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)
GOOD-LOOKING AREAS VS. GOOD-PLAYING PUZZLES
Posts
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
LockeZ
View playlists
CloseWe all like our areas to look interesting, to feel real, to be at least recognizably semi-realistic. Right? That's our natural inclination as RPG world designers - appearance takes top priority.
Except what about when it doesn't?
Platformer and adventure games have had to deal with this conundrum since the dawn of time. Almost universally they build their areas in favor of gameplay at the expense of aesthetics and believability. While some designers manage to pull off both, it's extremely rare to find a successful adventure game in which the developer sacrificed ease of gameplay in favor of ease on the eyes. Platformer games are full of inexplicable spikes, levers, weirdly-placed walls, random barriers, inexplicably long and windy corridors with no side rooms, objects that serve no purpose but to get in your way, and - of course - the feature the whole genre is named after, mid-air platforms.
Yet in RPGs, these types of map features are all frowned upon as gross-looking. They detract from the game. People playing RPGs have a different expectation of their environments.
I can't really blame them, especially if the game uses random battles and lacks puzzles. The environment isn't really part of the gameplay at all in that case. And if the game has some areas with puzzles but others without puzzles, the difference between the two can be especially offputting. But trying to make puzzles without abandoning all sense of realism is a daunting task. Complex puzzles don't often occur naturally in the real world. And if you try to make a puzzle fit in perfectly with an area's normal realistic graphics, it often becomes very unclear what's a puzzle and what's just scenery, which leaves the game feeling unintuitive.
How do you guys prefer designers to handle this in RPGs that have a handful areas with puzzles, like the Suikoden or Final Fantasy games? What about in RPGs that are centered around having tons of puzzles in every dungeon, like the Wild ARMs series or Lufia 2? Do you have less tolerance for bad graphics on account of puzzles in RPGs than you do in adventure games?
Except what about when it doesn't?
Platformer and adventure games have had to deal with this conundrum since the dawn of time. Almost universally they build their areas in favor of gameplay at the expense of aesthetics and believability. While some designers manage to pull off both, it's extremely rare to find a successful adventure game in which the developer sacrificed ease of gameplay in favor of ease on the eyes. Platformer games are full of inexplicable spikes, levers, weirdly-placed walls, random barriers, inexplicably long and windy corridors with no side rooms, objects that serve no purpose but to get in your way, and - of course - the feature the whole genre is named after, mid-air platforms.
Yet in RPGs, these types of map features are all frowned upon as gross-looking. They detract from the game. People playing RPGs have a different expectation of their environments.
I can't really blame them, especially if the game uses random battles and lacks puzzles. The environment isn't really part of the gameplay at all in that case. And if the game has some areas with puzzles but others without puzzles, the difference between the two can be especially offputting. But trying to make puzzles without abandoning all sense of realism is a daunting task. Complex puzzles don't often occur naturally in the real world. And if you try to make a puzzle fit in perfectly with an area's normal realistic graphics, it often becomes very unclear what's a puzzle and what's just scenery, which leaves the game feeling unintuitive.
How do you guys prefer designers to handle this in RPGs that have a handful areas with puzzles, like the Suikoden or Final Fantasy games? What about in RPGs that are centered around having tons of puzzles in every dungeon, like the Wild ARMs series or Lufia 2? Do you have less tolerance for bad graphics on account of puzzles in RPGs than you do in adventure games?
Anyone who's interested in the balance between the two should play the Myst games (especially Riven). They (normally) do a phenomenal job of integrating the puzzles naturally into the environment. It's proof that you don't have to choose between the two.
I actually find myself disliking puzzles when I play RPGs. I'm not playing a puzzle game. Same goes for my action games like God of War 3 and Dante's Inferno. The designers think they're breaking up the monotony for me, but in truth, I love hacking and slashing my way through the legions of Hell and Olympus, so why bother slowing me down with these monotonous, arbitrary, and poorly done puzzle? I think I'd know why I bought an action game - to kill and hack people to death, not slog through a puzzle that lacks substance and means nothing to the overall game.
In fact, I don't like it when the puzzle has no bearing on the story at all. It's just there as an obstacle. If anything, give me "pretty" areas over most puzzles any day of the week, especially in RPGs. Action games too, dammit. The only time I'll accept a puzzle if it's wonderfully done and relevant. That's when I'll accept a puzzle over a good-looking area. However, puzzles shouldn't be the only way to interact with an environment, and I think that's where most developers get trapped. They see their dungeon and how empty it is, and decide to just add a puzzle as an afterthought, just to add some faux longevity, pacing, and "gameplay."
In my opinion, if you're going to include puzzles, the dungeon should be built around the puzzle, not the other way around, especially if the puzzle pertains to the plot. That's where I stand.
In fact, I don't like it when the puzzle has no bearing on the story at all. It's just there as an obstacle. If anything, give me "pretty" areas over most puzzles any day of the week, especially in RPGs. Action games too, dammit. The only time I'll accept a puzzle if it's wonderfully done and relevant. That's when I'll accept a puzzle over a good-looking area. However, puzzles shouldn't be the only way to interact with an environment, and I think that's where most developers get trapped. They see their dungeon and how empty it is, and decide to just add a puzzle as an afterthought, just to add some faux longevity, pacing, and "gameplay."
In my opinion, if you're going to include puzzles, the dungeon should be built around the puzzle, not the other way around, especially if the puzzle pertains to the plot. That's where I stand.
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
author=Crimson_LegionnaireI admit to having done this once. "This area sucks and is awful. I don't have the skill to make it look good. I already tried my best and this is the result. What can I do? ...Oh wait, I know, I'll fill it with puzzles! Most people are willing to put up with bad areas if they have puzzles, and I'm way better at logic than aesthetics."
However, puzzles shouldn't be the only way to interact with an environment, and I think that's where most developers get trapped. They see their dungeon and how empty it is, and decide to just add a puzzle as an afterthought, just to add some faux longevity, pacing, and "gameplay."
In my opinion, if you're going to include puzzles, the dungeon should be built around the puzzle, not the other way around, especially if the puzzle pertains to the plot. That's where I stand.
So yeah, that's awful. I have no excuse. I'm an awful person. I later just redid the dungeon, once I got better at mapping and had a day of free time.
author=ChaosProductionsThen do you want the maps to just be... removed? Have a game with no areas, just pick all your explorations and battles from menus?
Give me battles that are puzzles.
author=LockeZauthor=ChaosProductionsThen do you want the maps to just be... removed? Have a game with no areas, just pick all your explorations and battles from menus?
Give me battles that are puzzles.
This is a ridiculous strawman and you should have known better than to type that. Also, you just described SMT: Devil Survivor.
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 wasn't necessarily saying it was a bad idea. If you don't want the exploration to include any meaningful gameplay, then why not remove it altogether?
A lot of tactical RPGs actually work like this. Though I guess they still have maps, of a different and more practical sort. But no exploration.
Devil Survivor has lots of exploration, it just has graphics on par with most MUDs.
A lot of tactical RPGs actually work like this. Though I guess they still have maps, of a different and more practical sort. But no exploration.
Devil Survivor has lots of exploration, it just has graphics on par with most MUDs.
author=Crimson_Legionnaire
I actually find myself disliking puzzles when I play RPGs. I'm not playing a puzzle game. Same goes for my action games like God of War 3 and Dante's Inferno. The designers think they're breaking up the monotony for me, but in truth, I love hacking and slashing my way through the legions of Hell and Olympus, so why bother slowing me down with these monotonous, arbitrary, and poorly done puzzle? I think I'd know why I bought an action game - to kill and hack people to death, not slog through a puzzle that lacks substance and means nothing to the overall game.
In fact, I don't like it when the puzzle has no bearing on the story at all. It's just there as an obstacle. If anything, give me "pretty" areas over most puzzles any day of the week, especially in RPGs. Action games too, dammit. The only time I'll accept a puzzle if it's wonderfully done and relevant. That's when I'll accept a puzzle over a good-looking area. However, puzzles shouldn't be the only way to interact with an environment, and I think that's where most developers get trapped. They see their dungeon and how empty it is, and decide to just add a puzzle as an afterthought, just to add some faux longevity, pacing, and "gameplay."
In my opinion, if you're going to include puzzles, the dungeon should be built around the puzzle, not the other way around, especially if the puzzle pertains to the plot. That's where I stand.
hey i like this guy
author=LockeZ
Devil Survivor has lots of exploration, it just has graphics on par with most MUDs.
exploration wut
on par with most MUDs wut
author=LockeZauthor=ChaosProductionsThen do you want the maps to just be... removed? Have a game with no areas, just pick all your explorations and battles from menus?
Give me battles that are puzzles.
hey, you just described some of my favourite games. fuck environments- give me a shitty little map with a circle in a room indicating my position and let me crawl them dungeons.
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
Oh sorry, you're right, I was thinking of SMT: Strange Journey. Which is the one with the same engine as Etrian Odyssey.
You're right, Devil Survivor is the tactical RPG. It's true, I think most tactical RPGs follow that kind of method: FF Tactics, Fire Emblem, Disgaea, etc., none of them have real dungeons or exploration of any kind. In fact the only tactical RPG I've ever played that did have dungeons with normal exploration was Breath of Fire 5, and as a result I beat the game twice before realizing it was a tactical RPG.
You're right, Devil Survivor is the tactical RPG. It's true, I think most tactical RPGs follow that kind of method: FF Tactics, Fire Emblem, Disgaea, etc., none of them have real dungeons or exploration of any kind. In fact the only tactical RPG I've ever played that did have dungeons with normal exploration was Breath of Fire 5, and as a result I beat the game twice before realizing it was a tactical RPG.
Crystalgate
694
While realism helps, I don't think that's all that contributes to a good looking area.
To make an area look good, each individual place within the area should look good. Basically, if you take a screen-shot while traversing the area you get a good screen-shot. However, even if something looks good, the player will eventually get tired of it. The most extreme example I can think of is if you make a really good looking room in a castle, but every room in that castle is identical. No matter how good looking that room is, the player will stop noticing that the room looks good once he already seen a dozen identical rooms. So, if you want the player to stay able to appreciate the area, you need to introduce some variety within it.
Now, let's take a mansion as an example. If you want to have puzzles in that mansion, then that may indeed make it harder to make the mansion realistic looking. However, it doesn't prevent you from making individual places, such as a bedchamber and a kitchen, look good. It doesn't prevent you from introducing variety either. The mansion can have a garden to traverse, a basement, two stories and an attic. A lack of realism even makes it easier to turn a garden into something that takes time to traverse since gardens in real life generally only slows you down if you care about not stepping on the flowers.
I believe that usually when an area looks bland it's not because of puzzles, but rather because of resources. It's not considered worth the time and money to make the areas good looking.
That said, realism does help and puzzles can indeed impede realism. Personally, I'm usually not interested in puzzles. Some puzzles are nice, but usually I'd wish the puzzle wasn't there. If you are going to have puzzles, I think I'd agree with Crimson_Legionnaire about designing the area around the puzzle. Do it properly or don't do it at all.
To make an area look good, each individual place within the area should look good. Basically, if you take a screen-shot while traversing the area you get a good screen-shot. However, even if something looks good, the player will eventually get tired of it. The most extreme example I can think of is if you make a really good looking room in a castle, but every room in that castle is identical. No matter how good looking that room is, the player will stop noticing that the room looks good once he already seen a dozen identical rooms. So, if you want the player to stay able to appreciate the area, you need to introduce some variety within it.
Now, let's take a mansion as an example. If you want to have puzzles in that mansion, then that may indeed make it harder to make the mansion realistic looking. However, it doesn't prevent you from making individual places, such as a bedchamber and a kitchen, look good. It doesn't prevent you from introducing variety either. The mansion can have a garden to traverse, a basement, two stories and an attic. A lack of realism even makes it easier to turn a garden into something that takes time to traverse since gardens in real life generally only slows you down if you care about not stepping on the flowers.
I believe that usually when an area looks bland it's not because of puzzles, but rather because of resources. It's not considered worth the time and money to make the areas good looking.
That said, realism does help and puzzles can indeed impede realism. Personally, I'm usually not interested in puzzles. Some puzzles are nice, but usually I'd wish the puzzle wasn't there. If you are going to have puzzles, I think I'd agree with Crimson_Legionnaire about designing the area around the puzzle. Do it properly or don't do it at all.
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
Hmm, it sounds like unless the game is based around extremely puzzle-heavy dungeons like Wild ARMs or Zelda, a lot of people don't appreciate puzzles in RPGs much to begin with. Kind of strange since I really enjoy them, I feel like they're the only thing that makes dungeon-traversing actually interesting, and sometimes the only reason I'm willing to tolerate their absence is because it makes the game look prettier.
I never saw the inherent value in puzzles (as defined by mini-games.) They always seemed to me like someone trying to say "look.. MYYYY game doesn't just have the normal RPG mechanics, it also has a bowling system."
Puzzles, as defined by how to navigate through the dungeon, are the definition of how to execute dungeon design. Some way to break the monotony of walking in a straight line from dungeon entrance to boss.
That doesn't mean you have to introduce a new, sometimes silly/token game mechanic. I'm not a big fan of mini-game puzzles at all.
Puzzles, as defined by how to navigate through the dungeon, are the definition of how to execute dungeon design. Some way to break the monotony of walking in a straight line from dungeon entrance to boss.
That doesn't mean you have to introduce a new, sometimes silly/token game mechanic. I'm not a big fan of mini-game puzzles at all.
author=harmonic
I never saw the inherent value in puzzles (as defined by mini-games.) They always seemed to me like someone trying to say "look.. MYYYY game doesn't just have the normal RPG mechanics, it also has a bowling system."
That doesn't mean you have to introduce a new, sometimes silly/token game mechanic. I'm not a big fan of mini-game puzzles at all.
Same. I feel the same way. Many minigames are just superfluous. I never found myself caring or going out of my way to play minigames in even commercial RPGs. Why would I bother doing the same for RM games? Then again, I'm more of a combat person when it comes to RPGs, and so I don't bother with minigames. I like battles - especially if they're engaging - so I usually go out of my way to tackle sidequests with bonus monsters or hunts than play a fishing game or go to the casino in-game.
That's just the kind of player I am.
Not that I dislike puzzles, but I think every minute spent thinking, making and adjusting puzzles/minigames, should have been spent thinking, making and adjusting gameplay mechanics.
author=Crimson_Legionnaireauthor=harmonicSame. I feel the same way. Many minigames are just superfluous. I never found myself caring or going out of my way to play minigames in even commercial RPGs. Why would I bother doing the same for RM games? Then again, I'm more of a combat person when it comes to RPGs, and so I don't bother with minigames. I like battles - especially if they're engaging - so I usually go out of my way to tackle sidequests with bonus monsters or hunts than play a fishing game or go to the casino in-game.
I never saw the inherent value in puzzles (as defined by mini-games.) They always seemed to me like someone trying to say "look.. MYYYY game doesn't just have the normal RPG mechanics, it also has a bowling system."
That doesn't mean you have to introduce a new, sometimes silly/token game mechanic. I'm not a big fan of mini-game puzzles at all.
That's just the kind of player I am.
I like minigames, because it offers a breath of fresh air from the normal mechanics and because it's optional, but not so minigame puzzles when its required.
