RPG WITH NO REPEATABLE BATTLES

Posts

Pages: first prev 123 next last
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Well, as an example, hmm. Have you played World of Warcraft? The game has hundreds of different bosses, each of which requires a different strategy.

A given dungeon might have five bosses. One boss that summons three different kinds of minions - one with 1 HP that poisons you, one with moderate HP that attacks normally, and one with high HP that makes the boss and all other minions invincible for as long as it's alive. Then a second boss that sends orbs of fire flying around the room and attacking anyone they get close to, while he picks party members at random to paralyze and drain HP from until he takes enough damage to drop them. Then another boss that summons 30 minions at the beginning of the fight, and periodically makes itself invincible and summons a stronger minion, which you have to kill within a certain amount of time or the boss heals itself and goes berserk. Then another boss that is in a field of mushrooms that cause various effects if you hit them with area attacks. Then a final boss that makes each party member fight weakened illusions of the other four party members.

This is an example dungeon that is ripped directly from WoW, but the game has that kind of variation in each of 60+ different dungeons and raids, and all without ever relying on player-specific abilities. And it's hardly the only game in the world to have good strategic boss fights. But I'm not sure what kind of battle system I should use to maximize the amount of strategy I can create. (Don't say tactical RPG, I want to have dungeons, dammit. Though I might allow some type of movement in battle.)

post=144982
I agree some kind of extra battles would be easier rather than having a pure set number of battles it would be restricting on the player if they're struggling on a boss and know they can't retry and train a bit more to overcome it when they know all the other monsters have already been beaten.

I'm pretty sure every action, shooter, adventure, strategy, and platformer game ever made has managed this just fine. So that is not something that concerns me even a little bit. And I HATE, HATE, HATE the idea that boring repetition can be done in place of actually completing the challenge. That is the worst idea anyone has ever come up with. Why would you want to create a challenging and fun boss, and then encourage people to grind goblins for an hour instead of beating it?
Whatever you do, if this is a system with a strongly customizable player party (which I gather from the "not simple" comment), I highly recommend you add in some kind of way to practice battle an enemy (group) from the menu. Nothing discourages customization quite like being unable to experiment with your build.
post=144992
Whatever you do, if this is a system with a strongly customizable player party (which I gather from the "not simple" comment), I highly recommend you add in some kind of way to practice battle an enemy (group) from the menu. Nothing discourages customization quite like being unable to experiment with your build.

Eh, doesn't this sort of defeat the point? I haven't seen many options like this and I've never found it a problem.
I've never really played any games that don't let you play around with your setup in some way, shape, or fashion. It would be pretty balls not to be able to fight when you want to with no strings attached.
Also if this whole effort is a thinly veiled way of reducing the number of battles overall because you think your battles are boring, then you have another problem altogether.
post=144995
Also if this whole effort is a thinly veiled way of reducing the number of battles overall because you think your battles are boring, then you have another problem altogether.

Pretty much this.
post=144995
Also if this whole effort is a thinly veiled way of reducing the number of battles overall because you think your battles are boring, then you have another problem altogether.


His point is not this though, his point is that having battles over and over again is boring in itself--and repetition pretty much gets boring in most games, even if the battles are interesting, you are bound to have many repeat battles.

post=144983
I'm pretty sure every action, shooter, adventure, strategy, and platformer game ever made has managed this just fine. So that is not something that concerns me even a little bit. And I HATE, HATE, HATE the idea that boring repetition can be done in place of actually completing the challenge. That is the worst idea anyone has ever come up with. Why would you want to create a challenging and fun boss, and then encourage people to grind goblins for an hour instead of beating it?


Yeah, this is a very good point.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
If a battle requires strategy to win, then it's essentially a type of puzzle.

No matter how good your puzzle is, it's only fun to do once. After that, you already know the answer. Imagine a puzzle game, maybe it's Picross or Sudoku or a crossword or just block puzzles, where the player has to solve each puzzle five to ten times in a row before they have enough XP that the next puzzle becomes attemptable. That is how grind in RPGs feels to me.

If a battle doesn't require strategy to win, it is a shitty battle and needs to be redesigned, especially in a game like this.

If I find that I am running out of ideas for battles, I will cancel the project.

post=144992
Whatever you do, if this is a system with a strongly customizable player party (which I gather from the "not simple" comment), I highly recommend you add in some kind of way to practice battle an enemy (group) from the menu. Nothing discourages customization quite like being unable to experiment with your build.

Definitely noted. A great point. In a normal RPG you get to try out your new setup on normal battles that you already know you can win, before jumping straight into a new boss. If every single battle in the game is essentially a new boss, then I will probably need to add something like Saga Frontier's skill-testing system that it had at magic shops. It let you go into a mock battle to try out spells before you spent the money to buy them.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
No matter how good your puzzle is, it's only fun to do once. After that, you already know the answer. Imagine a puzzle game, maybe it's Picross or Sudoku or a crossword or just block puzzles, where the player has to solve each puzzle five to ten times in a row before they have enough XP that the next puzzle becomes attemptable. That is how grind in RPGs feels to me.

Now imagine, on your second attempt, that the puzzle pulls a new trick out of its ass based on its knowledge of your patterns of attack. Now you have to counter its counter, and then it counters your counter to its counter with whatever it can. If the puzzle learns like you do, it's suddenly a lot more entertaining.

And by the time its movepool is out of this to counter you with, its homies have arrived to coordinate with. That is how RPG enemies should work.

post=144992
Whatever you do, if this is a system with a strongly customizable player party (which I gather from the "not simple" comment), I highly recommend you add in some kind of way to practice battle an enemy (group) from the menu. Nothing discourages customization quite like being unable to experiment with your build.

Reminds me of those terminals in FFX where you could fight mobs of your choice, but you wouldn't get items/exp; so you could learn how to deal with, say, Bombs or Ogres.
post=145060
No matter how good your puzzle is, it's only fun to do once. After that, you already know the answer. Imagine a puzzle game, maybe it's Picross or Sudoku or a crossword or just block puzzles, where the player has to solve each puzzle five to ten times in a row before they have enough XP that the next puzzle becomes attemptable. That is how grind in RPGs feels to me.
Now imagine, on your second attempt, that the puzzle pulls a new trick out of its ass based on its knowledge of your patterns of attack. Now you have to counter its counter, and then it counters your counter to its counter with whatever it can. If the puzzle learns like you do, it's suddenly a lot more entertaining.

And by the time its movepool is out of this to counter you with, its homies have arrived to coordinate with. That is how RPG enemies should work.


Now imagine, on your fifteenth attempt, that the puzzle pulls a so-called "new trick" out of its ass based on its knowledge of your patt--wait a minute, didn't this already happen fourteen times? I'm getting bored.
Am I the only one who's generally fine with the regular ass old RPG way of doing things, mostly? I mean, I appreciate innovation, but I don't want to be one of those developers constantly brainstorming on new ways to invent the wheel for players that never asked for it.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
Now imagine, on your fifteenth attempt, that the puzzle pulls a so-called "new trick" out of its ass based on its knowledge of your patt--wait a minute, didn't this already happen fourteen times? I'm getting bored.
If the developer knows what they're doing, this doesn't happen because they've introduced a different enemy to the troop or moved on to entirely new ones. Taking an example to an extreme doesn't make it any less valid. Assuming common sense on the developer's part is generally the better way to go about it.
post=145064
introduced a different enemy to the troop or moved on to entirely new ones


This is part of what is being suggested in this topic though.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
post=145066
post=145064
introduced a different enemy to the troop or moved on to entirely new ones
This is part of what is being suggested in this topic though.
I'm just saying that doing that -every- battle may be off-putting. Throwing the player a bone by having a troop recur a couple of times (so they can perfect their pattern against that enemy before moving on) is not a bad idea. Obviously it's a poor choice to do in excess, but then again what isn't?
I see what Chaos is getting at. I'm near the end of Persona 3 and I would rather not have every single battle to be BRAND NEW because every time I get to a new floor section it's very easy for me to have trouble. Through repetition I can eventually take out enemy groups in 1 turn because I know their weaknesses, taught myself a good persona switch setup, etc.

My reward is quick and easy EXP/money/personas. If every group I faced were to be brand new, it would be very hard to level up, and would probably be very frustrating because I would be readapting my persona setup frequently.
post=145067
I guess I am!

Nope I'm with you.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I am definitely open to the possibility of reusing the same enemy in different formations, as long as you can't do exactly the same things to win again. Hell, pixel art is my least favorite part of game design, so it's probably inevitable. I do want to change things up enough to keep every single battle exciting and dangerous, but I agree, there's such a thing as too much also.

I wouldn't want to make none of the battles have any similarities at all with each-other - it would be like learning an entirely new game every time a battle starts. Which, despite the success of Wario Ware, would be really terrible in an RPG. Strategies in subsequent fights can build on each-other without being quite the same.

Good things to think about, thanks.
post=145071
I see what Chaos is getting at. I'm near the end of Persona 3 and I would rather not have every single battle to be BRAND NEW because every time I get to a new floor section it's very easy for me to have trouble. Through repetition I can eventually take out enemy groups in 1 turn because I know their weaknesses, taught myself a good persona switch setup, etc.

Not every encounter has to be brand new to be a bit different. If you in one encounter face three zombies and one skeleton and in the next encounter face one zombie and three skeletons, you can use the knowledge gained from the first encounter when fighting the second one. This works even if the game is designed in such a way that there's a meaningful difference between the two encounters.

Have you played Contra? If not, what I'm saying should work for a Mario game, a Megaman game and a lot of other games. Anyway, in Contra you will often encounter the same set of enemies, say one turret and three of the constantly respawning soldiers. However, even if you encounter the same set of enemies the fights are rarely the same. What terrain there is and from what direction the soldiers comes from will change how you need to move to deal with the situation. However, if you encounter the same set of enemies in an RPG it's usually the same fight. Rarely is the difference more meaningful than having to heal a different character because the enemies choose to target a different character if even that. Usually I can just repeat the exact same set of commands.

I think that RPGs should let you apply the knowledge gained from one battle and enjoy a great advantage from it in other battles. Even so, I don't see the need for battles to be the exact same.
Pages: first prev 123 next last