PSYCHOFREAX'S PROFILE

He's this guy with three moves overall. Attack, healing magic and sleep magic. His regular attacks can kill you in about 10 hits and his healing magic would only heal about 50 out of 500 of his health. But once you took off a fair bit of his health and he casts his sleep spell, he's set to heal himself slowly back to full health before attacking you again. Note this is actually before you get any sleep preventing accesories.

Just a work in progress at the moment though. So I haven't exactly decided what he should be. Just an idea.

It really really depends. How long does it take for your characters to exhaust their health, MP or even inventory? How much can the boss heal itself if at all?

author=Max McGee
Response to topic in general:

This is another thing that a lot of people say they want from gams, but not really. I've seen the same reviewers who complain when a game can be beaten by mashing attack and using the same skills over and over also complain that games which require careful, strategic applications and combinations of skills are too hard, too inscrutable, badly balanced, or unplayable.

If you make a game in such a way that there are right and wrong ways to play it, reviewers who make poor strategic choices will assume the game is poorly balanced. Why wouldn't they? If they're serious about reviewing, 10 of the last 12 games they played WERE poorly balanced. On the other hand, if there is one obvious path through combat, the game is 'monotonous', 'repetitive', and 'too easy'.

It is one of many catch 22s in our little subset of homebrew game making.

While I do agree that a lot of reviewers are hypocritical about strategy in games, some games may even need balancing. I of course hate just button mashing the whole way through. But if EVERY normal battle is a super challenge of wits it will just get annoying. Most should just take no more than a single thought in my opinion.

Boss fights however, I'm certain can be as strategically challenging as you want without ANY limit. In fact, the more strategically challenging the better. If there are any reviewers who says a game is bad because the bosses makes you think too much but don't have a problem with normal enemies, they have no idea what they're talking about.

author=Craze

kentona
I suggest reversing how battles are designed. Most developers, I think, go "this boss is hard! It can be taken down in *this way*." That's not strategy, that's a single path.

Spin it around: "this boss is hard, the challenge is that it attempts X, which cancels/causes/creates Y. I know that the player has multiple ways around this; they'll be able to figure out a way to combat it."

Edifice's bosses are not designed with a strategy in mind. I simply come up with a gimmick, play against them with a few parties, and if I can kill it, it's a success. I don't design bosses as just beef gates, and they're not there to kill you. Edifice bosses make the player change how they play, which is a hell of a lot more refreshing than "here's a lizard, but with TWENTY TIMES MORE HP!"

If you don't design a boss with a strategy in mind, how are you going to be certain any strategy CAN be involved? Even the most creative bosses can only add an illusion of strategy and really still be button mashy. So do you like do logic checks after you design the boss to see if you can really use your wits to overcome the challenge? Wouldn't you also end up having to redesign bosses quite a few times?

Even gimmick bosses with just one clever way to beat is still better than a seemingly creative boss that truly has no strategy.

author=eplipswich

author=PsychoFreaX
Okay okay I get it. How about this? You can save anytime you want. However every time you save, the game shuts off automatically and every time you load deletes that save file right after. I might even shorten the game down to 7 hours. Should I? What do you think?

Lol that's actually what most of us suggested, like what slashphoenix said.

Still, I would prefer you going for save points rather than save anywhere. That would be for more challenge but still fair.

Keep in mind that if you turn off without saving, you won't continue at the place you last saved. What happens when you want to take a break from playing and you're in the middle of wherever place that doesn't have a save point?

author=Radnen
God dammit: How about a freakin' marathon mode?

Hmm I might be able to reward players with minimum number of saves though. A gag scene? Well, more ideas I can work with.

By the way, would everyone be okay with the quick save idea in a fifty hour game where players will probably lose against half the bosses?

author=slashphoenix
Grinding, in the most commonly used sense of the word, requires very little strategy at all.

No one ever said it did. All I meant is that requiring some level of grinding filters out more unskilled players than requiring no grinding. Besides, level grinding doesn't have to be so repetitive and boring if you're really into the game and use that time productively(at least most of the time). Read my previous post for that.

author=S. F. LaValle

author=PsychoFreaX
Third, let me go ahead and group people who grind like hell to level up and beat bosses with button mashers. That is, a group of people whose "strategy" just consists of taking the easiest route, including button-mash grinding, even if it takes a lot longer than being smart. I believe this should always be an available option to people. Again, my philosophy, is that a certain demographic should never be actively DISCOURAGED from playing your game the way they want. The more people who like and play your game, the better. It's their choice if they want to blow a lot of time being lazy, and it's perfectly acceptable to suggest they are making it harder on themselves, but it should still be an option.

I had already mentioned that my game is designed to be a thrill, not popular. I also think slashphoenix even referenced back to it. It doesn't have to sell better. Not for everyone. I made it so that there would always be another challenging experience available out there for anyone who possibly wants it.

author=S. F. LaValle

author=PsychoFreaX
Fourth, it's always wise to reward the wise, but expecting people to be patient is very dangerous. If patience means giving someone the choice between getting a powerful weapon later instead of a less-powerful weapon now, that's fine. They are active in their choice, and most importantly, it's THEIR choice. If patience means some degree of mandatory grinding, or even an arbitrary amount of grinding, then you're asking a lot; particularly from your smarter players. They choose to play smart specifically for the purpose of NOT being patient.

Well, I know level grinding can become a pain even to skilled players. But do you ever actually try to use that opportunity to learn more about your characters and how you can fight? That's my suggestion for easing it at least a little. Like, revising for a test. Again, read back to my previous post.

Oh and about it being their choice? Well of course it's their choice. But it doesn't mean those choices won't have consequences. It's my choice to walk down the stairs, upside down with my hands alone. Does it mean I won't get an accident?