next »

[TacoBell_Lord]

Which ones need to be retired already? Which ones has become tired out or need tweaking?

[The Translocator]

Personally I dislike the overuse of minor damage (less than 1% of your health) in turn based games, because then fights almost always end up dragging on far longer than they should. Instead make clever ways of blocking/avoiding/reflecting damage (all/specific types) if it's turn based. If possible never have any "survival contests" i.e. random damage amounts+no way of blocking direct damage besides going out of the range in which *you* could attack. Always have a way to avoid simply hoping the numbers will fall in your favor (i.e. if all the enemies are sword fighters, make the hero ONLY have access to a bow and arrow. Ineffective at close ranges, but great at long distances. Something that simple could make combat interesting- then it becomes about staying OUTSIDE swordfighting range instead of getting INTO swordfighting range, and completely remodeling the entire combat situation.

[Sik]

One thing I hate from turn-based ones: health taking up your entire turn. Which means that if you end up against a powerful enemy, chances are you will end up spending every turn healing because the enemy keeps bringing you down to critical health all the time, while you never get to attack back. I can understand there being some downside to healing, but is there seriously not a better way to handle it?

Not as bad when the enemy just attacks a single member of the party, but that kind of enemies has a tendency to use multi-target attacks as well... (it certainly doesn't help if the enemy is faster than you so it means it gets to attack first, after you have already chosen what move to do)

[Canned Turkey]

...need tweaking?

No offence against anyone that likes RPGs, but I think the entire genre needs tweaking, gameplay wise.
The story is good in most RPGs, but if your gameplay is mainly grinding by trading large numbers with cardboard cutout enemies, and then you use the EXP from those enemies to do the same thing until you can beat one big enemy, there's a problem there.

Granted, there are a lot of really good games that fall under the classification of a role playing game (persona), but as a whole, I really don't like the generic "adventure fantasy hero grinds for a while" games that make up a large majority of the genre.

[The Translocator]

Agreed for turn based RPGs in general. Some general ways to make combat more interesting:
Different attack types do better against different enemies (ala pokemon)
Grid based combat in a medieval setting
A block system (full block blocks all damage but doesn't let you attack, half block blocks half of damage but deals some attack damage, no block deals full attack damage) but you have to choose which block mode to be in a turn in advance.

Basically anything that makes gameplay less about manipulating the actual health numbers and more about prediction and tactics.

[starsrift]

I'd suggest reviewing tabletop game design - Wizards of the Coast has run several generations of articles on their website about good dungeon and monster encounter design. WotC actually did a lot of analysis of encounters and how to structure them to make campaigns exciting, it's one of the reasons they made D&D successful again. (That, and creating vast numbers of rulebooks to sell to players instead of DM's)

One of the single best suggestions I would offer is, make every encounter count. Every encounter should be unique, or quasi-unique. You can start by considering monsters as types, organize them into classes - although keep this information non-obvious to the player, of course. Classes like Mooks, Tanks, Controllers, Glass Cannons, Buffs, etc. Synergize them into strategies with their AI. You can do this much algorithmically and procedurally if you're not doing a completely guided experience (quasi-unique).
If possible, use environment, create interactable effects. Cliffs - let players push monsters off them. Make environments interesting. Having a fight on a bridge over lava is a trope because it is an exciting environment, it's not a boring room in a cave or dungeon. Cover, obstructions, pathing. Put monster ranged classes behind cover. Stay away from "random battle of <enemytypes> in <room art set>".
Blackguards, an RPG that very strongly held to its tabletop origins, is a pretty good example of this.

Second would be to stay away from fetch quests and other things of that nature. If you're writing an RPG, you should be able to come with better plot hooks than "Go to place Y and do/get X for me because... the player is a nice person/heading that way".

[ODINKONG]

    I have seen a lot of mechanics reused in many MMO RPGs especially fetch quests. I hate it when I get lured into playing an MMO and the first quest is kill 6 of this and ill give you 2 pennies. If the combat is good enough that can be fun for a little while. However most of the time this involves clicking on an enemy and waiting for him to die while you eat a sandwich and watch.

    Ive always thought the most important part of any game is the core combat. Exchanging numbers isn't game-play its just a way to show that you hit something. The best way to avoid having the player feel like they are exchanging numbers is to have rare chances in combat. For example lets say you are level 50 and you are fighting a bunch of level 2s. It would be great if you still had a dynamic way for these enemies to still kill you. Of course the likely hood of this should go down as you level up, but you should never feel invincible. In dark souls 1 I found myself occasionally getting killed by the starting enemies even while I was level 120. The game should always remind you that you are in a dangerous place.

[Mittens]

I hate not being high enough level to wear something or open something
I hate mandatory tutorials
I hate having to read lots of text or do math to decide on my battle gear
I hate giant insect enemies
I hate skeleton enemies
I hate limited inventory space
I hate crafting
I hate making 3 thousand choices before I've even been allowed to play the game or know what kind of impact those choices might have.
I hate ambiguous attributes such as "charisma", "luck", "integrity", "wisdom" etc.
I hate boring 'means-to-an-ends' combat

[TacoBell_Lord]

I'd suggest reviewing tabletop game design - Wizards of the Coast has run several generations of articles on their website about good dungeon and monster encounter design. WotC actually did a lot of analysis of encounters and how to structure them to make campaigns exciting, it's one of the reasons they made D&D successful again. (That, and creating vast numbers of rulebooks to sell to players instead of DM's)

This past year me & my friends got into Pathfinder, so it changed our whole perspective on creating Scenarios & Interactions, as well as Pacing.

...need tweaking?

No offence against anyone that likes RPGs, but I think the entire genre needs tweaking, gameplay wise.
The story is good in most RPGs, but if your gameplay is mainly grinding by trading large numbers with cardboard cutout enemies, and then you use the EXP from those enemies to do the same thing until you can beat one big enemy, there's a problem there.

Truth but its more of the Interactivity Narrative that needs to be improve, which becomes highly intricate to design, that's why majority of companies especially MMOs rely on grinding way too much. Its all about getting the player invested in your fiction...but that's easier said than done

Agreed for turn based RPGs in general. Some general ways to make combat more interesting:
Different attack types do better against different enemies (ala pokemon)

I love Turn Based, but true, the Turn Based formula needs more tweaking. FFX-2 did ATB so well it was amazing.

[Sik]

I hate ambiguous attributes such as "charisma", "luck", "integrity", "wisdom" etc.

Actually, luck has a pretty well established meaning in RPGs, the higher it is the higher your chances of your attack working (matters mostly in situations where the are high chances of missing, i.e. against strong enemies). The other ones, yeah they're quite ambiguous.

[majormel84]

ATB meters, usually something you see in square enix games but I think it's dumb and makes turn based fights sloppy in terms of flow.

[gunswordfist]

i thought luck meant how likely you were to have an enemy drop an item.

[Sik]

In every game I've seen it affects how effective your attack is (likelihood to miss, likelihood for it to be critical, etc., that stuff). Never saw it used with loot drops, especially when you consider that if the party is fixed that won't make much of a difference.

Maybe some game does that, but not any that I'm aware of.

[7Soul]

I hate when every new equipment you find is just a plain upgrade on what you had previously. I like how it's in Epic Battle Fantasy 4 where each equipment gives you different stats and skills, and you have to frequently change and upgrade it to better deal with enemies in an area

[vaaasm]

Honestly, crafting systems are so exhausting. Not to mention that it always takes you forever to get the items needed, but it also takes too much time to get accustomed to them and to learn how to get good at it

[s0]

ya crafting systems are almost always annoying, esp when the items you "create" are predetermined anyway. its like, whats the point? just gimme my PHAT LEWT right away thankyouverymuch

[baconman]

Menu-based battle systems. Just turn the encounters into MvC 2/3 already, please?!

I mean, RPGs are stories attached to the least amount of game, and fighting games are just a battle system often devoid of context, just bridge the two already! They need one another to evolve properly.

[gunswordfist]

make that game, bacon.

[Photon]

Honestly, crafting systems are so exhausting. Not to mention that it always takes you forever to get the items needed, but it also takes too much time to get accustomed to them and to learn how to get good at it

The thing I would point out about crafting systems is that they can cause you to prioritize your resources, particularly in a game where resources are limited. If one item is part of three or four different recipes, you may have to make a tough decision on what's important to you.

I can see where you are coming from with resource grinding though (the "taking forever" part,) particularly when its a rare (or mass flood of common) drops where you do the same thing fifty times and get rewarded way out of proportion.

[ThemsAllTook]

High "miss" chances in combat drive me nuts when it's a mechanic completely outside the player's control. If attacks can miss every once in a while (say, 5% or less), it can add a little bit of unexpected tension when an important player attack misses, or unexpected relief when a big enemy attack misses, but having it happen too frequently ruins any ability to plan your combat strategy. I played through Ultima V not too long ago, and the miss chance was ridiculously high. Combined with the chance of "grazing" an enemy (doing no damage) if your attack does connect, I was probably dealing actual damage less than half of the time I tried to attack anything.

This could probably extend to all forms of randomness that strongly affect gameplay. Repeatedly rolling the dice hoping to get lucky is not engaging. Show me the numbers I need to see to plan out my actions, and if I fail, let it always be my fault rather than the RNG's fault.