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)
SO, EVERYONE, I HAVE A QUESTION PERTAINING TO YOUR PREFFERED PLAY STYLES.
Posts
S. F. LaValle
1069
S. F. LaValle
View playlists
Closeauthor=The Real Brickroad link=topic=4075.msg83106#msg83106 date=1246088215
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.
Is this an indication of poor game design? Or, to you, is it merely optional content (like minigames) that can enrich the experience for those that want the extra depth, but is not necessary?
I think this is why many games add optional mega-bosses; to justify all of the optional gear upgrades and skill grinding. After all that is said and done, however, what are you left with? More gear upgrades? More skills to distribute? The most logical answer is anything which adds replay value.
So, that is yet another factor in this complex game design aspect. Type-3 games lend themselves to replay value inherently (to those who enjoy the numbers). Do you type-1 people out there care much about exploring the game beyond a single play-through of the story? If so, would it need to be in the form of non-combat gameplay? Would you enjoy increased difficulty of battles? More on-topic, would you entertain exploring customization options for the characters (and a loosened grip on story progression to enjoy it with, such as earlier access to dungeons, more optional dungeons, and combined with the last point, more difficult encounters)?
On the other hand, for you type-3 people, do you feel you should be able to complete the game with any experimental build you've chosen for your characters? Do you feel the game should not contain any encounters that are punishingly difficult if you don't have a particular character or skill type in any given setup? Is the experience still worth it to you if, like Brick said, you can beat the game without delving into the breadth of customization options? When during the whole process do you feel rewarded for your efforts and are satisfied with the gameplay?
The Real Brickroad
2626
post=83184
Is this an indication of poor game design? Or, to you, is it merely optional content (like minigames) that can enrich the experience for those that want the extra depth, but is not necessary?
I think it's the second thing. And honestly it's better than the alternative, which is a game that requires you to wade neck-deep into the systems if you want to win. In FF8 you could pretty much just junction whatever to whatever and win the game. Imagine if you really, really needed to have specific spells junctioned to specific stats for specific reasons at different parts of the game. Imagine if GF affinity were actually something you had to manipulate and take advantage of. Imagine if farming those bits and baubles to upgrade your weapons were a necessity. The only person in the world who would enjoy the game is RPG Advocate.
Do you type-1 people out there care much about exploring the game beyond a single play-through of the story?
Both FF4 and Suikoden are type-1 games, and I've played FF4 and Suikoden about 67 times a piece, so I'd say yeah. I don't revisit these games for the challenge though; I revisit them because they're the gaming equivalent of comfort food.
Probably somewhere between number two and three...wow...I was just hideously memorized by the gayness of kentona's avatar, so much so that I couldn't complete this post.
post=83398
Probably somewhere between number two and three...wow...I was just hideously memorized by the gayness of kentona's avatar, so much so that I couldn't complete this post.
My work here is done.
Mr. Y
300
post=82934
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.
I like this the most. When I think of this, I think of more "traditional" RPGs. In a game with multiple party members, it's simple and fun. If the game is made well, it's like the game designer promises you that, if you spend a little time leveling up and you're clever enough to figure out some of the tougher boss fights, you can win in the end. There is much less advantage to spending a lot of time figuring out how to GROW YOUR TEAM, and you can focus on just playing the game and enjoying the story. And yeah, I do like having stories in the RPGs I play... so I'm not too crazy about Dragon Quest games :).
As a counterexample, when I play Final Fantasy Tactics, I really wish I could enjoy the game. It does feel kind of rewarding doing well at the game when all your plans come to fruition and you're just kicking ass and taking names. However, I enjoy games a lot more if I feel less pressure to study up on GameFAQs about job prerequisites and the like, and just go exploring for myself.
It's definitely a personal thing, and I'd admit that I may enjoy FFT more if I would try playing the game without using strategy guides or tips to create an ultimate team of badass killers.
