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)
RANDOM OR ON MAP ENCOUNTERS?
Posts
zeello
40
zeello
View playlists
CloseRe: Craze
I considered it too. On paper it makes more sense not to have leveling in any game, ever, or have fixed leveling. Easier to balance the game this way and ensures the player is having the experience you intended.
But I decided to have leveling for my current game idea. What I'm planning to do is to have leveling, but after every boss, everyone in the party goes back to level 1. So it would feel like one of those tower games where you're level 1 each time you start playing. However, if you die, you just respawn at the beginning with your level intact. The player keeps dying until the party is strong enough to beat the boss. Its a nice middle ground and will make balancing and playtesting the game easier than if the level is retained throughout.
Though I just realized given the themes of my game (a character that grows and matures over the course of the story) I should probably not do it this way. Hmmm... Only just realized this.
My my, what a dilemma.
I considered it too. On paper it makes more sense not to have leveling in any game, ever, or have fixed leveling. Easier to balance the game this way and ensures the player is having the experience you intended.
But I decided to have leveling for my current game idea. What I'm planning to do is to have leveling, but after every boss, everyone in the party goes back to level 1. So it would feel like one of those tower games where you're level 1 each time you start playing. However, if you die, you just respawn at the beginning with your level intact. The player keeps dying until the party is strong enough to beat the boss. Its a nice middle ground and will make balancing and playtesting the game easier than if the level is retained throughout.
Though I just realized given the themes of my game (a character that grows and matures over the course of the story) I should probably not do it this way. Hmmm... Only just realized this.
My my, what a dilemma.
Desertopa
775
I think it would also frustrate players who derive any enjoyment from a sense of progress over time, and discourage them from leveling up when they do have the opportunity, since they're going to lose the advantages soon anyway.
I don't think that leveling is inherently evil. I personally don't like to use it in my projects. Sorry if I didn't make that clear! For stuff like a game about maturity, it makes perfect sense.
BUT: if your game is all about building up Ability Points that you spend on buying fancy new grappling hook moves and moves that freeze water into bridges... maybe don't have most of the AP gain be learned from battle experience, yeah? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about avoiding.
BUT: if your game is all about building up Ability Points that you spend on buying fancy new grappling hook moves and moves that freeze water into bridges... maybe don't have most of the AP gain be learned from battle experience, yeah? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about avoiding.
zeello
40
Yea leveling is not evil, its probably the single best rpg mechanic, but a logical case can be made not to have leveling, especially in a user made game, which is rather ironic. But then it wouldn't be an rpg. Its interesting trying to reconcile that in my mind, how to combine the fun of rpg elements with rigidly logical design.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=zeello
So we should be looking at the fundamental distinctions:
- visible vs invisible
- exhaustible vs inexhaustible
- random vs fixed
- avoidable vs mandatory
The random encounters we're thinking of are invisible, inexhaustible, random, and mandatory.
That's not factoring in the "Run" mechanic.
The horror game idea would work better if the enemies are finite. If you have random encounters then it stops being scary after a few encounters of the same thing.
In a horror movie the scares are scripted, not a screamer pic that occurs randomly throughout the movie. Such a thing would quickly become expected. You need to build on context. For example the player wpcould encounter a creaking door that would cause him to wonder if something is going to happen. This effect would be somewhat lost if he was fighting shrews every 10 seconds all the way there. Well, maybe.
You keep making the assumption that the invisible encounters are all set up in the most asinine manner possible.
For a hypothetical horror game with random invisible encounters, I'd want to set up the following:
- A wide variety of enemy types and encounters, so that there isn't the endless repetition you cite
- A decent algorithm to ensure a good encounter rhythm
- Similarly, "safe" areas that are not signaled to the player, to stretch out the tension
- A theme of overwhelming odds and paranoia- the traditional zombopocalypse setup with wave upon wave of constant enemies would be a decent start for this sort of thing
Basically, a random encounter system would be fantastic to make the player feel paranoid and constantly hunted, so long as it's put together in a way that isn't ridiculous. You know a thing is going to get you, but you have no way of telling when, and you're generally in a state where it's super bad news if the wrong thing gets you. The most major factor is ensuring that the tension isn't disrupted, which, as stated in other posts, is fairly easy.
You also seem to be assuming a scripted or particular area-based encounter setup, which is OK for a single playthrough, but offers no replay value, since players would then know exactly what to expect. This is acceptable for movies, but if you have the ability to change up the player's experience for repeated tension, why wouldn't you?
ETA: "Random or On map encounters: Is leveling up cool?" :V
zeello
40
author=Soozauthor=zeelloThat's not factoring in the "Run" mechanic.
So we should be looking at the fundamental distinctions:
- visible vs invisible
- exhaustible vs inexhaustible
- random vs fixed
- avoidable vs mandatory
The random encounters we're thinking of are invisible, inexhaustible, random, and mandatory.
Yes the player can run, they can also hit the enemy until it dies. So the player is offered two ways of making the the encounter go away after it starts. But that's aside the point.
You also seem to be assuming a scripted or particular area-based encounter setup, which is OK for a single playthrough, but offers no replay value, since players would then know exactly what to expect.
But this means that if Bob plays your game and Sam plays your game, their experience will be different. What is the point of that? The experience needn't differ until the second playthrough.
There's another problem too, which is that many players will never start a second playthrough, and dare I say most players will judge your game on the first playthrough.
I haven't read the discussion yet, but I want to throw my two cents in nevertheless.
In jRPGs I prefer random 'invisible' encounters. It makes exploring more thrilling, sometimes frustrating and definitely more rewarding. And bosses should be visible.
In reality it's not as easy as it may sound and well-designed visible encounters can be really good addition.
In games with on-map battles I do prefer on-map encounters (kinda expectable, ain't it?). And in games like Heroes of Might and Magic, I prefer standing encounters (everyone know how stupid idea was to make them move around).
In jRPGs I prefer random 'invisible' encounters. It makes exploring more thrilling, sometimes frustrating and definitely more rewarding. And bosses should be visible.
In reality it's not as easy as it may sound and well-designed visible encounters can be really good addition.
In games with on-map battles I do prefer on-map encounters (kinda expectable, ain't it?). And in games like Heroes of Might and Magic, I prefer standing encounters (everyone know how stupid idea was to make them move around).
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=zeello
But this means that if Bob plays your game and Sam plays your game, their experience will be different. What is the point of that? The experience needn't differ until the second playthrough.
I... why would that matter? Different players are inherently going to have different experiences just by having different play styles.
If you're looking to present a story you have maximum control over you probably shouldn't be working in games, because by definition you're sharing control with the player.
author=guy
But this means that if Bob plays your game and Sam plays your game, their experience will be different. What is the point of that?
I'm confused. Am I reading this right?
People consider consumers having different, subjective experiences from creative expression bad?
zeello
40
Re: Sooz
Having different play styles is not the same as RNG. At most, Bob should have a Bob experience, Sam should have a Sam experience, anything that isn't dictated by them should be dictated by you.
"Sharing control with the player" I think we agree.
Re: Feldschlacht
Two people can view the exact same work and feel different things. But you didn't need to introduce fringe random elements in order to achieve that, as it would have happened anyway. Also, it doesn't count if the work they viewed was literally different. That's no longer a subjective difference in their experience but rather a completely meaningless one that was artificially imposed upon them.
Having different play styles is not the same as RNG. At most, Bob should have a Bob experience, Sam should have a Sam experience, anything that isn't dictated by them should be dictated by you.
"Sharing control with the player" I think we agree.
Re: Feldschlacht
Two people can view the exact same work and feel different things. But you didn't need to introduce fringe random elements in order to achieve that, as it would have happened anyway. Also, it doesn't count if the work they viewed was literally different. That's no longer a subjective difference in their experience but rather a completely meaningless one that was artificially imposed upon them.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
So a slightly different arrangement of battles means entirely different game experience.
Do you hate Tetris because the blocks aren't in the same order, too?
Do you hate Tetris because the blocks aren't in the same order, too?
Chill guys. Tetris is a garbage game, which is only liked because some people still haven't played PuyoPuyo in the year of our lord 2015.
As for myself, I've decided to make a game where the only screen is the battle screen, tossing this debate in the trash with Tetris, where it rightfully belongs.
As for myself, I've decided to make a game where the only screen is the battle screen, tossing this debate in the trash with Tetris, where it rightfully belongs.
author=Magi
Chill guys. Tetris is a garbage game, which is only liked because some people still haven't played PuyoPuyo in the year of our lord 2015.
As for myself, I've decided to make a game where the only screen is the battle screen, tossing this debate in the trash with Tetris, where it rightfully belongs.
Whaaa?
Tetris is a great game, it's just not a good competitive puzzle game, where Puyo Puyo excels.
dinkledaberry
1378
Man. There are some serious Opinions in this topic.
Personally, I've no issue with random battles so long as they allow the player freedom to disable/avoid if going through older areas/injured/etc. Think Bravely Default, Exit Fate, Earthbound, or games like that. It's up to the developer to make the most of whatever system they use.
A lot of it comes from implementation. Random battles can be done right and create tension and challenge for the player. Or they can be done poorly and just be another auto battle.
Personally, I've no issue with random battles so long as they allow the player freedom to disable/avoid if going through older areas/injured/etc. Think Bravely Default, Exit Fate, Earthbound, or games like that. It's up to the developer to make the most of whatever system they use.
A lot of it comes from implementation. Random battles can be done right and create tension and challenge for the player. Or they can be done poorly and just be another auto battle.
Bravely Default gives you options to change up the encounter rate and difficulty, yeah, but the dungeons are still just slogs. It's an interesting choice to give the player full control over those things but... idk, I feel like it would have been served by more imaginative dungeon design. Not that I'm one to talk... (Here's hoping for the sequel to flesh out the dungeons! I am QUITE ENTHUSIASTIC about a future English localization........... plz)
turkeyDawg
195
I don't have a 3DS to play Bravely Default, but the idea of the encounter rate just being a slider that goes all the way down to 0 just sounds strange. I mean, that seems more like a debug feature than a game mechanic. Is there any kind of limit or risk/reward to it beyond the obvious "more fights = more exp/gold but also more damage taken"?
Is it a slider? I've read about some questionable design decisions in Bravely Default regarding its battles, but a literal slider button that you can just adjust to basically nothing seems weird.
"Here you go. We made a game, we'd like you to buy it, but you don't have to play the game if you don't want to."
"Here you go. We made a game, we'd like you to buy it, but you don't have to play the game if you don't want to."
Random, invisible encounters can feel really bad if they're just constantly interrupting the player's progress in an unfun way, but honestly, Earthbound's visible encounters were often just as irritating. They refresh whenever you change screens and chase after you, often unavoidably, and the battles weren't interesting enough to fight multiple times. God forbid you had to backtrack (and in EB you often did). It's got nothing to do with whether you can see the encounter or not. The thing EB nailed was having all the monsters avoid you after you beat the dungeon boss - it makes sense both thematically and mechanically.
Liberty mentioned Pokemon, which is a super-good example of invisible encounters enhancing a game's core design. It's got two unique factors that make it unique to most RPGs:
1) You can choose avoid a lot of random battles by just avoid grassy areas. This doesn't work in caves, but at least when traveling between towns, you don't have to constantly fight stuff.
2) The randomness of battle is central to the experience. Pokemon's all about this mysterious huge world full of creatures to collect. In most RPGs you couldn't give a damn about what monsters you battle, because they're all relatively annoying or dangerous. The first time you play Pokemon, you have no idea what Pokemon lie in each field, and you actually want to wander around in them to find new stuff!
I don't really care for random battles in most RPGs - if I'm there to fight, I want to fight unique, hand-crafted enemies. But, it's pretty silly to just write them off as totally useless.
EDIT: Yea, BD has a slider that allows you to lower or turn off random battles. I guess I get it if you're just there for the story, but yea, it really makes you feel like they didn't know what they were doing with the random battle design. It's a shame because the game seemed like fun, but I got bored of the dungeons really quickly.
dinkledaberry
1378
author=Magi
Is it a slider? I've read about some questionable design decisions in Bravely Default regarding its battles, but a literal slider button that you can just adjust to basically nothing seems weird.
"Here you go. We made a game, we'd like you to buy it, but you don't have to play the game if you don't want to."
Lol. I'd say it's more like you can play the random battles on your terms if you want to or not. It's not the best way to handle that I admit but considering the wide range of customizability in the game and the infamous latter "Groundhog Day" segments I felt it was a welcome addition. I was more including the game in the list as a formality than a full endorsement of their technique though. It worked for BD but would feel weird in another game. I enjoy the way Exit Fate did it more. Since money was sparse in that game.
And yeah no real risk/reward for the system turkeyDawg. Just turn off battles or set rate to your liking.
turkeyDawg
195
Man that sounds really strange. It's like having Action Replay codes instead of an options menu or something. Oh well. I'm not even sure I could really call it a "bad" or "broken" idea; just... really damn weird.
author=slashWhat's actually even better about Pokemon is Repels. Last time I played Pokemon, I just spammed Repels the whole game and relied exclusively on Trainer battles for EXP (and Rare Candies/Vitamins that Zigzagoon picked up). I outright skipped an optional area and still ended up over-leveled for everything except Victory Road and Elite Four.
1) You can choose avoid a lot of random battles by just avoid grassy areas. This doesn't work in caves, but at least when traveling between towns, you don't have to constantly fight stuff.
