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)
PAYING FOR PATIENCE
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
Closeauthor=Thiamor
Most, if not almost all people who play an RPG, go for the fact that they can chose how to level, when to level, what fights to fight, and what quests to take, halibabica.
I disagree with this so hard that I'm going to need to see a doctor after four hours. I play RPGs to be challenged by strategic combat puzzles. I play games in general to be guided through an exciting and challenging experience crafted by a skilled director. Typically, people who play games do not want to have to design the game as they're playing it; they just want to play it. That's why they turn on the game instead of turning on RPG Maker.
I never cared for level caps of any sort, really. I'm the sort of person who got a kick out of being able to summon Shiva before you're supposed to in Final Fantasy IX by grinding for a few hours. Ideally, I think a game should be paced well enough that a game doesn't flat out require a large amount of grinding, but which becomes easier with grinding. If a player is clever and lucky, they should be able to deal with most mandatory challenges without grinding, but one does get a certain satisfaction out of plowing through difficult enemies once one is uber-level.
Actually, that's one of the reasons I plan to include a new game plus feature in my game.
Actually, that's one of the reasons I plan to include a new game plus feature in my game.
from LockeZ
Typically, people who play games do not want to have to design the game as they're playing it; they just want to play it. That's why they turn on the game instead of turning on RPG Maker.
And that's why games where you can customize every minute detail of your characters and party are so unpopular, right?
from LockeZ
I play games in general to be guided through an exciting and challenging experience crafted by a skilled director.
Yes, that's just you. There are surely other people like you. But there are people who are not like you as well, and this is what I meant when I said
from me
you'd have to be a hardcore video game connoisseur to prefer it otherwise.
So...yeah. Your personal preference isn't the bottom line.
Avee
5794
Craze, try my game, at least for the boss battles.
I believe my Crystalis SFS (an A-RPG) project's boss battles are well tweaked and provide a satisfying experience. You can easily take them on with one or two levels above or below the average, the average maximum level players should reach in Demo 0.1 being Level 8.
There are 4 boss battles. Players who rush them, approach and mash the attack button without paying attention to their surroundings will get screwed. Serves them right. In three of these four battles you can play it safe at the beginning, focus on avoiding the boss's attacks while memorizing the patterns and devise an offensive strategy. Only a few minutes are necessary to do so.
When your strategy is perfect, and if you have the skills to back it up, the bosses can all be killed in under 3 minutes. Of course you can also play it defensively and make the fight last for 10 minutes or more. You have the choice. A few people complained about the first boss having too much HP, but he can be killed in under a minute without you taking damage if you're clever enough.
I usually prefer RPGs with Action or Fighting features, because they have the player rely on additional skills and they provide richer feelings of tension and satisfaction. Even when normal fights are repetitive and don't require much strategy, the feeling of actually controlling every movement and attack of my character is far from boring. If I get hit it means I screwed up; I'm responsible and I have to do better. My failure is not caused by a random chance of the enemy casting whatever uber-spell I can't avoid because my party's glued to the floor.
And a fast pace is a must 'coz I'm wasting my time playing video games and there are more important things I should be doing :P
As for conventional RPGs, regardless of the length of battles or amount of boss fights between normal ones, battles will be boring if there is no variety in the strategies. For example, Chrono Trigger partially succeeds here: some enemies must first be hit by a certain attack to lower special defenses, while Final Fantasy 7 and 8 sadly fail: just spam Attack, Limit Breaks or your strongest GFs all the time and you'll win every fight.
And even though fights are fun, I will quickly put a game aside if the story and cutscenes are boring (the Grandia series for instance). But I have no trouble going through mindless and repetitive fights to complete a game if the storyline's great. Uh... so my point here would be that players should not put all of their potential enjoyment in the hands of the gameplay.
I believe my Crystalis SFS (an A-RPG) project's boss battles are well tweaked and provide a satisfying experience. You can easily take them on with one or two levels above or below the average, the average maximum level players should reach in Demo 0.1 being Level 8.
There are 4 boss battles. Players who rush them, approach and mash the attack button without paying attention to their surroundings will get screwed. Serves them right. In three of these four battles you can play it safe at the beginning, focus on avoiding the boss's attacks while memorizing the patterns and devise an offensive strategy. Only a few minutes are necessary to do so.
When your strategy is perfect, and if you have the skills to back it up, the bosses can all be killed in under 3 minutes. Of course you can also play it defensively and make the fight last for 10 minutes or more. You have the choice. A few people complained about the first boss having too much HP, but he can be killed in under a minute without you taking damage if you're clever enough.
I usually prefer RPGs with Action or Fighting features, because they have the player rely on additional skills and they provide richer feelings of tension and satisfaction. Even when normal fights are repetitive and don't require much strategy, the feeling of actually controlling every movement and attack of my character is far from boring. If I get hit it means I screwed up; I'm responsible and I have to do better. My failure is not caused by a random chance of the enemy casting whatever uber-spell I can't avoid because my party's glued to the floor.
And a fast pace is a must 'coz I'm wasting my time playing video games and there are more important things I should be doing :P
As for conventional RPGs, regardless of the length of battles or amount of boss fights between normal ones, battles will be boring if there is no variety in the strategies. For example, Chrono Trigger partially succeeds here: some enemies must first be hit by a certain attack to lower special defenses, while Final Fantasy 7 and 8 sadly fail: just spam Attack, Limit Breaks or your strongest GFs all the time and you'll win every fight.
And even though fights are fun, I will quickly put a game aside if the story and cutscenes are boring (the Grandia series for instance). But I have no trouble going through mindless and repetitive fights to complete a game if the storyline's great. Uh... so my point here would be that players should not put all of their potential enjoyment in the hands of the gameplay.
tpasmall
228
Only commenting because I don't really see the point either side is making.
If the story is good enough, you're probably going to play through the game regardless of how much you like or dislike the leveling/battle system.
Games that rely on the grinding system to be playable get to be boring pretty fast, because you're forced to just burn time to get better. I hate bosses that you can't beat without brute force, but I also hate bosses that are pushovers because of brute force. Lady Yunalesca from FFX is a great example of a boss that appeals to the grinders and the strategists.
Sidequests that are mandatory are not sidequests. Period. The main line of bosses in FFVII were tough, but completing sidequests made them easier (namely breeding a gold chocobo and getting KOTR). But the game was still beatable without Yuffie, Vincent, KOTR, Hades, Huge Materia or any other sidequest you can think of. Without the sidequests, it took strategy. Completing the sidequests made the main storyline easier, but defeating the Emerald and Ruby weapons was still a pain. But even all that could be done without grinding, and even grinding did not make Emerald or Ruby that easy to beat.
So if you're going to allow grinding in your game, make sure you include bosses that can't be beat by brute force, and add side quests with super bosses so that anyone who wants to grind but still wants a challenge can have one.
If the story is good enough, you're probably going to play through the game regardless of how much you like or dislike the leveling/battle system.
Games that rely on the grinding system to be playable get to be boring pretty fast, because you're forced to just burn time to get better. I hate bosses that you can't beat without brute force, but I also hate bosses that are pushovers because of brute force. Lady Yunalesca from FFX is a great example of a boss that appeals to the grinders and the strategists.
Sidequests that are mandatory are not sidequests. Period. The main line of bosses in FFVII were tough, but completing sidequests made them easier (namely breeding a gold chocobo and getting KOTR). But the game was still beatable without Yuffie, Vincent, KOTR, Hades, Huge Materia or any other sidequest you can think of. Without the sidequests, it took strategy. Completing the sidequests made the main storyline easier, but defeating the Emerald and Ruby weapons was still a pain. But even all that could be done without grinding, and even grinding did not make Emerald or Ruby that easy to beat.
So if you're going to allow grinding in your game, make sure you include bosses that can't be beat by brute force, and add side quests with super bosses so that anyone who wants to grind but still wants a challenge can have one.
author=Craze
Nah. Already decided that it's not worth coming back. And besides, being a dick is fun.
I don't get it. Was this thread just a test to see if we conformed to your views enough to see if you'll stay?
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=tpasmall
Only commenting because I don't really see the point either side is making.
My point is basically summed up as: I don't want to ever be bored while playing video games. Other people have argued that boredom in some cases is an acceptable cost when it results in some other benefit. And I disagree: I don't think boredom is ever acceptable in a game no matter what, even as a punishment for failing. Boredom is one of the worst feelings a game can evoke.
My other point is that challenge is inherently less boring to me than ease. I do, however, understand that this isn't actually the case for everyone. Now, a lot of people don't think they enjoy a challenge, but actually do. They claim they always want to win, and that losing just makes them frustrated and annoyed, but in reality they feel a lot more excited when they just barely win than when they win without effort. But some people really do just want to relax and not have to think or react. Things that I find boring, they find relaxing. And I'll allow that. That's fine. I just won't make games for them.
Kentona: Pretty sure he meant "coming back" as in "giving a comeback to your insults/statements". Not as in "coming back to the site."
I guess it is not so much "boredom" per se, but more that we don't necessarily need a constant high/intensity/peaks in the fun-ness of a game.
I think we can allow that there are lulls in the excitement of games, and that these lulls can contribute to making the highs feel higher. You know? Things don't always have to be GOGOGO, especially in a game genre where pacing is important.
I think we can allow that there are lulls in the excitement of games, and that these lulls can contribute to making the highs feel higher. You know? Things don't always have to be GOGOGO, especially in a game genre where pacing is important.
tpasmall
228
author=LockeZauthor=tpasmallMy point is basically summed up as: I don't want to ever be bored while playing video games. Other people have argued that boredom in some cases is an acceptable cost when it results in some other benefit. And I disagree: I don't think boredom is ever acceptable in a game no matter what, even as a punishment for failing. Boredom is one of the worst feelings a game can evoke.
Only commenting because I don't really see the point either side is making.
My other point is that challenge is inherently less boring to me than ease. I do, however, understand that this isn't actually the case for everyone. Now, a lot of people don't think they enjoy a challenge, but actually do. They claim they always want to win, and that losing just makes them frustrated and annoyed, but in reality they feel a lot more excited when they just barely win than when they win without effort. But some people really do just want to relax and not have to think or react. Things that I find boring, they find relaxing. And I'll allow that. That's fine. I just won't make games for them.
Kentona: Pretty sure he meant "coming back" as in "giving a comeback to your insults/statements". Not as in "coming back to the site."
When you put it that way, I agree with you I think. I don't think any part of the main game should require the player being bored. A game should cater to the person who wants to play it straight through (as in not making it impossible for them) but I also believe in sidequests that reward a player who chooses to grind it out (optional bosses).
from LockeZ
Pretty sure he meant "coming back" as in "giving a comeback to your insults/statements". Not as in "coming back to the site."
That's how I took it, but it could just as well be both. |:I
author=LockeZauthor=tpasmallMy point is basically summed up as: I don't want to ever be bored while playing video games. Other people have argued that boredom in some cases is an acceptable cost when it results in some other benefit. And I disagree: I don't think boredom is ever acceptable in a game no matter what, even as a punishment for failing. Boredom is one of the worst feelings a game can evoke.
Only commenting because I don't really see the point either side is making.
My other point is that challenge is inherently less boring to me than ease. I do, however, understand that this isn't actually the case for everyone. Now, a lot of people don't think they enjoy a challenge, but actually do. They claim they always want to win, and that losing just makes them frustrated and annoyed, but in reality they feel a lot more excited when they just barely win than when they win without effort. But some people really do just want to relax and not have to think or react. Things that I find boring, they find relaxing. And I'll allow that. That's fine. I just won't make games for them.
Kentona: Pretty sure he meant "coming back" as in "giving a comeback to your insults/statements". Not as in "coming back to the site."
Now that it was summed up a bit, I understand where you're coming from.
from kentona
I don't get it. Was this thread just a test to see if we conformed to your views enough to see if you'll stay?
from Feldschlacht IV
I know Craze. He meant 'coming back' quite literally.
He'll be waiting a long time, then. If only we could see the light and just think everything exactly the way he does...
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
Craze doesn't care if you agree with him. He just cares if you can defend your points logically and hold an intelligent debate.
Wait, no, that's me. I don't know what Craze cares about.
Wait, no, that's me. I don't know what Craze cares about.
I love boring gameply. That's why I can sit and play Sims 1 for days at a time like its a full time job! I don't even have fast forward on... And Dragon Warrior 3 with battles every 2 steps is my cake!
Ugaki
0
I think the pace and what is boring or not just depends on the player. My friend loves grinding and mindlessly button mashing battling for hours. She finds it relaxing and fun (This includes the long summon cut scenes, being able to win a battle in one turn, and everything.). Another friend has to have tons of new difficult challenges and puzzles every step of the way to keep him entertained and only sprinkled with fighting sequences that have new strategies at every boss. What the both of them require is an engaging storyline (No matter the pace, as long as it is entertaining.) and characters that are both believable and a joy to play as.
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
"Different players may or may not find different things enjoyable" is not really ever a useful response to any topic.
I mean, it's obviously almost always true about anything people would ever ask about; otherwise the topic wouldn't be put up for debate in the first place. And more importantly, it doesn't give people any sort of guidance at all. We come here looking for guidance and advice, not to be told, "Eh, do whatever you want."
Explaining why it's fun for some people and why it's boring for other people is actually useful, because then us game designers can actually build our games around those ideas. Maybe even see a way to make a game that's appealing to both types of players.
I mean, it's obviously almost always true about anything people would ever ask about; otherwise the topic wouldn't be put up for debate in the first place. And more importantly, it doesn't give people any sort of guidance at all. We come here looking for guidance and advice, not to be told, "Eh, do whatever you want."
Explaining why it's fun for some people and why it's boring for other people is actually useful, because then us game designers can actually build our games around those ideas. Maybe even see a way to make a game that's appealing to both types of players.
I can get behind that. Ideally, I'd like a game that captures the difficulty and skillful challenge of old-school RPGs, with a few modern advances to make things more accessible (non-random battles, item synthesis, a reliable save system, customization, etc.). I think a good design philosophy is 'easy to learn, hard to master.'
