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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsJALEX'S PROFILE
Jalex
979
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
[Poll] Pixelized, cartoony, or realistic?
I like any style except for realistic, but for video games I tend to prefer pixels.
Realism runs the risk of entering the Uncanny Valley, especially with how far technology has progressed, but even if it doesn't I tend to find it dull *coughSkyrimcough*.
Pixel art, on the other hand, can look beautiful if done right. Not to mention that it's easier to make something passable with pixels; in how many other mediums can you get away with slapping something together in MSPaint in five minutes and calling it "retro"?
Realism runs the risk of entering the Uncanny Valley, especially with how far technology has progressed, but even if it doesn't I tend to find it dull *coughSkyrimcough*.
Pixel art, on the other hand, can look beautiful if done right. Not to mention that it's easier to make something passable with pixels; in how many other mediums can you get away with slapping something together in MSPaint in five minutes and calling it "retro"?
What is the perfect encounter rate?
author=CAVE_DOG
Every random encounter I have ever seen in an RPG required almost no thought to beat and was thus a pointless exercise in tedium.
I can guarantee you that if you think "random encounters" are a good gameplay mechanic then you have put zero thought into making your battles fun and engaging
because I have literally never, in my entire career of video game playing, encountered a random battle where I had to use my brain, despite playing a multitude of supposedly "hard" rpgs
random battles are not and have never been challenging except in roguelikes and there is no sense of achievement to be gained from defeating slimes
the main thrust of my argument has never been about 'what is good combat.'
Your entire argument has been "what isn't good combat", and it happens to be a bullshit argument. When everyone else disagrees with you, then maybe you're the one who's wrong for a change.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
i did read it. we can go back and forth arguing about who misunderstands words the most. i am ready.
If I'm wondering through a dungeon and get randomly attacked (let's assume the encouter rate is perfect for my preference) then I can either fight or escape. I have that choice, and I have that choice at a button press: I simply need to press escape (or fight) and then I can get back to my spelunking.
i could explain this over and over, i think this would be at least the third time I would be restating something in a slightly different way in vain hope that it would be read and understood but we'd be here all year. you're just going to have to take me at my word that I am capable of reading english and yes, it is entirely, 100 percent specific to random encounters and nothing else. at its core, this has nothing to do with the difficulty/fun of your combat system. god save us all.
This entire thread you've been arguing that "difficult/fun" combat and random encounters are mutually exclusive, which is not only
And I thought my stream of consciousness was utter chaos...
P.S. The Shift key is there for a reason.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
author=Zachary_Braun
It'd be interesting to know everyone's age here. It would give some deeper meaning to the opinions presented here, because different games and gameplay mechanics evolved as time went on, with their audiences also shifting.
I'm 20 myself, but most of my gaming experience is from the NES/SNES era. However, I'm more familiar with action games than RPGs in general, but out of the RPGs I have played, I tend to prefer the ones with random encounters.
Do graphics matter?
I'm speaking only for myself here, but I think that as long as functionality comes first, you can get away with less than stellar maps, especially if you can convince me that the characters, music, gameplay, etc. can carry the bulk of the game. And as LockeZ mentioned, a video can show those off better than a screenshot or three.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
author=slashphoenix
How are we all repeating the same facts and coming to different conclusions
I'm guessing because everyone here has a different idea of what an RPG is and/or should be, and since My* opinion is always right...
*"Me" being any given user in this forum
Edit: Ninja'd
What is the perfect encounter rate?
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACKI don't think I've seen the argument made that dealing with enemies should be optional in any other genres. The fact that you cannot assume the someone who chooses to play a certain RPG will actually enjoy it's battles speaks volumes of the quality of the average RPG battle.
Well, also, RPGs generally have their difficulty reduced when you have random battles. 99 percent of these games have a penalty for running (the possibility of dying due to dice rolls) so you are generally being forced to fight them unless you have the benefit of playing on an emulator or with game genie or whatever. But when you actually win these battles you gain levels and end up trivializing whatever boss battle awaits. This is not the case in any other genre because "exp" doesn't exist.
In all honesty I find traditional level up to be an inherently flawed system because it affects the difficulty in a way that the designer can't directly control (and another topic in itself). But if you're so overleveled that battles are too easy, that's your problem as a player, not mine as a developer, and it still has nothing to do with random encounters.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
author=Brady
The sheer amount of wrong things you just said has actually left me kinda speechless....
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
i'm glad to have done my good deed for the day, then.
Ah. Things are starting to make sense.
But your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that I'd be using Mash-A-To-Win battles, which I intend to avoid for obvious reasons. I also think that touch encounters will never fully obsolete random encounters because they're an equally flawed system. When players can skip most of your encounters, then that undermines the effort of creating the battles in the first place, and if players want to skip your battles, then there's something wrong with the battles that isn't the encounter system.
And for the record, not only can one bake a cake without knowing how to cook an egg, but there is also more than one "correct" way to cook an egg.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
I can guarantee you that if you think "random encounters" are a good gameplay mechanic then you have put zero thought into making your battles fun and engaging (or misdirected thought entirely), thus rendering them a chore.
Oh? Because last time I checked, the fun factor (or lack thereof) of battles is independent of how they are initiated, but by all means, prove me wrong. And yes, I do think random encounters are a good gameplay mechanic. I also think that the battles themselves should be strategic rather than Mash-A-To-Win (a design decision that has nothing to do with encounter type), but according to your logic that's a misdirected thought.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
I don't know why people are still shooting blanks when I've already given the correct answer on page one.
Except your justification has absolutely nothing to do with the encounter system itself. If your battles suck, it's because there's something wrong with the battle, not because you used random encounters.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
