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)
WHY DQIX IS MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN YOU
Posts
geodude
View playlists
Close
I thought the issue was with the "are". "The enemy are defeated" sounds completely engrishy to me compared to something like "The enemy have been defeated".
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
But enemy is singular
"The enemy" can refer to a group, but it's still treated as a collective singular noun, like "the food"
"The enemy" can refer to a group, but it's still treated as a collective singular noun, like "the food"
LightningLord2
230
I disagree that touch encounters are better than random encounters, because these "avoidable" encounters will block my way, therefore forcing me to fight them, completely defeating their propose. Best done are random encountes in Etrian Odyssey - there's a fixed, definite amount of steps you can make until you get to an encounter. Also, I think multi-turn bosses are overrated - Sure, one-action bosses seem easy, so you can easily action spam them to - wait, did he just use a hit-all instant kill spell? I thought it would be cake.
Two points:
1) Touch encounters in DQIX never block you. Some chase you until you hit a certain level, however.
2) There is much more going on in a battle where a boss buffs its defense and then attacks in a turn compared to a cheap OHKO skill.
1) Touch encounters in DQIX never block you. Some chase you until you hit a certain level, however.
2) There is much more going on in a battle where a boss buffs its defense and then attacks in a turn compared to a cheap OHKO skill.
LightningLord2
230
I usually pick over-the-top examples to explain such things to make the point more clear. Most bosses won't go that far (but some do), but it's the basic idea. Another idea is bosses with a speed stat so high that they'll (almost) always go first - what I'm trying to say is that there are more ways than one to make a boss interesting. The touch encounters in DQIX are fine when they're not blocking - I'm saying the concept isn't generally superior to random encounters (the 11th Floor in Etrian Odyssey would be the best example how it's the most frustrating - they still move while you battle, and they can join the battle - meaning that there's an infinite stream of boss-like enemies until you lose).
I like the concept of limited level-scaling, but I dislike the downward scaling somewhat - it defeats my intent to stay at a low level (I try to beat bosses if I encounter them on a low level, and nine times out of ten, I succeed).
I like the concept of limited level-scaling, but I dislike the downward scaling somewhat - it defeats my intent to stay at a low level (I try to beat bosses if I encounter them on a low level, and nine times out of ten, I succeed).
post=156357
"-Multi-action bosses. Some bosses get to move more than once per turn. This sounds simple but it is hella important and used quite well"This is actually kind of stupid and is only a cheap way to implement "the computer is a cheating bastard".
I'm sorry but what kind of world do you live in, where a boss that can move more than once per turn is considered "stupid"? The computer is "cheating" because it can move more than once? It makes complete sense to me and makes the boss battles more engaging. Maybe you should actually, oh I don't know, experience it before you let off some random garbage that you can't back up.
Darken
3952
in retort, wolfcoder is just going to substitute an actual post with a motivational picture from his 4chan folder
Radnen
1806
re: enemy,
Why not: "The enemies are defeated!" "enemies" is the plural form of enemy. While "the enemy" may refer to a group, the point to be made here is what use of this word as a plural seems less contested (and if so, use it).
While you can regard a group of people as the enemy: "Let's attack the enemy!", when they die, and they don't die at once (as a collective in which they were formerly regarded as) we should use the plural "enemies", as because "enemy" will no longer pertain to a collective, but as an individual instead. If you do happen to kill them all at once, then you can say "The enemy has been defeated!". Notice of the use "has been", "defeated" is an adjective in the past-tense, and is therefore modifying the object who changed state of "being". Also notice past tense doesn't tell you if whether or not you did kill them all at once, this is because the moment the past tense was narrated, every enemy was presently deceased. You do not say "The enemy are defeated" regardless of what some dictionary tells you, because it violates the English rule (born into english speakers, but not quite fully understood by foreigners):
"You shall not use "are" with the collective-singular-noun such as "enemy", followed by an adjective or verb, use "enemies" instead."
These rules are hard to sometimes understand, English speakers live by them everyday. This is one of the many reasons why English is such an awkward language and is notorious for some weird <--- like this word, exceptions to certain rules and other weird <--- like this word, rules.
Why not: "The enemies are defeated!" "enemies" is the plural form of enemy. While "the enemy" may refer to a group, the point to be made here is what use of this word as a plural seems less contested (and if so, use it).
While you can regard a group of people as the enemy: "Let's attack the enemy!", when they die, and they don't die at once (as a collective in which they were formerly regarded as) we should use the plural "enemies", as because "enemy" will no longer pertain to a collective, but as an individual instead. If you do happen to kill them all at once, then you can say "The enemy has been defeated!". Notice of the use "has been", "defeated" is an adjective in the past-tense, and is therefore modifying the object who changed state of "being". Also notice past tense doesn't tell you if whether or not you did kill them all at once, this is because the moment the past tense was narrated, every enemy was presently deceased. You do not say "The enemy are defeated" regardless of what some dictionary tells you, because it violates the English rule (born into english speakers, but not quite fully understood by foreigners):
"You shall not use "are" with the collective-singular-noun such as "enemy", followed by an adjective or verb, use "enemies" instead."
These rules are hard to sometimes understand, English speakers live by them everyday. This is one of the many reasons why English is such an awkward language and is notorious for some weird <--- like this word, exceptions to certain rules and other weird <--- like this word, rules.
LightningLord2
230
For the multi-turn bosses, it is not generally a bad/good idea - it depends on how that is implemented. Other ways to make boss fights more interesting is well thought-out patterns, Skills that do more than one thing, Boss minions, making the boss gain more turns by a very high speed stat and possibly many more.
suzuricho
283
You know, why are you guys making a big fuss over whether a game has touch-based or random encounters at all? There are plenty of good games that have had both types of monster encounter systems. Whether a game has one kind of battle initiative technique or another does not determine if the game is good or not.
Case in point? Final Fantasy Mystic Quest had touch-based encounters. Tales games typically have touch-based encounters, too.
But there are great games that have random encounters, too. The old school FF and Dragon Quest games, for example.
In a way, both make sense to me, and I like games that have both types of encounters. I think you should consider the atmosphere of a game that you're trying to make before you decide what kind of encounters your game needs.
Case in point? Final Fantasy Mystic Quest had touch-based encounters. Tales games typically have touch-based encounters, too.
But there are great games that have random encounters, too. The old school FF and Dragon Quest games, for example.
In a way, both make sense to me, and I like games that have both types of encounters. I think you should consider the atmosphere of a game that you're trying to make before you decide what kind of encounters your game needs.
LightningLord2
230
If one is unsure about how multi-turn bosses/touch encounter/level scaling/etc. work for you, or if you can handle them, you might try to use them in side-projects to see if you can use them properly.
A minor question: Will the bosses in DQIX always make their actions in a row or can a player act between the two actions of the boss?
A minor question: Will the bosses in DQIX always make their actions in a row or can a player act between the two actions of the boss?
Usually they act immediately back-to-back. Like, they are part of the regular turn order, but when their turn is up they act twice.
Darkflamewolf
2178
Well one way you can do that in rm2k3 easily that I can think of is with switches. Have one skill the boss uses turn on a switch, which turns on a battle event page which executes the next attack. You can have it only be one attack every time or make it random using conditional branches for the second attack. But at the end of the event page, turn the switch off. Multi-hit boss! Not the most efficient way, I'm sure, but it does work.
post=DarkflamewolfYeah, I was thinking along the same lines.
Well one way you can do that in rm2k3 easily that I can think of is with switches. Have one skill the boss uses turn on a switch, which turns on a battle event page which executes the next attack. You can have it only be one attack every time or make it random using conditional branches for the second attack. But at the end of the event page, turn the switch off. Multi-hit boss! Not the most efficient way, I'm sure, but it does work.
Maybe I'll give it a go in my final RM2k3 project.
