Quote:Original post by JBourrie
Anyway, my idea of an RPG is certainly different than many peoples, and it's because I'm trying as hard as I can to prove how dated the Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy systems are. Apparently Square felt similarly, because the new combat system for FFXII is worlds better than anything they have previously done and the entire second act of the game puts the story on the sidelines and gives you a huge adventure spanning most of the world without being continually interrupted by cutscenes and minigames.

Ahah, so this is why our opinions differ so much. [smile] I, for one, thought that FFXII sucked ass in both the battle system and in the mini-games (mini-game == hunts == same crap as the real game). I found their battle system very uninteresting (although S-E tried something new, so I give them props for that). I mean all that I did was walk around and basically "program" my characters to do all the real work. I found most battles in that game to be even more mindless than the battles of the original Final Fantasy games on the NES. But if that's what you like, I don't fault you for that. (I have yet to beat FFXII, as I've found the game so boring and repetitive that I don't even have the motivation to finish it. How sad is that?)

I still think Final Fantasy VI was the best of them all (I haven't played XI though, damn MMORPGs!). I would place XII at the bottom of my list.

Quote:Original post by Afr0m@n
Oh, and as for the graphics, please don't make them 3D, and at least don't make them pseudo-realistic! 3D RPGs with pseudo-realistic graphics sucks bigtime! IMHO, either strive for something like World of Warcraft (if you're going to do 3D), or aim for something like the graphics for the Pokemon games for the Gameboy Advance, with a better resolution.

I also like 2D RPGs better than 3D, but that is at least partially influenced by nostalgia. I think 3D RPGs absolutely have their place in the gaming work (just because its 3D doesn't mean it sucks big time...). The reasons I am doing my game in 2D (from a design stand point) are: 1) I like the look & feel and simplicity of 2D games, 2) Most professional RPGs are 3D nowadays, so I didn't want to work on something that looks like every other major RPG being developed.

Quote:Original post by KungFooMasta
My interests seem more aligned with Roots.

Yay, an ally. *** KungFooMasta has joined your party! *** [grin]

Quote:Original post by KungFooMasta
As for mini-game's they are usually fun. Instead of kill-kill-story-kill-story-kill-etc, there are times when you need a break from that cycle. It doesn't mean that battles are boring, but fighting should not be the only way to progress through the game.

Agreed. I don't think that adding a mini-game into your game necessarily indicates that you are doing something wrong. Rather, you are recognizing that in a 40+ hour RPG, the same gameplay can get boring after a while, and you need to provide the player with something refreshing every now and then. We have to keep in mind that RPGs are typically much longer than games in other genres, so we have to compensate for that accordingly.



Good discussion. [grin]

Quote:Original post by KungFooMasta
My interests seem more aligned with Roots.

JBourrie, the gameplay you describe seem to be fitting for Zelda games, while Roots would be similar to the Final Fantasy series or Star Ocean TTEOT.

I admit that I'm more inspired by Zelda/Secret of Mana than by the more traditional "JRPGs".

Quote:I don't believe the average user will write down each stat and figure out the formula to calculate damage.

I sure hope not, or we're all alot geekier than we originally thought [lol]

Quote:Nor should it be simple enough for all users to figure out and remember. If you want predictable and simple, you would play wii sports bowling.

That is an unfair comparison. A closer comparison would be to Paper Mario or Ultima IX or Deus Ex, because they minimize stats and number crunching without sacrificing the gameplay experience.

Quote:You should not have all the information available to you, such as a rabit will die with 3 sword strikes.

I think people are reading my "formula" incorrectly:

Attack minus Defense plus Special Modifiers

The "special modifiers" is the key, and I tried to make that more clear in my second post (apparently not clear enough). I think my mistake was in my "31 damage difference" comment: that difference is important, but only if the player knows why that difference exists.

In my opinion, the player should know "In the standard case, I do 100 damage". Not "my attack power is 87, and somehow that translates into 850 damage". Then the players own fighting style (see my previous post) will influence the damage you do by noticeable margins. While this does lend itself to real-time, it could be possible (and very unique) in turn-based combat as well... but I could type all day if I got into that.

Quote:As for equipment, it may seem tedious, but it's also exciting to come to a new area and see what the merchants provide. Sweet, a new Battle Axe!

But what do you do with your old battle axe? You sell it. So you perform two dull actions (buying and selling) in order to get a basic stat increase. Sounds tedious, we can do better.

Quote:Equip that and see the new look.

What if I don't like the new look? What if I prefer the old look, but now the weapon is useless because the new one is better in every way? This has happened to me SO many times... kind of kills the whole "customization" thing. Not to mention the wasted art assets when you create new weapons/armor that will only be used for a short time before thrown out and never touched again.

Quote:It should make you want to run out into the woods and kill a few goblins. The same with magic and other skills. There should be some sort of checks and balances, but the beginning *rusty dagger* should do nothing to any opponents near the end of the game. (unless there are baby rats present)

Nope. And "rusty dagger" shouldn't be one of your weapon choices. Neither should "stick", "wooden sword", or anything else that a player would never choose to wield in real life.

Quote:As for mini-game's they are usually fun. Instead of kill-kill-story-kill-story-kill-etc, there are times when you need a break from that cycle. It doesn't mean that battles are boring, but fighting should not be the only way to progress through the game.

Unless it's a game thats all about the fighting :)

Lets replace "kill" with "play" (encompassing your games core mechanics).

play-play-story-play-story-play is the way these games are usually designed.

Minigames are basically another "game".

play-play-story-playGame2-story-play-playGame3-play-story

I don't like that interruption, but as I've said before it's just one of my peeves.

What I really don't like about this setup is the original premise that "play" and "story" are separated from each other by those little dashes. Why don't we remove those little dashes and make the story part of the gameplay, and the gameplay part of the story? Important actions I perform are what create the story, every story action adds something to the gameplay?

Now before there is more misunderstanding, I'm not talking about fully interactive storytelling. The story can be completely designer-driven if you really need to do it that way. All I'm saying is that whenever possible, the plot exposition should happen simultaneously with the gameplay. And if there is a way to do it, player actions should have an effect (however minimal) on the plot.

Quote:Also, I don't see what is so great about ff12. Most of the people I talk to share the same opinion I do, which is that the battle system sucks. Now you just walk up to enemies and *auto-attack* and sit back. They've moved to a more automated system similar to MMORPGs. great.

FFXII has taken the micromanagement out of the combat system, and instead puts the player in a managerial role. Instead of combat consisting of "attack, attack, heal" it is about pre-planning your battle and then reacting to holes in your battle plan. You are a commander, and because of this it can crank out battles 10x faster than previous games in the series without becoming tedious. Of course, everybody has their own preferences... some people prefer the old style (which is what this conversation has been all about [grin])

[Edited by - JBourrie on May 7, 2007 6:26:27 PM]

Just wanted to add:

I feel like we're stuck in "multimedia" land. Games are everything: visuals, audio, interactivity, story, all wrapped up in a nice shiny package! When actually, I look at games as a singular entity. Though it contains all of those other things, the end product is more than just a combination of different media, it should be more than just the sum of its parts.

That's why I think everything should be in harmony with each other... even the UI should be part of the same experience as the story, gameplay, etc. It's all one package, all one medium.

Edit:

Quote:Agreed. I don't think that adding a mini-game into your game necessarily indicates that you are doing something wrong. Rather, you are recognizing that in a 40+ hour RPG, the same gameplay can get boring after a while, and you need to provide the player with something refreshing every now and then. We have to keep in mind that RPGs are typically much longer than games in other genres, so we have to compensate for that accordingly.

If you have to compensate, you are doing something wrong [grin]

If your gameplay doesn't hold up for 40+ hours, don't make it 40+ hours long. I was bored to tears by Zelda: Twilight Princess because the gameplay formula didn't hold up to the 80 hours of play time. If it was 30-40 hours, it would have been a brilliant game.

Fable was one of my favorite games of last generation, clocking in at 15 hours (20 for The Lost Chapters). But that 15 hours was polished and a whole lot of fun.

[Edited by - JBourrie on May 7, 2007 6:44:41 PM]

Quote:Original post by kanato
I only played the demo of FFXII...

Then you didn't play FFXII :)

The demo was so different from the full version that going back and playing it now I kind of shake my head and wonder "why did they show it at such an early, hacked together state?"

I almost didn't buy it after playing the demo.

The standard argument that FFXII is a "hands-off" combat system is too much of a simplification. The interaction is at a different level. I find myself constantly changing my tactics and taking control of my characters, I feel like the decisions that I do make are more meaningful than in previous games (where I would often just hold down the A button so that they would continually choose "attack" over and over until the enemy is dead).

Well, no point in arguing back and forth about whether or not FFXII was a good game. Everybody has their own preferences, and everybody knows that mine are the "correct" ones! [lol]

Dennis Dyack says games should be shorter. Discuss. :)

[Edited by - JBourrie on May 7, 2007 6:22:59 PM]

Back on the topic of equipment, I'd like to explain what we are doing in Hero of Allacrost and see what the critiques here think (especially you JBourrie!). Its not a completely original idea mind you, so we're not claiming any uniqueness factor here. [lol]


The idea calls for slots and shards. Every piece of equipment (weapons + armor) have zero to a small number of slots as a part of their properties. In these slots, the player can embed shards. Shards are small...well, shards that imbue special properties into the equipment that they are embedded in. For example, a shard could increase attack or defense power, provide for a small amount of elemental or status protection, etc. Shards are rare items in the game and will not be found easily (nor will they be found in an unlimited supply). It -is- possible to remove and re-arrange shards from equipment, so its not an embed-once-only deal (like it is in Diablo 2, which I find mildly annoying). With this feature, we hope to allow the player to feel like they have a little more control over the configuration of their characters, and also to introduce some strategy in setting up and buying equipment.


What do you think? Do you have any clever ideas to improve such a feature?

Sounds like materia without the connected slots. Not that it's a bad thing, the materia system was decent enough.

To make the most out of this system, I would suggest that you make it a main centerpiece of your character progression/customization. If your character classes are already pre-determined you'll lose all of the benefits of this system.

Bad example: If one of my characters is pre-designed as a "warrior", then by default I will be attacking more with him than the others. Because of this, I will always put all "attack up" shards in his weapon, which means I really am not making a choice, I'm just putting it in the only slot that makes sense.

Good example: If all of my characters could potentially be a powerful fighter, then I have some interesting choices to make. I have two attack up shards: do I put them both on one guy and make him an uber-fighter? Or do I make two moderately powerful fighters? The more possibilities that make sense, the more interesting your customization system could be.

--- A tangent

Square has gone too far in the "customization" direction in this regard... every character in FFXII is the same as every other character, Penelo could be your badass sword fighter while Basch could be your Archer/Healer... and that's just dumb. With no difference between characters, it doesn't really matter who you are using in your party.

I don't know exactly how the gameplay in Alacrost works, so I'm going to use a example case that might spark an idea or two. In this shards system, one possibility could be that each character uses a particular type of weapon with it's own unique traits and are trained in a different school of magic (with some crossover... each school should have both heal and damage spells, though they could function somewhat differently. Drain (necro) VS Cure (white), that sort of thing.).

An Attack Up shard would increase the attack of any weapon, so if you prefer to use a gun (Distance attacks, ignores defense, misses often*) you would put it on your gun user and you could use him as your main attacker. If you instead prefer your axe user to be the powerhouse (slow, high chance of critical hits) you could give it to him.

Similarly with magic, if you want to focus more on necromancy you would give your necro more magic shards. And so on.

Basically, instead of deciding what class each character is, you decide which class skills you want to amplify for each character.

--- Another tangent

I think it's important that a player have to strategize their custom character to work in multiple situations, from normal combat to bosses. Since the shard placements aren't permanent, it might tempt a player to constantly remap their shards depending on what is coming up next. While it sounds like a good deal to give the player that freedom, the Final Fantasy VIII junction system proved that just because we will micromanage doesn't mean that it's fun to do so.

A good solution to this is to make the shard placement semi-permanent. In other words, only allow shard changing in town so you need to plan out your shards for not only overworld and dungeon exploring, but the threat of having boss fights as well.


Hopefully this helps spark some ideas, or at least help solidify the fact that I'm a nutcase.



* Yes, I thought about it and I will admit that missed attacks are important in a turn-based system. Still obnoxious in real-time, though.

[Edited by - JBourrie on May 7, 2007 6:54:27 PM]