SO, EVERYONE, I HAVE A QUESTION PERTAINING TO YOUR PREFFERED PLAY STYLES.

Posts

Pages: first 12 next last
The point has come in designing my game that I am thinking heavily about my characters and their value in terms of gameplay. Here's the question:

In your RPG gameplay experiences, which of the following scenarios do you prefer?

1) Your characters have pre-determined archetypes (warrior, mage, archer, etc.) with little or no ability to alter the set of skills assigned to that archetype. Example: World of Warcraft, Everquest, etc, other D&D style games.

2) Your characters start with a suggested archetype, but there is an immediately (or relatively quickly) possibility to take the character into a customized or completely different archetype to suit your own preferences. Example: FF6, FF10, FF12.

3) Your characters begin with a blank slate, and their skillsets are determined completely by you from the game's outset. May or may not include what equipment types can be worn by each character. Examples: FF11, FF5 (a bit later into the game), FFT.

The decision has a large impact on the rest of the game, and determines things like equipment distribution, gear scaling, level scaling, skill distribution, and more.

List your preferred scenario and discuss.
1 or 3.

I like to play an RPG like the story as how it's meant to be told. If you have a character designed the way the creator meant for him to be, then I believe you get the full effect of how the characters were meant to be seen. If you have too much freedom, you can't really connect with your characters as well because you made the character, but not the story. I've never played an RPG with an amazing storyline and complete freedom with your character. Granted there are possibly some I've overlooked (I haven't played too many of the recent RPGs, but for the most part)

I also like games like Fable just because you have freedom and not so much that it takes forever to complete it. Sometimes I like to test my boundaries. Then your character changes with your actions and such.

I really didn't like how FF10 made you able to make people like Auron and Tidus spellcasters, and Yuna and Lulu can go off and be the hard hitters of the game. If Auron is an awesome samurai, I expect him to hit hard. If Yuna has a staff, I expect her to cast spells. Sure it's humorous for a couple of minutes that Yuna would be hitting way harder Auron, but that's not how I'd want to look at the characters.

EDIT: Although, I still liked FF10, despite their massive boss design flaws, but I won't go into that.
whatever style is best suited for the game, really. I can enjoy all of them pretty equally.
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
I like 3 the best by a long shot.

The FF5 system was way ahead of its time. The class and skill customization of that game made it more fun, gameplay wise, than even 4 or 6. (Of course, its inferior everything else hurt it overall but...)

2nd place is 2. But it's a distant second. FF6's system is somewhat okay, but it definitely wasn't as in depth as FF5's and not a central component of the game.

Super mega last place is 1. I don't really see the point of a game that doesn't allow the player to at least have some say in the development of the player characters.
I have come to the conclusion it does not matter as long as the going's good.
arcan
Having a signature is too mainstream. I'm not part of your system!
1866
I've played good games from all 3 categories. I just think that games with better customization have a better replay value.
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
Why don't you guys contribute something to the topic?

I think it's a valid question that warrants a real answer. :)
I really don't care about character customization at all in an RPG. I don't care about skills or armor or stats. If I play an RPG, I'm playing it for the story first and foremost (and also for exploration/puzzle elements, which is huge for me too. environment's big). It's the reason I play very few RPGs: they need to have a gripping story and world, and good gameplay.

I find character customization, stats, equipment, etc to be a huge chore. Scrolling through menus for what will eventually add up to hours upon hours just bores me. I actually prefer an RPG with minimal customization so that I can just focus on the things I care more about: the story and the on-map gameplay (like puzzles in a well-crafted dungeon).

I'm definitely in the minority with this approach, I know, and there are definite exceptions (my favorite games of all time are the Pokemon RPGs). But for the most part the whole "gotta max my stats yo" aspect of RPGs is just annoying as hell.

Messing around with skills and statsâ€"to meâ€"is a substitute for more active gameplay. I know that most people disagree, and that's fine, it's just not my style. Similarly, I can't STAND grinding and I don't really understand when people want to max out their characters or powerelevel them early on. I just want to play through the game at its own pace.

Just remember that when making your game, there ARE people out there like me, so don't force your player into spending hours upon hours of customization and stats. Some people just want to get on with the story and see the next place to explore.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
author=S. F. LaValle link=topic=4075.msg82934#msg82934 date=1245981337
1) Your characters have pre-determined archetypes (warrior, mage, archer, etc.) with little or no ability to alter the set of skills assigned to that archetype. Example: World of Warcraft, Everquest, etc, other D&D style games.

This can have its charms when done certain ways. For example, the way Diablo II handles this is an example of class done right - each class has sub-builds. Two Barbarians may both beat the shit out of things with sticks, but one jumps all over the place while the other yells and shouts constantly. Basically, the class sets the general trends, leaving the minutia up to the player and the loot algorithms.

author=S. F. LaValle link=topic=4075.msg82934#msg82934 date=1245981337
2) Your characters start with a suggested archetype, but there is an immediately (or relatively quickly) possibility to take the character into a customized or completely different archetype to suit your own preferences. Example: FF6, FF10, FF12.

This is a prefered happy medium between 1 and 3. A prime example in recent memory would be Final Fantasy Tactic Advance - Characters have their class ability, a sub-class ability (a la FF5), a counter ability, a support ability, and a combo. The first is determined by their class, the others can come from any class that character's race has access too. This can lead to some serious game-breaking, like Fighters with Damage to MP, or Ninjas with Strikeback, or Gunners with the Attack and Defense of a Mog Knight.

author=S. F. LaValle link=topic=4075.msg82934#msg82934 date=1245981337
3) Your characters begin with a blank slate, and their skillsets are determined completely by you from the game's outset. May or may not include what equipment types can be worn by each character. Examples: FF11, FF5 (a bit later into the game), FFT.

This tends to be my least favorite of the three. The reason is lack of direction - Without a general indication of which skills are similar, which stats make what work, etc., I usually tend to wander aimlessly about the skill tree, license board, or what have you. Some general indication of priorities is prefered to "Hey, pick four of these 1800 skills and that's your character".
author=ChaosProductions link=topic=4075.msg82990#msg82990 date=1246011636
This can have its charms when done certain ways. For example, the way Diablo II handles this is an example of class done right - each class has sub-builds. Two Barbarians may both beat the shit out of things with sticks, but one jumps all over the place while the other yells and shouts constantly. Basically, the class sets the general trends, leaving the minutia up to the player and the loot algorithms.

This. I honestly don't think "1" is really 100% uncustomizable anyway.

All three of these archtypes have good and bad points anyway; anyone of them is fine. But I guess I'd say I like "1" the most.
3, hands down. (Is anyone surprised?)

I play RPGs for the pre-battle strategy of optimizing your party. The ability to Min/Max stats and fine-tune character skill and stat development is a huge draw for me. The core of RPG gameplay is in the numbers, so naturally it is what I care most about. Everything else - characters, personality, story - is just dressing. (Don't get me wrong, a story IS needed, but it doesn't have to be exceptional. That's why I can't get into MMO's - lack of story. Sure, it has plenty of backstory and environment, but I like my games to have a definitive end ).

What bugged me the most about FF5 is that there wasn't enough customizability. It really irked me that I could learn all these nifty battle commands, but only be able to select freakin' one of them (outside of the base and mimic classes).

Take KOTOR and KOTOR II: even though KOTOR had a muge better plot, more polish and better characters, I like KOTOR II more because:

1) Weapon & equipment crafting
2) elite classes
3) ability to upgrade most characters to Jedis

Huge emphasis on 1. I spent literal HOURS making the best weapons possible, and bought the strategy guide just to see all of options that were open to me.
author=ChaosProductions link=topic=4075.msg82990#msg82990 date=1246011636
This can have its charms when done certain ways. For example, the way Diablo II handles this is an example of class done right - each class has sub-builds. Two Barbarians may both beat the shit out of things with sticks, but one jumps all over the place while the other yells and shouts constantly. Basically, the class sets the general trends, leaving the minutia up to the player and the loot algorithms.

Actually, Diablo II would fall somewhere between 1 & 2 since every single on of the classes in Diablo II can be done in a multitude of ways, not even counting equipment-based ones. The paladin, of course, being the character with most working ways to develop (ever played a ranger, Fist of the heavens/holy bolt or hammerdin? That's NOT your typical paladin build but works extremely well).
arcan
Having a signature is too mainstream. I'm not part of your system!
1866
What about games that require more interaction like Superstar Saga? I have a feeling like they fit in there somewhere but not sure where.
#1, by a long shot that's so long it might actually be a looooooooooong shot.

The interesting interactions in an RPG are between characters (ie: the plot) and in the game world itself. Exploring a job system or min/maxing abilites doesn't happen in the game world or in the plot or even during battles; it happens on a menu screen. Menus do not interest me.

I've never played an RPG with fully customizable characters that I felt I could adequately explore all my options. I love FF5 but when I play it I stick to the six or seven jobs I know work in the places I know they work in. Intellectually I understand that the Chemist and Trainer classes are super broken but there is absolutely no way to legitimately learn those classes without hours and hours of monotonous experimentation. Or going to a FAQ. (Guess which everybody does.) (I do go out of my way to learn all the blue magic though. I'm not a monster.)

If I must have a job system, I prefer something like Blue Dragon. That game gave me my jobs and then got the hell out of my way.
I like all, its only a mater of tastes. My actual game have 100% diferentiated characters, but they have some range to evolve and become more specialized(2 class changues for each).


But some of my favorite games like FFVII or FFV were oposed...
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
Here's some games I can think of off the top of my head.

Dragon Quest games: 1
FF1: 1
FF3: 2
FF4: 1
FF5: 3
FF6: 2
FF11: 3
FF12: 2
FFT: 3
FFMQ: 1
morrowind: 3
oblivion: 3
Chrono Trigger: 1
WoW: 2
Diablo: 2
Ogre Battle: 2

Such wildly varying opinions on this. There truly is no pleasing everyone =)

Or is there? For you 1-lovers, there are likely 3-games that you like well, and vice-versa.

To further analyze, the debate seems to be about where the joy of gameplay actually lies. For some, to use extremes, the gameplay is in the numbers; developing skills, creating items, and min/maxing stats. In this scenario, battle sequences are a performance; watching your numbers at work and judging their effectiveness. Adjustments are dutifully made based on the end result of these performances.

For others, the gameplay experience is in the encounters; character skills are tools that the player has at their disposal to solve the problem they are face-to-face with, in real (well, ATB) time. Navigating menus to develop characters, while often necessary, should never be more important than gaining knowledge on the battlefield and applying it to achieve victory, rather than the size of your, er, stats.

These are just observations for now. I'm sure I'll have more to discuss when I can think straight.
I just don't get a lot of joy out of juggling numbers period, so in a blank-slate game I just pick whatever options look best and deal with them. The problem is though that you can't really judge a game experience based on the options you didn't take, so if I build a character that isn't very strong or that lacks some key skills I'm just going to end up thinking the game was way too hard or too frustrating.

harmonic doesn't get the "point" of a game where you can't customize your characters. Let's see if I can illustrate one. The most obvious point is that it frees you up to craft the challenges in your game outside combat somewhere. Lufia 2 and Golden Sun have easy, straightforward battles with fairly static characters, but it doesn't matter because the true gameplay is in the dungeons, puzzles and tricks.

Another point is that you can very carefully craft specific combat challenges as well. I mean ultra-specific. There's a boss in FF4 who has a wave attack that can kill your whole party pretty much instantly. You can stop this attack by using a lightning spell on him, but only black wizards can use lightning magic. You also happen to encounter this boss at one of the very few specific points in the game where you have two black wizards in the group, making the wave attack manageable. Later in the game there is a boss that forms together out of six smaller monsters if you take to long killing them. Killing all six would be a trivial task for a black wizard or a summoner who can hit them all at once, but you encounter this boss at one of the very few points in the game when you have neither. Both of these bosses are challenging for separate yet specific points in the game. If FF4 let you customize your party and what abilities they have you could make either of those fights trivial or impossible at your leisure.

Third, some players just don't like to screw with all that stuff. The more I can fire and forget, the happier I am. Some players meticulously used the Junction system in FF8 to carefully optimize their stats for each challenge. Those players won the game. I pushed the auto-junction button, and I won the game too. Since you can win the game with or without the customization aspect of the game, it must not have been that important to begin with.
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
"I dont get the point" was just a turn of phrase. I know what the point is, from a development standpoint.
Pages: first 12 next last