Try something else."
The key to making a compelling magic system is to weigh each spell against the player's other options, and create spells intuitively along with situations in which they're worth using.
Intuitiveness is important as well. It should be easy to understand the pros and cons of using any given spell. If the player can't interpret what a spell's supposed to do or analyze its effects accurately, then the lack of transparency could turn them off from using it.
Even more important than intuition: make sure every spell is worth whatever it cost to cast. Not just MP cost, but even the turn the player spent using it. If a magic attack does less damage than a physical one, then there's no point to it. If a spell with a status problem fails 75% of the time, it's not worth it to try. It's one thing if the spell the player chose was unfitting for their situation, but then the spell's failure should give them clear feedback that "Hey, this didn't work. Try something else."
The key to making a compelling magic system is to weigh each spell against the player's other options, and create spells intuitively along with situations in which they're worth using.
I started giving rules 'n roles to elements in some of my projects, kinda like Diablo 2+3. For example, I have four elements in one game: Physical, Burn, Toxic, and Suffocation. Physical is the element of raw damage and has no extra effects, burn element actions can cause the target to take more damage taken from all sources, toxic is a higher damage DoT, and suffocation is low damage but can cause debilitating status including death with a timer. The general battle tempo is to throw burn on, cause a good DoT toxin (the DoT is based on the damage inflicted by the toxin attack and same source DoT's don't stack), and then kick teeth in. Suffocation is more the wild card as is and only injected based on more specific criteria of the battle.
LockeZ is absolutely correct; elements should have some sort of appreciable difference between them besides for enemy weakness alone. For example, if there's an enemy group, and one enemy is weak against Fire, and another is weak against Lightning, and the only difference in effort to hit those weaknesses is pressing left or right in the menu, you probably Fucked Up. There are some easy to implement ideas to fix this, but in Chronology, my idea is to simply make elements not be universally accessible to the player.
For example, many mages in RPGs have access to either all element attack spells or most of them, but this more or less kills any real separation in elements; regardless of what element something is weak to, the mage, and the player deals with them the exact same way. Instead, the elements, magic or otherwise, are spread out between characters. Sure, the mage(s) have access to more elements, but in general, elemental skills and use are tied to several difference characters and factors, such as weapons, non magic elemental skills, items, and so on. That way, players have to think about a lot more factors, and have more options when working with elements.
For example, many mages in RPGs have access to either all element attack spells or most of them, but this more or less kills any real separation in elements; regardless of what element something is weak to, the mage, and the player deals with them the exact same way. Instead, the elements, magic or otherwise, are spread out between characters. Sure, the mage(s) have access to more elements, but in general, elemental skills and use are tied to several difference characters and factors, such as weapons, non magic elemental skills, items, and so on. That way, players have to think about a lot more factors, and have more options when working with elements.
RyaReisender
200
I don't really like elements too much anyway. It's all just about trying to find the right element for each new monsters and that can get quite tedious and doesn't feel much like an accomplishment.
The only time I like elements is if there is some sort of "Damage Triangle" in an SRPG and the own element of each unit is always visible, so it's all just about placing your units so they don't get hit by someone strong to them.
Also more than 3 different elements (except neutral) is just overcomplicating things.
The only time I like elements is if there is some sort of "Damage Triangle" in an SRPG and the own element of each unit is always visible, so it's all just about placing your units so they don't get hit by someone strong to them.
Also more than 3 different elements (except neutral) is just overcomplicating things.
I disagree, but you have to admit Rys you are a particularly simple guy. No offense to you but I don't think your tastes should be the standard.
RyaReisender
200
Yes I like it simple. I think simple is best. Simple and challenging.
And I don't think any "taste" should be "standard". I want more people to make simple games and I try my best to get them to. :-)
Other people like other things and they fight for whatever they want.
And I don't think any "taste" should be "standard". I want more people to make simple games and I try my best to get them to. :-)
Other people like other things and they fight for whatever they want.
'Simple' and 'challenging' aren't things that typically coincide in RPGs. Other genres, sure, but games where most of the challenge is derived from thought and strategy? Not so much.
RyaReisender
200
Shining Force
Shining in the Darkness
Beyond the Beyond
Wonder Boy In Monster World
...all the games from my childhood were simple and challenging.
Shining in the Darkness
Beyond the Beyond
Wonder Boy In Monster World
...all the games from my childhood were simple and challenging.
Crystalgate
694
Added complexity does often (maybe even usually) not add depth. Give the player ten builds to choose between and you probably end up with 2-4 builds that are clearly above the rest. Raise the choice to a hundred, and the number is probably still 2-4. Give the player the ability to mix and match stats and abilities at their own choice and the number will probably decrease. In fact, I can remember three RM games I've played where you can allocate stats freely and all three of them had only two builds that are anything else than gimping your characters, if you don't count "spend 55 points on hit-points instead of just 50" as a separate build that is.
Treason89
360
Well, that's why we give (or ask for) an opinion: many people may think in many different ways. I think things are simple if they are, somehow, systematic. If there is some kind of pattern, then it's more enjoyable as it's really possible to think about an strategy and not just... "Ok... I think this will work!".
I've never understood why there is a separation between water and ice. Sounds and effects are different, but the core is the same H2O. That's something I really like about Avatar series.
But putting that aside. I see two different interesting things here:
1)Meaning: making a meaningful system is important but then... well it may seem like a stupid question but here it goes: why do overpowered (or useless) elemental attributes exist? Are they like that because of the developer or because of personal preferences?
2)Simplicity: a very relative concept. What one may find simple, other one may find very complicated. If simplicity is just number of type of elements, then it may become a rock-scissors-paper rule, maybe leading to a meaningless system? Combo skills to create intermediate or new type of elements is a resource sometimes used to provide variety while maintaining the basics simple... but, isn't that complicating stuff? So what do you consider reasonably simple?
I've never understood why there is a separation between water and ice. Sounds and effects are different, but the core is the same H2O. That's something I really like about Avatar series.
But putting that aside. I see two different interesting things here:
1)Meaning: making a meaningful system is important but then... well it may seem like a stupid question but here it goes: why do overpowered (or useless) elemental attributes exist? Are they like that because of the developer or because of personal preferences?
2)Simplicity: a very relative concept. What one may find simple, other one may find very complicated. If simplicity is just number of type of elements, then it may become a rock-scissors-paper rule, maybe leading to a meaningless system? Combo skills to create intermediate or new type of elements is a resource sometimes used to provide variety while maintaining the basics simple... but, isn't that complicating stuff? So what do you consider reasonably simple?
author=RyaReisender
Shining Force
Shining in the Darkness
Beyond the Beyond
Wonder Boy In Monster World
...all the games from my childhood were simple and challenging.
And that's fine. But keyword is childhood. Now that I'm a grown ass man, complexity for my grown ass brain is something that I yearn for in my interactions, even in fun. Simple is fine, and good simplicity is preferable to bad complexity, but the type of game that me and by extension, many of my peers gravitate to are things that are easy to learn but are rewarding and challenging to master. A low skill ceiling can be depressing in an epic.
Magic in my universe is not common but each character with magick has power over an element although two my playable characters have Water and Wind as their element but can use Ice and Thunder Magicks. There is an Earth elemental user who I plan on giving a spell of Fire, Ice, and Thunder that she uses through manipulating nature(think a Final Fantasy Geomancer but casting Firaga instead of a fire-based skill) but only has the single-target spells. The Fire and Water users each have a healing spell (Resurrection and Single-Target Heal respectively) as there's a specialized healer whose affinity is not towards Light which won't appear in the Game, but Life which lacks offense except for a drain spell and instant death.
RyaReisender
200
author=Feldschlacht IV
And that's fine. But keyword is childhood. Now that I'm a grown ass man, complexity for my grown ass brain is something that I yearn for in my interactions, even in fun. Simple is fine, and good simplicity is preferable to bad complexity, but the type of game that me and by extension, many of my peers gravitate to are things that are easy to learn but are rewarding and challenging to master. A low skill ceiling can be depressing in an epic.
For me this never changed this strongly. I still like what I liked in my childhood and like it when people catch the "spirit" of the old games.
It's not that my brain didn't grow, but rather that now I have a job and work hard and when I come home I just want to relax playing a game and not trying to remember all those 100 buttons combinations to launch special attacks in an action RPG I haven't played for 3 weeks, because I had other stuff to do. Or to stay on topic - to remember all 10 element types and which monster is weak against what.
from RyaReisenderThere's something to be said for that, too. I have my own 'cruise control' games I resort to when I just want to veg out. The thing is, I don't think these two sides are mutually exclusive.
It's not that my brain didn't grow, but rather that now I have a job and work hard and when I come home I just want to relax playing a game and not trying to remember all those 100 buttons combinations to launch special attacks in an action RPG I haven't played for 3 weeks, because I had other stuff to do.
If you incorporate a magic system into an RPG, the purpose it serves is to keep it from being 'mash Enter to win'. However, a lot of games let the player get by doing just that. It's not as efficient for them, since understanding the magic system would (presumably) make their battles go more easily, but they can still clear the game with little to no effort.
I don't think that's a bad thing, really. It makes the game accessible to less serious players, but those willing to go the extra mile get a more satisfying result. Ideally, I'd say a game should be doable (but difficult) for those just ramming their heads against it, but engaging and interesting for those willing to try harder. Both sides still win, but how they win is completely different.
RyaReisender
200
Just pressing "A" or "Enter" to win is what I call "Simple and easy". I mean "Simple and challenging" as in, even if you haven't played the game for a while you can just continue playing it without having to re-read any tutorial or learn the key assignments (preferably only two buttons needed: confirm and cancel), but at the same time it's not easy to win battles.
I'm not just referring to those small games you play to relax. It's also a problem in RPGs for me. Especially those that I quit halfway and want to get back to but I just can't because the game expects you to slowly get better at it while playing and jumping into the middle while having forgotten all the button combinations just doesn't work in them. That's a bit frustrating.
I'm not just referring to those small games you play to relax. It's also a problem in RPGs for me. Especially those that I quit halfway and want to get back to but I just can't because the game expects you to slowly get better at it while playing and jumping into the middle while having forgotten all the button combinations just doesn't work in them. That's a bit frustrating.
That sounds like more an issue of intuitiveness than anything else, but whether it's complex controls or complex game mechanics, you either remember them or you don't, I guess. I'd say a well-designed game wouldn't be too hard to relearn, but I also wouldn't design a game around the assumption that the player will arbitrarily quit halfway through.
Regardless, you seem like a pretty lazy gamer. ;P
Regardless, you seem like a pretty lazy gamer. ;P
I think it's a matter of taste, but I'm the total opposite kind of gamer that Rya is; I can enjoy simple, yeah, but I wouldn't make it a rule.
To be on topic, I don't mind a lot of elements as long as they have some use. Star Ocean 2 was an interesting example, as it had a LOT of elements, but to my knowledge the game's balance was all over the place, and adhering to how they were applied fell into expert level play.
To be on topic, I don't mind a lot of elements as long as they have some use. Star Ocean 2 was an interesting example, as it had a LOT of elements, but to my knowledge the game's balance was all over the place, and adhering to how they were applied fell into expert level play.
RyaReisender
200
Okay more on topic would be the question:
What does a 4th element add in terms of possibilities/fun that you can't already have with 3 elements. My claim is: Any more elements than 3 will just add to the complexity but never to the possibilities and fun of a game.
What does a 4th element add in terms of possibilities/fun that you can't already have with 3 elements. My claim is: Any more elements than 3 will just add to the complexity but never to the possibilities and fun of a game.
