COMBAT-ONLY RPG'S
Posts
Pages:
1
I've been playing around the idea of making and RPG that only consists of battles. No exploration, no deep storyline (although it could still have one), just battles. The game would offer heavy player customization, but I'm not sure if that would be enough too keep the game going. What do you guys think?
I'm already making one.
Of course, it's branching and plot-heavy, but it's still a battle rush.
Of course, it's branching and plot-heavy, but it's still a battle rush.
Sort of like that flash game on armor games that I think it was called Sonny? It could work but you better have a damned good combat system if you want to pull it off.
This is really not an original idea, it can work. Just make a battle system that is interesting enough, for starters. What do you have in mind?
That description fits my current project even better than it fits AW.
I don't think it would be very fun to smush all the battles together in most existing RPGs and play that, of course. Care and interesting battles should both be necessary.
I don't think it would be very fun to smush all the battles together in most existing RPGs and play that, of course. Care and interesting battles should both be necessary.
Isn't Boss Battles combat only RPG's?
As long as you have an awesome system, I'm sure the game will be popular
As long as you have an awesome system, I'm sure the game will be popular
I would never play a game that is only battles. My least favourite part of RPGs is the battles! Even when the battle system is good I don't usually have fun for long with it. There are a few notable exceptions, but those are exceptions because they're very fast/unobtrusive.
Unlike Kaempfer, battles aren't my least favorite part of RPGs, BUT, I share his sentiment of not playing an RPG with just battles, unless they were GREAT. It's not that I dislike them, but battles are a mental exercise; doing it too long over and over again will drain you.
Eldritch was a LITTLE like this (not that much).
To Arms! will be more like this only the story will be given equal emphasis as the battles (none of that other stuff). The game is basically cutscene/battle/cutscene/battle in the style of FFT. (I have another game that I have not talked about at all that has battles but is entirely based on exploration.)
I was nervous about doing this- I have had people (Brickroad, does he count as people?) say that a game cannot be good without good dungeons, which I guess excludes games w/o dungeons period- so I'm glad someone made a topic.
Also Mage Duel is explicitly and intentionally this.
To Arms! will be more like this only the story will be given equal emphasis as the battles (none of that other stuff). The game is basically cutscene/battle/cutscene/battle in the style of FFT. (I have another game that I have not talked about at all that has battles but is entirely based on exploration.)
I was nervous about doing this- I have had people (Brickroad, does he count as people?) say that a game cannot be good without good dungeons, which I guess excludes games w/o dungeons period- so I'm glad someone made a topic.
Also Mage Duel is explicitly and intentionally this.
This idea was actually thought of by the creators of The Elder Scrolls series. The reason the first game was called ARENA was because they originally thought of just having arena fights for the game and the idea just grew to be a regular RPG.
I guess FFXIII is sort of a chuck at that. It does feature a pretty detailed plot, but is insanely light on everything but battles.
I'm with MOG on this, except I like how chaos is doing his current game. Cutscene/battle/cutscene/battle/cutscene/battle/real cutscene/boss/repeat.
post=138200
I'm with MOG on this, except I like how chaos is doing his current game. Cutscene/battle/cutscene/battle/cutscene/battle/real cutscene/boss/repeat.
You're forgetting choice and branching paths! Key to the success of the game, I think.
Pages:
1
























