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)
TOWN-DUNGEON-TOWN(THE EVER EXHAUSTING FORMULA)
Posts
Adon237
View playlists
CloseIn a lot of games, there is the formula that is called Town-Dungeon-Town, and it is kind of overused. Not all games are guilty of it, but this problem is still evident. Even switching it around doesn't help. I try sidequests, which do help some, but still has the town-dungeon-town formula in it.
What is your take on this? What are some ways that you solve this problem in your games?
What is your take on this? What are some ways that you solve this problem in your games?
It's built out of necessity. Players fight to earn Fantasybucks that they can spend to earn Power, which they use fighting to earn more Fantasybucks for more Power, and so on. A "town" is a prettied-up space for Fantasybuck-spending.
A game without dungeons is not a game ("dungeons" being any place where encounters - be them combat, diplomatic, or whatever your game is based around); a game without towns needs a different source of progression. Towns (again, places to trade Fantasybucks for Power) in their most traditional form allow the player to take a respite from the action as well. I find this reasoning/need utterly ridiculous.
In FFXIII, you spend Fantasybucks at save points - there are no breaks in the game, as the entire game is moving forward. I see no problem with this, although people complain that there're no breaks in the action. Protip: if you need a break from the action, turn off the PS3, call up a friend and go into town for a coffee.
The town-dungeon-town formula exists because it's necessary and the game would cease to exist without it, I guess? Why is it a problem?
A game without dungeons is not a game ("dungeons" being any place where encounters - be them combat, diplomatic, or whatever your game is based around); a game without towns needs a different source of progression. Towns (again, places to trade Fantasybucks for Power) in their most traditional form allow the player to take a respite from the action as well. I find this reasoning/need utterly ridiculous.
In FFXIII, you spend Fantasybucks at save points - there are no breaks in the game, as the entire game is moving forward. I see no problem with this, although people complain that there're no breaks in the action. Protip: if you need a break from the action, turn off the PS3, call up a friend and go into town for a coffee.
The town-dungeon-town formula exists because it's necessary and the game would cease to exist without it, I guess? Why is it a problem?
Not necessarily a problem, but breaks between this stuff, less repetition. The formula is needed, but not all of the time.
That's probably what happens when you have a lack of creativity and only use towns for stocking up and nothing more. Towns can be much more varied than that. You can have stuff happen inside the towns (tournaments, thieves running around you can stop, that sort of deal) and not just have dull NPCs that tell you Corneria is to the west and 3 shops in a line. Towns itself can be a dungeon, they don't all need to be the perfectly peaceful, yet somehow you can't save anywhere in them except in the save point at the Inn types of places.
Also, you can have restocking/shop points in the wilderness/dungeon areas as well. For example, a travelling merchant, tents from nomadic people, your own makeshift shelters, a vendor from an enemy group that doesn't know you're the enemy that sells to you, things like that. If you're just thinking Start Town/Cave/Farm Town/Fire Cave/SnowTown/Ice Cave/Port Town/Water Temple/Final Town/Final Dungeon, then yeah it would be pretty repetitive if they're not really much different than their average RPG uses anyway.
Plus you have to think of a good reason in game why you would want to have too many dungeons before a town or too many towns before a dungeon and not just be like "Lemme put 5 dungeons before they can go back into town and heal!!! It's not cliche so it's great !!!!"
Also, you can have restocking/shop points in the wilderness/dungeon areas as well. For example, a travelling merchant, tents from nomadic people, your own makeshift shelters, a vendor from an enemy group that doesn't know you're the enemy that sells to you, things like that. If you're just thinking Start Town/Cave/Farm Town/Fire Cave/SnowTown/Ice Cave/Port Town/Water Temple/Final Town/Final Dungeon, then yeah it would be pretty repetitive if they're not really much different than their average RPG uses anyway.
Plus you have to think of a good reason in game why you would want to have too many dungeons before a town or too many towns before a dungeon and not just be like "Lemme put 5 dungeons before they can go back into town and heal!!! It's not cliche so it's great !!!!"
Crystalgate
694
I don't think this is an exhausting formula, for me it's the opposite. There are some action games I've played I found more fun than most RPGs. Nevertheless, I still got tired of them faster due to the lack of change of phase. Craze suggested stopping playing and that's what I do in those cases. However, I'd say that the sooner I stop playing a game, the more "exhausting" it is.
I see no point in breaking the formula for the sake of breaking it. If you do have an idea that naturally will derivate from the formula, then go for it. Heck, I've had some ideas like that myself. However, if you start with a game idea that instead naturally leads to the Town-Dungeon-Town formula, chance is that inventing ways to break it ends up just making the game worse.
I see no point in breaking the formula for the sake of breaking it. If you do have an idea that naturally will derivate from the formula, then go for it. Heck, I've had some ideas like that myself. However, if you start with a game idea that instead naturally leads to the Town-Dungeon-Town formula, chance is that inventing ways to break it ends up just making the game worse.
Obviously it depends on the kind of game you're writing. Personally I like Craze's breakdown. If you think of a "dungeon" as anywhere the PCs have an encounter, and "town" as somewhere to spend Fantasybucks, then you have to ask yourself how you're using these spaces. If you only have encounters in one kind of space, and only have spending points in others, than those get boring. But some seperation is good, I wouldn't put random encounters in a town (like world map, walking around and BAM fight kind of encounters), but I would put a danger merchant in a dungeon (danger merchants are those inexplicable folk who stand near dangerous caves and sell things to adventurers).
If you think about this in terms of table top games, such as Dungeons and Dragons, than the secret is to vary your encounter types. Sometimes a dungeon is just that, a system of connected rooms where you fight monsters and get loot. Sometimes it's a diplomatic standoff, or a puzzle, or whatever. I think the trick is to think of the story overall, and then break out those encounters, and pace them out. A few fights followed by a diplomatic event or a puzzle, then a town, then a couple of puzzles, etc. If you do have to have a classic "dungeon" in a Cave of Death or whatever, which includes multiple fights, then break that up with some conversations or something, and then afterwards, go to town. And like Ocean said, putting events within towns will spice things up too. Secret of Evermore was good for this, especially as they related to the Dog.
If you think about this in terms of table top games, such as Dungeons and Dragons, than the secret is to vary your encounter types. Sometimes a dungeon is just that, a system of connected rooms where you fight monsters and get loot. Sometimes it's a diplomatic standoff, or a puzzle, or whatever. I think the trick is to think of the story overall, and then break out those encounters, and pace them out. A few fights followed by a diplomatic event or a puzzle, then a town, then a couple of puzzles, etc. If you do have to have a classic "dungeon" in a Cave of Death or whatever, which includes multiple fights, then break that up with some conversations or something, and then afterwards, go to town. And like Ocean said, putting events within towns will spice things up too. Secret of Evermore was good for this, especially as they related to the Dog.
Despain
415
I loooooooooove hubs.
it comes from my love of 3Dplatformers (banjo-kazooie/tooie and mario64/sunshine), but the idea of a hub city can work brilliantly in an RPG. you can do MORE with less—more familiar NPCs, locations that matter and a whole lot less repetition. with only a couple central towns, the civilization has a lot more character and doesn't feel like a COPYPASTE FANTASY WORLD
my favorite example of Majora's Mask. There's only one real town/city in the game and that's Clock Town. sure there are plenty of little civilizations around it and before each dungeon, but you always find yourself revisiting the central hub.
hub also allow for lots of replayability and exploration and shit like that because you can have them change as the game goes on.
it comes from my love of 3Dplatformers (banjo-kazooie/tooie and mario64/sunshine), but the idea of a hub city can work brilliantly in an RPG. you can do MORE with less—more familiar NPCs, locations that matter and a whole lot less repetition. with only a couple central towns, the civilization has a lot more character and doesn't feel like a COPYPASTE FANTASY WORLD
my favorite example of Majora's Mask. There's only one real town/city in the game and that's Clock Town. sure there are plenty of little civilizations around it and before each dungeon, but you always find yourself revisiting the central hub.
hub also allow for lots of replayability and exploration and shit like that because you can have them change as the game goes on.
Games imitate life, because life is the inspiration of all games. Most people/animals/plants look very similar to the untrained eye. Only after having spent much time with a corn crop or wheat or flower can you notice the small differences that make each individual from one another, the same goes with people groups - if you aren't familiar with a group of people you will think of them as always the same.
The same thing goes for art. Someone who has never listened to classical might say that Bach sounds just like Mozart. People who listen to 3 dub step songs might say they all sound the same.
Most things are very similar when far away. But absolutely unique up close. If a person distances themselves from a work of art, they will begin to see all within it as sameness. Only when you allow the art access to your heart and mind will the differences become most pronounced to you.
This is why older people look down on what younger people do because they have a distance between themselves and what the young people are enjoying. You have to accept the fact that you are getting older whenever you find yourself thinking cynically.
when I was young I loved Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. But if I had been older at the time I would have thought of it as nothing more than a marketing scam and would have told my children it was an absolute waste of time.
In other words, if you want to break the mold, bring the artwork closer to the hearts and minds of those involved. It has less to do with town-dungeon-town than whether or not the people involved are in love with game and mentally engaged. That is the challenge of game design. You have to have the skill to make a game that you can love. Don't think about what anyone else is doing.
The same thing goes for art. Someone who has never listened to classical might say that Bach sounds just like Mozart. People who listen to 3 dub step songs might say they all sound the same.
Most things are very similar when far away. But absolutely unique up close. If a person distances themselves from a work of art, they will begin to see all within it as sameness. Only when you allow the art access to your heart and mind will the differences become most pronounced to you.
This is why older people look down on what younger people do because they have a distance between themselves and what the young people are enjoying. You have to accept the fact that you are getting older whenever you find yourself thinking cynically.
when I was young I loved Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. But if I had been older at the time I would have thought of it as nothing more than a marketing scam and would have told my children it was an absolute waste of time.
In other words, if you want to break the mold, bring the artwork closer to the hearts and minds of those involved. It has less to do with town-dungeon-town than whether or not the people involved are in love with game and mentally engaged. That is the challenge of game design. You have to have the skill to make a game that you can love. Don't think about what anyone else is doing.
Sunset Over Imdahl is hardly dungeon-town-dungeon, in fact I do find the formula extremely boring and linear, I think a good rpg should be dungeon-dungeon-dungeon or rather one big dungeon, i.e. struggle (in a wide sense) all the way, unity and realism would really gain from it, imo.
Cozzer
0
I think we need to decide if we're talking about "abstract" dungeons and town (like Craze did) or the material town-dungeon-town progression of most fantasy RPGs.
In the first case... yeah, there's not much you can do to change it without making your game worse. The best thing you can do is to vary the "dungeons" and "town" (I mean, if you're a thief a town can be a "dungeon", and if you're a monster a dungeon can be a "town").
Which brings us to the second case, which is what happens if you don't deviate much from the norm. In this case, I think the best thing would be making the towns something more than "a place to spend Fanasybucks": social encounters, sidequests, etc.
Even the idea of having a single "town" where you would return between "dungeons", as Despain suggested, can be very interesting.
In the first case... yeah, there's not much you can do to change it without making your game worse. The best thing you can do is to vary the "dungeons" and "town" (I mean, if you're a thief a town can be a "dungeon", and if you're a monster a dungeon can be a "town").
Which brings us to the second case, which is what happens if you don't deviate much from the norm. In this case, I think the best thing would be making the towns something more than "a place to spend Fanasybucks": social encounters, sidequests, etc.
Even the idea of having a single "town" where you would return between "dungeons", as Despain suggested, can be very interesting.
Interestingly, while my games certainly have some design flaws, almost literally none of them follow this formula at all. This wasn't done out of any conscious desire to buck the system, but rather out of convenience, laziness, and verisimilitude to the setting/concept. Nonetheless, all of them served the same mechanical purpose as Town-Dungeon-Town.
Iron Gaia: Entire game is one giant dungeon; there are basically no safe areas to just chill and talk to NPCs. If you find one, it's more like a "save room" from Resident Evil than like a traditional RPG town. You resupply from autoshops, which are located right there in the dungeon with you, and not always in safe rooms, either.
EtG: There are towns, and there are dungeons, but the order you visit them in is up to you/up to random chance big time. The game doesn't try to funnel you onto a safe path. (Honestly, if this game had been more narrow in scope, it might be a lot closer to being finished. I still remember it rather fondly, but it was WAY too ambitious. I wish it had been more linear.)
Mage Duel: Arena Battle-Underworks Rest-Arena Battle. This game doesn't even have dungeons, but it follows a similar formula and serves the same mechanical purpose.
To Arms! was in fact slated to follow the formula entirely, although really more in the vain of Final Fantasy Tactics than anything else.
Wanderer: This game wasn't going to have any towns, although some areas are safer than others, the entire game was going to take place in one contiguous interconnected wilderness area a la Dark Souls.
Also, with the exception of EtG and To Arms! none of my games has a world map. And the world maps in those games were rather non-traditional as RPGs go.
I don't think there's any underlying problem with town dungeon town though.
Iron Gaia: Entire game is one giant dungeon; there are basically no safe areas to just chill and talk to NPCs. If you find one, it's more like a "save room" from Resident Evil than like a traditional RPG town. You resupply from autoshops, which are located right there in the dungeon with you, and not always in safe rooms, either.
EtG: There are towns, and there are dungeons, but the order you visit them in is up to you/up to random chance big time. The game doesn't try to funnel you onto a safe path. (Honestly, if this game had been more narrow in scope, it might be a lot closer to being finished. I still remember it rather fondly, but it was WAY too ambitious. I wish it had been more linear.)
Mage Duel: Arena Battle-Underworks Rest-Arena Battle. This game doesn't even have dungeons, but it follows a similar formula and serves the same mechanical purpose.
To Arms! was in fact slated to follow the formula entirely, although really more in the vain of Final Fantasy Tactics than anything else.
Wanderer: This game wasn't going to have any towns, although some areas are safer than others, the entire game was going to take place in one contiguous interconnected wilderness area a la Dark Souls.
Also, with the exception of EtG and To Arms! none of my games has a world map. And the world maps in those games were rather non-traditional as RPGs go.
I don't think there's any underlying problem with town dungeon town though.
author=ArmorcladVampireBear_
blahblahblah
You are useless.
Otherwise, I suggest people stop thinking of "dungeons" as "DUNGEONS." Break that habit right now. Think of it as an "action phase." Town-Dungeon-Town-Dungeon is a setup that works (worked) because of its peak-and-lull pattern in the gameplay, allowing players to rest up, prepare for the next challenge, etc, then dive into it. You can do the exact same thing without actually thinking of your challenge as a "dungeon." Lots of games have an in-town action phase - for example, a thief has just stolen something from the relic shop, and you are sent on a chase sequence around town knocking out other thieves' guild members and hopping from roof to roof. It's all about the rise and fall of excitement and involvement.
author=Cozzer
In the first case... yeah, there's not much you can do to change it without making your game worse. The best thing you can do is to vary the "dungeons" and "town" (I mean, if you're a thief a town can be a "dungeon", and if you're a monster a dungeon can be a "town").
I like your idea of a thieves' city being a 'dungeon' (FF6 Zozo, anybody?). It helps subvert the thought pattern of THIS IS A TOWN AND THIS IS A DUNGEON, ONE HAS INNS AND SHOPS AND ONE HAS MONSTERS
Cozzer
0
author=Versalia
I like your idea of a thieves' city being a 'dungeon' (FF6 Zozo, anybody?). It helps subvert the thought pattern of THIS IS A TOWN AND THIS IS A DUNGEON, ONE HAS INNS AND SHOPS AND ONE HAS MONSTERS
Actually, I was talking about a normal city which becomes a dungeon because YOU are the thief. XD
Something like the chase sequence you mentioned earlier, except from the thief's point of view.
author=Cozzer
Actually, I was talking about a normal city which becomes a dungeon because YOU are the thief. XD
That's so cool <3
I like the Town-Dungeon-Town-Dungeon formula myself.
Think about it, the town doesn't have to be a multiple town but a town you always come back to or it could be the same dungeon. But really.
I agree with all of Craze's stuff here. In persona games, I find myself taking a break from dungeons since I rather hang out with my friends at the town instead, and do "saving the world" later. This is why I can't stand most Dungeon Crawler RPGs because I want something to break the monotomy of the game. Most case in point that gets to me is Etrian Odyssey.
That game, I can't finish it because of all the monotonous adventuring I have to do. Yes, I know I'm progressing because of the dungeon floors and change in scenery. Cool.
But compare it to other RPGs, for the sake of my favorite, Mana Khemia, they only have "one town" which is your school and reveals different new locations instead. They make you do homework based on the new locations's material. But I don't have to do it alone, I can have a schedule board that my excess party members can gather materials on their own instead (they have certain days) etc. And I can spend my free time either powering up, doing "private actions" or whatever. It broke the monotomy that I have to do battling in order to progress at some form.
I might be rambling though.
Think about it, the town doesn't have to be a multiple town but a town you always come back to or it could be the same dungeon. But really.
author=Craze
It's built out of necessity.
a game without towns needs a different source of progression.
In FFXIII, you spend Fantasybucks at save points - there are no breaks in the game, as the entire game is moving forward. I see no problem with this, although people complain that there're no breaks in the action. Protip: if you need a break from the action, turn off the PS3, call up a friend and go into town for a coffee.
The town-dungeon-town formula exists because it's necessary and the game would cease to exist without it, I guess? Why is it a problem?
I agree with all of Craze's stuff here. In persona games, I find myself taking a break from dungeons since I rather hang out with my friends at the town instead, and do "saving the world" later. This is why I can't stand most Dungeon Crawler RPGs because I want something to break the monotomy of the game. Most case in point that gets to me is Etrian Odyssey.
That game, I can't finish it because of all the monotonous adventuring I have to do. Yes, I know I'm progressing because of the dungeon floors and change in scenery. Cool.
But compare it to other RPGs, for the sake of my favorite, Mana Khemia, they only have "one town" which is your school and reveals different new locations instead. They make you do homework based on the new locations's material. But I don't have to do it alone, I can have a schedule board that my excess party members can gather materials on their own instead (they have certain days) etc. And I can spend my free time either powering up, doing "private actions" or whatever. It broke the monotomy that I have to do battling in order to progress at some form.
I might be rambling though.
author=Despain
I loooooooooove hubs.
it comes from my love of 3Dplatformers (banjo-kazooie/tooie and mario64/sunshine), but the idea of a hub city can work brilliantly in an RPG. you can do MORE with less—more familiar NPCs, locations that matter and a whole lot less repetition. with only a couple central towns, the civilization has a lot more character and doesn't feel like a COPYPASTE FANTASY WORLD
my favorite example of Majora's Mask. There's only one real town/city in the game and that's Clock Town. sure there are plenty of little civilizations around it and before each dungeon, but you always find yourself revisiting the central hub.
hub also allow for lots of replayability and exploration and shit like that because you can have them change as the game goes on.
Despain's on the money imo. Majora's Mask gets a bad rep from OOT-purists but I thought it was absolutely genius. Such a rich, alive hub with so much happening at specific times.. Clock town was like playing a soap opera (in dealing with all the side quests that are involved in the people's lives across the three days). God, I love Majora's Mask so much.
I guess the dungeon, town, dungeon, town thing can get tedious and formulaic, sure. That's why we need to innovate and come up with things that serve the same purpose (if necessary for the game) but are more engaging than the standard fare (LIKE IN MAJORA'S MASK).
Eh you can make 1 town with 10 dungeons but then people get bored of seeing the same town and crave something new even if you open up shops to them.
Despain
415
Eh you can make 1 town with 10 dungeons but then people get bored of seeing the same town and crave something new even if you open up shops to them.
then the town is missing the most important factor that makes Clock town great: people.
notice that I didn't say NPCs. fuck NPCs, man. Clock Town in MM is full of real people, and that's what made is so good. they all had names (or at least were recognizable), personalities, they MOVED AROUND to different places at different times during the game (not only based on where you were in the three-day cycle, but also based on what you had accomplished in the game). Clock Town was ALWAYS CHANGING and it never felt boring. even though it really wasn't very big.
that's what a lot of games don't have: people. people copy and paste shitty little NPC events but don't bother to populate the world.
author=Craze
although people complain that there're no breaks in the action. Protip: if you need a break from the action, turn off the PS3, call up a friend and go into town for a coffee.
I don't like this analogy because it ignores the valid criticism that 'breaks in the action' don't have to constitute turning off the game entirely. A break in the action can be ingame as simple as being able to explore and roam and talk to things without something trying to kill you/challenge. There's more to enjoying a game then sheer mechanics, emotion, atmosphere, and general 'feeling' are just as important. The feeling that everything is out to get you at every playable segment of the game (FFXIII) is a valid turnoff for a lot of audiences.
It's like you said;
'Towns (again, places to trade Fantasybucks for Power) in their most traditional form allow the player to take a respite from the action as well.'
It's important, especially in story based games to have a different type of gameplay in games such as RPGs where the very concept is a multifaceted experience. I would have accepted a game like FFXIII being a straight up dungeon crawler if it acted like one; instead it just seemed like a game missing a bunch of vital segments a prime example of an RPG without towns and nothing viable to replace them.
Which is basically what I'm getting at; if you're going to remove something big from a game, have something to replace it with. Interestingly enough, a lot of my favorite towns in RPGs don't have very good 'fantasybuck' exchange places at all, I just like to look around, talk to NPCs, and take in the setting.
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
Some of my favorite parts of games are where they temporarily broke this formula, not by doing something else in place of towns, but by doing something else in place of dungeons.
Typically this takes the form of a large scale cut-scene-driven series of battles. Final Fantasy 6's "Protect Banon" segement in Narshe is an obvious one, but the Imperial camp outside Doma Castle is another good one in the same game. In FF9, there are sequences like this when Queen Brahne's army is invading Lindblum and Cleyra, and other ones when you're trapped inside Alexandria Castle or inflitrating the queen's airship. You're still fighting a bunch of monsters, but it's not the formula you're used to - it's different, which makes it interesting. But not different enough to feel weird.
Changing up the barely-interactive parts of the game by replacing towns with some other kind of "breather point" can be neat and sort of helpful, but doesn't usually do a whole lot to improve the feeling of monotony, because the player doesn't play the game all that differently as a result. Getting rid of those barely-interactive parts can increase the pace of the game, but that can actually make the monotony worse as the player is now in a dungeon-dungeon-dungeon-dungeon formula. If you want to break the monotony, the thing I think you really want to change is the part that the player is putting all of his or her mental energy into: the dungeons. You want a dungeon-town-boss-stealthsection-boss-dungeon-town-festivalofthehunt-boss-dungeon-town-invasion-dungeon-town kind of formula.
Typically this takes the form of a large scale cut-scene-driven series of battles. Final Fantasy 6's "Protect Banon" segement in Narshe is an obvious one, but the Imperial camp outside Doma Castle is another good one in the same game. In FF9, there are sequences like this when Queen Brahne's army is invading Lindblum and Cleyra, and other ones when you're trapped inside Alexandria Castle or inflitrating the queen's airship. You're still fighting a bunch of monsters, but it's not the formula you're used to - it's different, which makes it interesting. But not different enough to feel weird.
Changing up the barely-interactive parts of the game by replacing towns with some other kind of "breather point" can be neat and sort of helpful, but doesn't usually do a whole lot to improve the feeling of monotony, because the player doesn't play the game all that differently as a result. Getting rid of those barely-interactive parts can increase the pace of the game, but that can actually make the monotony worse as the player is now in a dungeon-dungeon-dungeon-dungeon formula. If you want to break the monotony, the thing I think you really want to change is the part that the player is putting all of his or her mental energy into: the dungeons. You want a dungeon-town-boss-stealthsection-boss-dungeon-town-festivalofthehunt-boss-dungeon-town-invasion-dungeon-town kind of formula.
