RPG WITH NO REPEATABLE BATTLES

Posts

Pages: first prev 123 last
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
That's pretty much what I'm saying. It's not a bad idea to, using your example, have the three zombie/one skeleton troop return a couple times before discarding it, at that.

"Hey, I remember how to beat you!" *is rewarded with EXP/items for relatively little expenditure*
I'd argue that it's worth at least leaving the option to grind in the game. When your success in battles is largely limited by your stats, it's comforting to know you can go drill your stats up if you get stuck.

Of course, if you're trying to make a hardcore game that only truly skilled players can beat, the point is moot. But many RPG players play for the story, and those people might not be able to advance and could quit playing the game.
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'm sorry but I don't agree that games without experience points are impossible for all except the most hardcore players. Not that I particularly plan on making a game without experience points. I had like half a page typed out about exactly why grinding is dumb, but I decided if you don't understand it after what I already said, then we are never going to see eye to eye.

I'm not just trying to argue with people about why Dragon Warrior is or isn't a shitty game, though. I'm asking for advice on potential problems you can see that such a system would cause, or ideas for what kinds of battle systems and other mechanics would be particularly good for this type of game.

Right now, I am trying to figure out what kind of battle system would work well first, before moving on to other things like the skill-learning system. But there's no real good reason for doing the planning in any particular order, except that the battle system is the hardest to script so I want to do all the code work for that before I start coding anything else. But of course brainstorming can come in any order! So ideas or concerns about anything at all (except "this whole concept is terrible") are of great help.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
this whole concept is terrible

abort now



(Have you considered any sort of setting that makes it so imperative that you have to keep moving forward?)
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
post=145225
(Have you considered any sort of setting that makes it so imperative that you have to keep moving forward?)


Hmm, that is a possibility I should consider. Maybe something like a time limit, or some sort of apocalypse that destroys everything behind you. It could mess with my plan to fill the dungeons with puzzles, though. And would require me to actually come up with a new story instead of just reusing one I've already written.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
Killing discovery and experimentation has its downsides, though.

"Oh, another bird." *elec spell*
post=145229
Killing discovery and experimentation has its downsides, though.

"Oh, another bird." *elec spell*

I think that battles shouldn't become trivial as soon as you know what weaknesses the enemies have. Assuming a group of four people, there should be those who don't have access to whatever weakness the enemy possess and has to figure out something else to do. There are so many more actions a player can take than offensive skills, if the game is well designed that it. If an enemy is up to date, then knowing it's weak to electricity should not be enough to trivialize the fight.
post=145229
Killing discovery and experimentation has its downsides, though.

"Oh, another bird." *elec spell*

oh no it's zapdos !!
I went back and re-read some of the older posts - the idea makes more sense.

I still think games with story benefit from a safety valve, to appeal to different kinds of players. In an rpg, grinding is the safety valve to beat a hard puzzle. In a game like Zelda or MGS, twitch skills are a way to overcome that one difficult puzzle you hate without having to solve it, and keep the plot going.

Then again, each game is the unique vision of its creator and the various influences that inspire it, so my own opinions aren't law. I just humbly suggest making your game accessible to those who like the style of your game but don't share your persistence in willingness to solve particularly tricky challenges.

Back on the real topic:
One way to fill in a hundred battles without running out of interesting challenges but also without sacrificing quality is to repeat a previous challenge but in a new context. That way, you're rewarding them for recognizing that they can bring the context of a previous encounter into something similar. For example, if you have rock enemies that have 10x defense until you use a hammer tool to break their shell, revisit that later on in an insect hive where the hammer can be used to break a thick carapace. An added benefit is that tools used in one dungeon don't become forgettable or just gimmicks to open passages.

Even better, let two different old tools or skills make the mob with the thick carapace vulnerable in different ways. Maybe the hammer opens up physical vulnerabilities while levitating him makes it harder for him to hit players.
way to get there several hours late

see you next week for a witty retort
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
post=145294
I'm blaming Chaos editing/adding to his post.


but I didn't '^'
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
post=145263
I just humbly suggest making your game accessible to those who like the style of your game but don't share your persistence in willingness to solve particularly tricky challenges.


Having several difficulty modes is definitely part of my plan. I generally like to call the easiest mode "normal" and the next one up something like "nightmare mode" and get even more intimidating for any harder ones after that, so that the player doesn't feel like a pussy for not playing on the harder settings. I also like to actually list out the differences between the difficulty modes before the player has to choose them, so they know what they're getting into.

I do understand that some people like easier games and some people like harder games. I am probably not going to have a difficulty mode that's as easy as, say, Chrono Trigger, which I consider to be one of the easiest RPGs ever made. Because if it's almost impossible to lose then there's just no satisfaction from winning. But I went from being bad at RPGs and enjoying easy ones to being good at RPGs and enjoying easy ones to being good at RPGs and enjoying hard ones, and I know what drew me to keep playing them in all three cases, so I think I can successfully make a game that appeals to a wide audience.
Pages: first prev 123 last