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)
MONSTERS! TOO MANY OR TOO LITTLE!?
Posts
Pages:
1
Xenomic
1752
Xenomic
View playlists
CloseSo here's something that's an issue in my game I feel, but I think is something to discuss with everyone else.
So, in most games there's a good set amount of monsters (including bosses) for the game, with some having their own palette swaps (some moreso than others, looking at you Final Fantasy series!). Now the question here is, how much is too much or too little? Should there be enough enemies that aren't rehashed from other areas of the game (unless they fit in the area they're being used in) to keep the game fresh and challenging, or should there be not that many (to keep the filesize and space down I'd assume, which is what I figure most people do)?
I ask this as someone who wants to keep every area of his game fresh and new, but in doing so uses new monsters each time (as reusing old ones for these areas generally doesn't work well), and due to this has a loooooot of monsters in his game. In addition, due to how the story plays out and whatnot, there's also a loooooot of bosses in this game (LockeZ can attest to this).
I'm not exactly very good at starting up a conversation, so I don't know if I'm getting what I want to say across. I apologize in advance if nobody understands what I am trying to discuss. ^^;
So, in most games there's a good set amount of monsters (including bosses) for the game, with some having their own palette swaps (some moreso than others, looking at you Final Fantasy series!). Now the question here is, how much is too much or too little? Should there be enough enemies that aren't rehashed from other areas of the game (unless they fit in the area they're being used in) to keep the game fresh and challenging, or should there be not that many (to keep the filesize and space down I'd assume, which is what I figure most people do)?
I ask this as someone who wants to keep every area of his game fresh and new, but in doing so uses new monsters each time (as reusing old ones for these areas generally doesn't work well), and due to this has a loooooot of monsters in his game. In addition, due to how the story plays out and whatnot, there's also a loooooot of bosses in this game (LockeZ can attest to this).
I'm not exactly very good at starting up a conversation, so I don't know if I'm getting what I want to say across. I apologize in advance if nobody understands what I am trying to discuss. ^^;
Rine
1378
Well, if I read you right, you think there are too many monsters in your game, and wondering if that might be an issue. Usually, that's not the issue with games, most games have a limited amount purely because of budget constraints and limitations of the engine. Older games tended to do this because a palette swap was a lot less resources in the game than a whole new art set. Nowadays, its really not a concern, especially with 2d things, the bigger concern is effort.
Now, where can it be an issue? If your players are basically going into every single encounter and area blind, because they have no expectations of what the monsters will do. Palette swaps do serve a bit of a purpose, because if you see a red dragon named 'Fire dragon' then see a blue version, same art, named "Ice dragon" you can reason 'ok, same thing, different element, maybe a bit higher levelled'. If the art and names are wholly different, you can't make any assumptions. Your difficulty in game has to expect that, you can't punish players for not knowing exactly what to do for each new monster encounter if there are no clues whatsoever. Clues can be provided in game though, for example before a new area "This is the ice temple, most of its denizens are afraid of fire." Overly simplified of course, but you get the idea.
At the same time, games without any palette swaps, and no indicators, work amazingly well...if you're prepared to make it brutally difficult. The mainline SMT games do this, as each monster represents a different mythological being, theres practically no palette swaps, and you do have to do a bunch of guesswork to figure out what they're weak to (unless you already recruited one earlier, then you know the stats because its in your party). Then again, the SMT games are brutally hard anyway, in a very tactical skill based sense. Memorizing monster groups and weaknesses is part of the challenge.
So, in principle its not a bad thing, just remember when players go into the area, and see the monsters, are they going to be punished for not immediately knowing what its weak to/absorbs/does to them? You should never have trial and error gameplay, and even minor clues like a bunch of horrified human statues can give players clues that otherwise we would get through palette swaps.
Now, where can it be an issue? If your players are basically going into every single encounter and area blind, because they have no expectations of what the monsters will do. Palette swaps do serve a bit of a purpose, because if you see a red dragon named 'Fire dragon' then see a blue version, same art, named "Ice dragon" you can reason 'ok, same thing, different element, maybe a bit higher levelled'. If the art and names are wholly different, you can't make any assumptions. Your difficulty in game has to expect that, you can't punish players for not knowing exactly what to do for each new monster encounter if there are no clues whatsoever. Clues can be provided in game though, for example before a new area "This is the ice temple, most of its denizens are afraid of fire." Overly simplified of course, but you get the idea.
At the same time, games without any palette swaps, and no indicators, work amazingly well...if you're prepared to make it brutally difficult. The mainline SMT games do this, as each monster represents a different mythological being, theres practically no palette swaps, and you do have to do a bunch of guesswork to figure out what they're weak to (unless you already recruited one earlier, then you know the stats because its in your party). Then again, the SMT games are brutally hard anyway, in a very tactical skill based sense. Memorizing monster groups and weaknesses is part of the challenge.
So, in principle its not a bad thing, just remember when players go into the area, and see the monsters, are they going to be punished for not immediately knowing what its weak to/absorbs/does to them? You should never have trial and error gameplay, and even minor clues like a bunch of horrified human statues can give players clues that otherwise we would get through palette swaps.
The expectation with pallet-swaps is that the enemy is going to be tougher/harder (and worth more EXP/GOLD) than the original incarnation that you fought earlier in the game. That typically means better stats, more powerful abilities, or are granted new abilities over previous incarnations.
So, if this tactic would feel overused, it would probably something on the order of having two or three pallet-swapped enemies each dungeon. Or not. It depends on the enemy, I suppose. For some reason, I'm thinking back to the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game, and how that game's Foot Solders were pallet-swaps of each other. Those enemies are mooks, and not particularly memorable enemies, though.
*Edit: Having pallet-swapped bosses could be the tricky part. If it's literally the same enemy, that could be one way to indicate that expectations should be changed. If it's a different enemy entirely, it might be a bit tough for some players to disassociate from the other enemy. Since the assumption that pallet-swaps should be similar, whatever tactic they used the first time is probably going to be used against that boss, even if the boss calls for something completely different.
*Edit2: I suppose I am largely assuming that boss-fights are one-on-one. If one fight has minions, and another one doesn't, for example, that could be a way to cause a disassociation from the last fight, and trigger that "you need a new strategy!" thought-process.
So, if this tactic would feel overused, it would probably something on the order of having two or three pallet-swapped enemies each dungeon. Or not. It depends on the enemy, I suppose. For some reason, I'm thinking back to the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game, and how that game's Foot Solders were pallet-swaps of each other. Those enemies are mooks, and not particularly memorable enemies, though.
*Edit: Having pallet-swapped bosses could be the tricky part. If it's literally the same enemy, that could be one way to indicate that expectations should be changed. If it's a different enemy entirely, it might be a bit tough for some players to disassociate from the other enemy. Since the assumption that pallet-swaps should be similar, whatever tactic they used the first time is probably going to be used against that boss, even if the boss calls for something completely different.
*Edit2: I suppose I am largely assuming that boss-fights are one-on-one. If one fight has minions, and another one doesn't, for example, that could be a way to cause a disassociation from the last fight, and trigger that "you need a new strategy!" thought-process.
Try introducing 3-5 new enemies per area, depending on the size of the area. You can mix in a few older enemies into the encounter pool.
Palette swaps, they don't need to be boring. You can do what Romancing SaGa 1 did, which is change a small part of the graphic as well as the palette. For example, an elf carrying a sword now carries a halberd. A dragon with one head belching fire is now belching another head.
Palette swaps, they don't need to be boring. You can do what Romancing SaGa 1 did, which is change a small part of the graphic as well as the palette. For example, an elf carrying a sword now carries a halberd. A dragon with one head belching fire is now belching another head.
Xenomic
1752
@Rine: Hm. You raise a good point there. Most games tend to be good about what enemies do what, including their palette swaps, and giving a good indication of what their weak to and what they may do (though not always the case I suppose. Sometimes you run into that one enemy that doesn't make a lick of sense being in an area it's in). For my game, I do try to keep it thematic if anything (for instance, 2nd dungeon is all about status effects, a later dungeon is about elemental fairies, another dungeon is all ice enemies bar one who doesn't use a single ice attack, another that's all Ghost-type enemies, etc.). I do have a character that has a Scan command that gives data on each monster, including stats and personal information, so there's that...
#Marrend: Hm...sounds about right. I'm trying to think of an instance where a boss would be palette swapped with another boss and am not coming up with anything (well, the only one that comes to mind off the top of my head is Ymir and Angler Whelk in FFVI, but that's such a far distance between one another...hmmm...). For my game, I try to keep every boss fight unique (and not a single boss is really a palette swap of anything at all so far either. Though some are fought multiple times...).
@Zachary_Braun: I generally go about 5-6 enemies per dungeon, sometimes a bit more, while not reusing any enemies from older dungeons. I feel that's a good way of handling it myself, but I still can't really reuse some of the older enemies without it being off (both in terms of difficulty of the dungeon and where the enemy would be found). But yeah, that is a fair point. Updated graphics are a nice touch (I know Tales of Symphonia did this a few times with the human enemies, which was a nice touch. I think there were a couple other games that did that, but I can't think of them off the top of my head).
#Marrend: Hm...sounds about right. I'm trying to think of an instance where a boss would be palette swapped with another boss and am not coming up with anything (well, the only one that comes to mind off the top of my head is Ymir and Angler Whelk in FFVI, but that's such a far distance between one another...hmmm...). For my game, I try to keep every boss fight unique (and not a single boss is really a palette swap of anything at all so far either. Though some are fought multiple times...).
@Zachary_Braun: I generally go about 5-6 enemies per dungeon, sometimes a bit more, while not reusing any enemies from older dungeons. I feel that's a good way of handling it myself, but I still can't really reuse some of the older enemies without it being off (both in terms of difficulty of the dungeon and where the enemy would be found). But yeah, that is a fair point. Updated graphics are a nice touch (I know Tales of Symphonia did this a few times with the human enemies, which was a nice touch. I think there were a couple other games that did that, but I can't think of them off the top of my head).
Rine
1378
Yeah, bosses should be very unique, to stand out and be memorable. My favorite series tend to have amazing sprite work for bosses...then again they have amazing sprite work period. Look up the old school SNES SMT boss sprites someday, they are massive. Degraded bosses are another personal 'blegh' for me, where you start fighting them as regular enemies later.
Pages:
1
