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)
IS GRINDING A FLAW IN RPGS?
Posts
McBick
1339
McBick
View playlists
CloseI'm not sure if anyone has ever played any of the Dragon Warrior/Quest Monsters games, but the game is based off grinding. The game can technically be beaten in 2-5 hours, without rushing if you breed properly and train at the best places. The real point of the game though is to fill out your monster book, which shows all the monsters you bred/caught. This can take hours. I think the fastest time I had breeding all the monsters was around 180 hours. Unfortunately you can't just breed monsters right after they're bred because they must have a minimum level of 10 to breed them. Considering there are over 300 monsters to breed, you would need to grind over 3000 levels to fill out your monster book. This game is a prime example of how you can make a game based off grinding.
I don't think a non-Pokemon genre game could be based off grinding though.
I don't think a non-Pokemon genre game could be based off grinding though.
author=Ocean
While this is true and that definitely can be the case, if the 600 exp enemies are tough, people might just stick with the 60 exp ones since that would be a safer way to go until they are strong enough to take on the 600 exp ones. Or if the battles with the 600 exp enemies takes far longer than the 60 exp ones. Maybe the 600 exp enemies love doing annoying statuses and the 60 exp ones are really simple to kill, so players might prefer to just fight a bunch of the 60 exp ones rather than deal with the 600 exp ones.
One way around this is level difference affecting EXP. If your a higher level than the enemies you get less EXP from them. Those 60 exp guys could start forking over 30, 15, 7 exp while the costs for getting that next level keep getting higher. Eventually the player will have to move on because the rewards have turned to ash or they need to find a rubber band, a dipping bird, and something to do for the next 24 hours
Taste issue. 'x' person might find grinding in some game terrible while 'y' person might find it entertaining.
Your mileage will, in fact, vary.
Your mileage will, in fact, vary.
author=GreatRedSpirit
One way around this is level difference affecting EXP. If your a higher level than the enemies you get less EXP from them. Those 60 exp guys could start forking over 30, 15, 7 exp while the costs for getting that next level keep getting higher. Eventually the player will have to move on because the rewards have turned to ash or they need to find a rubber band, a dipping bird, and something to do for the next 24 hoursbefore the game detects what they're doing and shoves a hot poker into their eye.
Ah yes, I've seen this done before. I actually rather like the approach. I know I've seen it in Nox, even though the max level there was 10. You tended to hit level 9 or 10 by the end game anyway I guess (though I tend to slay most things I see so maybe that's why). So that big scorpion that was really tough in the beginning gave you a whole 50 experience, and near the end of the game you could easily defeat it and it only gave you like 1 experience if that. So you pretty much have to seek out new challenges.
Crystalgate
694
author=LockeZ
Yeah, this is absolutely true, and it's the ideal situation. The problem is that so often it doesn't happen, because the designer includes sidequests, or bounty hunts, or item synthesis, or collectible power-ups. This is what I mean by "guiding the player". These kinds of systems say to the player, "Hey, here's a part of the game. You should do it, unless you don't care that you're skipping part of the game." And people don't want to skip part of the game, they want to experience whatever the game has to offer, so they do all this optional crap. And then they're way too powerful.
I see what you mean. Well, from what I've read in other forums, there are a lot of people who in fact do skip most sidequests. So, assuming that the player does the sidequests isn't a good idea and I don't think people will be happy if the sidequests are reward free either. This leaves not having them as an option, but I do know that a lot of people prefers having sidequests to not having them. Name your poison I guess.
author=Felix20
@Crystalgate: Ok I see your point.
I was thinking that, in the case of Barbatos at least, the "anti play-the-game-in-another-way" feature is easy enough to avoid so it seems no different than ordinary hazards in the game (I'm not very good at explaining this am I :P)
I did say I don't mind Barbatos. Also, I said you should be careful, not that you necessarily have to skip those features. For example, if you're bad at balancing your game, you should not both attempt to make your game challenging and implement an anti grinding feature. There is a high risk you roadblock a large percentage of the players then.
McBick
1339
I think an action battle system would solve any grinding problems. Meaning skill plays a bigger part then stats. I like how the Mario&Luigi games handle this, but I wouldn't recommend an exact replica of the battle system. You could say that this would kill grinding because if all you needed was pure skill to win then there would be no point getting stats up. That's why I don't think a replica of the M&L battle system should be used, but something along the lines of that type of battle system. Maybe make it so it takes longer to kill enemies without grinding, thus grinding would still have an incentive. I'm not exactly sure what the best action battle system could be, but I do think it's very compatible with grinding. Of course this is mostly just another excuse for me to tell people why I think action battle systems are the best, so you probably should just ignore me.
... this is your topic, and it explicitly states it's about RPGs- ie games usually driven by stats- in the title.
i have no words
i have no words
Felix20
363
author=Crystalgate
I did say I don't mind Barbatos.
Oh, my mistake :P
Also I do agree that anti-grinding features aren't generally a good idea.
But something like Barbatos, who only shows up if you are auto grinding for like 20 minutes in the same place (maybe I'm wrong here), simply means that you need to be more creative when you auto grind. That would make auto grinding more fun for me at least :D
author=tardis
... this is your topic, and it explicitly states it's about RPGs- ie games usually driven by stats- in the title.
i have no words
I was also thinking this and then my brain bluescreened before I could compose an actual post. did i go wrong place
p.s. why isn't your DBZ Card Gaem using an ABS
author=Felix20author=CrystalgateOh, my mistake :P
I did say I don't mind Barbatos.
Also I do agree that anti-grinding features aren't generally a good idea.
But something like Barbatos, who only shows up if you are auto grinding for like 20 minutes in the same place (maybe I'm wrong here), simply means that you need to be more creative when you auto grind. That would make auto grinding more fun for me at least :D
or maybe you shouldn't have autogrinding be a possibility in your game if you are going to punish people for using it
Mr. Y
300
author=Karsuman
Taste issue. 'x' person might find grinding in some game terrible while 'y' person might find it entertaining.
Your mileage will, in fact, vary.
Not fair!! You have to give a YES or NO answer! You're a big fat cheater, Karsuman.... .... ....
author=tardis
you ought to give SMT: Strange Journey on the DS a try
I've been playing it a bit and I think I made it to the 4th dungeon, but it's currently sitting in the "maybe return to later" pile of games... I really want to like it because the game just oozes polish and because the game-overs are both rare and feel fair, but I just can't get my interest back into it...
Basically I agree with Shinan's whole experience-challenge continuum idea and find myself buried far on the 'experience' side (i.e. I'm a serious wuss when it comes to video games). The closest I get to playing a challenging RPG is to play Fallout 3/NV on Very Hard (on Hardcore), which actually is not that challenging if you just plan 4-5 of your next level-ups in advance...
LockeZ- I think you're absolutely right on FF13; I can't call the game shitty for those reasons, I just have to say it's not really my thing, same as with the other video games I mentioned with higher difficulty challenges. I remember reading some story about Shigeru Miyamoto or some other Nintendo guy loving the idea of grind-friendly RPGs like DQ & FF games because people who suck at video games could still finish those games if they invested enough time, whereas a Mario game requires you to *get it* at some point. Anyways, I think Mr. M was describing folks like me- I own and play lots of video games, but I'm honestly never that great at them!
EDIT P.S.: I think Half-Minute Hero does an EXCELLENT job of handling level grinding. If I only have to spend ~30 seconds before I've got enough cash and levels to go kick some butt, I consider that a huge bonus.
Felix20
363
author=Versalia
or maybe you shouldn't have autogrinding be a possibility in your game if you are going to punish people for using it
I wasn't talking about a game that has an auto grinding feature, but people find ways to do it anyway
DFalcon
2141
Ok, I guess I can give a little better response than "lol grinding".
Players have perfectly natural tendencies to be rational, even somewhat on the risk-averse side of rational. Of course a player can try to go through a game, say, skipping every battle but boss battles, but that's usually not a decision he makes because he thinks it'd be most effective, it's a decision he makes because he's decided that's the game he'd rather play. Even in a single-player experience there's definite mental separation between the two, and it's especially harder to make a decision re: how low a level it's safe to be in a dungeon when you haven't seen the bottom of the dungeon yet.
Players can also like interactive toys. Nothing wrong with that. Who didn't fly around the world the first time they got an airship, after all?
So I wouldn't generally say that a player who is grinding is doing things "wrong". They're his choices.
But I would say that in many JRPGs especially, he's facing repetitive monster groups with static rewards and very little reason or need to vary his strategy after the first time he sees them. Even worse if he's staying within range of an inn. Spending time on this repetition is a minus he is willing to put up with in exchange for something else - whether that's knowing he won't die half an hour into the next dungeon, collecting 'em all, simply getting to the next plot scene (if he's mastered battles facing him earlier than the designer figured on), whatever. Or not willing, as the case may be; more often than not, at a certain point the player puts the game down and never picks it back up again.
It is the role of the game designer to minimize negative effects from that sort of repetition and difficulty mismatch. There are lots of possible ways to do that. Depending on the system, some of them can even involve fighting the same enemy group over and over.
Players have perfectly natural tendencies to be rational, even somewhat on the risk-averse side of rational. Of course a player can try to go through a game, say, skipping every battle but boss battles, but that's usually not a decision he makes because he thinks it'd be most effective, it's a decision he makes because he's decided that's the game he'd rather play. Even in a single-player experience there's definite mental separation between the two, and it's especially harder to make a decision re: how low a level it's safe to be in a dungeon when you haven't seen the bottom of the dungeon yet.
Players can also like interactive toys. Nothing wrong with that. Who didn't fly around the world the first time they got an airship, after all?
So I wouldn't generally say that a player who is grinding is doing things "wrong". They're his choices.
But I would say that in many JRPGs especially, he's facing repetitive monster groups with static rewards and very little reason or need to vary his strategy after the first time he sees them. Even worse if he's staying within range of an inn. Spending time on this repetition is a minus he is willing to put up with in exchange for something else - whether that's knowing he won't die half an hour into the next dungeon, collecting 'em all, simply getting to the next plot scene (if he's mastered battles facing him earlier than the designer figured on), whatever. Or not willing, as the case may be; more often than not, at a certain point the player puts the game down and never picks it back up again.
It is the role of the game designer to minimize negative effects from that sort of repetition and difficulty mismatch. There are lots of possible ways to do that. Depending on the system, some of them can even involve fighting the same enemy group over and over.
The rtp throne I used for kingdom frontiers is now changed to madonna.png chipset. But it's a castle inner set. So people won't badmouth my throne room.
Don't ask me why it's named madonna. lol.
Wait, did I post in the wrong thread? :facepalm:
Don't ask me why it's named madonna. lol.
Wait, did I post in the wrong thread? :facepalm:
McBick
1339
author=Versaliaauthor=tardisI was also thinking this and then my brain bluescreened before I could compose an actual post. did i go wrong place
... this is your topic, and it explicitly states it's about RPGs- ie games usually driven by stats- in the title.
i have no words
p.s. why isn't your DBZ Card Gaem using an ABS
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The Mario and Luigi games are rpgs. In the japanese title they're called Mario and Luigi RPG. Also my dbz fan game is not an rpg. It's a card game hence the title. Yes it has some rpg aspects, but its hardly an rpg.
author=tardis
... this is your topic, and it explicitly states it's about RPGs- ie games usually driven by stats- in the title.
i have no words
I mentioned the M&L games in my first topic, so I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about. I was talking about any rpg that involved grinding.
Not reading the thread yet, to answer the question: yes and no.
Yes, it is REALLY TEDIOUS, if gameplay is chorish (like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest).
No, if the gameplay is fun enough, like in Diablo, then you WANT to grind, and a lack of available encounters is a let down.
Yes, it is REALLY TEDIOUS, if gameplay is chorish (like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest).
No, if the gameplay is fun enough, like in Diablo, then you WANT to grind, and a lack of available encounters is a let down.
I think grinding is pretty cool. I enjoyed it in FF I and FFII.
The real improvement would be rewards.
Like collecting treasure from fallen enemies to craft new weapons/armor
that would make it fun and not so monotonous.
Plus i enjoy the challenge of having to beef up or get your ass handed to you in a high hat.
The real improvement would be rewards.
Like collecting treasure from fallen enemies to craft new weapons/armor
that would make it fun and not so monotonous.
Plus i enjoy the challenge of having to beef up or get your ass handed to you in a high hat.
author=Cosmic_Sea
The real improvement would be rewards.
Like collecting treasure from fallen enemies to craft new weapons/armor
author=Dudesoft
like in Diablo
author=Dudesoftauthor=Cosmic_Sea
The real improvement would be rewards.
Like collecting treasure from fallen enemies to craft new weapons/armorauthor=Dudesoft
like in Diablo
exactly. that is what makes Diablos sooo fun.
I think an action battle system would solve any grinding problems. Meaning skill plays a bigger part then stats. I like how the Mario&Luigi games handle this, but I wouldn't recommend an exact replica of the battle system.
I've never played any Mario and Luigi title, so I can't comment on what kinds of systems they use. I do know about Super Mario RPG for the SNES, which is a weird fusion of platforming and RPG mechanics.
In Super Mario RPG, critical hits in combat are determined by player input. What? A SNES game that has contextual button presses? Square, you were such a FIEND! Anyway, if the player presses the A-for-Attack button at the right time, the character in question performs a critical hit.
This kind of system requires skill, to a degree. But, the game is still an RPG. Regardless of how much skill a player has, a character with low attack power isn't going to do all that much more damage on a critical hit. Indeed, such a character might require that the player gets the timing right to deal any damage at all! Particularly so on a high-defense critter, much less a boss fight who's specialty is having insane defense.
