KylHu

Members
  • Content count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

152 Neutral

About KylHu

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. [quote name='Orymus3' timestamp='1340761459' post='4953197'] I remember playing FFX, and to be truthful, I didn't realize there was this depth to it. Case in hand, I would assume the "Fight button mashing" was still a viable strategy? I like the rock-paper-scissor simplified mechanic you're referencing here. Like I said, I don't remember witnessing that, but essentially, what you're saying is that smaller characters had an easier time beating the crap out of critters while heavy hitters were better vs larger threats? How exactly? Did they actually scored higher damage based on a different stat? (aka, smaller units deal dmg with their dexterity or something vs the enemy, and if the enemy is tall, it compares with def, but if small, it compares to some other stat?) I'm really interested in the underlying logic here as I believe this could create easy unit specialization, and before long, I would assume players would just realize it works that way. [/quote] I admit it's been a while since I played FFX but I'm pretty confident I remember what it was all about. Basically you had Tidus, who was swift and could kill quick, small creatures that moved so fast that other characters usually missed when they tried to hit. Thus Tidus was the most effective character. Mashing fight for everyone else would result in frequent misses. Auron had a giant sword that could pierce shells, so when a turtle-looking guy came up, Auron could do regular damage to it, while everyone else would do very little because they're just hitting the shell, also making mashing fight a poor choice. Wakka could attack flying enemies like bird monsters by throwing a blitzball at them whereas most characters would miss the attack, much like how Tidus is most effective at attacking fast ground units. Rikku could dismantle mechanical enemies instantly by using a mug ability -- granted, other characters could still bash them down, but it probably would take longer than a one-hit kill. Lulu was good for killing magic-based creatures that had specific weaknesses (fire/ice) and physical attacks did little damage to them, again making fight-mashing a poor choice. Yuna could summon and heal, Kimahri was a jack of all trades. It wasn't too complicated, but it gave characters specializations that made basic fight mechanics more strategic and interesting without overcomplicating it or causing frustration. When characters level up and get more skills the basic attacking becomes less vital (especially during bosses) but it's always there at a base level. While I didn't care for the story of FFX, the battle system was probably the best Final Fantasy has yet to offer. [quote name='Orymus3' timestamp='1340761459' post='4953197'] As far as party size limitation goes, there is still one. The fact you can swap characters in and out doesn't mean you can have everyone at the same type. But honestly, I'm not going to complain as I believe party size limitation has always been an asset to keep things clean and understandable. The fact that the best/only explanation I've ever seen in an RPG for that was lame (Chrono Trigger's space continuum limitation of arbitrary 3) never really bothered me much. [/quote] Well, sure, but being able to swap in and out mid-battle makes more sense than leaving two thirds of your party on the airship at all times. [quote name='Orymus3' timestamp='1340761459' post='4953197'] Is [Legend of Dragoon's] battle system similar to "Tales of" series? because that may be stretching far away from the classic retro rpg battle system. [/quote] I never did play much of the Tales series, but if I remember Tales is more live-actiony than Legend of Dragoon, which was a pretty barebones, turn-based RPG (basically a Final Fantasy clone). In LoD it had the basic three of your guys on one side, enemies on the other side, random battles, etc. When you fight, you select attack from the menu, then your character runs up to the screen and a big icon lines up with the center of the screen and you have to press X at the right time. If you do, you do the next part of the combo, which also requires a timed button press, then the next, etc., depending on how many "additions" the combo has (it ranges from one to like six or something). The more combo hits you make, the more damage you do, and the more "spirit points" you get (which allows your character to go into Dragoon mode, offering more attacks and magic). You can choose which "additions" each character uses -- some are valuable because they get more spirit points, some do more base damage, some are just better because they don't force you to do too many combo presses, that sort of thing. You can find a clip of a battle on youtube, I'm sure. [quote name='Orymus3' timestamp='1340761459' post='4953197'] On the surface, I'd be tempted to think that you don't like the classic retro RPG battle system to start with. That said, I think you underline formidably why there needs to be an effort to overhaul the original system in a direction that makes it fun. As you put it yourself, if battles weren't a chore, you'd probably love playing these games for more than just the story. Some developers have convinced you with their alternate take on the system, so you're not hopelessly opposed to the battle gameplay, you just seek entertainment rather than bashing the Fight command. I'd lie if I'd say that I love the retro RPG combat as it stands. I think it is a chore most of the time as well. However (you may or may not agree with me) there have been boss battles (not the ones about high HP values) where the RPG combat system trully shined. The problem is really scaling and applying it in smaller battles and get as much fun. This is what I'm really after. Solutions to make the common system shine in smaller battles. I agree that the easy way is to redesign and come up with a new system, and it works for many developers, but I may be stubborn, but I'd really like to find a way to fix the problems of the system rather than avoid it altogether. [/quote] Oh, I agree, I'd like to see more retro-style games try new methods. What I was trying to say was that, for me personally, what I want from most RPGs is to be engrossed in a world, its setting and its story and its characters. If a game has that and a great battle system, that's excellent, chocolate and peanut butter. But I frequently find I'll pack in an RPG that I really love the story and world of but hate the battles (like FFXII) and wish I could just skip that part of the game. I don't think that's so bad -- people skip cutscenes all the time, what I want is just kind of the opposite On the other hand, there have been many games that I've loved the battle system for but hated the story, like Eternal Sonata, which I had an absolute blast playing with my friends and making fun of the ridiculous story while enjoying the battles. It seems so rare that games can do both things really well. If Eternal Sonata had a good story and characters, it would have been one of my top games of all time, no question. On the topic of interesting battle systems, though, I'd also like to mention Chrono Cross. Some consider the battle system complicated and maybe it was, maybe it tried too many new things, but that's whatever. In terms of the base attacks, though, you'd get three attack choices when you made a basic attack -- a light attack, mid-power attack, or heavy attack, and each option is accompanied by the percentage chance to hit. Each hit would also drain stamina (more the heavier the attack). When you make a successful attack, though, the odds to hit would increase. So usually you'd start with a light or mid attack because starting with a heavy would probably miss. After using the light or mid attack(s), the chance to hit with a heavy would increase, so you'd use that. Okay, that does sound complicated, but I played the game start to finish while in middle school and I loved it to death so it couldn't have been that tough to figure out. Again, you can always hit youtube for an example of a battle for Chrono Cross. I'd also like to mention another post I saw recently that brought up randomized "achievements" for each battle, providing certain rewards for completing battles in specific ways (such as using only magic attacks or by only attacking with female characters or something, and the reward would be things like extra money or experience or rare items). I thought it was a cool way to spice up battles and incentivize not mashing fight and making it more strategic but in an unpredictable way. Final Fantasy Tactics Advance had a similar system, but it also had restrictions and punishments that weren't necessary. Anyway, this was brought up here if you're interested: http://www.gamedev.net/topic/626637-random-encounters-how-to-keep-them-fresh/
  2. [quote name='sunandshadow' timestamp='1340173519' post='4950854'] Dofus has a neat system where it randomly generates an "achievement" for each battle - completely optional, but if you do it you get bonus XP or bonus loot or a full heal at the end of the battle, etc. Example achievements are: fight the whole battle using only one character, use no magic, use only magic, win before turn 3, win without taking any damage. [/quote] I like that idea as well. It reminds me of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and the Judge/Laws system (which designated both restrictions and recommendations for each battle, and there were punishments and bonuses depending on whether or not you followed them), only less restrictive and more in line with modern gaming. I'd like to see that mechanic used in the future.
  3. Final Fantasy X had an engaging battle system that rewarded you for playing more strategically by having a kind of matching game between characters and enemies. For example, fast enemies dodged most attacks except for those of the fast team member (Tidus), heavily armoured enemies were much faster to take down with the heavy-hitter (Auron), elemental monsters took little damage from physical attacks but went down quick when hit with an opposing spell from the caster (Lulu), etc. Furthermore, you could switch in and out characters from the party in the middle of a battle so you weren't screwed if the guys in your party didn't match the enemy weaknesses. This was great because it was one of the few times in a JRPG where you could use your whole team rather than forcing you to only use 3 or 4 for no real reason. Battles in FFX weren't mindless attack button mashes, but if you played well enough they weren't artificially slowed either. Persona 3 and 4 had a neat system where (pretty much) every regular enemy had a weakness to a certain attack, and when that attack was used on them they would get knocked down for a turn. If you managed to knock down all the enemies, your characters would perform an all-out attack that did massive damage to all enemies. Thus you were encouraged to try several different options for each new monster until you figured out their weakness. The only downside to this system was that it was pretty much impossible to tell who was weak to what, so you just had to use a bunch of stuff on them until you figured it out. Once you did, though, any time you'd fight that enemy from then on would be significantly quicker to take down, or at least prevent from attacking. Thus you were encouraged to find their weaknesses as soon as possible to save you time in the long run. Games with timed hits can make fights a little more engaging as well. Mario RPG had a neat timed attack and timed block system that didn't require much skill and was sometimes iffy as to when to time the attack/block, but made battles reactive and fun. Legend of Dragoon also had a timed hit system that worked pretty well, and each character had their own set of combos that you could individually level up and had advantages and disadvantages to each one. Your strongest combo would only unlock if you fully levelled all previous combos, so it incentivized mixing them up rather than just using one until the next one unlocked. Eternal Sonata had one of my favorite battle systems in a JRPG, which was a hybrid turn-based, live-action system. Basically, each character's "turn" gave them a few precious seconds to do their live-action moves, whether it be running up to the enemy, getting in a better position, rapidly attacking an enemy and getting as many hits in as possible, casting a spell (which cost you more time in your turn to do the combo), or just using an item. It also had an interesting light-based system that gave you a different set of moves based on whether you did them in light or darkness. Perhaps most importantly, it allowed you to designate different controllers for the different party members, easily allowing you to play with your friends without the forced need to pass the controller every single attack. More RPGs need to do this! I think most RPGs need a system like the ones above in order to make battles not seem like a chore, or a forced break in the flow of the story. And, if they don't have anything like that, then they should at least have a way to let me just skip all battles and only do the story, minigame, and exploration parts. Because, honestly, there are so many games that I would love to experience if only they didn't force me into needless popcorn fights every ten seconds. Maybe that's just me.
  4. Ender's Game ... Game

    [quote name='eugene2k' timestamp='1340542651' post='4952303'] [quote name='Mratthew' timestamp='1340470462' post='4952036'] A bit like Fallout 3's turn based game play elements [/quote] It's called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-keeping_systems_in_games#Simultaneously-executed_and_clock-based_turns"]phase-based[/url] [/quote] That's right, "phase-based" is what I was talking about, though I didn't know that was the technical term for it (thanks for that morsel of info, eugene2k!) [quote name='Mratthew' timestamp='1340470462' post='4952036'] I'd go isometric view and make the gate the main objective. I'd also explore the idea of uncovering "hero" units in each team, like a level up for a squad but it is simply a realization of a squads ability based on putting that squad in a situation it will excel at, that way a commander can focus squads on achieving certain tasks (firing on the go, speed, cover, etc). I like the idea. [/quote] Yeah, in regards to the campaign concept, I figured that's how advancing certain platoons and units would go. As for making the gate the main objective, the game would have to be balanced around being able to defend the gate and preventing players from just chucking all their units straight to the gate from the get-go. Things like having stars always be blocking the straight-line path to the gate so it takes at least a couple turns to get there, giving the other team time to defend the area, or even requiring three or so units go through the gate to win. Or you could need to have more units in the enemy gate than the enemy team has in yours, which is why you want to make sure you don't throw, say, five guys in the enemy gate but have none left to defend against their six non-frozen guys who could all go in YOUR gate and win that way. Defence would be very important, not just blindly throwing guys at the gate. This is why I thought different modes would be interesting -- a mode where the goal is just freezing the other team, one where getting one through the gate is the goal, another where you want to end up with more units in the gate than the enemy, etc.
  5. [b]First and foremost, this is an idea for a game that I have no intention of making. I'm not looking for anything here other than an interesting discussion, because I love to discuss ideas even if nothing comes of them.[/b] The idea is for a game based on the zero-g battle game that is played in the novel Ender's Game. [b]Here's how the battle game in the book works. [/b](If you've read the book, feel free to skip this paragraph.) The battle game is a tactical training game that takes place on a space station and is used to train gifted children (up-and-coming commanders and generals) to think tactically in a zero-g environment. There is an arena of sorts with two "gates" on either side where opposing teams jump through to battle each other within the arena space. Each team wears mock space suits and carry harmless laser guns that are used to "freeze" (lock in place and prevent the usage of) certain parts of the suit (e.g., getting your arm shot and frozen meant not being able to aim and fire, getting your legs frozen meant not being able to kick off of walls, etc.). Generally, the goal of the game is to freeze the whole of the opposing team (at least to the point where they pose no threat) and then send one of the winning team's members through the enemy gate, which signals victory. The whole thing takes place in zero gravity, so maneuvering is next to impossible -- you kick off of walls or parts of geometry in the room called "stars" and once you're headed somewhere you're not stopping until you hit something and kick off again. This is a pretty basic description, but I think I've covered the important bits. Surprisingly, no one has made a video game version of this yet (aside from a bad Newgrounds version and a failed attempt by the Infinity Blade guys). But recently my brother and I conceived of a version of the battle game that is true to the spirit of the books: a turn-based strategy game where both players take their turns and perform their actions simultaneously rather than one at a time. It would probably be a mobile/tablet and/or PC game. [b]Here's how my game idea works:[/b] You and a friend each have your own "army" (team). The two armies come out of their respective gates a "platoon" (group of five or so depending on balance) at a time -- first turn you each have one platoon, next turn you have two each, etc, until your whole army is in the arena. The arena would be a 2D, top-down view like a lot of sports games. Sure 3D makes more sense given the material, but it would complicate things significantly, so 2D it is. You determine what your units do by dragging straight lines from your squad members to walls/stars (you can't stop in midair -- zero gravity! Physics!) or enemies -- one line for movement (say, a blue line) and one line for attack (a red line, if you choose a specific target). When each player has picked their targets and/or has chosen where their units are moving to, each player hits the ready button. Then, the units for each team play out the moves they were given all at the same time. And yes, since you don't know for sure where your enemy is headed until you're both moving, you might screw up and jump somewhere you don't want your squaddies to be, or attack someone who doesn't end up being a threat or who ends up behind cover or out of range. The trick is tactical thinking: Where do you think the other player is going to go? Who will they attack? What's their strategy? Pretty simple, neh? Well, to make the game more interesting it would probably have to be more complicated than that. [b]Here's the more advanced version[/b]: Not all units would be the same, and you can determine sections of enemy suits to aim for (legs, arms, or head, which can prevent movement, stop them from attacking, or lower their accuracy), and chance to hit a target would go up or down depending on factors like target size, distance, your unit's accuracy, whether or not your unit's head or arms are frozen, etc. Units could have different stats or tactics -- some are small and harder to hit but are younger and less experienced so have less accuracy -- and vice versa; some deliberately travel feet first which makes their head and arms harder to hit but their legs easier to hit, potentially losing movement to hopefully gain some more hits; some might travel in twos -- one using the other as cover, effectively making for one unit that's difficult to hit for the price of two regular units (there would be a limit on amount of units, of course), etc., etc. For each platoon that enters the arena, you determine which types of units they'll be made up of. If the game were to take liberties with the source material, different weapon types could be added as well. Another idea is for different modes, such as one where the only goal is getting someone through the enemy's gate. Another is for a playback at the end of a match to view the match being played continuously, without the pauses between moves, like how it would look "for reals". [b]And, a potential single-player version: [/b]There could be a campaign for this game as well, though obviously not required. The campaign could involve gaining new unit types over time, fighting alternate match types (two teams vs. one, for example), and levelling up specific stats of your individual units based on how they're used through the campaign. Very RPG-like -- you could choose your army and platoon names, color of outfits, even unit names perhaps. I consider the FFX Blitzball minigame similar to what this would be like. Well, that's about it. I certainly have more ideas but this covers the meat and potatoes of it. What do you think? If you're a fan of Ender's Game, does this seem to do justice to the source material? What would you change, or add? If you'd like, I could draw up a rough example of how the game would look/play like. And, lastly, I apologize for the exceptionally long post.
  6. Need Help Writing A Storyline For My Game (Stuck)

    Urban setting, right? The big bad could be an escaped criminal famed for his/her advanced, deadly martial arts. Since his/her escape, this criminal now has a major bounty on his/her head and the cops (and local politicians -- mayor, etc.) want him/her back in the slammer pronto. Luckily, the boss is too cocky to skip town, and wants to rebuild his/her criminal empire within the city. The main characters need to find him/her and take him/her down and end up brawling with each other for the privilege. The main characters all have a good reason to go after the big bad, whether for money or fame or honor. Here's a list of possibilities: - A cop/marshall, whose duty it is to haul the big bad in (maybe the cop has a personal reason for it, like s/he made a big mistake in the past and needs the credibility, or the baddie killed his/her partner, or s/he feels responsible for the boss's escape somehow, etc.). - A convict who used to work with/for the boss until s/he was sold out and left to rot in prison. In exchange for finding the boss and bringing him/her in, the convict will have his/her sentence drastically reduced -- plus, taking down the boss will be a personal pleasure. This character could have a good reason to get in a fight with the above cop. - A certified bounty hunter looking for a challenge wants to take down the boss for little more than money and glory and doesn't care who gets in his/her way. - Alternatively, there could also be a TV personality bounty hunter (like Dog) that wants to take on the big bad for the sake of ratings for his/her reality TV show. - A specialist (mercenary or assassin type character) is hired by the boss's rival to take out the competition. - An underling of the big bad who begins by fighting all of those trying to take the boss down (perhaps forming uneasy alliances with some of them to thin the competition) but in the end discovers a reason to fight the big bad him/herself (maybe the convict character earlier convinces the underling that the boss can't be trusted). - A local vigilante with a Batman complex wants to rid the city of the boss for the sake of justice rather than the reward money. - A martial arts master from a shadowy organization wants to know if the boss is worth recruiting for his/her group and seeks to face him/her to find out if s/he is worthy. - The boss's old mentor is ashamed of his/her pupil's criminal activities and feels it's his/her responsibility to bring him/her down. - The boss's brother/sister wants to confront the boss and get him to turn himself in for the sake of their family's honor. The family has had to live with the stigma of having a known criminal for a long time and the boss's brother/sister wants to turn that around. S/he partially wants to protect the boss (and will fight those trying to harm him), but ends up fighting him/her just the same. Some of these are better than others, but I hope it gives you some ideas, anyway. Best of luck with your game!