KYLELASCAR'S PROFILE

Search

Filter

The 3 Modes of Engagement/Difficulty in RPGs

Yeah, I totally agree. We all have our preferences. That's why games that try to pander to all different kinds of players are often times hit-or-miss (see, for example, all the shooter games that tried too hard in years past by trying to be Diablo and Fallout at the same time). Rather than incorporating as many elements as possible, it's more important to design these elements flawlessly, which includes difficulty. Nowadays, most developers at least warn (potential) players - or advertise - about their games being "unforgiving" (my unforgiving stance is, as a rule, to avoid these games).

Since JRPGs are complex amalgamates of features, most JRPGs can't give me everything I want. There are always "missing" or "unwanted" features that directly influence the difficulty - to name a few:
- Random encounters (can lead to wars of attrition, but can also make the game easier if the player uses the opportunity to fight many battles)
- Linear dungeons or dungeon mazes (a matter of attrition and plot progression)
- Absence or presence of mini map and/or quest log
- Puzzles and mini games (can be serious roadblocks if they're too hard/obscure or require godly reflexes)
- Scarcity of money and (free) healing items (you gotta "love" these games in which necessary grinding doesn't net you enough money for one full party healing)
- Steal mechanics (completely change fighting procedures, especially during boss fights when the player tries to not get slaughtered while stealing the boss's items)
- Monsters drop or don't drop equipment (this can make all the difference in terms of difficulty)

Referencing your example: If you want to crawl dungeons including lots of exploration, then you'll probably shy away from JRPGs with linear dungeons and compressed (world) maps. At least such a game, which severely limits the player's options, shouldn't be too hard (in more ways than one). ;)

The 3 Modes of Engagement/Difficulty in RPGs

Interesting article, even written by a fellow-countryman - it's a shame I didn't notice it sooner. Thanks for your hard work.

I think many of the aspects related to "Active Involvement" are also a matter of preference. While I'm certainly able to handle real-time events in JRPGs, I'm just not a big fan of them, so I tend to avoid games that rely too heavily on them (I only want to play turn-based JRPGs after all). The same applies to design choices that I deem artificially restrictive or annoying, such as mission structures and/or (too many) one-time-only dungeons etc., day and night cycles, low level caps and so on. In this regard, I definitely prefer routine over reaction and innovation. If I want constant excitement while "playing", I'll hit the streets and provoke some random dudes. :D

The PRO of PROCRASTINATION

I'm thinking of writing an article called "The pro of dying". If you're interested: The pro of dying is being relieved from the burden of living. Still, it's the same for both procrastination and dying, despite their "advantages": If there's any way to avoid it, avoid it at all costs. :P

Featured Game, Featured Dev: LolloRocketDiver

Great interview, and I must say: Ferion is probably my favorite character, not only because of his comic relief purpose, but also because he's
the only character that doesn't undergo an existential crisis and doesn't temporarily leave the party or abandon the quest out of selfish reasons or in order to grieve; so without Ferion, the world would have been doomed.

The Five Steps of Player Retention

Since I'm an antisocial maverick who doesn't play demo versions and is looking for new games completely by himself (and receives warnings on this site for no reason at all), the second step (not only the images, but especially the game's story and features) is by far the most imporant one to my mind. If I bring myself to give a game a chance, then something serious will have to happen in order to stop me from playing (e.g. an unmentioned "feature" like level-scaling, one of my knock-out criterions). I'm also willing to cut a game I'm interested in some slack during the beginning, considering the long, linear development process and the typical structures of most games; in fact I would be distraught if the game's first dungeon was its best.

Unfortunately, most game descriptions suck or at least miss several vital specifications. This poses a problem to such an extent that I've developed my own list of questions that I ask before buying an RPG Maker game on Steam. Maybe most players prefer a "hands-on approach" (playing demo versions etc.), but if a developer wants to win over a player like me, it's the second step above all else.

Joyfully Rewarding Players' Guts: Winning or losing - are you really the boss in this fight?

I wish the majority of developers would put as much thought into this as you do. Yes, not killing the opposition as an antagonist can be explained convincingly, but the developer has to invest so much to make this work that most of them simply fail (or don't even try at all). Maybe I'm just too calculating when playing "pretend to be evil" in my head, maybe I lose my "respect" for antagonists who don't go all the way and don't kill me off, maybe I think "arrogant" equals "stupid", maybe I can't bring myself to accept that in a world where a defeat against a slime means certain death, the party can escape death when losing against a much stronger foe. Thus, I will never be a great fan of unwinnable boss fights, and I still prefer the "outside intervention solution" story-wise (the lesser of many evils). Well, perhaps the boss can't kill me because his powerful moves cost too much MP, but this scenario should better be saved for a parody game. :D

Joyfully Rewarding Players' Guts: Winning or losing - are you really the boss in this fight?

Thanks for your input. Since I didn't play the classic JRPGs mentioned above when they were first released (only years later), I really appreciate these additional pieces of information. Someone somewhere during the early days must have said: "I want to beat Gades during my first playthrough, too." And from then on players haven't accepted defeat so easily. Nowadays in our interconnected digital world and with the concept of self-imposed challenges having being spread, it rarely remains a mystery if a boss fight is truly unwinnable.

I still think that it's hard to incorporate unwinnable boss fights into most stories, despite the situations you described. If the player loses against a demon or a lunatic bent on world domination, who has every reason to believe that the player's party is the one remaining serious threat standing in the way (and I think that's pretty much the standard scenario in classic JRPGs), then there's no reason for the boss to not kill the party, which means the party depends on some kind of outside intervention. Of course, if the boss - maybe later during a rematch - convincingly explains why he couldn't kill off the party, I won't complain, but it seems I haven't played games in which that happens.

Not wanting to waste items during unwinnable boss fights, that's a really good point! I remember that I repeated many unwinnable boss fights just to not waste any items, since it's likely that a player rather uses his/her best items before admitting defeat. On the other hand, I don't really like the idea of disabling the item command during such a fight - it's kind of a spoiler, and it still wouldn't prevent me from trying to figure out a way how to beat that particular boss (if possible). Having the used items magically reappear isn't a good solution, either. Maybe it's good enough when the player can save directly before confronting the boss, so (s)he wouldn't hesitate to reload a previous save file.

Sorry about the cool new trinket, that must still hurt. ;)

A Different Approach to Difficulty

It was an analogy/joke and you obviously didn't get it, never mind.

A Different Approach to Difficulty

author=Sooz
But if it's a casual mode, that implies that there's a non-casual mode, so the form of storytelling isn't really gone?


When scientists asked six years old children whether they wanted candy immediately or (the same amount/size) after tidying up their rooms, 100% of the children chose the first option. :P

That's one of the issues inherent to difficulty modes: Some prideful players feel compelled to choose the highest difficulty setting, even if that means less fun for them, and some players always choose the lowest difficulty setting (why bother if there's an easier option?), even when they can handle and fully enjoy a higher difficulty setting.

Apart from that, I would like to highlight one aspect that hasn't gotten the attention it deserves yet: More difficulty modes means more necessary balancing efforts, which can easily overburden indie developers, no matter if they use RPG Maker or not. Most developers already get sick of playing through their own games dozens of times on one difficulty setting (well, that would apply to me at least if I was a developer). Now imagine how motivated they would be to test several difficulty settings.

If these difficulty settings (to reduce the workload) only differ in enemy stats, then I can draw a line to what I mentioned above: Do I feel compelled to choose the highest difficulty setting, or should I just choose the lowest difficulty setting if there's no incentive for playing on a higher difficulty setting apart from bragging rights? Choosing a difficulty setting can be so aggravating that I don't even want to play the game in question anymore, and each game featuring several difficulty settings has a much harder time winning me over.

By the way: Games that - difficulty-wise - try to pander to core gamers as well as to casual gamers are as likely to fail as bands who want to please fans or their old style and fans of their new style at the same time. :D

A Different Approach to Difficulty

author=Darken
The battle of finding a gameplay difficulty for everyone is rather fruitless when considering the war of finding gameplay people actually want to play is a greater thing to consider.


You're absolutely right. Surprisingly, most of the JRPGs offering different difficulty modes that I've played these past years didn't shine in terms of overall gameplay. They simply weren't excellent JRPGs, and that's possibly why I associate different difficulty modes with subpar game design. This might be a totally unfair assumption, but it helps me to find the games that I enjoy the most. I have nothing against casual experiences; in fact it was a blessing that I could switch to a casual experience while playing Romancing Monarchy (mentioned in my previous post), because otherwise I definitely would have quit.

There are also other genres/games where I enjoy a casual experience from time to time, for example playing GTA San Andreas using a save file in which a more skillful player already obtained all optional stuff for me, so that I can breeze through the main campaign. Also, I played the first JRPG made by EXE-Create for Kemco that was released on Steam on the lowest difficulty setting, since I wanted to become familiar with the game's structure, especially the battle system (EXE-Create's JRPGs, which are firstly and primarily released on mobile platforms, are a clear case of "if you've played one, you've played them all", which makes all of them fun for people who like how these games are structured). Now I enjoy them on the highest difficulty setting, while I can at the same time understand anyone who "only" wants to play them on the lowest difficulty setting. One of the more recent EXE-Create games, Antiquia Lost, did something interesting, by the way. The hardest optional dungeon was available early (only a few hours into the main storyline), so it was possible to challenge it and grind there until level 999, which made the rest of the game very easy (and of course I couldn't resist).

This is what JRPGs should be about, and EvilEagles already stressed it: Giving players the tools to overcome any challenge thrown at them. JRPGs can offer so many opportunities to do exactly that (grinding, hidden treasure, completing side quests, adjusted setup/strategy when battling bosses), so I still think a well-designed JRPG only needs "one true difficulty", since most games already take different skill levels and learning curves into consideration (tutorial at the beginning, optional superbosses at the end etc.).

What I'm trying to say using too many words is: A well-designed game knows how to handle difficulty (different difficulty modes are not suitable for every game), and if a well-designed game offers different difficulty modes, the game is an enjoyable experience on all of them. To draw a line from this wall of text to Darken's quote at the beginning: It isn't (only) the right difficulty that makes a game good, instead good games get the difficulty right. Nevertheless, a game offering different difficulty modes is still less likely to draw my attention than a game without difficulty settings. It's a matter of experience, and if in doubt, experience/gut feeling still prevails, despite how flawed our own perception can be.
Pages: first 12 next last