My Opinion On Some RPGs and MMOs
Today some RPGs, and even some MMOs are like this
--------------------------------------
A straight line, what I mean by this is that you are told what to do where to go with out even having to think. For example some MMOs just point a big blue arrow in your face to show you where to go, as if I was to stupid to find the NPC myself. Instead RPGs should be like this.
--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^
Instead of just being told what to do every time you would have to think for your self. For an example you find matches, and you notice the only way out is blocked by some firewood, so you burn that firewood, but in some RPGs you would pick up the matches and a message box would appear
“Perhaps I can burn the wood over there.”. I can figure that out on my own, I'm the hero right?
Some Gameplay I Want To Add To My Games
In my opinion the hardest games brings up to most attention to gamers. A challenge will always bring back a player even if they get frustrated, they come back because they want to complete this task and find out what happens next.
Battles
What would you rather play? The pretty animations, with not strategy at all, or a text battle that takes thought. Now this can be argued, but what if you put them two together? I want some of my battles to be so hard at first so that the player would have to escape, and come back with their strategy. For example you run into a fire monster that deals a strong fire damage. So you go back to town and get the resists fire spell and cast that to defeat the fire monsters. This way the player feels like he or she accomplished something smart and not just ripping threw every monster in the forest.
Items
I want to make using certain foods and potions a mystery of what they do. Will this orange heal my Hp, or Mp? This can make a player experiment with different foods, and what not, also making survival a bit more sacrificing. Eventually you would under stand what dose what, and you would be able to mix items together to give an stronger effect.
Picking Your Own Heroes/Getting Rid of Classes
I don't just want the player to rush threw my game, I want to design the game so if you try to rush threw you would end up failing. At the beginning you would have to interview an amount of people before picking them out by seeing what they say. Instead of just getting the same old hero main character with that awesome spiky hair, instead you can pick a hero who seems to fit you. For example the athlete has higher endurance and speed making him an acceptable warrior, or the man who went to healing school may come equipped with an healing spell right off the back.
My next move is getting rid of classes. You will be able to equip and weapon and have any character learn any spell. The player would have to think. Which one of these heroes will do best with this fire spell? Such weapons like swords and heavy armor would be fit for a warrior adding strength and defense, and staffs and robes will be fit for a mage adding magic power and mana, but if you wanted to sacrifice some magic power for more defense because this hero is braver than the other and stands in the front line, you can do so.
Conclusion
I want the player to experience problems and figure them out them self’s instead of being told what to do and just following that straight line. Let the player play the game he or she feels it should be.
Full Version: Game play Plotting
Firstly I sort of agree with what you're saying, nowadays you dont even have to read the text of an rpg, they'll often highlight keywords so you know you'll have to go here with this item and talk to this guy. When did the story stop being the primary aspect of Rpgs? I think it largely stems from games being played for gratification (''woo level up, I'm awesome'') and people feel good about completing a game quickly, and therefore in greater frequency, rather than completing a challenging game actually worth completing (especially think of trophy whores 
).
Your battle idea is kind of good, though the risk of death comes with game over so perhaps just make it hard to get through 2 or 3 battles than simply one impossible fight. I personally hate using elemental armor in games unless it provides immunity/absorb, otherwise conventionally stronger armour and a little grinding will get the job done. Anyways scroll a few pages back in this forum for a few puzzle battle threads (I'm kinda tired of linking them).
I do not like that item idea. At all. Items are one-use, they cost money or they have to be found, I don't want to waste them figuring them out. Also I then have to remember the function of every item in the game and if I leave the game for a while and come back I'll likely have to refigure most of them out.
The little introductory interview thing is a good idea but then kinda clashes with the next idea- if you make characters supremely customizable then it reduces the importance of which one you pick at the beginning, it would only make for an easier beginning.
On the whole there are some good ideas here, its nice to see someone putting some thought into what makes a game challenging, rather than blindly throwing stronger enemies around.
).Your battle idea is kind of good, though the risk of death comes with game over so perhaps just make it hard to get through 2 or 3 battles than simply one impossible fight. I personally hate using elemental armor in games unless it provides immunity/absorb, otherwise conventionally stronger armour and a little grinding will get the job done. Anyways scroll a few pages back in this forum for a few puzzle battle threads (I'm kinda tired of linking them).
I do not like that item idea. At all. Items are one-use, they cost money or they have to be found, I don't want to waste them figuring them out. Also I then have to remember the function of every item in the game and if I leave the game for a while and come back I'll likely have to refigure most of them out.
The little introductory interview thing is a good idea but then kinda clashes with the next idea- if you make characters supremely customizable then it reduces the importance of which one you pick at the beginning, it would only make for an easier beginning.
On the whole there are some good ideas here, its nice to see someone putting some thought into what makes a game challenging, rather than blindly throwing stronger enemies around.
SJ,
For a great example of your design ideas in practice, take a look at Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, or SMT: Persona 4. Both are excellent examples of what you're describing, especially with how you summed it up in the conclusion.
If you're not familiar, Persona 3 and 4 employ a turn-based battle system that focusses more on strategy than just smacking a monster until it falls over. Here, you have to analyse the situation - this is also encouraged using in P3 with a support character who can analyse monsters after a few turns - and react appropriately. For example, one indication of a monster's weaknesses is the Arcana it uses, each of which corresponds to one of the first twelve major arcana of a tarot deck (Magician through to Hanged Man). Some have fairly obvious weaknesses through their appearances alone, and what's more, monsters that use the same arcana oft have the same weaknesses. Here, players are encouraged to focus on these details and plan strategies for each Arcana and each monster.
As an example, in the first block of Persona 3's central dungeon, Tartarus, there are two monsters that the party encounters, from two different 'families' of monster, the Maya and the Cupid. Both of these monsters belong to the Priestess Arcana.
Now, normally you'd encounter the Maya first because it's more common, so you learn that the Maya monster is weak to Garu (wind) and Bufu (ice) skills. Later, when you find the Cupid monster, you can notice if you pay attention that it also belongs to the Priestess Arcana. Seeing as it's a flying monster, you can safely assume that it's resistant to Garu skills, so you try Bufu, and discover that it's weak to it.
By applying these skill assumptions and experimenting, the player can navigate the dungeon and react to new monsters through simple strategic observations. What's more, making mistakes on the later floors - and on harder difficulties - will result in the party getting demolished with one careless attack or flawed strategy, so it mechanically encourages the player to make very careful decision with both party choices and moment-to-moment choices in the game.
For a great example of your design ideas in practice, take a look at Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, or SMT: Persona 4. Both are excellent examples of what you're describing, especially with how you summed it up in the conclusion.
If you're not familiar, Persona 3 and 4 employ a turn-based battle system that focusses more on strategy than just smacking a monster until it falls over. Here, you have to analyse the situation - this is also encouraged using in P3 with a support character who can analyse monsters after a few turns - and react appropriately. For example, one indication of a monster's weaknesses is the Arcana it uses, each of which corresponds to one of the first twelve major arcana of a tarot deck (Magician through to Hanged Man). Some have fairly obvious weaknesses through their appearances alone, and what's more, monsters that use the same arcana oft have the same weaknesses. Here, players are encouraged to focus on these details and plan strategies for each Arcana and each monster.
As an example, in the first block of Persona 3's central dungeon, Tartarus, there are two monsters that the party encounters, from two different 'families' of monster, the Maya and the Cupid. Both of these monsters belong to the Priestess Arcana.
Now, normally you'd encounter the Maya first because it's more common, so you learn that the Maya monster is weak to Garu (wind) and Bufu (ice) skills. Later, when you find the Cupid monster, you can notice if you pay attention that it also belongs to the Priestess Arcana. Seeing as it's a flying monster, you can safely assume that it's resistant to Garu skills, so you try Bufu, and discover that it's weak to it.
By applying these skill assumptions and experimenting, the player can navigate the dungeon and react to new monsters through simple strategic observations. What's more, making mistakes on the later floors - and on harder difficulties - will result in the party getting demolished with one careless attack or flawed strategy, so it mechanically encourages the player to make very careful decision with both party choices and moment-to-moment choices in the game.
QUOTE (SteveJobs @ Mar 11 2012, 07:57 AM) 
My Opinion On Some RPGs and MMOs
Today some RPGs, and even some MMOs are like this
--------------------------------------
A straight line, what I mean by this is that you are told what to do where to go with out even having to think. For example some MMOs just point a big blue arrow in your face to show you where to go, as if I was to stupid to find the NPC myself. Instead RPGs should be like this.
--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^
Instead of just being told what to do every time you would have to think for your self. For an example you find matches, and you notice the only way out is blocked by some firewood, so you burn that firewood, but in some RPGs you would pick up the matches and a message box would appear
“Perhaps I can burn the wood over there.”. I can figure that out on my own, I'm the hero right?
Today some RPGs, and even some MMOs are like this
--------------------------------------
A straight line, what I mean by this is that you are told what to do where to go with out even having to think. For example some MMOs just point a big blue arrow in your face to show you where to go, as if I was to stupid to find the NPC myself. Instead RPGs should be like this.
--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^
Instead of just being told what to do every time you would have to think for your self. For an example you find matches, and you notice the only way out is blocked by some firewood, so you burn that firewood, but in some RPGs you would pick up the matches and a message box would appear
“Perhaps I can burn the wood over there.”. I can figure that out on my own, I'm the hero right?
I learned this the hard way that most people playing rpgs don't actually like to think. I made an open-roaming rpg before the one now, and well, people gave it like 1/2 a star and told me it should go "back to hell where it belongs". If you want it this way, you'd need to make it like Skyrim where there is a main plot, but you can also roam the world collecting mushrooms.
I like the ideas it really helps my planing before I even get started on a game.
Kaust
The item idea was a survival idea. When i was thinking this threw I was playing a lot of survival horror games
so I tried adding some survival to an RPG. As it turns out there is not much that I can think of to add
survival to a RMVX/XP game.
WanderingWordsmith
I like the analyse idea, maybe I can make a skill that would tell you the monsters weakness, but in return
it would take a whole turn and will weaken the player analyzing. I will llook up those two games another time
thanks.
bulmabriefs144
Thats to bad to hear I like open world games, and I'm sure you game wasn't bad. I'm hoping people
wont rate down my game because they have to think. :/
I am not making an open world game exactly, perhaps a little bit like skyrim, but just not as open world.
Kaust
The item idea was a survival idea. When i was thinking this threw I was playing a lot of survival horror games
so I tried adding some survival to an RPG. As it turns out there is not much that I can think of to add
survival to a RMVX/XP game.
WanderingWordsmith
I like the analyse idea, maybe I can make a skill that would tell you the monsters weakness, but in return
it would take a whole turn and will weaken the player analyzing. I will llook up those two games another time
thanks.
bulmabriefs144
Thats to bad to hear I like open world games, and I'm sure you game wasn't bad. I'm hoping people
wont rate down my game because they have to think. :/
I am not making an open world game exactly, perhaps a little bit like skyrim, but just not as open world.
@ Wandering Wordsmith, That's awesome. I'm currently replaying Persona 4 for the second time and I was thinking about writing a post on how great it's battle system is. Every troop formation requires a different strategy. You have to figure them out trial-by-error for the most part. Strategies are easy to remember, but you (the main character) must have a persona that carries the skills that your teammates do not have. Creating Persona requires reading a bunch of text and level-grinding in the J-pop Dungeon Crawler from Hell, and then fusing them together to make better Persona. The system is so intricate it's crazy - I never even noticed the correlation between Arcana types and weaknesses. The game requires that you to pay attention in battle, and death is often a strong possibility. It's one of my top 5 favorite games ever, and a great example of an awesome battle system (if you can get past the ungodly-long but overall great cut-scenes).
QUOTE (WanderingWordsmith @ Mar 11 2012, 01:30 PM)
SJ,
For a great example of your design ideas in practice, take a look at Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, or SMT: Persona 4. Both are excellent examples of what you're describing, especially with how you summed it up in the conclusion.
If you're not familiar, Persona 3 and 4 employ a turn-based battle system that focusses more on strategy than just smacking a monster until it falls over. Here, you have to analyse the situation - this is also encouraged using in P3 with a support character who can analyse monsters after a few turns - and react appropriately. For example, one indication of a monster's weaknesses is the Arcana it uses, each of which corresponds to one of the first twelve major arcana of a tarot deck (Magician through to Hanged Man). Some have fairly obvious weaknesses through their appearances alone, and what's more, monsters that use the same arcana oft have the same weaknesses. Here, players are encouraged to focus on these details and plan strategies for each Arcana and each monster.
As an example, in the first block of Persona 3's central dungeon, Tartarus, there are two monsters that the party encounters, from two different 'families' of monster, the Maya and the Cupid. Both of these monsters belong to the Priestess Arcana.
Now, normally you'd encounter the Maya first because it's more common, so you learn that the Maya monster is weak to Garu (wind) and Bufu (ice) skills. Later, when you find the Cupid monster, you can notice if you pay attention that it also belongs to the Priestess Arcana. Seeing as it's a flying monster, you can safely assume that it's resistant to Garu skills, so you try Bufu, and discover that it's weak to it.
By applying these skill assumptions and experimenting, the player can navigate the dungeon and react to new monsters through simple strategic observations. What's more, making mistakes on the later floors - and on harder difficulties - will result in the party getting demolished with one careless attack or flawed strategy, so it mechanically encourages the player to make very careful decision with both party choices and moment-to-moment choices in the game.
For a great example of your design ideas in practice, take a look at Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, or SMT: Persona 4. Both are excellent examples of what you're describing, especially with how you summed it up in the conclusion.
If you're not familiar, Persona 3 and 4 employ a turn-based battle system that focusses more on strategy than just smacking a monster until it falls over. Here, you have to analyse the situation - this is also encouraged using in P3 with a support character who can analyse monsters after a few turns - and react appropriately. For example, one indication of a monster's weaknesses is the Arcana it uses, each of which corresponds to one of the first twelve major arcana of a tarot deck (Magician through to Hanged Man). Some have fairly obvious weaknesses through their appearances alone, and what's more, monsters that use the same arcana oft have the same weaknesses. Here, players are encouraged to focus on these details and plan strategies for each Arcana and each monster.
As an example, in the first block of Persona 3's central dungeon, Tartarus, there are two monsters that the party encounters, from two different 'families' of monster, the Maya and the Cupid. Both of these monsters belong to the Priestess Arcana.
Now, normally you'd encounter the Maya first because it's more common, so you learn that the Maya monster is weak to Garu (wind) and Bufu (ice) skills. Later, when you find the Cupid monster, you can notice if you pay attention that it also belongs to the Priestess Arcana. Seeing as it's a flying monster, you can safely assume that it's resistant to Garu skills, so you try Bufu, and discover that it's weak to it.
By applying these skill assumptions and experimenting, the player can navigate the dungeon and react to new monsters through simple strategic observations. What's more, making mistakes on the later floors - and on harder difficulties - will result in the party getting demolished with one careless attack or flawed strategy, so it mechanically encourages the player to make very careful decision with both party choices and moment-to-moment choices in the game.
QUOTE (rewells @ Mar 13 2012, 06:42 AM)
@ Wandering Wordsmith, That's awesome. I'm currently replaying Persona 4 for the second time and I was thinking about writing a post on how great it's battle system is. Every troop formation requires a different strategy. You have to figure them out trial-by-error for the most part. Strategies are easy to remember, but you (the main character) must have a persona that carries the skills that your teammates do not have. Creating Persona requires reading a bunch of text and level-grinding in the J-pop Dungeon Crawler from Hell, and then fusing them together to make better Persona. The system is so intricate it's crazy - I never even noticed the correlation between Arcana types and weaknesses. The game requires that you to pay attention in battle, and death is often a strong possibility. It's one of my top 5 favorite games ever, and a great example of an awesome battle system (if you can get past the ungodly-long but overall great cut-scenes).
QUOTE (WanderingWordsmith @ Mar 11 2012, 01:30 PM)
SJ,
For a great example of your design ideas in practice, take a look at Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, or SMT: Persona 4. Both are excellent examples of what you're describing, especially with how you summed it up in the conclusion.
If you're not familiar, Persona 3 and 4 employ a turn-based battle system that focusses more on strategy than just smacking a monster until it falls over. Here, you have to analyse the situation - this is also encouraged using in P3 with a support character who can analyse monsters after a few turns - and react appropriately. For example, one indication of a monster's weaknesses is the Arcana it uses, each of which corresponds to one of the first twelve major arcana of a tarot deck (Magician through to Hanged Man). Some have fairly obvious weaknesses through their appearances alone, and what's more, monsters that use the same arcana oft have the same weaknesses. Here, players are encouraged to focus on these details and plan strategies for each Arcana and each monster.
As an example, in the first block of Persona 3's central dungeon, Tartarus, there are two monsters that the party encounters, from two different 'families' of monster, the Maya and the Cupid. Both of these monsters belong to the Priestess Arcana.
Now, normally you'd encounter the Maya first because it's more common, so you learn that the Maya monster is weak to Garu (wind) and Bufu (ice) skills. Later, when you find the Cupid monster, you can notice if you pay attention that it also belongs to the Priestess Arcana. Seeing as it's a flying monster, you can safely assume that it's resistant to Garu skills, so you try Bufu, and discover that it's weak to it.
By applying these skill assumptions and experimenting, the player can navigate the dungeon and react to new monsters through simple strategic observations. What's more, making mistakes on the later floors - and on harder difficulties - will result in the party getting demolished with one careless attack or flawed strategy, so it mechanically encourages the player to make very careful decision with both party choices and moment-to-moment choices in the game.
For a great example of your design ideas in practice, take a look at Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, or SMT: Persona 4. Both are excellent examples of what you're describing, especially with how you summed it up in the conclusion.
If you're not familiar, Persona 3 and 4 employ a turn-based battle system that focusses more on strategy than just smacking a monster until it falls over. Here, you have to analyse the situation - this is also encouraged using in P3 with a support character who can analyse monsters after a few turns - and react appropriately. For example, one indication of a monster's weaknesses is the Arcana it uses, each of which corresponds to one of the first twelve major arcana of a tarot deck (Magician through to Hanged Man). Some have fairly obvious weaknesses through their appearances alone, and what's more, monsters that use the same arcana oft have the same weaknesses. Here, players are encouraged to focus on these details and plan strategies for each Arcana and each monster.
As an example, in the first block of Persona 3's central dungeon, Tartarus, there are two monsters that the party encounters, from two different 'families' of monster, the Maya and the Cupid. Both of these monsters belong to the Priestess Arcana.
Now, normally you'd encounter the Maya first because it's more common, so you learn that the Maya monster is weak to Garu (wind) and Bufu (ice) skills. Later, when you find the Cupid monster, you can notice if you pay attention that it also belongs to the Priestess Arcana. Seeing as it's a flying monster, you can safely assume that it's resistant to Garu skills, so you try Bufu, and discover that it's weak to it.
By applying these skill assumptions and experimenting, the player can navigate the dungeon and react to new monsters through simple strategic observations. What's more, making mistakes on the later floors - and on harder difficulties - will result in the party getting demolished with one careless attack or flawed strategy, so it mechanically encourages the player to make very careful decision with both party choices and moment-to-moment choices in the game.
Rewells,
I'm glad you agree! I have to admit, I only noticed this because I've taken a serious interest in studying most aspects of the Persona series. I'm writing an exploration fic once I've finished this other project, you see, so I need to understand most of the minor aspects of the game and how they all slot together. Persona 3 and 4 rank very easily as some of my favourite RPGs of all time, and I genuinely cannot wait to see if the Golden gets a European localization.
QUOTE (SteveJobs @ Mar 12 2012, 06:34 PM)
bulmabriefs144
Thats to bad to hear I like open world games, and I'm sure you game wasn't bad. I'm hoping people
wont rate down my game because they have to think. :/
I am not making an open world game exactly, perhaps a little bit like skyrim, but just not as open world.
Thats to bad to hear I like open world games, and I'm sure you game wasn't bad. I'm hoping people
wont rate down my game because they have to think. :/
I am not making an open world game exactly, perhaps a little bit like skyrim, but just not as open world.
I do too. My point being totally open doesn't work. You need some clear signs where to go (and then, if people ignore them, well, that's cool too). But you have to prepare for people not playing in two months and being unclear what to do next.
That said, you should make your game absolutely huge and sidequest filled, but it's a matter of adding direction. Final Fantasy IX is a good example, 2/3 of the game was not-so-subtle guiding, and then you were kinda cut loose to explore the world.
Hey!
If I can help with your Persona project let me know. Hae you by chance played Catherine for PS3. It is Atlus's latest big game and has the same anime style as Persona. I was thinking of getting it but I want to know if it's any good.
Rewells,
I'm glad you agree! I have to admit, I only noticed this because I've taken a serious interest in studying most aspects of the Persona series. I'm writing an exploration fic once I've finished this other project, you see, so I need to understand most of the minor aspects of the game and how they all slot together. Persona 3 and 4 rank very easily as some of my favourite RPGs of all time, and I genuinely cannot wait to see if the Golden gets a European localization.
If I can help with your Persona project let me know. Hae you by chance played Catherine for PS3. It is Atlus's latest big game and has the same anime style as Persona. I was thinking of getting it but I want to know if it's any good.
QUOTE (WanderingWordsmith @ Mar 13 2012, 11:26 AM)
QUOTE (rewells @ Mar 13 2012, 06:42 AM)
@ Wandering Wordsmith, That's awesome. I'm currently replaying Persona 4 for the second time and I was thinking about writing a post on how great it's battle system is. Every troop formation requires a different strategy. You have to figure them out trial-by-error for the most part. Strategies are easy to remember, but you (the main character) must have a persona that carries the skills that your teammates do not have. Creating Persona requires reading a bunch of text and level-grinding in the J-pop Dungeon Crawler from Hell, and then fusing them together to make better Persona. The system is so intricate it's crazy - I never even noticed the correlation between Arcana types and weaknesses. The game requires that you to pay attention in battle, and death is often a strong possibility. It's one of my top 5 favorite games ever, and a great example of an awesome battle system (if you can get past the ungodly-long but overall great cut-scenes).
QUOTE (WanderingWordsmith @ Mar 11 2012, 01:30 PM)
SJ,
For a great example of your design ideas in practice, take a look at Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, or SMT: Persona 4. Both are excellent examples of what you're describing, especially with how you summed it up in the conclusion.
If you're not familiar, Persona 3 and 4 employ a turn-based battle system that focusses more on strategy than just smacking a monster until it falls over. Here, you have to analyse the situation - this is also encouraged using in P3 with a support character who can analyse monsters after a few turns - and react appropriately. For example, one indication of a monster's weaknesses is the Arcana it uses, each of which corresponds to one of the first twelve major arcana of a tarot deck (Magician through to Hanged Man). Some have fairly obvious weaknesses through their appearances alone, and what's more, monsters that use the same arcana oft have the same weaknesses. Here, players are encouraged to focus on these details and plan strategies for each Arcana and each monster.
As an example, in the first block of Persona 3's central dungeon, Tartarus, there are two monsters that the party encounters, from two different 'families' of monster, the Maya and the Cupid. Both of these monsters belong to the Priestess Arcana.
Now, normally you'd encounter the Maya first because it's more common, so you learn that the Maya monster is weak to Garu (wind) and Bufu (ice) skills. Later, when you find the Cupid monster, you can notice if you pay attention that it also belongs to the Priestess Arcana. Seeing as it's a flying monster, you can safely assume that it's resistant to Garu skills, so you try Bufu, and discover that it's weak to it.
By applying these skill assumptions and experimenting, the player can navigate the dungeon and react to new monsters through simple strategic observations. What's more, making mistakes on the later floors - and on harder difficulties - will result in the party getting demolished with one careless attack or flawed strategy, so it mechanically encourages the player to make very careful decision with both party choices and moment-to-moment choices in the game.
For a great example of your design ideas in practice, take a look at Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, or SMT: Persona 4. Both are excellent examples of what you're describing, especially with how you summed it up in the conclusion.
If you're not familiar, Persona 3 and 4 employ a turn-based battle system that focusses more on strategy than just smacking a monster until it falls over. Here, you have to analyse the situation - this is also encouraged using in P3 with a support character who can analyse monsters after a few turns - and react appropriately. For example, one indication of a monster's weaknesses is the Arcana it uses, each of which corresponds to one of the first twelve major arcana of a tarot deck (Magician through to Hanged Man). Some have fairly obvious weaknesses through their appearances alone, and what's more, monsters that use the same arcana oft have the same weaknesses. Here, players are encouraged to focus on these details and plan strategies for each Arcana and each monster.
As an example, in the first block of Persona 3's central dungeon, Tartarus, there are two monsters that the party encounters, from two different 'families' of monster, the Maya and the Cupid. Both of these monsters belong to the Priestess Arcana.
Now, normally you'd encounter the Maya first because it's more common, so you learn that the Maya monster is weak to Garu (wind) and Bufu (ice) skills. Later, when you find the Cupid monster, you can notice if you pay attention that it also belongs to the Priestess Arcana. Seeing as it's a flying monster, you can safely assume that it's resistant to Garu skills, so you try Bufu, and discover that it's weak to it.
By applying these skill assumptions and experimenting, the player can navigate the dungeon and react to new monsters through simple strategic observations. What's more, making mistakes on the later floors - and on harder difficulties - will result in the party getting demolished with one careless attack or flawed strategy, so it mechanically encourages the player to make very careful decision with both party choices and moment-to-moment choices in the game.
Rewells,
I'm glad you agree! I have to admit, I only noticed this because I've taken a serious interest in studying most aspects of the Persona series. I'm writing an exploration fic once I've finished this other project, you see, so I need to understand most of the minor aspects of the game and how they all slot together. Persona 3 and 4 rank very easily as some of my favourite RPGs of all time, and I genuinely cannot wait to see if the Golden gets a European localization.
QUOTE (rewells @ Mar 14 2012, 12:27 PM)
Hey!
If I can help with your Persona project let me know. Hae you by chance played Catherine for PS3. It is Atlus's latest big game and has the same anime style as Persona. I was thinking of getting it but I want to know if it's any good.
If I can help with your Persona project let me know. Hae you by chance played Catherine for PS3. It is Atlus's latest big game and has the same anime style as Persona. I was thinking of getting it but I want to know if it's any good.
I might actually take you up on that. What's your experience?
As for Catherine, the folks at Extra Credits described it best. They called it a survival horror Q*bert with a mature plot and interesting moral choices, which Atlus are very good for. It's certainly an experience, from what I've heard, and you can't say they didn't try something new when looking at it. So, if you're looking for a Persona experience, I'd say no, but if you're looking for an experience, period, I'd definitely recommend it.
I hate to be the buzzkill in the room, but things are generally the way they are for a reason. Not always a good reason, but there are some serious advantages to having an extremely linear game.
First, let me say that Skyrim is my favorite game of all time, just as Oblivion was my favorite before it. I have a giant man-crush on open world, western RPGs with no class system or at least a very flexible and complex class system. That said, there's a reason there's so few of them. Skyrim was made by almost one hundred of the finest designers, took almost four years, god knows how many millions of dollars, and it's still a buggy mess. A buggy mess I love to death, but whenever I fight a dragon there's a 1/4th chance that it won't have a texture and looks like a giant purple dildo that breathes fire.
The problem with open world gameplay is that the more freedom you give the player, the less control the designer has and the more "same-ey" everything becomes. To cite my always-favorite examples, a dungeon in Skyrim will probably be brown, have a secret passage back to the beginning, a puzzle that you will take you've seen before but will take a minute or two, a leveled boss fight, and if you're lucky will have a cool underground waterfall or castle thrown in. They have to be that straightforward because there's over two hundred of them. Meanwhile, Half-Life 2 is practically a rail-shooter, but you find yourself balancing on the girders of a suspension bridge while fighting helicopters off with a rocket launcher as you leap from girder to girder. And then you're using a gravity gun to make debris bridges over sand to avoid awakening ant-lions. And then you're controling those ant-lions to tactically attack enemy turret positions. The only way you can afford to create such fantastic diversity is if you control where the player goes. The only way to have a battle with helicopters while balancing on the girders of a bridge is to force the player to go over the girders. If you tried make such set pieces with the opennes of Skyrim you would be in production for thirty years because you have to make set pieces like that for if the player walks over the bridge, or swims through, or goes around, or sneaks by the helicopters. When you open up possibilities like that to players, it's four times the work to make sure everything is HALF as good as one, linear path would be.
Ironically, the same problems apply when you avoid classes. When characters have set classes, it's much easier to determine that every skill and function will be useful and balanced in battle. That way you know that the Warrior can take plenty of damage, the mage can deal it out, the healer is necessary to keep everyone together, and the buff character is essential in boss fights but requires the other characters to fight for her. Everyone has a purpose but isn't overpowered. When a character can learn, literally, whatever they want, it's hard to avoid an unbalanced game. Skyrim is actually fantastically well balanced, but they've had five games to iterate and polish the crap out of their gameplay, and it was only when they took out levitation, mark and recall, spears, medium armor, merged all weapons into one and two handed, took out acrobatics and athletics, merged persuasion and mercantile, erased the ability to make your own spells, the entire mysticism school, and severly hampered the illusion school. And frankly, I think invisibility is still a little overpowered. They've had twenty years and hundreds of people to make that happen. It's hard for one person to do the same.
But what I'm NOT saying is that it's impossible. There are tons of games out there that are constructed purely to get the player to think, and there are beautiful, open-world masterpieces like Skyrim. What I AM saying is that you want to be careful what you tackle and what you don't. Maybe you want open world gameplay, but then you may not want to take on creating and balancing an open class system. Or maybe the alternative. It could also be a fun experiment to have a linear game with set classes, but where battle revolves around identifying what items, skills, and their combinations do. Kind of like a "fullmetal alchemist" battle system. If you're like me, you're one person. If you try to spin every plate in the universe, you're bound to drop some of them.
First, let me say that Skyrim is my favorite game of all time, just as Oblivion was my favorite before it. I have a giant man-crush on open world, western RPGs with no class system or at least a very flexible and complex class system. That said, there's a reason there's so few of them. Skyrim was made by almost one hundred of the finest designers, took almost four years, god knows how many millions of dollars, and it's still a buggy mess. A buggy mess I love to death, but whenever I fight a dragon there's a 1/4th chance that it won't have a texture and looks like a giant purple dildo that breathes fire.
The problem with open world gameplay is that the more freedom you give the player, the less control the designer has and the more "same-ey" everything becomes. To cite my always-favorite examples, a dungeon in Skyrim will probably be brown, have a secret passage back to the beginning, a puzzle that you will take you've seen before but will take a minute or two, a leveled boss fight, and if you're lucky will have a cool underground waterfall or castle thrown in. They have to be that straightforward because there's over two hundred of them. Meanwhile, Half-Life 2 is practically a rail-shooter, but you find yourself balancing on the girders of a suspension bridge while fighting helicopters off with a rocket launcher as you leap from girder to girder. And then you're using a gravity gun to make debris bridges over sand to avoid awakening ant-lions. And then you're controling those ant-lions to tactically attack enemy turret positions. The only way you can afford to create such fantastic diversity is if you control where the player goes. The only way to have a battle with helicopters while balancing on the girders of a bridge is to force the player to go over the girders. If you tried make such set pieces with the opennes of Skyrim you would be in production for thirty years because you have to make set pieces like that for if the player walks over the bridge, or swims through, or goes around, or sneaks by the helicopters. When you open up possibilities like that to players, it's four times the work to make sure everything is HALF as good as one, linear path would be.
Ironically, the same problems apply when you avoid classes. When characters have set classes, it's much easier to determine that every skill and function will be useful and balanced in battle. That way you know that the Warrior can take plenty of damage, the mage can deal it out, the healer is necessary to keep everyone together, and the buff character is essential in boss fights but requires the other characters to fight for her. Everyone has a purpose but isn't overpowered. When a character can learn, literally, whatever they want, it's hard to avoid an unbalanced game. Skyrim is actually fantastically well balanced, but they've had five games to iterate and polish the crap out of their gameplay, and it was only when they took out levitation, mark and recall, spears, medium armor, merged all weapons into one and two handed, took out acrobatics and athletics, merged persuasion and mercantile, erased the ability to make your own spells, the entire mysticism school, and severly hampered the illusion school. And frankly, I think invisibility is still a little overpowered. They've had twenty years and hundreds of people to make that happen. It's hard for one person to do the same.
But what I'm NOT saying is that it's impossible. There are tons of games out there that are constructed purely to get the player to think, and there are beautiful, open-world masterpieces like Skyrim. What I AM saying is that you want to be careful what you tackle and what you don't. Maybe you want open world gameplay, but then you may not want to take on creating and balancing an open class system. Or maybe the alternative. It could also be a fun experiment to have a linear game with set classes, but where battle revolves around identifying what items, skills, and their combinations do. Kind of like a "fullmetal alchemist" battle system. If you're like me, you're one person. If you try to spin every plate in the universe, you're bound to drop some of them.
QUOTE (KD648 @ Mar 14 2012, 12:12 PM)
Ironically, the same problems apply when you avoid classes. When characters have set classes, it's much easier to determine that every skill and function will be useful and balanced in battle. That way you know that the Warrior can take plenty of damage, the mage can deal it out, the healer is necessary to keep everyone together, and the buff character is essential in boss fights but requires the other characters to fight for her. Everyone has a purpose but isn't overpowered. When a character can learn, literally, whatever they want, it's hard to avoid an unbalanced game. Skyrim is actually fantastically well balanced, but they've had five games to iterate and polish the crap out of their gameplay, and it was only when they took out levitation, mark and recall, spears, medium armor, merged all weapons into one and two handed, took out acrobatics and athletics, merged persuasion and mercantile, erased the ability to make your own spells, the entire mysticism school, and severly hampered the illusion school. And frankly, I think invisibility is still a little overpowered. They've had twenty years and hundreds of people to make that happen. It's hard for one person to do the same.
Bah. Balance is for wimps. I actually prefer Daggerfall and Morrowind because it did have such things. Nah, classless system is fine, or rather very much do have classes but have very extreme differences between the classes (have a mage's guild where you can learn most spells, though ditch the custom spells system as that's buggy), but if you happen to be a warrior you can cast a high level spell like once before running out of mana. On the other hand if you're mage, you can't crit on attacks and have weak physical attack in general. Thief is able to multiple hit, and uses a medium amount of magic points in comparison to the first two. Monk uses no MP at all, but is able to shrug off magic spells. From there you can make variants, but basically just four characters.
You can choose from those, and select their sex, hair color, eye color, etc. Store it as a variable, and be sure to write this down. I'd say start characters with class magic (those that can use it), and learn from there, based on who is in the party. Hero's Realm has a good customization code.
It's just a matter of testing from the start the main stuff. The map should actually be the last thing added. Unlike conventional games, you can mainly just copy/paste a bazillion dragons scattered around with no ill effects. So mainly, the only deal with maps is art, and maybe the random aspects (weather, random enemies, etc).
I have to disagree and agree with you guys a few points. First off, open world games are the best. Having a massive world with hundreds of dungeons to explore and tons of sidequests is awesome. Hell, if I get bored stealing from people, I can go on a killing spree or go chop wood for money. I really enjoy RPG games, and I used to be pretty big in MMO's (not so much anymore). I can say that I never really got super into RPG stuff though, such as "Okay this monster can do X damage if I have this armor on but he can only do this much if I have this, but one gives me better magic resistance and the other gives me more power." I was the kinda guy who just boosted their parties attack with tons of strong weapons and then eventually increased their defense. Sure this made some games hard, but it's more of a challenge that way if you think about it. Hell, when I was playing FFX I completely forgot about the Sphere Grid until about half way through the game. I sat there thinking "When the hell am I going to learn some new spells/skills?" and then a friend came over and was like "Dude, why haven't you done ANY of the sphere grid?" So yeah, that's kinda how I play RPGs.
Anyway, I do have to say I disagree and slightly agree with what was originally said about RPGs being kinda simple now. Take Final Fantasy 13. Each map was literally a line with slight bumps and curves. You ran forward, the entire game. Sure there was the one part that was open field but the only thing you could do was free people from statues or whatever. In short, I never beat that game. I've heard 13-2 is better, but I'm not even going to attempt to play it. But I do have to say I HAAAAAATE when games give you so little information that I get fucking confused as hell. Lets say you go through the opening tutorial. You learn how to play and what-not and then a NPC says something like "The mayor of Cathia wants to see you, go see him right away!" and you know the town you're in is called Domin. So you open up your map and all it shows you is a huge continent with nothing but the name of the continent and a simple X of where you are. That's it. You get no more clues whatsoever and you have to literally run around battling for hours until you finally realize that you're on the other side of the continent and then somehow you realize that Cathia is the name of the strip club in the first damn town you were in, and then even after you go back you can't find the fucking thing! I don't mind a little arrow/radar/guidance in an RPG. I play those games for the story line, so I tend to rush through them, and if I feel like it was good enough I do another play through and kinda take my time.
@wanderingwordsmith and rewells
Catherine is an AWESOME game. I played it on the 360 and I have to say, it was difficult as hell (I played it on Normal difficulty). The story was pretty awesome and I love how they added some extra stuff like trivia. (If you drink a certain amount of booze, it will give you some information on it. I actually learned quite a bit.) When I first started playing it I was really turned off by the idea of how the game was played. After trying it again though I fell in love with it and couldn't put it down.
Anyway, I do have to say I disagree and slightly agree with what was originally said about RPGs being kinda simple now. Take Final Fantasy 13. Each map was literally a line with slight bumps and curves. You ran forward, the entire game. Sure there was the one part that was open field but the only thing you could do was free people from statues or whatever. In short, I never beat that game. I've heard 13-2 is better, but I'm not even going to attempt to play it. But I do have to say I HAAAAAATE when games give you so little information that I get fucking confused as hell. Lets say you go through the opening tutorial. You learn how to play and what-not and then a NPC says something like "The mayor of Cathia wants to see you, go see him right away!" and you know the town you're in is called Domin. So you open up your map and all it shows you is a huge continent with nothing but the name of the continent and a simple X of where you are. That's it. You get no more clues whatsoever and you have to literally run around battling for hours until you finally realize that you're on the other side of the continent and then somehow you realize that Cathia is the name of the strip club in the first damn town you were in, and then even after you go back you can't find the fucking thing! I don't mind a little arrow/radar/guidance in an RPG. I play those games for the story line, so I tend to rush through them, and if I feel like it was good enough I do another play through and kinda take my time.
@wanderingwordsmith and rewells
Catherine is an AWESOME game. I played it on the 360 and I have to say, it was difficult as hell (I played it on Normal difficulty). The story was pretty awesome and I love how they added some extra stuff like trivia. (If you drink a certain amount of booze, it will give you some information on it. I actually learned quite a bit.) When I first started playing it I was really turned off by the idea of how the game was played. After trying it again though I fell in love with it and couldn't put it down.
In a Theory of Fun by Ralph Kauster, he mentions that a player gains the most enjoyment out of a challenge that is just on the fringes of his capabilities. Nothing to easy, nothing too hard.
It's subjective though. Understand what audience you'll be reaching when you build your game the way you want it.
It's subjective though. Understand what audience you'll be reaching when you build your game the way you want it.
Not sure about that theory, Titan. Going back to the Daggerfall, I actually had no hope of beating the game (it really needed a guide), but I massively enjoyed the game. Mainly because even though the quest was hopeless, the job stuff was fun and if I was really bored I could break into random buildings and steal stuff from top to bottom and sell it for profit to the owner.
I think this is the key. If the main quest is hopeless, improve on the sidequests. If the main quest is too easy, improve on the sidequests. These help mitigate some of the issues above, by adding varying levels of challenge, to custom fit.
I think this is the key. If the main quest is hopeless, improve on the sidequests. If the main quest is too easy, improve on the sidequests. These help mitigate some of the issues above, by adding varying levels of challenge, to custom fit.
Well there's more ways of creating fun in a game than simply through challenge anyways, though as titan says fun is ultimately subjective. I personally like humour in the games I play, obviously there's a time and place when it comes to the typical grandeur of rpg storylines requiring you to save the world but normally I find a game that takes itself too seriously to be tedious.
I mean you can add plenty of little extras and a billion sidequests but they can feel like distractions, merely stalling for increased playtime, especially when you could have just turned a phrase or played with some words to make what already exists a little more entertaining.
@Rzr; I know what you mean about getting lost, especially at the beginning of the game when you aren't going to know the areas at all, but I've played games with the overhead arrow system and the game really did just become mindlessly following that arrow, especially on retrieving sidequests and stuff. Maybe sticking an indicator on the map or something would be a good compromise as it still requires some personal navigation.
I mean you can add plenty of little extras and a billion sidequests but they can feel like distractions, merely stalling for increased playtime, especially when you could have just turned a phrase or played with some words to make what already exists a little more entertaining.
@Rzr; I know what you mean about getting lost, especially at the beginning of the game when you aren't going to know the areas at all, but I've played games with the overhead arrow system and the game really did just become mindlessly following that arrow, especially on retrieving sidequests and stuff. Maybe sticking an indicator on the map or something would be a good compromise as it still requires some personal navigation.
I plan on getting rid of the pick your own hero idea. It would be easier to make a game with
actual characters and what not.
Rzr
I will keep in mind that some people do get lost easy, I get lost myself. FF10 I also never touched the spear grid
until I looked up a guide to see how to beat a boss, then I went ape shit, and boosted my attack beyond reality.
Also another thing I used to do was never buy any armor or weapons, but instead bought 99x potions. Now that
I look back I don't know how that was a good strategy.
Even though I got game play still floating around in my head I am going to start to think about
the story of my game. I want to keep the main story simple, and straight forward, but add side quest
to challenge the player in order to get better weapons, than the normal ones in the shops. The player
would also get a little bit more lore for doing side quest. I hope this idea would let the game be beatable
by not doing any side quest, and yet at the same time make the challenge seekers enjoy doing the
side quest happy. Hopefully adding a bunch of different side quest would add a bit of open world
game play for the people who love open world games.
Main Story Idea
Just the straight forward main character who some how gets cough up into stopping the
bad guy who is evil for some reason. The simple players who just play threw the story
would enjoy following this.
Side Quest Ideas
-Become a thief and steal treasurer that not only make you rich, but will tell you about some back
round information about the world you are playing in.
-Join a guild, and help hunt monsters that will be a bit more interesting than grinding, but at the same time
you would meat more characters making a more dynamic story.
-Pick some mushrooms, and milk a cow(unoriginal example) to make a nice potion that will make
you see in the past for a short time, and see what made the bad guy evil.
Those who enjoy open word, and detailed story telling would prefer doing these side quest.
actual characters and what not.
Rzr
I will keep in mind that some people do get lost easy, I get lost myself. FF10 I also never touched the spear grid
until I looked up a guide to see how to beat a boss, then I went ape shit, and boosted my attack beyond reality.
Also another thing I used to do was never buy any armor or weapons, but instead bought 99x potions. Now that
I look back I don't know how that was a good strategy.
Even though I got game play still floating around in my head I am going to start to think about
the story of my game. I want to keep the main story simple, and straight forward, but add side quest
to challenge the player in order to get better weapons, than the normal ones in the shops. The player
would also get a little bit more lore for doing side quest. I hope this idea would let the game be beatable
by not doing any side quest, and yet at the same time make the challenge seekers enjoy doing the
side quest happy. Hopefully adding a bunch of different side quest would add a bit of open world
game play for the people who love open world games.
Main Story Idea
Just the straight forward main character who some how gets cough up into stopping the
bad guy who is evil for some reason. The simple players who just play threw the story
would enjoy following this.
Side Quest Ideas
-Become a thief and steal treasurer that not only make you rich, but will tell you about some back
round information about the world you are playing in.
-Join a guild, and help hunt monsters that will be a bit more interesting than grinding, but at the same time
you would meat more characters making a more dynamic story.
-Pick some mushrooms, and milk a cow(unoriginal example) to make a nice potion that will make
you see in the past for a short time, and see what made the bad guy evil.
Those who enjoy open word, and detailed story telling would prefer doing these side quest.
QUOTE (SteveJobs @ Mar 18 2012, 04:38 AM)
Even though I got game play still floating around in my head I am going to start to think about
the story of my game. I want to keep the main story simple, and straight forward, but add side quest
to challenge the player in order to get better weapons, than the normal ones in the shops. The player
would also get a little bit more lore for doing side quest. I hope this idea would let the game be beatable
by not doing any side quest, and yet at the same time make the challenge seekers enjoy doing the
side quest happy. Hopefully adding a bunch of different side quest would add a bit of open world
game play for the people who love open world games.
Main Story Idea
Just the straight forward main character who some how gets cough up into stopping the
bad guy who is evil for some reason. The simple players who just play threw the story
would enjoy following this.
Side Quest Ideas
-Become a thief and steal treasurer that not only make you rich, but will tell you about some back
round information about the world you are playing in.
-Join a guild, and help hunt monsters that will be a bit more interesting than grinding, but at the same time
you would meat more characters making a more dynamic story.
-Pick some mushrooms, and milk a cow(unoriginal example) to make a nice potion that will make
you see in the past for a short time, and see what made the bad guy evil.
Those who enjoy open word, and detailed story telling would prefer doing these side quest.
the story of my game. I want to keep the main story simple, and straight forward, but add side quest
to challenge the player in order to get better weapons, than the normal ones in the shops. The player
would also get a little bit more lore for doing side quest. I hope this idea would let the game be beatable
by not doing any side quest, and yet at the same time make the challenge seekers enjoy doing the
side quest happy. Hopefully adding a bunch of different side quest would add a bit of open world
game play for the people who love open world games.
Main Story Idea
Just the straight forward main character who some how gets cough up into stopping the
bad guy who is evil for some reason. The simple players who just play threw the story
would enjoy following this.
Side Quest Ideas
-Become a thief and steal treasurer that not only make you rich, but will tell you about some back
round information about the world you are playing in.
-Join a guild, and help hunt monsters that will be a bit more interesting than grinding, but at the same time
you would meat more characters making a more dynamic story.
-Pick some mushrooms, and milk a cow(unoriginal example) to make a nice potion that will make
you see in the past for a short time, and see what made the bad guy evil.
Those who enjoy open word, and detailed story telling would prefer doing these side quest.
I think you could develop on this substantially.
Some games do this crudely, and others really well, but why not have the side quests affect the main plot directly?
Say on a side quest you happen to find details surrounding a slave trade, but you're not high enough a level to do anything about it. Later, in the main plot, a mercenary is hired to kill you. That mercenary is sent to kill you because the bad guys (whoever they may be) have stolen someone important to him and placed them in the slave trade. He will get them back if he kills you.
Main quest (normal) you have to kill the guy.
Main quest (with side quest) you can inform him of the slave trades location, avoiding the fight altogether. Later this unlocks a side quest where you help him take down the slave trade, which makes pretty much the entire country love you for saving everyone, and unlocks more side quests.
It's a lot more work to put in, but it would reward players substantially for doing more. Also, while the main plot can be simple (go here, do this) the side quests/plots can be harder to figure out (here is a problem, solve it yourself) so you can effectively entertain any audience, regardless of their skill level.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.