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)
HOW DO YOU MAKE A TRADITIONAL RPG
Posts
Solitayre
View playlists
CloseTraditional RPGs don't have to be long. If the game is too long you'll despair of ever finishing it. Aim for something that is only a few hours long. People see 70 hour commercial RPGs and think they can do with one person what it took a game studio with 100+ people and a seven figure budget to do.
author=Solitayre
Traditional RPGs don't have to be long. If the game is too long you'll despair of ever finishing it. Aim for something that is only a few hours long. People see 70 hour commercial RPGs and think they can do with one person what it took a game studio with 100+ people and a seven figure budget to do.
Very much this. I bring it up from time to time, but I tried to make a 70-80 hour RPG once and after pouring tons of time into it over the course of a decade, I only half finished it and had no desire to go any further. Stick to what you can manage.
But as for the original question...
author=Craze
how do you make a traditional rpg, guys. let me in on your secrets.
...I'm still learning that myself. The only thing I have to go on is my gut feeling, testing (which I need to do even more of), and the advice from people in this forum.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=Mysticphoenix
I don't know what is called traditional anymore
Pretty much this, actually. Nowadays, when people try to sell their game as, "traditional," very often that'll be interpreted, fairly or not, as, "uninspired." Good games with traditional formulas should do enough to make them stand out as fun games in their own right. But then they wouldn't be traditional anymore. Hm...
Well, speaking purely about game mechanics, I'd say that RM's default systems are about as traditional as traditional can possibly get. So the closer you stick with vanilla RM, the more traditional your game will be. The challenge then would be to work within those limitations to come up with fun gameplay mechanics. Restrictions breed creativity, after all.
A more cynical answer will be: don't touch the default gameplay systems, but put all your effort instead into graphics. Make a game with pretty visuals to fool people into thinking your project will be unique. Then they'll leave once they see it's just another traditional game. But hey, that short ride on the buzz will be pretty sweet, right?
author=CashmereCat
On the other hand, why be traditional when you can be unique? ;)
Being unique isn't unique, Cash.
Also realizing your vision > being unique
slash
The thing is that traditional RPGs are so long and cover so much, they're really really good at are building up a world, epic plots, general feelings of heroism and justice, and often interesting characters. They cover lots of beautiful and interesting areas because they can! For the same reasons, because they tend to be so long, balance becomes difficult and interesting moment-to-moment stuff like combat suffers. Instead, they add typically easy battles and the ability to grind your way past anything difficult. A few key boss encounters may require some fun strategy, but they're few and far between, and you can always grind past them anyway. Of course there are exceptions to this, but this is what I think of when I think "traditional RPG".
i wonder why the mechanics that allowed this degradation of balance and gameplay come to persist for so long?
slash
I can't really give you any personal advice because I have never finished a long-form RPG. The closest I got was a attrition-based roguelike RPG where the story progressed every time you beat the game. The combat was skill-based and focused on using your resources as efficiently as possible because you had to survive and power up as much as possible in three days. After you beat the boss at the end of the three days, you'd go to the next story segment, which involved replaying the same three days but with new monsters / bosses / quests / etc. added to the world. Maybe... something like that?
That sounds pretty sweet. Karsuman had a very vaguely similar idea for a remake of Visions & Voices but it wasn't randomized.
LightningLord2
You can make exploits/etc. that make the game (or certain parts) very easy, but make sure it's a clever combination of multiple elements - the player will feel great for figuring out this combo.
see i hate this
a game that you just "break" makes me sad because it usually takes all the difficulty out of the game and it isn't fun for me. it's fun for a lot of people, just look at the success of final fantasy tactics, but sadlkfnasdlkfsiiw i don't think that it should be a lauded form of game design to have a game where you make broken skillets. synergy is great, but... blah.
LightningLord2
You can have equipment get progressively better, just have a good range of unique effects and a wide enough selection for each portion in the game. Terraria, for instance, lets you try and delve into a high level area to grab collectibles and make a run with them. You can also go into hard mode filler territory to justify bringing back boosted versions of old equips (such as Monster Hunter's High/G Rank quests.
yeah this i can get behind. i love that ability to try to jump into a high-level area and maybe make it out with something! it's one of the few reasons for random encounters imo, because sometimes touch encounters can just be cheesed and take the thrill out of it. never mind that this is basically the entirety of how the original V&V works...
LightningLord2
Don't bother trying to limit grinding - players rarely go out of their way to powerlevel really early to stomp the rest of the game (except when you provide a peninsula of powerleveling). If you really want players to get on with it, design the level curve and progression such that the player gets (near) max level by the end boss and provide an incentive to stay at a lower level. One thing I like after thinking about it is providing no experience for mandatory battles so you can play the game as low levelled as you like.
what would the incentive be and why would you want them to try to stay at a lower level? every time i think about a traditional game i expect the player to hit the level cap around the 85% point anyway because then you have to rely on skill to beat the rest of it (unless your final equips break the game, but see my above rant...)
low-level challenges are kind of a way to bypass poor game balancing imo. i don't think they should necessarily be encouraged but that might just be me!
Aegix_Drakan
Well, Personally, as someone who makes RPGs that feel a bit "traditional", but also break tradition in a lot of ways...
1) Levels
Make level ups provide really small buffs, or only assist survivability. Gaining one single level shouldn't be enough to trivialize battles. It should take at LEAST 5-7 before battles in that area become easy.
i'm sorry but i'm about to play my trap card.
what's the point in leveling (or other forms of progression) if you're going to make them insignificant?
Aegix_Drakan
2) Equipment, more focus on shop gear.
Equipment in shops are either straight up "Trade money for power" or they're "side-grades" that change your options without making you stronger.
The first case allows a player who is playing well to go "Well, I don't need to buy that many healing items, I have enough left over to get a small power spike". Depending on who needs it more, you can micromanage who you give these spikes in power to.
The second case is less traditional, but allows the player to get more flexibility with more equipment, which is something they'll want to maximize on.
why not side-grades within the trading money for power? =0
my problem with trading money for power is that it's yet another thing you have to balance but i already said that in the OP!
Aegix_Drakan
3) Money
I tend to not uptick the amount of money players get over the game too much, I find it wrecks the economy of the game. But there is some small uptick in what you get, so that players feel like they're "getting more rewards" for winning. It also allows them to have a goal to "Save up for", and makes the weaker healing items "cheaper" for them.
yeah i don't see anything too awful about this.
the rest i don't have any strong opinions on so i won't make this post too long saying "mhm" to each. i guess i don't totally agree with your METHODS for status effects but i don't disagree with the MESSAGE so w/e
grs
healing sux
amen
i'll respond to more later!!
For me that's always been an RPG with emphasis on exploration and the inclusion of various side-shows.
There are characters, character development, story, fairly extensive and varied dungeons, turn-based battle systems most of the time and possibly some optional quests or minigames.
(I say most of the time because the tales series is something I may consider "traditional" as well, with their chain of games with mostly mediocre story, some cool character banter and general stuff. It definitely plays like one for me)
Battle design varies, but by and large includes the use of items, some sort of equipment (it can also affect only your resistances and spell lerning system such as SMT III or others did, instead of just defense and offense stats) as well as some sort of special ability and spell system.
It always means a fair balance of various gameplay elements.
Dungeon design, battle balancing, story cohesion and story pacing, character development in-party (as opposed to stuff happing in the world and the villain doing stuff)...
I think the juggling of this balance, the explorable world with a tied-in story, your playable party alone is what makes it feel like a "traditional rpg".
It doesn't have a definite focus on one area - on the battle part of it all, as an action-rpg game or dungeon crawler would do, on the writing part as an comedy rpg would do, on the exploration part as adventures would do .. and so on.
A fair balance between all kinds of things.
...
at the end of the day, the term is changing. So, do your thing.
Having multiple areas to work on and balance is really hard to do, though, and playing games I tend to avoid "traditional rpgs" on this site for that reason.
Even if you nail one or two areas, it can still be a drag to play if the others are lacking.
There are characters, character development, story, fairly extensive and varied dungeons, turn-based battle systems most of the time and possibly some optional quests or minigames.
(I say most of the time because the tales series is something I may consider "traditional" as well, with their chain of games with mostly mediocre story, some cool character banter and general stuff. It definitely plays like one for me)
Battle design varies, but by and large includes the use of items, some sort of equipment (it can also affect only your resistances and spell lerning system such as SMT III or others did, instead of just defense and offense stats) as well as some sort of special ability and spell system.
It always means a fair balance of various gameplay elements.
Dungeon design, battle balancing, story cohesion and story pacing, character development in-party (as opposed to stuff happing in the world and the villain doing stuff)...
I think the juggling of this balance, the explorable world with a tied-in story, your playable party alone is what makes it feel like a "traditional rpg".
It doesn't have a definite focus on one area - on the battle part of it all, as an action-rpg game or dungeon crawler would do, on the writing part as an comedy rpg would do, on the exploration part as adventures would do .. and so on.
A fair balance between all kinds of things.
...
at the end of the day, the term is changing. So, do your thing.
Having multiple areas to work on and balance is really hard to do, though, and playing games I tend to avoid "traditional rpgs" on this site for that reason.
Even if you nail one or two areas, it can still be a drag to play if the others are lacking.
LightningLord2
230
Incentives for low level are sometimes featured (partially) in Final Fantasy - the first game does it with the class change, which gives better stat growths to reward low levelling up to this point. The sixth did it with Espers, which improve your level up stat gains if you equip them (obviously, there's better Espers later in the game). FF8 (and many open world games) do this by scaling enemies with your base stats, which force you to find other ways to get stronger (which, unfortunately, trivializes the game).
You can soften level grinding while still making it relevant by making the main benefit of leveling be something other than raw stats (usually, new skills).
Another cool thing is having multiple side areas whose spoils are biased towards certain classes/playstyles/etc. - for instance, a gem cavern that contains crystals for solid mage weapons and accessories, but has nothing of value for a fighter (other than vendor trash). This makes players only go for certain areas throughout the game, making each party build go for different locations.
You can soften level grinding while still making it relevant by making the main benefit of leveling be something other than raw stats (usually, new skills).
Another cool thing is having multiple side areas whose spoils are biased towards certain classes/playstyles/etc. - for instance, a gem cavern that contains crystals for solid mage weapons and accessories, but has nothing of value for a fighter (other than vendor trash). This makes players only go for certain areas throughout the game, making each party build go for different locations.
I find it pretty tough to balance 'traditional RPGs'. I would suggest that you plan the basic gameplay-stuff (database stuff; monsters, troops, classes, equipment, items, battle scripts/mechanics etc.) very early on and add those said basics to the game at the beginning stages of development.
Since balancing takes SO much time and testing, I would suggest that when you do work on the balance, do that and do that alone without focusing much on the plot at the same time. You really need to isolate this area when working on it IMO, since you really have to focus and pay attention to all those little things and stats etc.
Also: the thing I think that makes these traditional RPGs so hard to make for us is heavily depended on the size of the game. Having 50+ dungeons, 300+ enemies etc. can be tough when you're trying to make everything unique and special. But if you're not worried about originality, this shouldn't be too extreme. Mostly time consuming.
I suggest that you go and study the traditional RPGs you like and learn from them. There ought to be lots of unencrypted VX/ACE games out there. Heck, there's a lot of information about the classic JRPGs from stats to spells all over the internet.
Good luck!
Since balancing takes SO much time and testing, I would suggest that when you do work on the balance, do that and do that alone without focusing much on the plot at the same time. You really need to isolate this area when working on it IMO, since you really have to focus and pay attention to all those little things and stats etc.
Also: the thing I think that makes these traditional RPGs so hard to make for us is heavily depended on the size of the game. Having 50+ dungeons, 300+ enemies etc. can be tough when you're trying to make everything unique and special. But if you're not worried about originality, this shouldn't be too extreme. Mostly time consuming.
I suggest that you go and study the traditional RPGs you like and learn from them. There ought to be lots of unencrypted VX/ACE games out there. Heck, there's a lot of information about the classic JRPGs from stats to spells all over the internet.
Good luck!
Crystalgate
694
Typically, JRPGs plot lock equipment. You can't get better equipment than your current progression allows. Further, your are assumed to be able to afford the latest tier of currently available equipment. This makes it very easy to predict how strong your equipment will be. If they don't use this method, it's usually just two tiers the player is hovering between so the balance just need to work between those two tiers.
Items are handled on a "the player has more than enough" basis. The player is assumed to have items left once the dungeon is completed. In some games I've bought 50+ antidotes at some point and then never used them up. This combined with how armor is handled also takes care of gold, the player can grind infinitely, but will quickly run out of useful things to buy.
Left is levels. This usually is where the player can break the game without having to be clever. The most common approach seems to be to assume the player will fight anything it encounters, but not purposefully run in circles to grind. This gets trickier with event based encounters since you can't as easily predict how many the player will fight then. Still, the approach will be to make a reasonable guess and then leave to the players whether or not they want to break the game.
After that is done, the battles are usually a contest of spamming the same skills over and over. Despite knowing (or assuming in case of levels) how strong the player will be, the developer still cannot create encounters that encourages different approaches other than match the element.
This was probably not very helpful. I'll be happy to share my ideas of how a traditional RPG can be balanced, but the question is what challenges you want to subject yourself to. For example, if you plot lock equipment and give the player enough gold to afford a full upgrade, then equipment is no longer something you need to worry about. Of course, it also makes equipment pointless, so maybe you don't want to do that. If you don't make equipment predictable, you can make it so that the tier of equipment the player will have is not predictable, but you can also instead make it so that each tier has multiple choices with different strengths and weaknesses. The more variances you leave, the harder it will be to balance.
I think I'll detail my thoughts on solutions on a later post.
Items are handled on a "the player has more than enough" basis. The player is assumed to have items left once the dungeon is completed. In some games I've bought 50+ antidotes at some point and then never used them up. This combined with how armor is handled also takes care of gold, the player can grind infinitely, but will quickly run out of useful things to buy.
Left is levels. This usually is where the player can break the game without having to be clever. The most common approach seems to be to assume the player will fight anything it encounters, but not purposefully run in circles to grind. This gets trickier with event based encounters since you can't as easily predict how many the player will fight then. Still, the approach will be to make a reasonable guess and then leave to the players whether or not they want to break the game.
After that is done, the battles are usually a contest of spamming the same skills over and over. Despite knowing (or assuming in case of levels) how strong the player will be, the developer still cannot create encounters that encourages different approaches other than match the element.
This was probably not very helpful. I'll be happy to share my ideas of how a traditional RPG can be balanced, but the question is what challenges you want to subject yourself to. For example, if you plot lock equipment and give the player enough gold to afford a full upgrade, then equipment is no longer something you need to worry about. Of course, it also makes equipment pointless, so maybe you don't want to do that. If you don't make equipment predictable, you can make it so that the tier of equipment the player will have is not predictable, but you can also instead make it so that each tier has multiple choices with different strengths and weaknesses. The more variances you leave, the harder it will be to balance.
I think I'll detail my thoughts on solutions on a later post.
It's all about planning out your mathematics. It takes a lot of trial and error, and a boatload of guesswork to get the numerology down pat. EVERYTHING is going to revolve around what kind of numbers you ultimately want to work with.
I personally find it much easier to work with much smaller numbers and drastically different damage formulas than the Ace RTP sets up for you. I took mathematic inspiration from Dragon Quest III, which ends up only factoring in about half of your attack power and a quarter of your defense power, rather than the default 4x and 2x in Ace. This gives you MUCH more leeway in adjusting and balancing numers, as the difference in a lower damage formula gives significantly more legroom than in one that multiplies it by 4 or 5. I found it infinitely easier to balance every aspect of a game (levels, stats, equipment) this way because of the freedom that it grants in experimentation, and not have to fear about the difference in 1 or 2 stat points destroying the balance entirely.
If you need practice balancing formulas and mechanics, try something similar.
I personally find it much easier to work with much smaller numbers and drastically different damage formulas than the Ace RTP sets up for you. I took mathematic inspiration from Dragon Quest III, which ends up only factoring in about half of your attack power and a quarter of your defense power, rather than the default 4x and 2x in Ace. This gives you MUCH more leeway in adjusting and balancing numers, as the difference in a lower damage formula gives significantly more legroom than in one that multiplies it by 4 or 5. I found it infinitely easier to balance every aspect of a game (levels, stats, equipment) this way because of the freedom that it grants in experimentation, and not have to fear about the difference in 1 or 2 stat points destroying the balance entirely.
If you need practice balancing formulas and mechanics, try something similar.
LightningLord2
230
author=BowelMovement
I don't.
Don't make games if you don't wanna make em, mang.
I think what Craze wants to do is explore different game design approaches as a learning experience.
author=Craze
guys. help.
i've tried. i tried making kiddos. i couldn't handle making a game that was (kind of) traditional, with level-ups and tiers of equipment. it baffled me how many levers you have to tweak to get stuff to work the way you want when you have so many different methods of progression (xp, gold, chests, personal side quests...). gosh, it's just ridiculous! and yet there are so many traditional rpgs out there!
so... how do you... do it. like, how do you keep the game balanced and engaging? how you manage your many facets of progression? how do you plan out your equipment and stat gains and potion potency? how?? it doesn't make sense why you'd force yourself to do this, and yet you do it so often, as do professionals.
how do you make a traditional rpg, guys. let me in on your secrets.
Welcome to my first game. I tweaked it, and I thought it was great, and it got torn apart. I was like super-defensive because I couldn't understand how it sucked. Then I did some serious playtesting and was like "Oh."
In general the biggest problem I've had with rpgs is what I call event zero. The point where either your attacks deal absolutely zero to damage despite the fact that you wanted at the very minimum to just have reduced damage if you're underlvl (versus 0% elemental damage which is fine), or in the other case having even midlevel monsters get outstripped by your defense.
This was why RPS+ and the David patch for 2k3 were a real blessing. It meant that if I was unlikely to overshoot, and if I ever did, I could set minimum damage.
There's a real art to it, which is part of why I scoff at many of the people talking about avoiding grind, it sounds like they're really saying "I don't wanna deal with this."
author=Liberty
I.. uh... playtest a lot. And tweak a ton. As I go. But don't use my method. Apparently it's a terrible one.
Urgh. I do this too. And then I wind up revaluing things because something new enters into the balance.
I usually try to make boss battles puzzle battles, and make the grind battles easy but able to wear you down by attrition. This allows grind to help, but without the 0hko deal of overshooting the boss.
Rine
1378
Traditional JRPGs...blegh.
But seriously, most of what we think of as classic, amazing JRPGs, tend to be great despite the JRPG part, not because of it. Noone seriously (I hope) thinks of Dragon Quest and goes "Oh man, killing those thirty someodd blue slimes so I could buy my warrior his new sword was -awesome-." We tend to think of them in terms of story and the world they build. Final Fantasy 6, one of my favorites, tends to be more loved in my mind for its story and characters, than the game balance...because lets face it, originally the game balance was borked. You get Ultima, you win.
However, if you want to make a -good- RPG, a lot of people here have had some good ideas so far, so all I can do is add a bit for the balance stuff:
1) Have a good idea of where you want your characters to be at the end of the game statwise, with gear and all possible systems included. Take into account what you want the average level for everyone to be. Then set your final boss encounter to be at a challenge slightly lower than that. You shouldn't require your players to be perfect to finish your game. -Especially- if you have systems that are non-refundable, like stat purchases. No one wants to spend the entire game going off a guide because they don't want to grind 20 extra levels due to putting stats in the wrong places. You also shouldn't need to get every piece of the best gear in the game to beat the final boss. Once you have that done, go backwards, picking choke points where your player will be tested, and do the same. Where should they be for this major boss battle...this one? This one? For each, do the same thing for gear/bonuses. If they're doing the best they can, they should be a good bit above what is needed, but not overwhelmingly so. Reward players for knowing the systems, but don't punish mistakes too harshly.
2) In the same vein, plan out every system that will affect combat before hand. Don't add in anything midway that is going to change the balance for it. If you have your level up stats, gear, and system A that gives stat bonuses, then midway through your design you add system B and C, now all your planned stats are out of whack.
3) Give people do overs. Any additional things, like stat points, skill points, alchemy, and the like, if they can't be fixed by going out and getting more stuff, should have a do over button, like a potion that lets you reassign your stat points. Don't limit it to end game only, maybe put a limited amount in the game, around each choke point, so if the player is struggling, they can redo something.
4) Choke points in the game are vital. You don't want every boss to be an epic confrontation, you don't want every boss to be a pushover. These should be large parts of your story, not gateway bosses (bosses that you meet going through an area, but aren't truly of story importance). Try to strike a balance between meat gate bosses (bosses with large amounts of HP/Defense/Damage that are designed to make sure you aren't just running from every fight in the game to hurry it up), and strategy bosses (Ones that require a certain strategy, and only get a little bit easier if you are a higher level).
5) Playtest. No way around it, playtest it. Playtest it yourself, have other people playtest it, playtest it drunk/sleepy, whatever. Get a wide variety of people to playtest it, and actually listen to what they say. Don't dismiss them for 'not understanding your vision', because if they don't understand, likely a lot of people will agree with them. Make copious notes, have them fill out a form without you in the room, encourage them to be brutally honest.
But seriously, most of what we think of as classic, amazing JRPGs, tend to be great despite the JRPG part, not because of it. Noone seriously (I hope) thinks of Dragon Quest and goes "Oh man, killing those thirty someodd blue slimes so I could buy my warrior his new sword was -awesome-." We tend to think of them in terms of story and the world they build. Final Fantasy 6, one of my favorites, tends to be more loved in my mind for its story and characters, than the game balance...because lets face it, originally the game balance was borked. You get Ultima, you win.
However, if you want to make a -good- RPG, a lot of people here have had some good ideas so far, so all I can do is add a bit for the balance stuff:
1) Have a good idea of where you want your characters to be at the end of the game statwise, with gear and all possible systems included. Take into account what you want the average level for everyone to be. Then set your final boss encounter to be at a challenge slightly lower than that. You shouldn't require your players to be perfect to finish your game. -Especially- if you have systems that are non-refundable, like stat purchases. No one wants to spend the entire game going off a guide because they don't want to grind 20 extra levels due to putting stats in the wrong places. You also shouldn't need to get every piece of the best gear in the game to beat the final boss. Once you have that done, go backwards, picking choke points where your player will be tested, and do the same. Where should they be for this major boss battle...this one? This one? For each, do the same thing for gear/bonuses. If they're doing the best they can, they should be a good bit above what is needed, but not overwhelmingly so. Reward players for knowing the systems, but don't punish mistakes too harshly.
2) In the same vein, plan out every system that will affect combat before hand. Don't add in anything midway that is going to change the balance for it. If you have your level up stats, gear, and system A that gives stat bonuses, then midway through your design you add system B and C, now all your planned stats are out of whack.
3) Give people do overs. Any additional things, like stat points, skill points, alchemy, and the like, if they can't be fixed by going out and getting more stuff, should have a do over button, like a potion that lets you reassign your stat points. Don't limit it to end game only, maybe put a limited amount in the game, around each choke point, so if the player is struggling, they can redo something.
4) Choke points in the game are vital. You don't want every boss to be an epic confrontation, you don't want every boss to be a pushover. These should be large parts of your story, not gateway bosses (bosses that you meet going through an area, but aren't truly of story importance). Try to strike a balance between meat gate bosses (bosses with large amounts of HP/Defense/Damage that are designed to make sure you aren't just running from every fight in the game to hurry it up), and strategy bosses (Ones that require a certain strategy, and only get a little bit easier if you are a higher level).
5) Playtest. No way around it, playtest it. Playtest it yourself, have other people playtest it, playtest it drunk/sleepy, whatever. Get a wide variety of people to playtest it, and actually listen to what they say. Don't dismiss them for 'not understanding your vision', because if they don't understand, likely a lot of people will agree with them. Make copious notes, have them fill out a form without you in the room, encourage them to be brutally honest.
author=Rine
Traditional Noone seriously (I hope) thinks of Dragon Quest and goes "Oh man, killing those thirty someodd blue slimes so I could buy my warrior his new sword was -awesome-."
That's exactly how I feel when playing Dragon Quest 1. I mean, you can be sure I wouldn't be there for the story!
Anyhow, that awas a great post, Rine~
Rine
1378
Oh god...DQ1...
*Grind slimes to buy a sword, grind slimes to buy armor, grind slimes to buy some herbs, go to next area, grind imps to buy sword, grind imps to buy armor, grind imps to level up a bit, go to next area...*
I literally wore out my NES d-pad playing that game, going left and right so much to grind.
*Grind slimes to buy a sword, grind slimes to buy armor, grind slimes to buy some herbs, go to next area, grind imps to buy sword, grind imps to buy armor, grind imps to level up a bit, go to next area...*
I literally wore out my NES d-pad playing that game, going left and right so much to grind.
LightningLord2
230
I want to point out that, more often than not, forced grind gates aren't a sign of a bad enemy progression as much as that of a shallow game. The numbers are mostly insufficient because you cannot tackle the boss with a different approach.
Rine
1378
@LL: Pretty much, the older games did it because there wasn't a lot of space on the cartridge for anything else. Bigger numbers took up very little space (just a few bits makes a large number), where complex enemies took up far far more in logic. That's why most older console RPGs enemies don't have a logic, more just a list of skills and priorities. Hell, the original Dragon Quest had one boss in the entire game that had a unique sprite. The other 'bosses' were just enemies on tiles you couldn't avoid, one being a common enemy later, and the other being a sprite swap of a common enemy.
As a note, older computer RPGs did this with craptons of grinding too, take a gander at the older Ultimas. Kill millions of orcs, so you can buy your space ship, grind a few more townspeople to buy the rocket fuel, fly to space to become a space ace by grinding tie fighters, to go back home, rescue the princess so you can time warp and kill the boss...you know, Ultima was wierd in the early days.
Edit: As a note, 'Traditional JRPG' is a bit of a misnomer. There were tons of cross-pollination in the early days, and it still is going on. The original Final Fantasy has a monster list practically taken from D&D's monster manual, with the serial numbers filed off (Gazer? Beholder. Oh Hello Tiamat. And hey, there's some illithids, called 'mind flayers', clever). A lot of older and current JRPGs were influenced by Wizardry as well, if you play one where you are wandering around a dungeon in first person view...especially if it has a customizable party from a group of classes, and rows of characters. It is really hard to tell some of the basic gameplay features apart in those early years. It is even noticeable in the broader culture. Record of the Lodoss War was basically the guy taking his D&D campaign and fleshing out the story and characters.
As a note, older computer RPGs did this with craptons of grinding too, take a gander at the older Ultimas. Kill millions of orcs, so you can buy your space ship, grind a few more townspeople to buy the rocket fuel, fly to space to become a space ace by grinding tie fighters, to go back home, rescue the princess so you can time warp and kill the boss...you know, Ultima was wierd in the early days.
Edit: As a note, 'Traditional JRPG' is a bit of a misnomer. There were tons of cross-pollination in the early days, and it still is going on. The original Final Fantasy has a monster list practically taken from D&D's monster manual, with the serial numbers filed off (Gazer? Beholder. Oh Hello Tiamat. And hey, there's some illithids, called 'mind flayers', clever). A lot of older and current JRPGs were influenced by Wizardry as well, if you play one where you are wandering around a dungeon in first person view...especially if it has a customizable party from a group of classes, and rows of characters. It is really hard to tell some of the basic gameplay features apart in those early years. It is even noticeable in the broader culture. Record of the Lodoss War was basically the guy taking his D&D campaign and fleshing out the story and characters.
