Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
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
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
5 reviews
Add Review
Subscribe
Nominate
Submit Media
RSS
Element Properties in Enemy Attack Skill Names?
Feldschlacht IV- 03/21/2017 09:47 PM
- 12714 views
So lately I've been thinking about some random battle stuff, and recently I was wondering if it would be a good idea.
So you know how in RPGs the game displays the name of the enemy attack in some fashion, like so;
I've noticed that a lot of games, not all of them, but a lot of them neglect to tell you the properties of enemy attacks in battle. I think this is not very intuitive, for a number of reasons;
1. Almost all RPGs have preparation in the form of protection against some property as part of the strategy. If you don't know the properties you're dealing with, how can you effectively strategize?
2. Not all enemies have obvious properties that the player can guess such as Ice Dragons or Fire Djinns and whatnot; a lot of enemies seem ambigious in terms of properties, like a magic knight or some kind of oddball looking enemy. Ditto this sentiment for unusual looking or named attacks
In many games, they supply a Bestiary helps out immensely if that resource lists out an enemies attacks, with the elemental properties attached. But the problem with that is that it doesn't help in the midst of battle when you're deciding what elemental shield to through up, whether to beef up your magical or physical defense.
So I'm thinking of putting up icons on the enemy attack names to signify enemy attacks as physical or magical, and the element, if applicable. I'll have to mess around with making it hang around longer on the screen, amongst other fixes, but you guys think it's a good idea?
So you know how in RPGs the game displays the name of the enemy attack in some fashion, like so;
I've noticed that a lot of games, not all of them, but a lot of them neglect to tell you the properties of enemy attacks in battle. I think this is not very intuitive, for a number of reasons;
1. Almost all RPGs have preparation in the form of protection against some property as part of the strategy. If you don't know the properties you're dealing with, how can you effectively strategize?
2. Not all enemies have obvious properties that the player can guess such as Ice Dragons or Fire Djinns and whatnot; a lot of enemies seem ambigious in terms of properties, like a magic knight or some kind of oddball looking enemy. Ditto this sentiment for unusual looking or named attacks
In many games, they supply a Bestiary helps out immensely if that resource lists out an enemies attacks, with the elemental properties attached. But the problem with that is that it doesn't help in the midst of battle when you're deciding what elemental shield to through up, whether to beef up your magical or physical defense.
So I'm thinking of putting up icons on the enemy attack names to signify enemy attacks as physical or magical, and the element, if applicable. I'll have to mess around with making it hang around longer on the screen, amongst other fixes, but you guys think it's a good idea?
Posts 
View playlists
Closeauthor=Feldschlacht IV
-Quasar
-Starlight
-Shock Wave
-Acid Rain (Water obviously, yes. But it's also a Poison attack)
-Atomic Ray
-Diffuser
-Mirror Orb
-Flash Rain (Water and Ice, not just Water)
-Raid
-TekLaser
Some of those seem quite non-elemental (Quasar, TekLaser); others I could possibly pick out if I could remember their visuals (Starlight). Poison isn't an element; telegraphing statuses is gonna be difficult regardless. Mixing elements is much trickier, to be sure. I think it's bad design to do in general, but to each their own.
Truth be told, FFVI has some awesome spell effects. But you're chasing the wrong end of them; the ones that you can't discern what they are doing are bad visuals. They did a pretty good job overall, but missed the boat on a few of them. You are trying to account for intentionally bad visual designs later on.
Icons are not as good as telegraphing. Depending on what you want the player to feel, it absolutely can cost the player. If where the game actually tells me what's happening is the icon, that's where my attention will be. If the elemental type is not that big of an impact in battle strategy, I'll ignore the icon.
It was mentioned before, but probably bears repeating: how many spells will actually have disjointed visuals? If you have 100 spells and 10 of them are disjointed, the obvious answer would be to fix the 10.
author=WIP
Poison isn't an element
Not quite; in FFVI it doubles as an element and a status.
I understand what you're saying, but keep in mind that also the BIG confusion is when an attack is ambiguous whether or not it's physical or magical. It's pretty easy to make it clear what element a player is dealing with, but whether its physical or magical can be trickier. Think Sabin's Blitz attacks or some of Edgar's Tools.
Again, I think color coding skills to be Yellow if physical and Purple if magical is an easy fix to this. As far as the icon is concerned, I don't think it's a zero sum game with the player's attention; if a battle turn comes up and for example, it's like;
*fire icon here*
"Igniting Blade (in Yellow font)"
*half second delay*
*animation for Igniting Blade displays*
I don't think the player is going to like, put 100% of his attention on the icon, and ignore the damage name AND the animation. I don't think it works that way. What's more likely is the player goes
"Okay, Igniting Blade is a physical fire elemental attack. Oh, that's a cool animation. Anyway, let me throw my Fire Barrier up and switch out my armor for the next encounter."
I mean, the end, right? I don't think this is complex stuff, here...
author=WIPauthor=Feldschlacht IVSome of those seem quite non-elemental (Quasar, TekLaser); others I could possibly pick out if I could remember their visuals (Starlight). Poison isn't an element; telegraphing statuses is gonna be difficult regardless. Mixing elements is much trickier, to be sure. I think it's bad design to do in general, but to each their own.
-Quasar
-Starlight
-Shock Wave
-Acid Rain (Water obviously, yes. But it's also a Poison attack)
-Atomic Ray
-Diffuser
-Mirror Orb
-Flash Rain (Water and Ice, not just Water)
-Raid
-TekLaser
Truth be told, FFVI has some awesome spell effects. But you're chasing the wrong end of them; the ones that you can't discern what they are doing are bad visuals. They did a pretty good job overall, but missed the boat on a few of them. You are trying to account for intentionally bad visual designs later on.
Icons are not as good as telegraphing. Depending on what you want the player to feel, it absolutely can cost the player. If where the game actually tells me what's happening is the icon, that's where my attention will be. If the elemental type is not that big of an impact in battle strategy, I'll ignore the icon.
It was mentioned before, but probably bears repeating: how many spells will actually have disjointed visuals? If you have 100 spells and 10 of them are disjointed, the obvious answer would be to fix the 10.
Well, how should a player know to differentiate a physical attack versus a magical attack?
And the bigger question: What's wrong with doing both? I don't think an icon or two in front of spell is going to look too cluttered and I, as a player, am always happy to be given more info as long as I understand what it means and how it applies.
Kaempfer
1932
So, uh, real talk, why haven't you already committed to doing this? You and 98% of this thread seems to think it's a great idea.
The only dissenting voice here seems to be WIP, and even he's just saying that relying exclusively on the icons is a bad idea and your first line of telegraphing should be the spell graphics.
Also, me. I am also slightly a dissenting voice.
FF6 didn't have element-specific shield spells, so at best you could swap your shield out in battle if the enemy surprised you with a specific element, and that worked fine, although it wasn't ideal.
Personally, I'm of the mindset that the enemy using the occasional attack that you need to figure out how to block by getting your shit ruined several times by them is just fine. If you go up against a boss and he uses STRONG BEAM ATTACK and you take a lot of damage and have to figure out how to block it, that is not a bad thing, so long as the fight is actually setup to give the player some wiggle room. Saying to the player "here's exactly what you need to do to win 100% of the time" isn't always as nice as the player saying "OH SO THAT'S HOW I BLOCK IT HA HA HA NOW I SHALL RUIN YOU".
Of course, you could always hybridize your system; give the ability to see attack types/magic types as an upgrade/class-specific feature, or make each spell a mystery before you get hit by it X number of times, then you automatically analyze the spell-type if it isn't clear.
All that being said, if you like the icons, use them. I don't think anyone is strongly against the idea, so at worst it'll be breakeven enjoyment and at best you'll give players lots of fodder for their potential tactics.
The only dissenting voice here seems to be WIP, and even he's just saying that relying exclusively on the icons is a bad idea and your first line of telegraphing should be the spell graphics.
Also, me. I am also slightly a dissenting voice.
FF6 didn't have element-specific shield spells, so at best you could swap your shield out in battle if the enemy surprised you with a specific element, and that worked fine, although it wasn't ideal.
Personally, I'm of the mindset that the enemy using the occasional attack that you need to figure out how to block by getting your shit ruined several times by them is just fine. If you go up against a boss and he uses STRONG BEAM ATTACK and you take a lot of damage and have to figure out how to block it, that is not a bad thing, so long as the fight is actually setup to give the player some wiggle room. Saying to the player "here's exactly what you need to do to win 100% of the time" isn't always as nice as the player saying "OH SO THAT'S HOW I BLOCK IT HA HA HA NOW I SHALL RUIN YOU".
Of course, you could always hybridize your system; give the ability to see attack types/magic types as an upgrade/class-specific feature, or make each spell a mystery before you get hit by it X number of times, then you automatically analyze the spell-type if it isn't clear.
All that being said, if you like the icons, use them. I don't think anyone is strongly against the idea, so at worst it'll be breakeven enjoyment and at best you'll give players lots of fodder for their potential tactics.
author=Kaem
So, uh, real talk, why haven't you already committed to doing this? You and 98% of this thread seems to think it's a great idea.
I am, but bouncing ideas and healthy debates and thought is always helpful, either to me or someone else, yah? Even when I don't agree 100%, I love talking to you guys! Kaem, give me a few; I'm running out the door, so I'll give a more detailed reply to the rest of your post!
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
In theory, learning and figuring out the properties of different enemies and their skills do is part of what it means to get better at an RPG, and that's meant to be an enjoyable challenge.
In practice, this works better in some games than others. In games where players and enemies have the same attacks, it makes way more sense. In games where players can change their own elemental properties and resistances mid-battle, it also makes way more sense. If the player can choose which party member is hit by the enemy, and also predict to some degree which types of skills the enemy will use at which times, they can have a lot of fun planning out their defenses very strategically. Pokemon is an example of a game that does all three of these things, and the fact that Pokemon doesn't show the player any info about enemy attacks or enemy defenses is some extremely intentional and very smart design.
In games where the player's party is a bunch of non-elemental characters, it's not so important. When the player spends most of the game upgrading their armor to objectively better versions in each town, without ever having different elemental options until maybe the last few dungeons, there's really nothing they can do to prepare for enemy different types of attacks anyway. If they learn Protect and Shell at the same time, with the same character, they can probably just cast both of them instead of having to pick one. If all of the above are true, there's almost no point in enemy attacks having different types in the first place; all it does is provide a little variety in which characters survive and which die. If that variety is all you're going for, which is true in Final Fantasy games for example, then it doesn't really matter whether the player can figure it out or not. Adding the info probably won't hurt anything, but it might make the player spend time thinking and planning instead of just charging ahead, because some players will assume that if you tell them the info then it must matter. That slower paced game may or may not be what you want.
In practice, this works better in some games than others. In games where players and enemies have the same attacks, it makes way more sense. In games where players can change their own elemental properties and resistances mid-battle, it also makes way more sense. If the player can choose which party member is hit by the enemy, and also predict to some degree which types of skills the enemy will use at which times, they can have a lot of fun planning out their defenses very strategically. Pokemon is an example of a game that does all three of these things, and the fact that Pokemon doesn't show the player any info about enemy attacks or enemy defenses is some extremely intentional and very smart design.
In games where the player's party is a bunch of non-elemental characters, it's not so important. When the player spends most of the game upgrading their armor to objectively better versions in each town, without ever having different elemental options until maybe the last few dungeons, there's really nothing they can do to prepare for enemy different types of attacks anyway. If they learn Protect and Shell at the same time, with the same character, they can probably just cast both of them instead of having to pick one. If all of the above are true, there's almost no point in enemy attacks having different types in the first place; all it does is provide a little variety in which characters survive and which die. If that variety is all you're going for, which is true in Final Fantasy games for example, then it doesn't really matter whether the player can figure it out or not. Adding the info probably won't hurt anything, but it might make the player spend time thinking and planning instead of just charging ahead, because some players will assume that if you tell them the info then it must matter. That slower paced game may or may not be what you want.
author=LockeZ
When the player spends most of the game upgrading their armor to objectively better versions in each town, without ever having different elemental options until maybe the last few dungeons, there's really nothing they can do to prepare for enemy different types of attacks anyway. If they learn Protect and Shell at the same time, with the same character, they can probably just cast both of them instead of having to pick one.
If all of the above are true, there's almost no point in enemy attacks having different types in the first place; all it does is provide a little variety in which characters survive and which die. If that variety is all you're going for, which is true in Final Fantasy games for example, then it doesn't really matter whether the player can figure it out or not.
Good thoughts, and those things are precisely what I'm trying to avoid.
unity
I feel like its a cool idea when the enemy has access to moves the party doesn't have. But if you go that route, do you do that for everything (like every cast magic spell) or just the obscure ones?
We don't do it for every single move since a lot of them are obvious by effect color and popups (if an effect inflicts a damage over time effect, your Degen stat will visibly increase with a popup, so...). it's more for major mechanics like counters or triggers (like if you heal an ally this turn, the enemy will steal it). stuff like ">Starving Rat C takes a bite out of you!" is pretty clear when it deals green Primal damage and the enemy heals itself as it hits you...
*bzzzt* and back to MOG now
I'm not really even dissenting! I think it's an acceptable solution. Makes for good discussion about spell visuals, though.
NTC3
5625
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=LockeZGood thoughts, and those things are precisely what I'm trying to avoid.
When the player spends most of the game upgrading their armor to objectively better versions in each town, without ever having different elemental options until maybe the last few dungeons, there's really nothing they can do to prepare for enemy different types of attacks anyway. If they learn Protect and Shell at the same time, with the same character, they can probably just cast both of them instead of having to pick one.
If all of the above are true, there's almost no point in enemy attacks having different types in the first place; all it does is provide a little variety in which characters survive and which die. If that variety is all you're going for, which is true in Final Fantasy games for example, then it doesn't really matter whether the player can figure it out or not.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier: I agree with everyone about the text + icon design solution thing, but it interests me less then the overall balance of elements. In my experience,at least, games that have strong elemental systems often end up clearly biased, with some elements cropping up far more then others, and thus being the priority to protect from/counter against. I'm interested in how you plan the elemental distribution to go, so to speak.
That's definitely something to be conscious of; the elemental system in my game isn't huge or a giant cornerstone of the battle system, it's just something for the player to be aware of that can be a big advantage or disadvantage depending on the situation, and won't factor in every battle or decision. It's not insignificant by any means, but the system isn't built around it.
