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)
IS IT JUST ME, OR ARE BATTLES WHERE IT ALL GOES WRONG FOR RM GAMES?
Posts
ShortStar
View playlists
CloseThere are plenty of ways RPG maker games go "all wrong."
1 - unbalancing
2 - uber monsters
3 - dumb glitches
4 - game stopping glitches
5 - cheap deaths
6 - bad mapping
7 - unfinished towns
8 - forgetting to save after playing 2 hours and dying
1 - unbalancing
2 - uber monsters
3 - dumb glitches
4 - game stopping glitches
5 - cheap deaths
6 - bad mapping
7 - unfinished towns
8 - forgetting to save after playing 2 hours and dying
DFalcon
2141
post=134682
When it comes to healing, the player doesn't have a choice, he has to recover lost HP. If the heal spell is less MP efficient than an offensive spell, the player will still heal (he could use an item instead, but games with strict MP limit usually has strict item limits as well). However, if the offensive spell is less MP efficient, chance is the player will simple not use it which is exactly what I see happening in many RPGs. In fact, the only RPGs I've seen getting away from that problem is those who simple does away the MP efficiency issue, either by throwing in enough MP replenishing items to make MP cost barely matter or by giving the offensive and healing skills to different characters. I have not ever seen any RPG where I've thought that the MP is better spent on an offensive skill than on healing.
Players have to recover lost HP, but they have some choice about when. I've certainly played games where I prioritized an offensive action in-battle to kill an enemy right away and not have to worry about healing the damage they'll do, then healed later (maybe even after battle).
(Or maybe you're playing FFT and you don't have to worry about healing at all if you can just win!)
But it's not like I really disagree with you. Healing MP efficiency is something people have to watch out for.
Tonfa
150
post=134611
My general rule of thumb is that if you have more skills than fit into one page of your skill list, you have too many skills.
I have to disagree with this, even 20+ skills is fine as long as there's some reason for each one to exist, even if it's somewhat hyperspecialized. Some of my favorite command lists utilize this kind of swiss army knife style, such as Blue Mages (with a possible secondary skillset as well!) in the FF games.
Well, I am also a very standardized game developer. I like people to have similar-length skill lists, have "moderate" damage be the same for every action, and have an equal number of physical actions as spell actions. Also, I meant at a time - like in Xenosaga I, where you equipped your skills to bring into battle. Oddly enough, the Tales Of series is pretty decent about this with your controlled party member - equip four special moves onto the d-pad and B and you're all set!
That said, yes, Blue Mages are great, and I used many of Rosa's skills in the final parts of FF4DS... but you can also sort your skill list in early/mid-run FF games. You're basically doing the same thing, except moving Firaga and Bio to the top of the list instead of Blizzara and Poison.
That said, yes, Blue Mages are great, and I used many of Rosa's skills in the final parts of FF4DS... but you can also sort your skill list in early/mid-run FF games. You're basically doing the same thing, except moving Firaga and Bio to the top of the list instead of Blizzara and Poison.
Crystalgate
694
post=134771
Players have to recover lost HP, but they have some choice about when. I've certainly played games where I prioritized an offensive action in-battle to kill an enemy right away and not have to worry about healing the damage they'll do, then healed later (maybe even after battle).
(Or maybe you're playing FFT and you don't have to worry about healing at all if you can just win!)
But it's not like I really disagree with you. Healing MP efficiency is something people have to watch out for.
I worded that poorly. What I meant was that there's little to no risk that the player decides healing isn't MP efficient and therefore just don't do it. The same cannot be said about offensive spells however. For that reason I think that if you can't make them equally MP efficient (hard to do since how MP efficient a skill is can change within the same game depending on circumstances) it's better to stick to the side of offensive spells rather than healing spells since doing so has a greater probability of making the player use both kind of spells.
You are perfectly right about the player having a choice about when to heal. I also think it's a good thing if the player has to think about it a little.
rpgmaker battles are used for filler. sorry you can't expect much from a broken default battle system, friend.
That's not necessarily true. There are a handful of RPG Maker battles I enjoy. Depends on how you do it.
post=134969
rpgmaker battles are used for filler. sorry you can't expect much from a broken default battle system, friend.
This. For damn sure; TFT hit the nail on the head. The only thing I'd have to say in response is I expect the default system to be used and I expect it to be (somewhat) bland. So, while the battle system is usually the more filler-ish part of an RM game nowadays, I expect and tolerate it.
post=134969
rpgmaker battles are used for filler. sorry you can't expect much from a broken default battle system, friend.
let's just forget that rmvx exists/the battle system can be customzied however you want
-ANYWAY-
Here is a question. Is it (always) better to err on the side of too easy? 90% of the time, when my games are ill-received, it is because someone finds them (in some sense or another) too hard. Of course I have had the opposite happen (Wanderer) but not as often. In general I find overly hard RM games more frustrating than overly easy ones (ragequit factor)...but I also don't like to feel pandered to.
So what do people think?
IS IT (ALWAYS) BETTER TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF TOO-EASY?
I'm sorry, but this deserves a double post.
YES.
I know BALANCE is always the ultimate goal, but I don't see people complaining "I don't like this game, it's too easy" that much. Especially if it's got good graphics, good story, good dialogs, good stuff. If it's good in those aspects, players will enjoy them without being stopped by, difficulty, and dying.
I really like easy.
---edit---
Feld ruined my double post stuff.
YES.
I know BALANCE is always the ultimate goal, but I don't see people complaining "I don't like this game, it's too easy" that much. Especially if it's got good graphics, good story, good dialogs, good stuff. If it's good in those aspects, players will enjoy them without being stopped by, difficulty, and dying.
I really like easy.
---edit---
Feld ruined my double post stuff.
One of my favorite parts of rmvxp is that it is stupidly easy to have difficulty settings if you know two seconds' worth of scripting.
EDIT: KGC also has a quality script that lets you change everything from HP to Agility to the percentage drop rate of items on different difficulty levels the player can select in the menu. It is also tied to a variable, so you don't need to add it to your menu - just a Show Choice box at the start of the game suffices.
calunio: why the fuck are you playing a GAME if the GAME is not interesting/at least moderately challenging? Go watch some anime instead. All of those aspects are important and necessary, but, uh, I play a game to ultimately PLAY A GAME.
EDIT: KGC also has a quality script that lets you change everything from HP to Agility to the percentage drop rate of items on different difficulty levels the player can select in the menu. It is also tied to a variable, so you don't need to add it to your menu - just a Show Choice box at the start of the game suffices.
calunio: why the fuck are you playing a GAME if the GAME is not interesting/at least moderately challenging? Go watch some anime instead. All of those aspects are important and necessary, but, uh, I play a game to ultimately PLAY A GAME.
post=135059
I'm sorry, but this deserves a double post.
YES.
I know BALANCE is always the ultimate goal, but I don't see people complaining "I don't like this game, it's too easy" that much. Especially if it's got good graphics, good story, good dialogs, good stuff. If it's good in those aspects, players will enjoy them without being stopped by, difficulty, and dying.
I really like easy.
---edit---
Feld ruined my double post stuff.
I really hate easy. It really drives home the feeling that battles really ARE there for filler and not a legitimate part of the gameplay that challenges players and make them think. Especially in an RPG, battles usually ARE the main interactive feature of the gameplay that engages the player actively, unlike graphics, dialogue, and story. Without gameplay, you're really just watching a movie. Making the gameplay too easy reduces battles to just pressing one button over and over again and really boils down to just being a chore. Making the gameplay too difficult isn't good either, but there's nothing wrong with CHALLENGE.
EDIT: DAMMIT CRAZE STOP READING MY MIND
I repeat: DIFFICULTY LEVELS
Why do only <2% of jRPGs seem to have them? All of my casual friends vastly prefer wRPGs when they play random videogames because you can usually lower the difficulty.
Why do only <2% of jRPGs seem to have them? All of my casual friends vastly prefer wRPGs when they play random videogames because you can usually lower the difficulty.
Look... Max question was:
You can't make a perfectly balanced game. Some margin of error from perfect is inevitable. You know you're gonna err. The error can be either making the game easier than it should be, or harder than it should be. The question is:
My answer is: yes.
Doesn't mean games should be ridiculously easy and challenge-free.
I like a game with challenges, but there are many games I've beaten without dying more than once or twice, and I'm very ok with that.
You can't make a perfectly balanced game. Some margin of error from perfect is inevitable. You know you're gonna err. The error can be either making the game easier than it should be, or harder than it should be. The question is:
IS IT (ALWAYS) BETTER TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF TOO-EASY?
My answer is: yes.
Doesn't mean games should be ridiculously easy and challenge-free.
I like a game with challenges, but there are many games I've beaten without dying more than once or twice, and I'm very ok with that.
I guess that would be on the side of being "more forgiving" rather than being a "Rhapsody: A musical adventure". I can enjoy playing easy games too. Unless it's absolutely brainless with no real options at all to play around with, an easier difficulty game can be fine. Not every game needs to be something that punishes you if you make one wrong step. Sometimes it can be just fine to go in some battle, zombie-fy the enemy, cast Regen on them, berserk them and cast vanish on your party just to screw them over before you actually kill them. I'd personally probably do it so that it's easier in the beginning and gets harder later on without being nightmarishly brutal. SD3 is nice, if only we could pull off something like that for an RM game.
I'm also completely sleepy and just rambling.
Although I get a twisted sense of joy from seeing people raging, dying, or complaining about difficulty in one of my games.
I'm also completely sleepy and just rambling.
Although I get a twisted sense of joy from seeing people raging, dying, or complaining about difficulty in one of my games.
Ocean
Sometimes it can be just fine to go in some battle, zombie-fy the enemy, cast Regen on them, berserk them and cast vanish on your party just to screw them over before you actually kill them.
(I also support difficulty levels and I'm playing with the idea of changing the difficulty mid-game, although this currently has some issues like different starting areas on different difficulties, or an entire dungeon that doesn't exist on the harder difficulties)
Pretend I CHOOSE NOT to use difficulty levels as a personal challenge or geas. (I do not like the idea of putting the battle balance of my game that firmly in the hands of someone else's script. Also it would triple my playtesting time because yes, I would have to play on all three (or more) difficulties. But difficulty levels are great, I think more people should use them, I'm not attacking the idea of difficulty levels!
I'm just more interested in this easy vs. hard debate that we've got going on.
I've been working on this for years. It's much easier said than done. If you put too much stuff at the beginning of the game and the player WILL feel overwhelmed or find the game impossible (no amount of tutorials can fix this and who wants lengthy tutorials anyway). If you don't put enough stuff at the beginning of the game, the player WILL feel bored.
I'm just more interested in this easy vs. hard debate that we've got going on.
I'd personally probably do it so that it's easier in the beginning and gets harder later on without being nightmarishly brutal.
I've been working on this for years. It's much easier said than done. If you put too much stuff at the beginning of the game and the player WILL feel overwhelmed or find the game impossible (no amount of tutorials can fix this and who wants lengthy tutorials anyway). If you don't put enough stuff at the beginning of the game, the player WILL feel bored.
