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
WeaselEliot
View playlists
CloseYou'll take this as a 'hate on the RPG Making community thread' but I don't mean it like that, honest. It's just an observation (I'm sure you'll move this to Game Design if it doesn't fit here)...
When I usually play an RPG Maker game, even if I'm somewhat interested by the premise or setting or aesthetics blahwhatever, as soon as I reach the first battle THAT'S when I become disenchanted with the game. It's as if I'm falling back into a tired routine. It doesn't matter if your game reminds me of Earthbound or if it's atmospheric or retro blah blah
Does this happen with commercial RPGs with bog-standard battles (Of which there are plenty)? Sometimes. But while, say, FF1 is quite bog standard, the whole party creation system made me stick through it longer than I have normally. I'm wondering that even if RM developers are limited to a certain kind of battle system (at least on the surface), there's at least the option of introducing gimmicks like this to make battles feel less obligatory.
Tbqh, it makes me realise just how much battles (If that's what you're going for) are THE meat of the game, and I'm saying that as a non-mathematical person who doesn't know about strategy and formulas and whatnot.
Before, I used to make games in RPG Maker and think to myself...WHY am I making this an RPG? Is it just because it has a story, and characters? Would this not work better as an action game? And I begin to realise that I'm not really paying enough attention to the battles. And if I'm deciding to have a battle system in my game, I better have a damn good reason.
Ugh, game design is not to be underestimated.
When I usually play an RPG Maker game, even if I'm somewhat interested by the premise or setting or aesthetics blahwhatever, as soon as I reach the first battle THAT'S when I become disenchanted with the game. It's as if I'm falling back into a tired routine. It doesn't matter if your game reminds me of Earthbound or if it's atmospheric or retro blah blah
Does this happen with commercial RPGs with bog-standard battles (Of which there are plenty)? Sometimes. But while, say, FF1 is quite bog standard, the whole party creation system made me stick through it longer than I have normally. I'm wondering that even if RM developers are limited to a certain kind of battle system (at least on the surface), there's at least the option of introducing gimmicks like this to make battles feel less obligatory.
Tbqh, it makes me realise just how much battles (If that's what you're going for) are THE meat of the game, and I'm saying that as a non-mathematical person who doesn't know about strategy and formulas and whatnot.
Before, I used to make games in RPG Maker and think to myself...WHY am I making this an RPG? Is it just because it has a story, and characters? Would this not work better as an action game? And I begin to realise that I'm not really paying enough attention to the battles. And if I'm deciding to have a battle system in my game, I better have a damn good reason.
Ugh, game design is not to be underestimated.
Nullmech
0
There's only ever been one game that I disliked battles in, and that wasn't even an RM game - it was Final Fantasy X. The 5 or 6 same monsters in different colors over and over again with the exact same strategy really got on my nerves.
Really, as far as I'm concerned, battles need three things to be successful:
1) Lack of repetition (as in, let's not use the 6 same monsters in EVERY SINGLE AREA)
2) New strategies every now and then, or at least mix them up
3) Balanced monsters (no parties of 6 monsters which each cast BOOMKILLALL for 20000 party damage)
Really, as far as I'm concerned, battles need three things to be successful:
1) Lack of repetition (as in, let's not use the 6 same monsters in EVERY SINGLE AREA)
2) New strategies every now and then, or at least mix them up
3) Balanced monsters (no parties of 6 monsters which each cast BOOMKILLALL for 20000 party damage)
Lennon
88
I think that your generalizing in a way. If a games battles are making you dislike the entire game, then you must either be really into battles, or the designer just did a bad job. I know that when designers actually try the battles can be just great.
That said however, I have seen this issue come up many times. It seems a lot of people share your opinion.
Also: Nullmech has the idea.
That said however, I have seen this issue come up many times. It seems a lot of people share your opinion.
Also: Nullmech has the idea.
deboo
85
I've always seen battles as the weak point of RPG's, unless the developer puts some serious thought into it.
It's very easily overlooked because often what the developer wants in that game is a good story blahblah all the things you look for in an RPG. Although maybe 'overlooked' isn't the right word, i suppose it's sort of more like they don't feel the need to enhance the battles enough to make a noticeable(or even better) difference.
The battle system has always been largely repetetive and i can understand why you would be bored by it. Sometimes i think it's a shame that so many RPG's fail in this department, but mostly i'm not too bothered. I'm not one who likes battling all that much in the first place, grinding just kills me inside. Other people enjoy doing it, though - it's more their cup of tea.
It's very easily overlooked because often what the developer wants in that game is a good story blahblah all the things you look for in an RPG. Although maybe 'overlooked' isn't the right word, i suppose it's sort of more like they don't feel the need to enhance the battles enough to make a noticeable(or even better) difference.
The battle system has always been largely repetetive and i can understand why you would be bored by it. Sometimes i think it's a shame that so many RPG's fail in this department, but mostly i'm not too bothered. I'm not one who likes battling all that much in the first place, grinding just kills me inside. Other people enjoy doing it, though - it's more their cup of tea.
It depends. If a RPG has no other redeeming qualities, it better have good, interesting battles. However, if it has some other good elements of gameplay (for example: interesting plotline, unique characters, engaging dialogue, excellent graphics and/or sound, sidequests, replay value, minigames, treasure hunting), it can make up for using a default battle system or having battles that have some of the characteristics mentioned by Nullmech. Good RPGs usually have many of these elements present, including decent battles. Whether a player thinks any of these are enough to keep him/her playing, it's something personal.
I think while battles are important and they should be seen as a means to an end, no an end itself. For those interesting in battles exclusively, perhaps playing or making RPGs might not be right for them. Like you said, action games might be more their thing.
Bottom line, maybe it is you!
I think while battles are important and they should be seen as a means to an end, no an end itself. For those interesting in battles exclusively, perhaps playing or making RPGs might not be right for them. Like you said, action games might be more their thing.
Bottom line, maybe it is you!
Yeaster
6164
post=133686
Catchy music is a great thing to have to make battles enjoyable.
Pretty much.
I also think that making battles fast-paced can help prevent boredom for certain players. Personally, I never had much of a problem with battles RM game or no, unless there were a lot of them and they all dragged endlessly.
Darlos9D
0
I think the basic problem here that can cause the sense of "I've seen this before" is actually due to a lot of the jRPG industry in general. The most popular RPG series in Japan is, of course, Dragon Quest. Every Dragon Quest has pretty much the same kind of turn based battle: everyone puts in their commands, and then everyone acts in whatever order. Pretty simple, but hey it's just Dragon Quest, right?
Wrong. This ridiculously rudimentary combat system has been emulated time and time again even all the way up to current modern jRPGs. Final Fantasy used this formula for its first three installments, before finally switching to the more interesting active time. Golden Sun uses a battle system just like this. The very recent Glory of Heracles uses a system like this, albeit with a lot of gimmicks stacked on it. If you think it's just an older/2D/handheld game thing, you're wrong: Lost Odyssey uses it. Really, countless games use this exact same DQ-inspired (read: ripped off) formula. It's turned into the path of least resistance for jRPG development. There's a healthy number of jRPGs that try something different. And maybe some people who use the DQ-style combat system actually like it for whatever reason. But regardless, whenever I see it, I just get the feeling that the developers really didn't care THAT much about making combat really interesting. They just needed something to create a finished product, so they grabbed the tried-and-true DQ formula.
Knowing all of this, it should come to no surprise that RM's default battle system is DQ-style, which means anyone who makes an RM game that uses that system brings about that same feeling of tired lazy re-use, even if it isn't really their fault (since not everyone is a programmer).
I suppose we should take it a bit easier on RM games, with that in mind. With actual jRPGs though, I give no quarter. Innovate, you Japanese bastards!
Wrong. This ridiculously rudimentary combat system has been emulated time and time again even all the way up to current modern jRPGs. Final Fantasy used this formula for its first three installments, before finally switching to the more interesting active time. Golden Sun uses a battle system just like this. The very recent Glory of Heracles uses a system like this, albeit with a lot of gimmicks stacked on it. If you think it's just an older/2D/handheld game thing, you're wrong: Lost Odyssey uses it. Really, countless games use this exact same DQ-inspired (read: ripped off) formula. It's turned into the path of least resistance for jRPG development. There's a healthy number of jRPGs that try something different. And maybe some people who use the DQ-style combat system actually like it for whatever reason. But regardless, whenever I see it, I just get the feeling that the developers really didn't care THAT much about making combat really interesting. They just needed something to create a finished product, so they grabbed the tried-and-true DQ formula.
Knowing all of this, it should come to no surprise that RM's default battle system is DQ-style, which means anyone who makes an RM game that uses that system brings about that same feeling of tired lazy re-use, even if it isn't really their fault (since not everyone is a programmer).
I suppose we should take it a bit easier on RM games, with that in mind. With actual jRPGs though, I give no quarter. Innovate, you Japanese bastards!
Darlos9D
0
post=133712I'll admit to actually enjoying such a combat system now and again. I played DQVIII in its entirety. I think these things made it more manageable though:
DQVIII's battle system is really fun and well-done.
1 - Character building was more interesting, what with the different skill sets you could level up. Somehow this makes combat itself more bearable, even if it's the same old thing. I've noted this phenomenon in other games.
2 - The tension system was neat, potentially making physical attacks more interesting than just "choose attack."
3 - Actually showing the characters and their animations was a vast improvement over previous installments.
Still, I'm not going to claim it was the pinnacle of excellent combat systems. Fights in that game (and all DQs) just felt like something that happened. You hardly even payed them mind most of the time, not counting boss fights. I think the only thing that made fights "exciting" was the prospect of leveling up and getting money to build your characters more. They felt like more of a means to an end, rather than the meat of the game.
more interesting active time.
more boring "watching gauges fill" system*
(hint: the only game in the series on consoles I can afford (hint: not XIII) that used ATB properly was X-2, of all things.)
I will argue time and time again that you don't need to ERADICATE the turn-based structure to make your RPG strategically deep and fulfilling to play.
I have quit numerous RM* games because of bad combat. Most people just don't seem to put much thought into it, and it's really kind of a drag. RM2k3 is the worst offender here, as the battles aren't just boring, they also feature the broken 'turns' combat method. I can count the number of RM2k3 games with battle systems I have enjoyed on less than a single hand, and I have played tons of them in my time.
Passing from functionality into design itself, I have not played many games with good battles in XP/VX either. They just never seem to do enough to keep the player thinking.
Common ailments of shitty battles:
Problem 1: Numerous attack skills progressing in 'Fire 1', 'Fire 2, Fire 3' form, all of which you have access to for some reason, clogging up your skill tree.
Explanation: Firstly, a character that only has generic attack skills is boring. There's a lot you can do, even in RM2k3, to make a skillset interesting - should not need to resort to this. Secondly, why exactly would I use Fire 1 in any instance? Do you ever use Fire 1 in Final Fantasy when you have Fire 3? Most games allow MP restoration, making this even stupider, and it all comes down to spamming the highest level attack if possible. Just make Fire 1 evolve into Fire 2 or whatever - at least that way it won't make a huge mess in the skill list, which brings me to my next problem - I hate huge, messy skill lists full of things never use, and it is extremely common. Seriously guys, I'm not asking you to clean your rooms.
Problem 2: A character that specializes in ailment/debuff skills that you will never, ever use.
Explanation: Generally speaking, making a character a one-trick pony is a bad idea, like I mentioned above. Especially an ailment specialist, who people seem incapable of making properly. If you ARE going to make someone that only uses status attacks, make sure your bosses and major enemies are prepared for them in mind. Debuff skills are a little different, since in some games they automatically succeed, making them viable in any situation - occasionally too viable. This leads me to my next problem
Problem 3: Agility/Speed, and other broken stats.
Explanation: I could poke fun at RM2k3 for this, but honestly the agility stat is the best in many games. People will always go after the 'best stat' or the stat most useful to the character, but agility is usually linked to the speed at which a character acts, making it a priority in (many) RPGs with any kind of speed gauge. A straight Agility buff/debuff spell in RM2k3 makes the character top tier nigh automatically. My suggestion as related to RM2k3 (assuming you do not want to break it) is to limit and heavily enforce the number of ways a character can alter their agility, and make debuffs/buffs non-stackable. XP and VX do not have this problem at the start, and the numbers can always be changed to tone something down, but it can still happen.
I have many more examples of things like this (seriously, dozens), but these are the least specific and most applicable to the widest range of RM* games.
Passing from functionality into design itself, I have not played many games with good battles in XP/VX either. They just never seem to do enough to keep the player thinking.
Common ailments of shitty battles:
Problem 1: Numerous attack skills progressing in 'Fire 1', 'Fire 2, Fire 3' form, all of which you have access to for some reason, clogging up your skill tree.
Explanation: Firstly, a character that only has generic attack skills is boring. There's a lot you can do, even in RM2k3, to make a skillset interesting - should not need to resort to this. Secondly, why exactly would I use Fire 1 in any instance? Do you ever use Fire 1 in Final Fantasy when you have Fire 3? Most games allow MP restoration, making this even stupider, and it all comes down to spamming the highest level attack if possible. Just make Fire 1 evolve into Fire 2 or whatever - at least that way it won't make a huge mess in the skill list, which brings me to my next problem - I hate huge, messy skill lists full of things never use, and it is extremely common. Seriously guys, I'm not asking you to clean your rooms.
Problem 2: A character that specializes in ailment/debuff skills that you will never, ever use.
Explanation: Generally speaking, making a character a one-trick pony is a bad idea, like I mentioned above. Especially an ailment specialist, who people seem incapable of making properly. If you ARE going to make someone that only uses status attacks, make sure your bosses and major enemies are prepared for them in mind. Debuff skills are a little different, since in some games they automatically succeed, making them viable in any situation - occasionally too viable. This leads me to my next problem
Problem 3: Agility/Speed, and other broken stats.
Explanation: I could poke fun at RM2k3 for this, but honestly the agility stat is the best in many games. People will always go after the 'best stat' or the stat most useful to the character, but agility is usually linked to the speed at which a character acts, making it a priority in (many) RPGs with any kind of speed gauge. A straight Agility buff/debuff spell in RM2k3 makes the character top tier nigh automatically. My suggestion as related to RM2k3 (assuming you do not want to break it) is to limit and heavily enforce the number of ways a character can alter their agility, and make debuffs/buffs non-stackable. XP and VX do not have this problem at the start, and the numbers can always be changed to tone something down, but it can still happen.
I have many more examples of things like this (seriously, dozens), but these are the least specific and most applicable to the widest range of RM* games.
Dezz
1252
For some reason I seem to prefer battles with sideview, and I prefer them even more using ATB. I think it's kinda boring when you just see a big monster in front of you with a sword slashing it.
Yeah, that's why I'm trying to minimize the amount of necessary battles in my own series. Front-view battles are a bit on the boring side. Part 3 is definitely going to be in 2003, especially since I now have someone who can make battlers :)
Sideview/frontview has nothing to do with your battles being boring guys. You just suck at making combat entertaining.
I fail to see how making the player wait for the gauges to fill up for 90% of the battle makes the game more fun automatically.
For me it comes down to being able to make meaningful choices (hey, that applies to every game ever) - this goes double for a game based around making choices in a menu!
If I can do reasonably well by just pressing Enter over and over then the game failed to give me meaningful choices (ie- other things to do in battle) and I lose interest. Corollary: if I am overwhelmed by choices or options and it isn't evident which choice(s) is going to be effective, I also lose interest.
EDIT:
Touching on the Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3 progression - I don't mind this at all, and in fact I like it! I like the idea that my players are growing progressively stronger. As to the issue of "Just Spam Fire 3!" there are other design flaws at work here that are undermining the progression system (rather than the progression system being automatically flawed) - things like easy-to-regen MP or too low of MP costs, for example.
If I can do reasonably well by just pressing Enter over and over then the game failed to give me meaningful choices (ie- other things to do in battle) and I lose interest. Corollary: if I am overwhelmed by choices or options and it isn't evident which choice(s) is going to be effective, I also lose interest.
EDIT:
Touching on the Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3 progression - I don't mind this at all, and in fact I like it! I like the idea that my players are growing progressively stronger. As to the issue of "Just Spam Fire 3!" there are other design flaws at work here that are undermining the progression system (rather than the progression system being automatically flawed) - things like easy-to-regen MP or too low of MP costs, for example.
post=133725
Touching on the Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3 progression - I don't mind this at all, and in fact I like it! I like the idea that my players are growing progressively stronger.
Players get stronger with increased stats, don't they? Also, I don't mind so much players getting evolved versions of skills as long as you get rid of the old one. I have never played an RPG where I used the weaker version of a fire spell intentionally.
And I was being a bit facetious on the spam comment. Point is, mage characters are often just stuck with a bunch of high level attack magic, and the only ones they use are the most elite versions of them. And I really am not a fan of it when using the biggest attacks constantly = victory, like it so often is.
