WEASELELIOT'S PROFILE

Final Fantasy:
The Qur'an

Maybe in Cinderella RPG you could avoid battle in the traditional sense by making one of the ugly sisters the main character. You spend the game heating the glass shoe and whacking it with a hammer so that it's long enough to contain your feet so that you can marry the prince in the end.

Or the less far out route would be to have you levelling up your cleaning ability by fighting dirt. As Cinderella, of course.

Or you could just make the RPG adaptation of Jack the Giant Killer. *rolls eyes*

Sorry, Calunio. I can't. But I did play that Final Fantasy Empires demo, which isn't the ideal of what i was talking about (It's seemingly non-FF related aside from things like Chocobos, so as I said earlier...what's the point? It's cancelled anyway), but it was decently written and was aesthestically pleasing. I thought it was clever the way the creator edited the FF5 battle sprites to become 'all-purpose'. It's that kind of FANGAME SPIRIT I'm talking about. Fangames that use RTP make me roll my eyes.

Really?

You just lost the thread of the thread here. Clearly, I'm saying that renaming things just for the heck of it is stupid no matter what the genre is.

post=133764

post=133760
Because I want every single game to name every fire skill "Fire." Are you that fucking old that you can't handle learning six new fake words for a 30+ hour experience?


(Okay, RM* games aren't 30+ hour experiences since they don't get released, BUT)

No, but I am old enough to be annoyed by "playing pretend" for common monikers for no reason at all. Are trees called "tjarks" and the sky "skuo" and the ground "gronk"? obfuscation =/= immersion

I love *escapism* and 'going to new lands* and *childlike wonder* and all that crap, but I agree. Most fantasy games (Including commercial ones) aren't 'different' enough with their settings to warrant 'tjarks' and 'skuo' and 'gronk.' If you're going to derive your setting from Dungeons and Dragons or Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy or whatever you might as well go the whole damn way.

You'll take this as a 'hate on the RPG Making community thread' but I don't mean it like that, honest. It's just an observation (I'm sure you'll move this to Game Design if it doesn't fit here)...

When I usually play an RPG Maker game, even if I'm somewhat interested by the premise or setting or aesthetics blahwhatever, as soon as I reach the first battle THAT'S when I become disenchanted with the game. It's as if I'm falling back into a tired routine. It doesn't matter if your game reminds me of Earthbound or if it's atmospheric or retro blah blah

Does this happen with commercial RPGs with bog-standard battles (Of which there are plenty)? Sometimes. But while, say, FF1 is quite bog standard, the whole party creation system made me stick through it longer than I have normally. I'm wondering that even if RM developers are limited to a certain kind of battle system (at least on the surface), there's at least the option of introducing gimmicks like this to make battles feel less obligatory.

Tbqh, it makes me realise just how much battles (If that's what you're going for) are THE meat of the game, and I'm saying that as a non-mathematical person who doesn't know about strategy and formulas and whatnot.

Before, I used to make games in RPG Maker and think to myself...WHY am I making this an RPG? Is it just because it has a story, and characters? Would this not work better as an action game? And I begin to realise that I'm not really paying enough attention to the battles. And if I'm deciding to have a battle system in my game, I better have a damn good reason.

Ugh, game design is not to be underestimated.