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)
MAP WEIGHT IN RPGS
Posts
Magi
View playlists
CloseWhy does anybody look up to Dragon Quest for anything anymore? I feel nostalgic for it, but it's not a standard or default for anything except poor mechanical design and generic craftsmanship. It's like if you want to buy the generic brand at the store. Sure, it's fine and everything, but it leave you feeling a bit of regret, just wondering what life might have been if you had sprung a few extra dollars for a name brand product.
I don't really know many games that use strategic map encounters. Even if you use some kind of on-map mechanic to outsmart the enemy's pacing it wouldn't be enough without some kind of fulfillment attached. You do need to introduce extra elements to those kinds of encounter systems if you want them to feel more dynamic. Xenosaga kind of poked around with expanded map-encounter mechanics where you could manipulate enemies into hazard zones to down them or introduce status effects into the next battle. Kind of interesting, but today I think somebody could design something much more compelling.
I still wake up in cold sweats after nightmares involving Air's Rock, twelve years later
I don't really know many games that use strategic map encounters. Even if you use some kind of on-map mechanic to outsmart the enemy's pacing it wouldn't be enough without some kind of fulfillment attached. You do need to introduce extra elements to those kinds of encounter systems if you want them to feel more dynamic. Xenosaga kind of poked around with expanded map-encounter mechanics where you could manipulate enemies into hazard zones to down them or introduce status effects into the next battle. Kind of interesting, but today I think somebody could design something much more compelling.
author=slash
Like Lufia, Golden Sun always stuck with me as a JRPG with memorable level design.
I still wake up in cold sweats after nightmares involving Air's Rock, twelve years later
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
I-I liked Air's Rock. Maybe it's because of the amazing atmosphere provided from the music, but I loved it. Then again, it was years and years ago that I played it, but still...
I think that a map's engagement and complexity should, at the very least, be inversely proportional to the engagement and complexity of the battles. If battles are relatively simple, then the map should be engaging the player. Take the 2D Zelda games for example. Link's Awakening specifically since that's the one I know the most. The combat itself isn't exactly complex: Hit a button, swing a sword. But the game's complex dungeons and the variety of means to clear them kept the game engaging. It wasn't solely about the combat, it was about the exploration and puzzle solving.
I think that a map's engagement and complexity should, at the very least, be inversely proportional to the engagement and complexity of the battles. If battles are relatively simple, then the map should be engaging the player. Take the 2D Zelda games for example. Link's Awakening specifically since that's the one I know the most. The combat itself isn't exactly complex: Hit a button, swing a sword. But the game's complex dungeons and the variety of means to clear them kept the game engaging. It wasn't solely about the combat, it was about the exploration and puzzle solving.
Darken
3952
What's more interesting to me is combining the RPG combat with the maps in whatever way (and I don't mean visually). Even an RPG full of puzzle dungeons is essentially switching between two mini games. There was one RPGMaker game (I forget which one) where you had to kill a monster that dropped something that allowed you to unlock a door. That doesn't sound too interesting but at least it felt a little more dynamic in how two "modes" can compliment each other.
turkeyDawg
195
This is something that bugs me a little in a number of games (not just RPGs). I mean, the exploration is generally more than half the game, so it strikes me as odd how often there's little to it. Half the reason I don't bother with exploration beyond a certain point is because I just get bored with walking around. (The other half is just getting tired of the encounters)
I guess I could mention the Mario RPGs. They usually have some minor platforming, and then a number of other abilities on top of that. The dungeons are comparable to the Zelda games, maybe a bit simpler overall. Even the towns sometimes have secret areas to find ans such. Most of them also have the whole "First Strike" system where you can attack enemies in the field for a bonus in battle.
I don't really care for the solution some games try, including some of the ones mentioned here, where you get an assortment of tools that can used on certain objects. In both RPGs and many action-adventure games, it just feels like I'm collecting some janitor's set of keys for a bunch of kinds of doors. I've gotten more kicks out of sprinting than using the tools in Wild Arms. The mouse is good, though, as remote chest opening is useful not just for inaccessible chests, but for just saving the steps it would take to get to the chest and back, and you can also use him for switches.
(What I really want to know, though, is why the hell Rudy can't use his Magic Bombs in battle...)
Then there's games like Tales of Xillia, where I was fine with the exploration... but not for 60 hours worth of game. A number of areas are just palette swaps of each other anyways, and even the ones that aren't are 90% identical, mechanically. And then the sequel was more of the same, right down to reusing areas from the first game...
A lot of that sounds completely unintended by the designers, but nonetheless interesting.
I guess I could mention the Mario RPGs. They usually have some minor platforming, and then a number of other abilities on top of that. The dungeons are comparable to the Zelda games, maybe a bit simpler overall. Even the towns sometimes have secret areas to find ans such. Most of them also have the whole "First Strike" system where you can attack enemies in the field for a bonus in battle.
I don't really care for the solution some games try, including some of the ones mentioned here, where you get an assortment of tools that can used on certain objects. In both RPGs and many action-adventure games, it just feels like I'm collecting some janitor's set of keys for a bunch of kinds of doors. I've gotten more kicks out of sprinting than using the tools in Wild Arms. The mouse is good, though, as remote chest opening is useful not just for inaccessible chests, but for just saving the steps it would take to get to the chest and back, and you can also use him for switches.
(What I really want to know, though, is why the hell Rudy can't use his Magic Bombs in battle...)
Then there's games like Tales of Xillia, where I was fine with the exploration... but not for 60 hours worth of game. A number of areas are just palette swaps of each other anyways, and even the ones that aren't are 90% identical, mechanically. And then the sequel was more of the same, right down to reusing areas from the first game...
author=LockeZI think Wild ARMs 3 had an interesting way of making the area geography interact with random battles. While exploring, you would get a warning about one second before a random battle started. You could spend energy to avoid the battle - this could be done a limited number of times before you had to recover your energy. Energy crystals could be found lying around in the dungeons. Also, the game's environments were extremely puzzle-heavy, like Lufia 2 or a Zelda game, and during that one second of warning before the battle started, you couldn't use any of your puzzle-solving tools, but if you interacted with any object that didn't require a tool, like a switch, ladder, treasure chest, etc., it would prevent the battle for free. You could also prevent the battle by dropping off a ledge during that one second of time, which was interesting as the environments were 3D and had tons of climbing and dropping and ledges, like Ocarina of Time. All of this basically made avoiding battles into a really enjoyable, engaging gameplay experience that interacted the geography of the area every bit as much as the combat in an action game interacts with it. Which sounds ridiculous, but worked amazingly. In fact, avoiding battles was so fun in that game that I would get through entire dungeons without fighting a single battle, making me absurdly underlevel for all of the bosses (though they were still possible to beat).
A lot of that sounds completely unintended by the designers, but nonetheless interesting.
