Cutdown on battles

[kayden997 84]

Gameplay and story are one thing. You interact with the environment in order to progress through the story. Battles are a completely different aspect.

 

Battles are used for for filler, roadblocks, challenge, meta game, and even the end game objective. Gameplay for battles aren't hard to figure out in most: select attack or skill, select target, let the sparks fly. Developers add a few twists to with with different abilities, states, resistance, etc. but it all boils down on how often the player will be put through this.

 

I can't tell you how many times I've played RPGs having battles used as just filler and character stat progression. The story, environment, and world is what makes it interesting and more fulfilling to continue. I know that the later levels will include me and two others using our skill and items to take down the health bloated monster. But does it really have to be such a struggle to make it to that point? Am I really focusing on the story now or am I focusing on how many feinds it will take to get another stat point to add to my dexterity.

 

Unless the battles are unique every time I enter one, it will seem unnessesary to me to even try.

 

Are my reasons far fetched? Do you agree or disagree with my points? Call 1-800-combat5, and see if the rest of America is with you.

[Blindga 144]

I kind of disagree. I think you aren't quite seeing what a good battle system can do to make a game interesting.

 

It's very easy to make the mistake of using a battle system that doesn't contribute anything to the game. It's not a grievous mistake. Many rpg games try to imitate that basic, grind-y nature of old rpg games. But if done unintentionally it can annoy the player.

 

In story, battles need to have a purpose, or contribute to the world in some way. Why is this thing attacking me? What is the motive? What is it's nature? What is it's history? Answering these few questions can help give you a better grasp as to why battles happen in your game's universe and help you integrate combat into the story to make fights more interesting. Combat systems portray conflict in the game. Conflict is good for a story, but if your game's mechanics aren't telling your story right then you have a problem.

 

The game definitely shouldn't be a chore to play in any case. How you use your mechanics should depend on what kind of experience you want the player to have. Battles are a good way to immerse the player into the world and make them feel the grit and harshness of the protagonist's struggles, but you should pay attention to how you use them. Basic rpg mechanics will work fine if you are sparse and easy with your use of combat, but if you want fighting to be a major part of the game you have to get more creative than plain turn-based combat. Long strategic battles are boring to a lot of people (not everyone of course). If the story is moving too slowly because of too much combat, then it turns off people who are interested in the story and are eager to progress.

 

You also, of course, have the option to ignore strategic rpg battles completely. There are plenty of other ways to portray conflict, such as with an ABS type system or even with a visual novel choice type system. Or maybe your game has no combat at all, or there is but the game makes the player want to avoid it. There are a lot of ways to give your game 'action' without having them face hordes of the same monster over and over.

 

My rule personal opinion on rpg battles and rule of thumb on this:

 

Acknowledge the enemy's role in the game and give them the correct amount of attention. Common enemies are just for fodder and character stat progression, so they should die fast and not impede progress. Bosses related to the story should also be short and not too hard, as you want the player to be able to continue the story quickly, not come back to it frustrated after a long and difficult fight. If you want to make battles that are long and hard, make them optional or avoidable. Let the player decide if they want to take on the challenge. Don't force anything. If you make efforts to welcome and immerse players in your game, they will like it more, and will be more willing to explore and challenge it than if they are forced to do so. Making a hard game likable is, ironically, very hard, so consider that too. And of course, good gameplay mechanics make all this easier.

 

But that's just my opinion

[- Z - 30]

Are my reasons far fetched? Do you agree or disagree with my points?

-kayden997

 

Well, I find your looks of battling interesting, since I never thought of this in my own game.

So i don't agree or disagree with you. I'd rather tell you my own opinion of battles.

 

Battles is basically the gameplay of the RPG. I mean, I haven't known any Rpg that doesn't have this

concept of enemies coming after you left and right. Most just add battles so that the player has something

else to do besides being involve in the story.

 

This isn't always a good thing, at least in my opinion.

 

If the battlers, like you said, aren't necessarily needed, then they may feel out

of place. I mean, if random encounters, especially if the player battles, let's just say, a six legged orge lion

thing, have no background to the encounter, then why is it FIGHTING YOU? What, you disturbed it of

its nap time?

 

Of course, I've haven't seen any Rpg not follow this concept. It's a universal thing. All RPG, from the first to

the current, have this battle-after-battler-after-battle system. If it had a different system, then it wouldn't

be classified as an RPG, then. If it's no battles and all story, then that's a visual novel.

If it story fusioned with puzzles, then it would be a puzzle-type of game.

 

In summary, depending on how the battle system is implemented, it decides whether its a vital part of the

game or just a waste of time. Every battle can't be unique, at least not all the time. But, we (by we, I refer

to most players) mostly don't remember the battles. We mostly remember what all those battles lead to.

Either a big reveal of the story, or the next step to the end of the adventure.

 

(I pardon if i sound like I'm ranting, but this is all my opinion on this)

[Swifty49 1]

It's an interesting perspective for sure. I can agree to an extent that an overload of battles, especially random encounters based on steps/timers can be the worst offender in RPGs. Sometimes you just want to get from point A to point B... having to fight every single bunny, frog, wisp and spider in the kingdom on the way and back can really, really make me tune out sometimes and lose perspective on why I even cared to go from A to B.

 

That being said, I think when the combat is paced properly and the fights are trigger based, it can help elevate a game to better heights. As you progress through the story and progress your character through combat, if it's done properly, it can add to the "epicness" of your group of adventurers. You're progressively getting more experienced and can dispatch enemies quickly. Mega thumbs up if battles are encounter based with dialogue where having the right answers can have you avoid combat entirely and still get all the good stuff you would've had if you fought. At the very least it gave options to both types of players; the story player and the combat player.

 

If the combat is interesting and not overly done, it's certainly enjoyable, for me anyways, and can turn the act of doing quests from boring to interesting very quickly. If the game gives you a reason to dislike a group of enemies/factions, then going out and hunting down said enemies can definitely be much more enjoyable and makes the act of wiping them out satisfying.

 

The other thing I typically can't stand in certain games is the ridiculously overdone Japanese style of combat animations that can take up to 20 seconds, taking the enemy all the way up into the sky and slamming them down through the earth, etc. While these can be incredible if they're meant to be a very special, rare ability that can be only used on certain occasions, some games throw these animations around for every single ability and every single character in your party. This causes every round(1 attack per character) to take minutes sometimes... that'll make me tune out and stop playing very quickly.

 

To each their own, I guess!

[Hikitsu 31]

For me, Battles are the most exciting part of the Games I make. I tend to focus on it more than Storyline or Character Development, Maybe because it's just me. I find myself often spending days designing Skills and Equipments.

 

I am not sure I agree or disagree with you because you are both right and wrong. Honestly, The Default Battle System does look lame and can get boring pretty soon. However, If you can accommodate a Good Battle system (Which would be anything other than the default Battle System), It would be interesting. To give you an example, I came across this Script -   "Magic Shards, By Galv". With it, You could decide what Skills you could carry to Battle. I'm sure there are plenty of Scripts like these. 

 

With such a Fluid Battle system, A Team of say 3 - 4 Players, One would never get bored. Hence, I find Battle System the most important part of making a game. (Not saying you can't make a good game without focusing much on Battle system, But this is just my personal opinion).

Edited September 6, 2013 by Hikitsu

[magic2345 252]

Well, in my opinion, there's no way you can avoid making the player bored in terms of random battles. Someway or another, after say, 5 to 10, or even just 1 hour of the game, players will almost always get bored and/or tired. I say this because it happens to me all the time. This is when I would take a break from the game and do something else. But suddenly, if the game is interesting enough, I get this strong urge to play the game again, even if its a grindfest. That's because I wonder what would happen next in the story. Well, that's just me though.

 

But, I have to say...the feeling after beating a really hard boss is irreplaceable (I'm looking at you Ys).

[+ dbchest 160]

i agree entirely with Kayden's base post, however i don't truly believe that battles are mind numbing in every game. most "professional" games i play have battle systems that even when there is a stupid high occurence rate, i'm adequately satisfied or truly don't mind all of the button mashing. these guys are the pros though. they have numerous teams developing great games. teams that specialize solely on creating genuine battle systems. "we" are NOT the pros. as individuals, we lack the depth and collective thought processing of a team effort to generate truly immersive battle systems (most of the time). *i'm looking at you Galv* (i'm jealous of your ability to generate original and creative work. i saw your website for your scripts, also. very nice stuff).

 

i believe Kayden is accurate to imply that as indie developers we absolutely need to take a step back and analyze our work, and understand the challenges they present (especially in the battle system) to the player's entertainment.

[burge 9]

I think battles - if done properly - are a great way to make the player feel more powerful as the game moves on.  The area that was too difficult at the beginning of the game is now a cakewalk, and it's pretty satisfying to go through it like a steamroller to get to the goal at the end.

 

Random battles on the overworld in my opinion are no good.  Maybe if the player ventures off the road or something then it would make more sense, but moving from town to town to progress story is a pain when you keep getting interrupted by random fight time-sinks.

[+ dbchest 160]

burge is spot on. for my project, i decided it would be best to leave high occurence enemy encounters to areas known specifically as dungeons. in this manner, the player knows that when discussions in the storyline lead to "dungeons," this is when they'll focus on preparing for a fight. now they know they need to visit the blacksmith and upgrade weapons, buy items, etc, because they're in for a constant struggle throughout the "dungeon."

 

when exploring the world, however, you're lucky to have three or four enemy encounters on maps that are 100 x 100 and take you five or six minutes to cross. when exploring the world, i focus primarily on exploration and the harvesting of resources through (mining, harvesting, etc...). during your travels between cities and dungeons, etc...your goals are clear. gather as many new resources as possible while completing your trek. when you finally reach new cities and such, it is a pleasant errand to go to the blacksmith, or the accessory shop and see what your new materials can be crafted into.

 

i want the player to be able to lose himself in the sub features of the game. i try to make them as entertaining and satisfying as possible. in this manner, the general gameplay stays very light and fun. when you're not struggling to fight through dungeon on storyline related travels, you truly get to explore a new world and take part in all it offers.

[Tsarmina 2,612]

I think those random battles with random monsters who wander around for now reason are very annoying. But a good boss battle or even just a good regular battle that's well-crafted can be interesting once in a while. For one, I really don't like battles at all (I find them very bland), so I'm involved with lots of non-fighting games. That being said, a battle is a trademark of RPG, so.