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
Feldschlacht IV
View playlists
Closeauthor=LockeZ
I wonder if people can really get exhausted from a video game being too exciting for too long. That honestly doesn't sound like a thing.
Final Fantasy XIII definitely comes to mind for me. One of my favorite parts of RPGs is kicking back in a town, playing in a passive phase of talking to people, minigames, side quests, discovering the world through NPC dialogue, and exploring at my own pace in a safe environment without having to worry about game overs or killing something.
FFXIII though had a healthy dose of BATTLE-DUNGEON-CUTSCENE-BATTLE-BATTLE-CUTSCENE-DUNGEON-DUNGEON with little break in between. It was definitely exhausting for me.
Avee
5794
@LockeZ: Agreed.
Now what about a game that offers a constant peak of excitement, or at least a curve that is constantly rising? Provided that the difficulty is well-balanced, that would surely make for an addictive game.
The best example I can think of is Tetris. Someone who played once and enjoyed it probably has played several dozens times afterwards.
Would there be a way to make that work with an RPG?
Now what about a game that offers a constant peak of excitement, or at least a curve that is constantly rising? Provided that the difficulty is well-balanced, that would surely make for an addictive game.
The best example I can think of is Tetris. Someone who played once and enjoyed it probably has played several dozens times afterwards.
Would there be a way to make that work with an RPG?
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
Feld, FF13 is one of the only RPGs I've ever played that I thought had an extremely good pace. Largely because it had no towns, and also because short cut scenes were placed constantly throughout the dungeons to keep both the plot and the gameplay moving constantly. In fact my only complaint about the pace was that I thought the sidequests in Pulse were really boring and involved way too much running back and forth and fighting through the same enmies over and over, and not nearly enough plot.
The Fire Emblem series also handles its pace in a way that makes me extremely happy. It's a tactical RPG series. You never repeat battles, every battle in the game is a story battle, so you never have a feeling of humdrum. There's a little downtime between battles, but it's all spent making important decisions about how to customize your team, not just buying obvious armor upgrades for your entire party that the designer damn well knows every single person who plays the game is going to buy. So even in the downtime, you're making important decisions of a different type.
The problem with such a thing in RPGs is that you have to remove obvious repetition from your gameplay to make the game be in a constant state of excitement. In RPGs, where the bulk of the challenge in your battles is coming up with strategies to counter the enemies' strategies, maintaining a high level of excitement for the entire game involves you as the designer thinking up a lot of strategies. This is what I'm trying/planning to do in Iniquity and Vindication, if I'd ever get off my sorry ass and make the maps and graphics I need. I think it's much easier to do in a tactical RPG than a traditional one, but I don't think it's impossible in a traditional one.
The Fire Emblem series also handles its pace in a way that makes me extremely happy. It's a tactical RPG series. You never repeat battles, every battle in the game is a story battle, so you never have a feeling of humdrum. There's a little downtime between battles, but it's all spent making important decisions about how to customize your team, not just buying obvious armor upgrades for your entire party that the designer damn well knows every single person who plays the game is going to buy. So even in the downtime, you're making important decisions of a different type.
The problem with such a thing in RPGs is that you have to remove obvious repetition from your gameplay to make the game be in a constant state of excitement. In RPGs, where the bulk of the challenge in your battles is coming up with strategies to counter the enemies' strategies, maintaining a high level of excitement for the entire game involves you as the designer thinking up a lot of strategies. This is what I'm trying/planning to do in Iniquity and Vindication, if I'd ever get off my sorry ass and make the maps and graphics I need. I think it's much easier to do in a tactical RPG than a traditional one, but I don't think it's impossible in a traditional one.
I hated FFXIII's guts, so that's a principal difference there. However I thought FFXII was great. So much stuff to do, people to talk to, and quests and things to discover. So there you go.
Shinan
4314
author=LockeZ
I wonder if people can really get exhausted from a video game being too exciting for too long. That honestly doesn't sound like a thing.
Some horror games can do this to me. OHSHIT THIS IS ANTICIPATION IS KILLING ME AND I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE. I need a break.
prexus
309
I'll preface my post with the fact I didn't read everything in this thread.
One way that I have tackled the player 'grinding' and ruining the pace of a game is by having diminishing returns on EXP generated from specific battles. Much like LockeZ having rigid battle structures that don't repeat often. The term 'Experience' comes from the player gathering tactics and knowledge which he can then apply to different situations, making him a more formidable opponent. Fighting the same three bats over and over again shouldn't let him continue to become more experienced. I think you'd learn everything you could about how to kill a flying rodent after a while. So say you'd get 100 XP the first time, it might diminish by 50% per combat. So 100 -> 50 -> 25 -> 12 -> 6 -> 3 -> 1 -> 0, or continue to be 1.
In my system the encounter rate of any type of monster was determined by how often you'd fought it. So if you fight bats too often, they simply stop showing up. This was representative that you are simply dispatching them every time you see them without a combat scenario. Certain monsters (Rare, or one-offs) wouldn't apply this logic of appearance. They would be static monsters on the field that you would have to seek out to fight.
My favorite aspect of this system was that eventually, you would have no combat encounters in a specific area. This would allow people to do two things: Let the player traverse an area they have already mastered unhindered, and let myself as the developer know exactly how powerful someone would be if they grinded an area out to the maximum before progressing to the next. This would allow me to balance certain monsters against that maximum, so they would still be challenging.
One way that I have tackled the player 'grinding' and ruining the pace of a game is by having diminishing returns on EXP generated from specific battles. Much like LockeZ having rigid battle structures that don't repeat often. The term 'Experience' comes from the player gathering tactics and knowledge which he can then apply to different situations, making him a more formidable opponent. Fighting the same three bats over and over again shouldn't let him continue to become more experienced. I think you'd learn everything you could about how to kill a flying rodent after a while. So say you'd get 100 XP the first time, it might diminish by 50% per combat. So 100 -> 50 -> 25 -> 12 -> 6 -> 3 -> 1 -> 0, or continue to be 1.
In my system the encounter rate of any type of monster was determined by how often you'd fought it. So if you fight bats too often, they simply stop showing up. This was representative that you are simply dispatching them every time you see them without a combat scenario. Certain monsters (Rare, or one-offs) wouldn't apply this logic of appearance. They would be static monsters on the field that you would have to seek out to fight.
My favorite aspect of this system was that eventually, you would have no combat encounters in a specific area. This would allow people to do two things: Let the player traverse an area they have already mastered unhindered, and let myself as the developer know exactly how powerful someone would be if they grinded an area out to the maximum before progressing to the next. This would allow me to balance certain monsters against that maximum, so they would still be challenging.
prexus
309
author=Avee
@LockeZ: Agreed.
Now what about a game that offers a constant peak of excitement, or at least a curve that is constantly rising? Provided that the difficulty is well-balanced, that would surely make for an addictive game.
The best example I can think of is Tetris. Someone who played once and enjoyed it probably has played several dozens times afterwards.
Would there be a way to make that work with an RPG?
This Tetris logic applies beautiful to randomly generated 'Rogue-Like' RPGs. They are one-off adventures with little to no story, where you simply fight through a dungeon that is usually set-up like a puzzle so it's both entertaining and different every time. I have played Desktop Dungeons a good 200-300 times.
I'm such a dick.
Also, I liked both FFXII and FFXIII, although both had flaws. I even think that Hope is the most interesting character, at least for the first half of FFXIII, but that's its own topic!
To those who say "a good story can cause people to play through mediocre gameplay," like, I guess so? But why even bother with entertaining this thought? Like.... like, seriously?
I honestly don't need a semantics argument about the "game" in "gameplay," but - okay, yeah, I beat 999 five times to get all of the endings, I guess I have no say. Except I do, because it has a fast-forward button, and most RPGs don't. (Cutscene skip doesn't count in jRPGs like it does in 999 because in 999, some cutscenes are the "battles," as what you say matters and directly influences the plot.)
Also, I liked both FFXII and FFXIII, although both had flaws. I even think that Hope is the most interesting character, at least for the first half of FFXIII, but that's its own topic!
To those who say "a good story can cause people to play through mediocre gameplay," like, I guess so? But why even bother with entertaining this thought? Like.... like, seriously?
I honestly don't need a semantics argument about the "game" in "gameplay," but - okay, yeah, I beat 999 five times to get all of the endings, I guess I have no say. Except I do, because it has a fast-forward button, and most RPGs don't. (Cutscene skip doesn't count in jRPGs like it does in 999 because in 999, some cutscenes are the "battles," as what you say matters and directly influences the plot.)
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
Fast forward mode in Chrono Cross is easily the best thing ever.
Well, there are people who play games for the 'action' that is involved in playing it. Waiting through 20 minute cut-scenes really bores these people. They prefer the immediate action. In games like FF10, with those *gorgeously* animated cut-scenes, make these people, 'meh'.
Though I think no game will be a perfect game...
I know too many who do play a game for an interesting story, few games actually have touching or entertaining stories.
So, for the most part, people want games with gameplay, if they wanted a story, they could go read a book or watch a TV. Games with all story and no game play isn't really a game. (I know there are Visual Novels, but that doesn't matter.)
Though I think no game will be a perfect game...
= Craze
To those who say "a good story can cause people to play through mediocre gameplay," like, I guess so? But why even bother with entertaining this thought? Like.... like, seriously?
I know too many who do play a game for an interesting story, few games actually have touching or entertaining stories.
So, for the most part, people want games with gameplay, if they wanted a story, they could go read a book or watch a TV. Games with all story and no game play isn't really a game. (I know there are Visual Novels, but that doesn't matter.)
LDanarkos
430
Yeah, my design approach is the same way. I assume that the player has no attention span and no devotion to playing my game. So I try my best to keep things moving along as quickly as possible, with an emphasis on eliminating super-lengthy dialogue, long stretches of grinding, and large maps that you can get lost in.
Darken
3952
author=Adon237
So, for the most part, people want games with gameplay, if they wanted a story, they could go read a book or watch a TV.
If you can tell a story in a game, you can tell a good story. Jesus fucking Christ, every time someone says this I wonder if people understand why there are different mediums like
plays
tv shows
movies
novels
songs
Just because there's a different way to tell a story doesn't mean it's wrong to tell a story. There's a lot of potential in making the player PART of a story rather than simply have him read/watch it. Are you forced to talk to every NPC in a specific order? No you can take in the town atmosphere in any way you want. Are you forced to go to certain areas at certain times? No you can explore as long as you want depending on the game. Games are different from books, like the way movies are different from books.
tldr: people play games for different reasons, so stfu.
Fallen-Griever
This topic from the guy who brought us Visions &Incredibly Slow, Boring Battles and 4(?) Days Of Nothing Happening Apart From More Boring Battles Becoming AvailableVoices.
Thanks for adding nothing to the topic and making fun of a four-year-old game that I regularly describe as having good ideas but terrible execution! Also, it was made in less than a month.
Except for that time when, uh, we spent three weeks improving the battles, dungeons and cut out four days.
Thanks for your contribution!
"being a dick is fun... in moderation" ~Buddha
We really don't need antagonistic attacks in Game Design & Theory threads guys. Cool it.
We really don't need antagonistic attacks in Game Design & Theory threads guys. Cool it.
Do you have a slow walking speed or four-second summon animations? You suck. Explain to me why you made that choice, how you're going to fix it, and why you suck.
Slow walking speed is perfectly acceptable and even preferable under certain circumstances; just not for anything that even vaguely resembles a traditional (j)RPG with large dungeons to cover and backtrack through. But for a tightly focused atmospheric adventure game with small maps? I'd very much prefer a slow walk speed.
So, to answer your question.
First Clause: Because the game has very small maps and is meant to be highly atmospheric and about exploration and discovery. Therefore zipping at top speed through the tiny maps to complete each area in a few seconds before you notice and examine subtle details destroys the gameplay as well as just importantly the atmosphere.
Second Clause: I'm not.
Third Clause: No, you.
Also FF8 had 91 second summon animations, that's like a minute and a fucking half (I don't know if I'm exaggerating or not, but who cares) but lots of people loved it even if I completely fucking hated it.
More seriously, and more generally:
I don't pay $60 for games in order to practice patience. If I don't pay anything for a game, I have even less reason to stick with it if it's boring.
You're right, but you're understating the case/placing the emphasis wrong. As a matter of fact people really are psychologically and financially motivated to give a commercial game more of a "chance" than a free game. So people might not pay $60 for a game to practice patience, but they do practice patience after paying $60!
author=CrazeFallen-GrieverThanks for adding nothing to the topic and making fun of a four-year-old game that I regularly describe as having good ideas but terrible execution! Also, it was made in less than a month.
This topic from the guy who brought us Visions &Incredibly Slow, Boring Battles and 4(?) Days Of Nothing Happening Apart From More Boring Battles Becoming AvailableVoices.
Except for that time when, uh, we spent three weeks improving the battles, dungeons and cut out four days.
Thanks for your contribution!
Oh my god, V&V is four years old?
I FEEEEEEEL SOOOOO ANCIENTTTTTTTT.
Time needs to stop fucking ACCELERATING!
Well, there are people who play games for the 'action' that is involved in playing it. Waiting through 20 minute cut-scenes really bores these people. They prefer the immediate action. In games like FF10, with those *gorgeously* animated cut-scenes, make these people, 'meh'.
Though I think no game will be a perfect game...
I have to draw attention to the fact that Adon237 made a valid, intelligent, well-thought-out post.
Props.
