19 replies to this topic

[jdturner11]

You guys ready for a conceptual and inconclusive discussion? Come on down!


Before I start, let me introduce myself. My name is JD, I'm new to game design - I'm twenty. Let's get on with it !


Ideas. Ideas are fun, we all have them. I'm not surprised that GameDev is full of people that are just kicking around ideas; I am surprised ,however, over the constructive criticism and general helpful attitude. Kudos to you, gamedev community! While I'm not going to share my personal ideas, I think a much more growing experience would be had from pontificating over concepts and references. The things to discuss are sporadically presented, they are not coherent within each other except the fact they have to do with game design. I think a lot of people will disagree with this way of presenting a thread but I'd like to experiment and see if a conducive conversation (alliteration!) results.

Here are the topics, pick whatever you want and give your thought:

"Elements" within gaming

This is prevalent. I don't think I need to tell ANYONE about the utilization of Fire,Earth,Air, and Water within video games. But why? Is it because someone adapted this idea successfully ( I know this definition of elements has been around for hundreds of ages, but I'm talking about it's use in video games) and from here on it has created unlimited nostalgia? Think about it - it is very strange we have held this idea for so long. what is so appealing about this? I am, too, drawn to it and can't explain why. I'd love to hear insight on this.

Sparse Multiplayer

The only example I can think of right now is Dark Souls and it doesn't QUITE fit the definition entirely. In the utilization of online components that are used in tandem WITH singeplayer, how does someone create a complete experience without making the game have a "segmented" vibe. Darksouls use of anonymity was brilliant and the small dose of player interaction within your singeplayer feels very organic. However, the game can fall apart during PvP, though I have a feeling that is largely due to connectivity. How would another game do this successfully with a more interactive community that allowed conversation with others in game?

Condition not Damage

Hit points have been in the industry for who knows how long. A measurable form of health is/was a great idea. With this system becoming increasingly cliche, how would a game developer combat(haha pun) this? Can a new process be implemented where speed, momentum, and trauma be simulated to check for death that isn't over complicated and CPU intensive? I know of games that don't have health bars, but I haven't known of one that has the above included. Is there a game that does this already?


Performance and It's Effects

I see a lot of let's play videos that have less than optimal framerate. These players, however, still enjoy the game. How optimized must a game be and how necessary is it for it's success? Are these players just making the best out of a bad situation or are they having just as much enjoyment as other players who can run it with 60+ FPS?


That's all for now, enjoy! Thanks for lookin' .




ps - No spell checker? I'm becoming increasingly surprised with the amount of forums that ignore this feature. Kind of silly, if you ask me.

[FLeBlanc]

You guys ready for a conceptual and inconclusive discussion? Come on down!


Before I start, let me introduce myself. My name is JD, I'm new to game design - I'm twenty.

Howdy.

While I'm not going to share my personal ideas,

Why not? Specific ideas are a much more useful topic of discussion than airy generalities and vague notions.

I think a much more growing experience would be had from pontificating over concepts and references.

I've never really seen this to be the case, to be honest. Generalities are just that: general. Success in game development comes down on the level of specifics: specific implementations, specific simulations, etc...

"Elements" within gaming

This is prevalent. I don't think I need to tell ANYONE about the utilization of Fire,Earth,Air, and Water within video games. But why? Is it because someone adapted this idea successfully ( I know this definition of elements has been around for hundreds of ages, but I'm talking about it's use in video games) and from here on it has created unlimited nostalgia? Think about it - it is very strange we have held this idea for so long. what is so appealing about this? I am, too, drawn to it and can't explain why. I'd love to hear insight on this.

It's a neat and tidy simplification of the complexity of reality. It's used quite a lot in fantasy fiction as well. The rough correspondence with the states of matter + energy means that it "just works" as a representation of reality, without dealing with the extremely messy details of actual reality. Since games are all about abstraction and simplification of specific concepts, the 4 Elements representation (or some slightly more complicated derivative thereof) is seemingly tailor-made for the problem.

Sparse Multiplayer

The only example I can think of right now is Dark Souls and it doesn't QUITE fit the definition entirely. In the utilization of online components that are used in tandem WITH singeplayer, how does someone create a complete experience without making the game have a "segmented" vibe. Darksouls use of anonymity was brilliant and the small dose of player interaction within your singeplayer feels very organic. However, the game can fall apart during PvP, though I have a feeling that is largely due to connectivity. How would another game do this successfully with a more interactive community that allowed conversation with others in game?

I'll pass on this one, since I personally steer clear of any multi-player. Don't really need other people to enjoy playing games, and in fact having to deal with them can sap my enjoyment.

Condition not Damage

Hit points have been in the industry for who knows how long. A measurable form of health is/was a great idea. With this system becoming increasingly cliche, how would a game developer combat(haha pun) this? Can a new process be implemented where speed, momentum, and trauma be simulated to check for death that isn't over complicated and CPU intensive? I know of games that don't have health bars, but I haven't known of one that has the above included. Is there a game that does this already?

Pretty much every new, young developer sets out to eliminate hit points. Unfortunately, the hitpoint-free renaissance never comes, at least to the RPG genres (which this post feels like it is about). As with the 4 Elements, hitpoints are a convenient abstraction that simplifies the ugly and complex reality. I've personally tried any number of alternative systems (damage to body parts, etc...) and nothing has ever matched the pure elegance of the hitpoint abstraction. It's far from perfect, I understand that, but within the constraints presented by interaction with video games everything else seems, to me, like an awkward hack that ultimately detracts from the experience of the game. And taking the risk of having your game feel awkward, clunky or hackish is a pretty large risk to take in the current cut-throat economy.

Performance and It's Effects

I see a lot of let's play videos that have less than optimal framerate. These players, however, still enjoy the game. How optimized must a game be and how necessary is it for it's success? Are these players just making the best out of a bad situation or are they having just as much enjoyment as other players who can run it with 60+ FPS?

I dunno. You can't really group all players up wholesale and say what their motivations might be. But it feels to me that, these days at least, players have a certain understanding about how modern systems perform. They're becoming accustomed to the interruptions in performance provided by anti-virus, background tasks, etc... to a degree that would have been unthinkable in the early days of gaming when machines utilized multi-tasking and multi-threading to a far lesser extent, and were more "dedicated". Personally, I can remember growing frustrated with games that performed slowly on my old 286 machine, enough to shut them off and never play again, whereas now I just shrug it off and wait to see if performance kicks back up in a few minutes, or just overlook it altogether. However, back then the game would have been the only program running (atop a DOS shell) on the machine, whereas now there are hundreds of background tasks running, each with their attendant hit to system resources. That's just the way of modern computing.

[Suspense]

"Elements" within gaming

This is prevalent. I don't think I need to tell ANYONE about the utilization of Fire,Earth,Air, and Water within video games. But why? Is it because someone adapted this idea successfully ( I know this definition of elements has been around for hundreds of ages, but I'm talking about it's use in video games) and from here on it has created unlimited nostalgia? Think about it - it is very strange we have held this idea for so long. what is so appealing about this? I am, too, drawn to it and can't explain why. I'd love to hear insight on this.

Using the four elements as themes in levels/areas in a game is an easy way to give them distinctive looks and feels. It allows the player to instantly recognize the type of environment they're in and understand what types of dangers they can expect.

Condition not Damage

Hit points have been in the industry for who knows how long. A measurable form of health is/was a great idea. With this system becoming increasingly cliche, how would a game developer combat(haha pun) this? Can a new process be implemented where speed, momentum, and trauma be simulated to check for death that isn't over complicated and CPU intensive? I know of games that don't have health bars, but I haven't known of one that has the above included. Is there a game that does this already?

Dwarf Fortress tracks damage by type and seriousness on each body part for every creature in the game. No hit points to be seen.

[VReality]

Here's a little meta-discussion for you.

Ideas are fun, we all have them. I'm not surprised that GameDev is full of people that are just kicking around ideas; I am surprised ,however, over the constructive criticism and general helpful attitude. Kudos to you, gamedev community! While I'm not going to share my personal ideas...

I don't know if you think your ideas aren't worth discussing, or if you consider them potentially too valuable to share, so this is not necessarily about you... But I think people in general tend to heavily over-value ideas.

This applies to every industry. Apple didn't invent the computer GUI, or the mouse, or the personal-digital music player, or the cell-phone combo-device, or the tablet computer, or the minimalist interface, or mobile web-browsing, or online commerce, or music as a digital commodity, etc. What Apple did was execute better on those ideas than others who had them.

Facebook didn't invent the social network, and Microsoft didn't invent DOS or the windowed OS. Id didn't invent the FPS, Valve didn't invent the story driven FPS, and Blizzard didn't invent the RTS or the MMO.

A high-functioning, efficient game studio can produce a far superior game from a mediocre idea than the average studio can produce from a better idea.

People seem to think that the right idea will produce success, or that sharing good ideas is equivalent to giving away wealth. Don't get me wrong. Ideas are important. But this industry is full of smart people, and as mentioned they all have ideas. Success depends far, far less on the quality of the ideas one produces on their own than on their ability to execute effectively on the ideas available. An idea held by someone not in the position to execute on it has almost zero potential value. And someone who can execute on it derives far more value from that ability than from any one of the world of ideas they might choose to use.

The bottom line is that practically speaking, we loose effectively nothing by sharing ideas, even great ideas.

[jdturner11]

Here's a little meta-discussion for you.

Ideas are fun, we all have them. I'm not surprised that GameDev is full of people that are just kicking around ideas; I am surprised ,however, over the constructive criticism and general helpful attitude. Kudos to you, gamedev community! While I'm not going to share my personal ideas...

I don't know if you think your ideas aren't worth discussing, or if you consider them potentially too valuable to share, so this is not necessarily about you... But I think people in general tend to heavily over-value ideas.

This applies to every industry. Apple didn't invent the computer GUI, or the mouse, or the personal-digital music player, or the cell-phone combo-device, or the tablet computer, or the minimalist interface, or mobile web-browsing, or online commerce, or music as a digital commodity, etc. What Apple did was execute better on those ideas than others who had them.

Facebook didn't invent the social network, and Microsoft didn't invent DOS or the windowed OS. Id didn't invent the FPS, Valve didn't invent the story driven FPS, and Blizzard didn't invent the RTS or the MMO.

A high-functioning, efficient game studio can produce a far superior game from a mediocre idea than the average studio can produce from a better idea.

People seem to think that the right idea will produce success, or that sharing good ideas is equivalent to giving away wealth. Don't get me wrong. Ideas are important. But this industry is full of smart people, and as mentioned they all have ideas. Success depends far, far less on the quality of the ideas one produces on their own than on their ability to execute effectively on the ideas available. An idea held by someone not in the position to execute on it has almost zero potential value. And someone who can execute on it derives far more value from that ability than from any one of the world of ideas they might choose to use.

The bottom line is that practically speaking, we loose effectively nothing by sharing ideas, even great ideas.

The main thing is, for me, it's uncomfortable to share ideas. I really don't like the attention or specific discussion OF me. It's an odd thing, I know. I'm not even a shy person, I'm more sociable than most and usually do have the spot light. But sharing my own genuine thoughts? That's really frightening.

[Ashaman73]

"Elements" within gaming

Condition not Damage

These two topics, as FleBlanc already stated, are an abstraction layer of reality. The four elements are incredible good design, because they are highly abstract, unique and are able to counter on other element. Hit points are although a very good abstraction still used in almost any game available. Sometimes you just have a single hit point, sometimes the hit points are hidden (CoD?), sometimes they are just a percentage, sometimes they increase with experience.

Many strategical war games use a very high degree of abstraction (go, chess) and have still very interesting gameplay. to offer. The issue with modern games is, that they often try to be more movie-based-story-telling-eye-candy than actually game. Sometimes the limitations of previous hardware generations forced the developers to concentrate on the gameplay, which was often a blessing from a game design perspective.

Performance and It's Effects

In general gamers don't like to loose the control of the game, e.g. when taking away the control in a cutscene or when the executing of a command failed due to some lag or preformance dell. Therefore performance should not hinder your game experiences. Many reaction based, competive games need to deliver high enough performance to not hinder the game experiences, but slower single player games or MMORPGs are more low performance tolerant. The real performance requirements depends heavily on your game design.

I played everquest with very high lag sometimes (500-800 ms), whereas I know Quake 3 gamers who disabled every single eye candy to gain just an other FPS .

The main thing is, for me, it's uncomfortable to share ideas.

Many people, including myself, don't want to talk about their ideas, because they think, that their ideas are somewhat special or unique. But I think, that the development of an idea depends a lot on the zeitgeist and external stimuli which are plenty in times of global media and internet. Even historical scientific discoveries have been researched independently by several people concurrently, long before global media.
In short: there are not really unique ideas, in fact each idea is only as much worth as its implementation, best example:

What Apple did was execute better on those ideas than others who had them.

Edited by Ashaman73, 13 December 2012 - 01:11 AM.

[sunandshadow]

The main thing is, for me, it's uncomfortable to share ideas. I really don't like the attention or specific discussion OF me. It's an odd thing, I know. I'm not even a shy person, I'm more sociable than most and usually do have the spot light. But sharing my own genuine thoughts? That's really frightening.

I can sympathize with being afraid of having one's ideas judged or critiqued harshly; I've been through some rather traumatic art critique sessions. But this isn't primarily a critique forum, and our moderation policy is that we want everyone to be civil and helpful, not overly harsh. People are not going to tell you your ideas are stupid; at worst they are going to tell you they don't think your plan or some piece of your design will work. You don't need to post a whole game design either, that tends to be a bit much for people to chew on all at once and may get a tl;dr. But one of the best ways to start a thread around here is to focus it on one topic you have been thinking about lately, try to ask one or more clear questions about this topic, describe some of the relevant examples you've seen in games, and describe your own ideas for what you might do in a game. So you're getting feedback on your own ideas, but you're presenting them in context and they're not alone in the spotlight, since people will also reply to the questions abstractly or describe contrasting examples in other games or describe their own ideas on the topic.

Anyway, I'll comment on damage. I think realistic damage models are unsuitable to gameplay. In reality as soon as a human gets slightly wounded they start performing significantly worse than a human who is not in pain and worrying about their wound. Wounds tend to snowball; the more hurt you are, the worse you perform, the more you get hurt. Even if you survive, in reality severe wounds take a long time to heal and it's common that they _never_ fully heal, leaving scars and worse that permanently impair performance. It's simply not true that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". This is terrible for gameplay because you get people being afraid to explore and take risks because they can't recover from their mistakes, and you can't balance fights to be an interesting challenge, because a little bit of challenge turns deadly too fast. So yeah, hit points are cool because every hit point is worth the same as every other hit point, and it doesn't seem quite as implausible that sitting down is all that's needed to recover from being almost dead when you are healing one point at a time. If anything, I'd be interested to see a combat system where all characters have more resistance to injury when they are under 1/4 health.

Edited by sunandshadow, 13 December 2012 - 02:28 AM.

[RedBaron5]

I've been trying to work out a new way of dealing with damage and hit points and its been a challenge. What i envisioned was a fluctuating scale based on player performance per encounter. Basically, you start at the middle of this scale, as you play well (hit the enemy, avoid an attack, use a skill) you move towards the positive end of the scale. If you play poorly (get hit, miss an attack, poorly timed dodge) you move towards the negative end. You "die" when you hit the absolute negative and you get a "kill" when you hit the absolute on the positive. This basically eliminates enemy hit points all together and is completely based on player performance. I'm not sold on this being a good idea though and constantly go back and forth between this system and a hit point system. What I am doing now is using the scale as a "special meter" (unlocks better skills as you go positive. Lose access to skills as you go negative) and a traditional hit point system. I would LOVE to combine them but I'm not sure it would equate to a good experience for the player.

[VReality]

The main thing is, for me, it's uncomfortable to share ideas. I really don't like the attention or specific discussion OF me.

I get that.

[Aeramor]

The main thing is, for me, it's uncomfortable to share ideas. I really don't like the attention or specific discussion OF me. It's an odd thing, I know. I'm not even a shy person, I'm more sociable than most and usually do have the spot light. But sharing my own genuine thoughts? That's really frightening.

Whatever your motivations for not sharing may be, it's actually quite refreshing to see a new member who just wants to talk about game design in general as opposed to getting specific help for their own idea/s.
Welcome to gamedev sir.

[jdturner11]

Thanks guys ! This site is nuts, it's like taking all of the good posters from other forums and consolidating them into one place! I seen a lot of great responses and I'd like to reply:


Regarding elements:

Do you believe that later down the line this will get old? Now I know this is impossible to really answer, as until we can time travel(imagine the games we'd have then!) we'll never know. But an estimated guess is just a good (not really). Are YOU getting tired of the formula? I'm torn, I kinda still love it. For example, the kingdoms in Legend of Zela:Ocarina of Time, I loved that implementation. It made sense, felt great, and it wasn't confined to only those aspects - there was a lot more to the story.

Regarding hit points:

I wasn't really thinking in a human context, in a very abstract kind of way. Take an entity with humanoid features (limbs, walk stride, etc), make it very simple. Maybe just the body and a few organs. Could a damage system apply more than a hit point system? I haven't given the concept much thought and I'd love to hear from you guys what you think. I personally don't think I'd try reinventing the wheel because frankly, and as you pointed out, the hit point system DOES work. I wondered if another system DID work and Dwarf Fortress was a great suggestion! Though, I do think Dwarf Fortress would be unplayable if it ran those situations in a 3D environment with animation and high quality graphics.


New subject - Technology:

Do you think that any idea can be implemented with today's technology? I think you can, if you have the drive. That, of course, there would be compromise but as a whole technology is a small hindrance to our ideas. However, I may be biased, because obviously no one that wants to make games wants their ideas to be impossible.

[jdturner11]

I thought heavily about games that use damage over health and I just remembered two!

Bushido Blade, an old game where swords had lethality and if you got hit in the legs, you'd lose use of the one hit and if you lost an arm the same would happen. Of course, getting hit in the face or torso was death. This is an old game, mind you, and it worked very well!

The second is Overgrowth. This game is new, I haven't really had extensive testing with it so that's why it didn't immediately come to mind. It has a grappling/martial arts type combat that is branched from enemy or player actions - much like the batman games except there is no indicator for a pending attack. Death seems to result from a trauma system in which enough force to any part of the body smashes the skeleton. When using swords it's generally instant death, it DOES use a system of using the edge map on weapony to create entry wounds that bleed directly from the target(standard 2D blood drip animation).

Both games make it work, but I do feel both are bare boned. Also, this has not yet been done in a grand scale. Bushido blade was a 1v1 fighting style game, Overgrowth is in alpha and fighting more than one opponent is death. So again, it seems like a high lethality system is hard to apply when there is more than one opponent. My main problem is I have a high doubt that it'd really work on an online level, too. I'd wonder how latency would factor in, with this kind of combat the gameplay must be VERY smooth.

I hope you guys check both of those games out, if you have access to a PS2, then definitely pop in bushido blade. It's a cult-hit kinda game, you can find it on ebay or in the brick and motor game stores Oldies bins. Overgrowth is developed by wolfire studios, all the new builds are on youtube.

edit: Sunandshadow, I think the above does agree with your points. Neither are "exploration" games and I feel they may fall apart when taken out of the "fighting game" context. While Overgrowth has a lot of parkour, it is in the dosage of levels and in a dynamic game world I don't think this would hold up well.

Edited by jdturner11, 14 December 2012 - 07:07 AM.

[jdturner11]

I've been trying to work out a new way of dealing with damage and hit points and its been a challenge. What i envisioned was a fluctuating scale based on player performance per encounter. Basically, you start at the middle of this scale, as you play well (hit the enemy, avoid an attack, use a skill) you move towards the positive end of the scale. If you play poorly (get hit, miss an attack, poorly timed dodge) you move towards the negative end. You "die" when you hit the absolute negative and you get a "kill" when you hit the absolute on the positive. This basically eliminates enemy hit points all together and is completely based on player performance. I'm not sold on this being a good idea though and constantly go back and forth between this system and a hit point system. What I am doing now is using the scale as a "special meter" (unlocks better skills as you go positive. Lose access to skills as you go negative) and a traditional hit point system. I would LOVE to combine them but I'm not sure it would equate to a good experience for the player.

Forgive me, but this seems more like an organic hit point system than a replacement for one(though I don't know if you even ARE complaining to replace it). Also, it seems fights MAY drag on for an extended period, I could see players getting frustrated when an enemy gets a quick shot in and then they have to make two MORE shots to gain the kill, during which the enemy might hit you again. I like the idea of losing access to skills a lot, that's brilliant. I have no idea to the context of your game, however, so my critique is nowhere near accurate .

[RedBaron5]

it seems fights MAY drag on for an extended period

This is the main reason I decided to use a traditional health meter along with the fluctuating scale. Fights could in theory go on indefinitely. Much of the idea is based on the THQ series of wrestling games for the N64. (World Tour and Revenge) In those games no characters had hit points. They had special meters and when they were full, they could execute a finisher (which basically ended the match.) I like the idea of unlocking a powerful move to end a fight after good player performance.

My current skill meter is similar to ones you see in some fighting games. As it fills you hit different levels and each level offers new skills. If the meter decreases, you lose access to those skills until you fill the meter back up again.

[jdturner11]

it seems fights MAY drag on for an extended period

This is the main reason I decided to use a traditional health meter along with the fluctuating scale. Fights could in theory go on indefinitely. Much of the idea is based on the THQ series of wrestling games for the N64. (World Tour and Revenge) In those games no characters had hit points. They had special meters and when they were full, they could execute a finisher (which basically ended the match.) I like the idea of unlocking a powerful move to end a fight after good player performance.

My current skill meter is similar to ones you see in some fighting games. As it fills you hit different levels and each level offers new skills. If the meter decreases, you lose access to those skills until you fill the meter back up again.

Do you have any screenshots of your game? I'm really interested in seeing what you made!

[Anastas]

On the subject of elements, I'd like to see something using the Wu Xing. Aside from novelty, the added element can change up gameplay so things are a little less straight-forward.

With Earth, Fire, Water, and Wind you have against each element a superior, inferior, and neutral element. With the Wu Xing you have a superior, inferior, and two neutral elements. This'd give the player more options to consider when attacking and the designer more options for enemy and environment placement as there are more options for the player and therefore more ways the progression of the game can deviate from the standard of each element overcoming the next.
Themed environments of Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, and Water would also change things up while still being relatable.

[dakota.potts]

it seems fights MAY drag on for an extended period

This is the main reason I decided to use a traditional health meter along with the fluctuating scale. Fights could in theory go on indefinitely. Much of the idea is based on the THQ series of wrestling games for the N64. (World Tour and Revenge) In those games no characters had hit points. They had special meters and when they were full, they could execute a finisher (which basically ended the match.) I like the idea of unlocking a powerful move to end a fight after good player performance.

My current skill meter is similar to ones you see in some fighting games. As it fills you hit different levels and each level offers new skills. If the meter decreases, you lose access to those skills until you fill the meter back up again.

My brother and I just got Playstation All Stars. There are no hit points. As you do successful attacks, you gain AP, which fills up a meter. Environmental hazards or certain items can cause you to lose AP and drop it in the form of a ball that friends or foes can pick up. When you fill a bar, you get a special attack. There are 3 levels. One might be a lunge forward, the next might be a few seconds on a cannon, and the third typically kills everybody instantly or turns you into a super powerful character for about 20 seconds with huge range attacks. All of these levels kill instantly if successful and that is the only way to kill an enemy.

The Super Smash Bros. series had additive damage rather than subtractive. Every time you're hit, you gain a small percentage. Attacks will knock you back a short ways, sometimes through the air. As this percentage goes up, these attacks will knock you back further. At a certain point (around 150%), it becomes fairly easy to use a powerful attack to fling you off of the sides of the map -- how a kill is scored. At extreme levels (250% and above) even a regular attack can send you off the sides, or failing that, send you up into the air high enough to activate an animation of flying out of the arena into the horizon and dying.

However, these were both fighting games.

[jdturner11]

Good reference, smash bros. Is a classic. Arma ll is a game with a wound system as well.

[RedBaron5]

However, these were both fighting games.

I'm actually trying to incorporate fighting game concepts into an RPG. The game is based on sword-fighting and encounters are set up as duels (you only ever fight one person at a time.)

Do you have any screenshots of your game? I'm really interested in seeing what you made!

I don't have any screenshots yet. Haven't spend too much time on appearances yet, mostly just coding. Once I have something to show, I'll definitely start a thread with screenshots and some gameplay.

[jdturner11]

However, these were both fighting games.

I'm actually trying to incorporate fighting game concepts into an RPG. The game is based on sword-fighting and encounters are set up as duels (you only ever fight one person at a time.)

Do you have any screenshots of your game? I'm really interested in seeing what you made!

I don't have any screenshots yet. Haven't spend too much time on appearances yet, mostly just coding. Once I have something to show, I'll definitely start a thread with screenshots and some gameplay.

Encounters like Soul Calibur dungeon mode/Pokemon/FF where you're goin' along and then the screen transitions to a traditional 1v1 fighting screen or like a 3rd person open world with only duels as combat?