Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411276 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 11:41:05 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignThe designer's workshop: JRPGs
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Print
Author Topic: The designer's workshop: JRPGs  (Read 19616 times)
Guert
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« on: April 24, 2008, 06:46:38 PM »

Designer's workshop

Traditional JRPG-style character progression/leveling systems: its flaws, qualities and how they affect the players. How can they be improved?


For this first round of discussion, we will look at the Japanese style RPG. Before we start discussing, let's put ourselves in context. What is a console/computer role-playing game (CRPG)? What are the design key features? How do you design one?

Let's make a simple, boiled down list of key features found in most games of that genre:
  • Upgradeable and configurable avatar
  • Focus on story and character development
  • Usually feature 3 core mechanics: the character customization, the inventory and the world exploration
  • Usually have a very diversified game economy


Focusing on a story driven philosophy, JRPGs became a sub-genre in itself after the western RPGs started focusing on the player's action rather than the story. The JRPG sub-genre has hundreds of titles and some of them are classics such as the Dragon Quest games (Dragon Warrior) and the Final Fantasy series. A JRPG denotes itself by having at least the following feature:

  • Usually linear in order to emphasis the storyline
  • Random battles
  • Focused on the story and not the player's action.
  • Features the use of character parties
  • Use of powerful weapons requiring the use of an economical element. Mostly called "Magic" or "Mana"
  • Usualy include vehicles to allow easy traveling through the universe.


Over the years, JRPGs have been the target of many criticism and love. Many reviewers cry out the lack of originality of these games who use tested and true concepts but that doesn't stop thousands of players worldwide from enjoying them.

Popular pros
  • Many goals (short, mid and long term)
  • Simple execution that makes the game easy to learn and play
  • Various puzzles to solve
  • Good mix of random play and strategy
  • Large universe to discover with many inhabitants
  • Elaborated storyline

Popular cons
  • Long hours of gameplay required for small goals
  • Repetitive
  • Slow combat and exploration systems 
  • Backtracking
  • Sometime tedious exploration elements, such as talking to everyone in a city

So now, what other quality and flaws do you feel the sub-genre has? How do they affect the gameplay? How can you design a JRPG that will be original while following the basic traits of one?
Discuss!



Related links:
Cultural differences in Role-playing games (Wiki)
A japanese primer article (Gamasutra)
History of the Console RPGs (Gamespot)
What is an RPG? (RPGfan.com)
Logged

december
Level 1
*



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2008, 07:12:44 PM »

Numbers go up, and it's all about making them go up in the most entertaining way possible.
Logged

Signature:
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBC code and smileys may be used in your signature.
Inane
TIGSource Editor
Level 10
******


Arsenic for the Art Forum


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2008, 07:54:30 PM »

I'm just gonna copy+paste what I said in the first thread, and add some stuff.
Flan Rising and The Desolate Room both have very interesting takes on the traditional battle system. Flan Rising in particular is a shining example of good menu-based fighting.
The biggest thing, of course, is that it doesn't get repetitive or boring easily. Key things that make it work being, I think:
  • Characters change frequently, usually getting radically different skills.
  • Complex buff/debuff system makes player use straight attacks less often.
  • Lots of different types of fundamentally different attacks. Robot flan or whatever in particular is good example, he's got pretty much all the common normal attacks and I still rarely used the same thing more then twice in a row.
  • Combo system works to further buff system and use of different attacks, since you get the most EXP by far by doing craptons of damage in one turn.
However, the game is, of course, not without its flaws. Mostly, the optional quests (the story quest in particular) can create a lot of frustration by being either confusing or too luck based.
And certain flavor drops (Always Dreadmoon being the main offender) can make one or two attacks insanely strong (Like, kill 8 enemies on the first turn strong), which is not so fun.


On the generic JRPG, though, stories and settings in most games actually really suck, perpetuating some of the most boring, cliche crap in the industry. Seriously, like a third of the JRPGs I've seen have had pretty much the same plot as Grandia II and FFX (Cute girl is raised to do something supposedly necessary by a corrupt authority, usually the church, and main character rescues her and shatters the conspiracy.)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2008, 07:56:10 PM by Inane » Logged

real art looks like the mona lisa or a halo poster and is about being old or having your wife die and sometimes the level goes in reverse
Melly
Level 10
*****


This is how being from "da hood" is like, right?


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2008, 10:30:12 PM »

First I'm gonna talk about what I think is the feeling that the "Level Up!" system in these types of games make the player feel.

Most of the time RPG's try to create epic storylines that pass over an extended period of time, in which a small group of heroes go through a lot of adversities attempting to accomplish their goals, usually the oh-so-cliche "we gotta save the world!", but sometimes different objectives.

For me, the numbers that go up continuously are basically feedback showing the player that his party of ragtag heroes is indeed growing stronger as they go through their ordeals. It makes the game feel continuously more 'epic', and makes the battles feel more important as the game progresses. This helps the player feel he's actually going places within the game world and not walking in circles.

As interesting as this mechanic can be, I also feel that it's a poorly thought one, that got popularized thanks to a few select games and so the developers apparently make use of them without giving much thought into it, because they know it has a readily available market (especially in Japan) that won't bother with having to 'farm' experience for hours to get through an unfairly strong boss, or to get through a fair boss without having to make use of proper strategy, if the game allows for much of that.

And that's, for me, the biggest problem with this mechanic. It's not just the usually repetitive nature of combat, which tends to greatly lack in strategy other than rudimentary rock-paper-scissors affairs, but the fact that it's a flawed economy, because it's exchanging an in-game currency with an outside-the-game one. You exchange real-life time for experience points. This for me is just as bad as people paying real money to get powerful avatars in MMO's.

How much this is an issue depends on the game's balance. Some RPG's are very well balanced, and if you're slightly smart with them you can get through them without farming for experience or gold once. However, for every one like that I feel there is another which has poor balancing, unfair 'one-hit-KO' bosses, and overall a lack of depth and a necessity for raw power, which is only gained by power-leveling. It doesn't help that the final bosses and enemies in these games tend to have little to no weaknesses, throwing strategy out the window.

Another issue with this system is how easily it can be broken. The developers can have all the care to properly balance enemies and bosses and challenges, but sometimes we find ourselves exploring an area more throughoutly in search of maybe items, or another such thing, killing randomly popping enemies over and over, and in the end we find that the mighty boss became a pussy that we barely have to break a sweat to kill. I think it kind of diminishes the work put into the game by developers if players can, whether voluntarily or not, destroy all the effort in creating interesting challenges. The opposite may also happen, in which we go through some more annoying spots in the game as quickly as possible, and find that we're not nearly powerful enough to deal with the battles ahead, forcing us to grind for a while.

I think the solution to that is a bit obvious. Experience needs to be exchanged effectively with another in-game currency.

One game I can think of the top of my head that tries to do that is Persona 3. Unlike most other RPG's, in which time to grind is what you have the most (despite their plots often trying to make you think otherwise), in Persona in-game time is of the essence and must be used effectively, as the game is taking your character through a whole in-game year, day-by-day (obviously you don't play 24 hours each 'day', and most days will be gone in a matter of a few minutes) whether you like it or not.

If your party is heatlhy enough you can head for a night to a tower infested with enemies to explore, collect items and train your characters. However, your characters within that place grow tired as they fight battles, which continuously diminish their effectiveness in combat. You can't farm experience indefinitely (at least around the first 2/3rds of the game) or you may find your characters being one-hit-KO'd by puny enemies because they're dead-tired. And you can only save your game at the base of the tower, and any tired characters in your party will leave automatically, so you can't even use saves as a crutch, or you may find yourself fighting alone with a tired character and often dying. and you can't go to the tower every day either, as you have a lot of other stuff to manage in your daily life, and your party may not be up to speed for many days after an incursion. Unfortunately as the level of your party increases so does their stamina, and by the end of the game you'll probably be leaving the tower out of boredom instead of your teammates nagging you to get out of there and sleep. Still, for as long as it lasts it's a far more interesting mechanic than what I was used to seeing.

NOw this post is already enourmous so i'm gonna shut up. Tongue
Logged

Feel free to disregard the above.
Games: Minus / Action Escape Kitty
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2008, 11:21:21 AM »

I second the idea that Persona 3 is really taking jRPGs in a new and better direction. It's one of the only mainstream games I've played in the past few years that I've enjoyed as much as I enjoy indie games. I can tell that the team that made it really cared.

I have plans for my own RPG one day, and these are the basic outline of the plans:

- Make battles automatic, fast-forwardable, and skippable. This will take away the boring nature of most RPG battles by completely removing them. This does not mean that there would not be battles, just that they wouldn't be playable, you'd just equip your characters, and watch them go. Final Fantasy 12 did this to some extent, but it still allowed you to hijack control and do it manually if you desired, whereas I think that was a bad idea and it'd be more interesting if it were simply fully automatic.

- This would in turn change the emphasis of the game from revolving around battles and experience points to revolving around exploration of and interaction with the game world. This doesn't mean the need to equip characters or the "numbers" like HP and strength would completely vanish, just that they'd still be there but performing a lesser role. Players that like that sort of stuff would still be able to play with it, but players who don't care could safely ignore the intricacies of what weapon is better than what on which monster and which spells are more important to purchase/upgrade than which or which classes are good and in what combination etc. etc. and still be able to get through the game.

- Set the story on a timeline, as in Persona 3, where certain events will happen at certain times, and the use of your time is the major challenge and interest value of the game. You wouldn't be able to do everything, because time is limited, so you have to exercise free will and instead of being a completionist decide what is more important to do and what is less important, what fits you as a person more to do and what doesn't fit you to do.
Logged

Xion
Pixelhead
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2008, 12:20:29 PM »

Me, I hate the numbers and the leveling. It seems so counterintuitive to a genre of game which has come to rely so much on story for progress. In Lord of the Rings there was no "Balrog strikes Gandalf for 3052 damage Critical Hit!" It all becomes less of an actual experience and more of a numbers game, with no skill involved but just a guess of what attack will make more numbers appear above the baddies' heads, etc, and if you guess wrong you lose. I would love it so much if these number-dependent games became more of a cinematic experience, where instead of Swords having + 44 attack they would instead be described simply as "strong" and the only feedback you get from your enemies or allies' as to their state of health was appearance, behavior, and such.
Logged

ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2008, 12:28:16 PM »

I can enjoy it or leave it, myself. There are times when I enjoy a RPG just for the feeling of optimizing a character and getting him to do the highest numbers of damage, but most of the time I just play them for the value of exploring a world and seeing a story unfold.

I have a friend who said she likes the idea of RPGs and would play them if there were an option to just remove battles entirely. I think if RPGs would offer that option their audience would expand from the hardcore to a larger general audience.
Logged

ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2008, 12:32:22 PM »

Oh, this reminds me of something another person I know said. He said once that RPGs bill themselves as you "playing the hero". When in fact you're actually "playing the hero's secretary".

Because you aren't actually making any important decisions except what he equips, where he walks, what items he buys, where the locations are of the appointments he has to keep, what the next item on his agenday should be (his task / to do list), and so on.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2008, 12:40:54 PM by rinkuhero » Logged

Melly
Level 10
*****


This is how being from "da hood" is like, right?


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2008, 02:36:32 PM »

So you mean that you'd put more focus on player choices and exploration/interaction with the world around him in a meaningful matter, right? Well that's pretty much what I'd personally call a true role-playing-game, where the focus really is in playing a role on the development of the world and its story.

However if you're going to tell a story perhaps you should put some focus on developing the most frequent activities your character would take part in. It's okay to keep battles away from the main experience if they're barely necessary and your character doesn't go through combat often at all, but if you're telling a story with a lot of conflict your character is directly involved in actually putting thought and development into how the player goes through those sequences would enhance the experience.

What I mean is, not to dismiss battles completely if they're actually an integral part of your story.

Now, if the integral part of your story is a long journey through unknown lands, I could even see an RPG with some focus on the management of a group of people trying to survive in the wild, finding food and shelter for the night, etc. That would increase the immersion in the story, I think.

That's kind of like how I see a LotR RPG. The most pervasive aspects of LotR are medieval combat, exploration of vast landscapes and the interaction with important plot figures. If you developed those three aspects (the combat doesn't necessarily have to be with numbers flying around) while putting focus on the storytelling and character interaction/development, it could become a very good RPG in the LotR universe.
Logged

Feel free to disregard the above.
Games: Minus / Action Escape Kitty
Guert
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2008, 04:12:23 PM »

Ok A few comments of mine...

On the matter of jrpgs being cliché-ed and redundant story-wise, what can we do as designers in order to change that? Games like Earthbound, Planescape: torment (well, not a jrpg but an rpg none the less) or Chrono Trigger have used different methods to give a twist to their story. How can one create an original story in this particular style?

The main difference between western and japanese rpgs is that, on the western side, the games try to focus on the player's action rather than developing complicated storylines, which allows the player to explore a lot more the universe of the game. Take the recent Obliveon or Fables games for example. Players have to make choices and it's impossible to see everything on your first "run".  Judging from the arguments posted in the previous replies, does it mean that the only way the jrpgs can evolve is by actualy becoming closer to their western siblings?  

As far as the level and battle system goes, most jrpgs do feature them but they are not all an important part of the game. Take the Ogre Battle titles on the Snes and N64. Although these games are centered around tactical battles, the player does not control anything during the fight scenes. In fact, the player can only influence slightly the behavior of the units fighting and the battle still feel epic. But, many players don't feel like they are truly playing the game if they are not controling the characters. Is there a way to merge active and passive battle together to satisfy all players?

Without defending the method, it is true that displaying numbers during battles change the way the player feels toward the game but it does allow a quick understanding of the current game situation. How, on a designer point of view, can we allow the player to have as much information without using popping numbers? How can we show the information with this much ease without favoring statistic play?

Regarding the battle system with random encounters, how can a designer allow players to have freedom over their character's growth without allowing them to unbalance the game? Pen and paper rpgs have used several ways to prevent that, such as having a different amount of experience points awarded depending on a level and, after reaching a certain point, stopping players from gaining experience points completely if they don't battle foes of a similar strenght. Another method used is making the foes "smart". Smart foes grow or decrease power depending of the player's strenght, meaning that these enemies will always over power the player unless he has reached maximum level capacities (ex: the monster is always 5 levels higher than the player unless the player has maxed out levels). What do you think of those methods and do you feel like they are good rules to add to the jrpg style?

On the emotional involvment side, it is true that most jrpg toss aside the player during important scenes for the sake of the story. How can we design a game that allows a fixed story to unfold without problems while allowing the player to be emotionaly involved in the whole process? How can we implement a narrative without making the player feel trapped inside the storyline in jrgs?

This is great guys Smiley I'm not an expert in rpg so I won't give my personal opinions in this topic but I really like what you are saying Smiley
And to you, other readers, don't be shy to share your opinion on the topic! Smiley
Logged

Xion
Pixelhead
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2008, 05:34:36 PM »

Quote
Without defending the method, it is true that displaying numbers during battles change the way the player feels toward the game but it does allow a quick understanding of the current game situation. How, on a designer point of view, can we allow the player to have as much information without using popping numbers? How can we show the information with this much ease without favoring statistic play?
Well, really, I don't see much point in displaying numbers in the first place - they're much too precise and technical, and I doubt the majority of gamers will honestly take note of the difference between a hit for 525 and 521 damage. This may not be the case for lower levels when the player can only do 6-10 damage and the foes only have around 15 hp, but once you get so far, I don't need to know the exact number of hitpoints I've taken off of an enemy, especially when the total is in the thousands. And often you can't even see the enemy's hp and stuff without using a special ability. It's pointless displaying the numbers before you have a point of reference. 60 damage might be a good hit for a character of your level but it won't matter much when the opponent's health is much, much, much higher. (though admittedly, you usually get how strong something is when it hits back!)
I propose a system of visual cues: for instance, say, when hitting a foe sparks fly. A few blue sparks means not much damage was done. More blue sparks means a decent amount of damage was done, let's say the norm for the player. When tons of blue sparks fly it means you got in a critical hit. When a significant chunk of the enemy's health has been knocked off by a hit, (say, 10%?) white sparks will intermingle with the blue. The more white sparks among the blue, the more significant the damage caused. So, let's say a powerful character one-shots a low-level enemy: Only a few sparks would fly because they didn't do much damage relative to the player's potential strength, but all the sparks are white because alot of damage was done relative to the victim's total health.
So yeah, that might take up a bit more memory or whatever if working on a system with lots of limits, but it doesn't have to be sparks - it could be the color and duration of the enemy's flashingness after being hit, or two sprites (one for low damage, one for high) hue shifted and displayed when an enemy is hit, or something along those lines. But really, I get that early on they were probably trying not to use too many sprites and settled for a font, numbers, suchandsuch, but we've moved beyond those technical limitations so there's really no need to keep on that track.
[/imho]

I dunno. It's just an idea. I'm just certain there's got to be a better way than obscure numbers that don't even exist in the game-world (I'm sure the character being role-played doesn't see the numbers, and besides the intro tutorial fight, or some fourth-wall-breaking monologue, they're never mentioned.)

Also, unlike Rinkuhero, I actually would like more control over the characters. This is why I like the Mario RPGs so much - they leave less to chance and the fights rely more on skill and reflex. Just me but I hate games of chance. "Attack whom? You attack the Generic Slime. miss!" What? Why did I miss? At least show the enemy evading in some form!
Logged

Mitchard
Level 1
*


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2008, 05:37:20 PM »

This whole RPG system really seems like the epitome of bad game design to me.

RPG battles are generally glorified spreadsheets, and not only that. Battles aren't just a series of equations, but a series of equations with hundreds of random variables thrown in. How can I play a game when the same set of actions could equally result in either crushing defeat or victory?

Yeah, so bosses and  enemies get harder as the game progresses, but your characters are always being leveled to match them. There's no real change in difficulty as you progress. Sure bosses have 10 times more life, but you deal 10 times more damage. You need 10 times more experience to level up, but thats ok because enemies are giving out 10 times more experience anyway.

I really think they're making things more difficult for themselves. How are you supposed to design a challenging boss when there could be a 30 level difference between players? It's going to be impossible for one player and a pushover for the other.

I'm kind of wondering if an RPG without levels could work. The idea is that the player ends the game with the same predefined stats he starts with, bosses and enemies are designed around these stats to provide a steady difficulty curve. Defeating a boss would be more a matter of finding or exploiting a weakness than being the correct level. I guess a different reward system for defeating enemies would have to used.
Logged
mewse
Level 6
*



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2008, 06:01:32 PM »

Observations:

I (programmer) really like stories in my games.  Many/most of my favourite games have really interesting storylines, and I've been known to trudge all the way through even weak games, just to be able to experience the whole plot.  So I find a lot of JRPGs to be entertaining for the presentation of their stories (even if many/most of them are rather trite).  But in my opinion, there's almost always way too much combat in these things;  I wouldn't mind at all if all the combat was removed from them entirely.

A friend of mine (designer) really likes exploration.  He doesn't particularly care about stories;  his point of view is that if he wants a story, he'll read a book.  No, what he really likes is getting to the top of the next hill so he can see what's past it.  He loves exploring little nooks and finding hidden trinkets and getting past the next door and over the horizon.  He loves JRPGs (though not as much as he loves western RPGs, which typically give him more freedom to explore wherever and whenever he likes), but he despises the boss fights (particularly the multi-stage ones).  While he generally only complains about the boss battles, he has expressed to me on more than one occasion that if they sold a DVD movie of someone playing through whatever JRPG he's playing at the moment for the same price as the JRPG itself, he would have bought the DVD movie instead, and would probably have enjoyed it more since he then wouldn't have to struggle through the boss battles, but could still see everything that the game had to offer.

I have a third friend (artist), who's a real hard-core gamer.  He doesn't care about story at all, and skips cutscenes whenever possible (and whinges noisily when it's not).  From his point of view, game satisfaction comes exclusively from the game mercilessly pounding his face into the dirt until he eventually works out a strategy to beat the game and show it who's boss.  His opinion is that a game's challenge should chiefly be about the player gaining skills, and that the player's character gaining levels/abilities should be a secondary to that.  In a JRPG, this basically means that he wants his tactical skills to be critically important during combat, and if the game was simplified to the point that combat was removed or made automatic, he would lose interest entirely.  Or as he would put it:  "At that point, would it really still be a game?"


I don't know if we're going to find a way to improve JRPGs that would appeal to all people who currently play JRPGs.  I suspect that virtually any major change would alienate one or more of their core audiences.  (Of course, if someone wants to make a JRPG which has no combat in it, please let me know so I can buy a copy!  Smiley )
Logged
Melly
Level 10
*****


This is how being from "da hood" is like, right?


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2008, 06:45:38 PM »

Like anything, change means that the core audience of a product will also change.

What I'm emphasizing, however, is not the removal of battles, or making the linear plots become more player-action-oriented, but to make the current mechanics more properly thought out than they are now. Leveling up for hours of repetitive combat just isn't interesting for both people who enjoy being challenged and people who enjoy exploring a world/going through a good story. It's only interesting to MMO addicts who like to fake it to themselves that they've achieved something worthwhile by having a level 500 character with a complete epic gear set which he spent dozens/hundreds of boring hours building. Games that emphasize leveling without boundaries don't feel like entertainment, they feel like work. Work without real psychological benefits (and some would say with actually harmful effects).

The culmination of that outside of the MMO realm is games like Disgaea. Sure, the first time you go through the game it's interesting, the plot is fun, there's strategy to be had and employed, the dialogue can be downright hilarious and it's geniunely fun to go through it. Once. After that I stop playing, but the game allows you to get to insane levels (level 9999 maximum, by which your attacks can reach millions of damage points easily) and there are people who actually spend hundreds of hours doing nothing but getting to that height. The game also has unlockable content which requires you to be on such stupidly high levels of power, and it's not anything that's worth slogging 50+ hours to get to. If you're good at leveling, that is, else expect that time to double.

Personally, I don't feel that's a worthwhile use of one's time. Even if he's just trying to distract himself I'd probably recommend something like Tetris instead. At least you're improving a few areas of your brain that way.
Logged

Feel free to disregard the above.
Games: Minus / Action Escape Kitty
mewse
Level 6
*



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2008, 09:17:22 PM »

Leveling up for hours of repetitive combat just isn't interesting for both people who enjoy being challenged and people who enjoy exploring a world/going through a good story.

That's a fantastic insight.  Now that you point it out, yes, all three of us would support removing character levels from a JRPG, even though we have different things we look for in a game.  (Designer and I would support it because it'd get rid of ridiculous grinding, and Artist would support it because it'd make true player skill become the only differentiation between victory and defeat)

This leads to a different interesting question, though;  this time from the production side.  There's an expectation out there that a modern JRPG will take somewhere between 30 and 50 hours to complete.  Most of that time is usually taken up fighting through the game's random encounters.  If we remove the pointless grinding, then one of two things is going to happen:  Either we're going to have to build more world and/or more plot to pad out the playtime to the expected duration, or consumers are going to have to adapt to shorter JRPG experiences.  They've already adapted to this in other genres, so maybe that's not outside the bounds of reason.  Do you see plotlines become more intricate and lengthy?  Or games shorter?  Or would you keep the frequency of random encounters to pad out the gameplay, but simply not have the player level up as a result of them?

I suppose that you'd probably also need to add difficulty levels to the JRPG as well, to compensate for no longer being able to grind your party up to a stupidly high level in order to fight your way through a difficult encounter that you (as the player) are just not skillful enough to cope with.

And here's another question.  If we keep random combats, then what about gear?  Typically, you acquire improved gear as you go through a game, usually as item drops from random encounters.  Even if you remove the levelling up, you still get the same effect from purchasing or finding gear.  Do we need to stop random item drops as well?  Otherwise, instead of grinding for levels, the players will go grinding for epic gear, which is basically the same thing;  fight monsters long enough and you'll get improved damage, improved defense, etc.
Logged
Melly
Level 10
*****


This is how being from "da hood" is like, right?


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2008, 09:35:16 PM »

I personally feel that, if a game without the repetitiveness and grinding becomes 1/4 of what it used to be, it's for the best. Probably you'd have to completely ignore discussing the length of the game when you advertise it, but as games like Portal have proved, if a short experience is good enough, people will still love it. Probably more so. You'd just have to make sure that that shorter time with the game is a worthwhile one. On the other side, games like Heavenly Sword are short but still manage to be a bit repetitive, and so don't fare as well.

You could use difficulty levels, but they aren't the only solution. Creating different paths to accomplish an objective would also allow players with different skill levels to get through the game.

Anything that you can spend dozens of hours doing constitutes griding for me, and in that the gold/item farming is also included. It would be more interesting if unique and powerful items could only be acquired through challenges of skill, maybe puzzles, or using stealth to steal it, etc. Anything that actually requires active mental work from the player.
Logged

Feel free to disregard the above.
Games: Minus / Action Escape Kitty
Mitchard
Level 1
*


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2008, 02:23:05 AM »

And here's another question.  If we keep random combats, then what about gear?  Typically, you acquire improved gear as you go through a game, usually as item drops from random encounters.  Even if you remove the levelling up, you still get the same effect from purchasing or finding gear.  Do we need to stop random item drops as well?  Otherwise, instead of grinding for levels, the players will go grinding for epic gear, which is basically the same thing;  fight monsters long enough and you'll get improved damage, improved defense, etc.

Yes, you'd have to get rid of gear, the players stats would be unchanging.

It would probably work better with something a little more tactical than the traditional Final Fantasy style setup though.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2008, 04:19:09 AM by Mitchard » Logged
cgmonkey
Level 0
**


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2008, 05:01:34 AM »

To analyze JRPG's without analyzing its' intended market -- Japan -- is cooking without salt. I believe JRPG's are inherently linear and grindy because it's how japanese people want it, whether they realize it or not, they don't want to make bigger decisions: They want a story, with characters (preferably characters they can relate to) and emotions amplified through "cliché". So in effect we have just adopted their way of playing back in the 80's because we didn't have any other substitute (atleast nothing as sophisticated as the japanese story lines were back then).

What has happened in recent years is a crossover where some of the japanese game makers want to make games for the western market as well. Sakaguchi springs to mind, I think Blue Dragon is a good example of how you can make JRPG's more interesting to play. It felt fresh even though a lot of players have complained about repetativeness - it's actually the first JRPG I've finished since Final Fantasy 7.

Western players are raised with a stronger reward system than Japanese players I think (it's infused in our culture). Hence an RPG without satisfying rewards getting bigger and bigger western players lose interest whereas a player from Japan could effectively play a game without big rewards (or increasing rewards).

Personally I am somewhere in between - I can't stand games that is designed poorly, a player should _ALWAYS_ know where he is going. However I can very well play a game just beacause of the characters, their personalities and what it brings to the story.

Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2008, 08:15:13 AM »

On the matter of jrpgs being cliché-ed and redundant story-wise, what can we do as designers in order to change that? Games like Earthbound, Planescape: torment (well, not a jrpg but an rpg none the less) or Chrono Trigger have used different methods to give a twist to their story. How can one create an original story in this particular style?

I'm not so sure that's important. Originality isn't the only thing that matters. I don't mind cliche stories as long as they're well-written and interesting. Now, you don't have to use cliches like saving the world or the hero who has amnesia or the girl who is a descendent of a magical race or whatever, but what I mean is that if a game does use those cliches that does not automatically make it a bad story. Some people enjoy stories about someone leaving safe surroundings and maturing through a variety of increasingly difficult challenges to become more courageous, gathering allies to help, and eventually together with them doing something of great value to the world, and it doesn't matter if it's the 10,000th time you've seen it, it's still a good formula that's thousands of years old. You don't have to make RPGs in that way if you don't want to, but I think it's unfair to say that any story set up like that is terrible.

On the emotional involvment side, it is true that most jrpg toss aside the player during important scenes for the sake of the story. How can we design a game that allows a fixed story to unfold without problems while allowing the player to be emotionaly involved in the whole process? How can we implement a narrative without making the player feel trapped inside the storyline in jrgs?

You can do that simply by making the player's character *not* the main character of the story. If what they do in the story only marginally affects it, you can have a fixed story and allow free player action to act any way they want within the context of that story. This works surprisingly well when it's been tried, and I'm surprised it's not tried more often. I think the reason it isn't tried more is that people like to feel important, but really, is it that important that you control the main character in a story? Think of the Sherlock Holmes stories; they were told through the perspective of Watson, not of Holmes; a Sherlock Holmes game would feel much more right if you controlled Watson rather than Holmes.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2008, 08:28:13 AM by rinkuhero » Logged

mewse
Level 6
*



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2008, 10:41:59 AM »

Think of the Sherlock Holmes stories; they were told through the perspective of Watson, not of Holmes; a Sherlock Holmes game would feel much more right if you controlled Watson rather than Holmes.

Infocom actually did this in Sherlock:  The Riddle of the Crown Jewels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock:_The_Riddle_of_the_Crown_Jewels

Though they made Watson the main character in the game;  they basically had Sherlock solve the case in the introductory text, and then decide that since it was so absurdly simple (of course, not to anyone but himself) that it must therefore be a cunning trap designed to snare him, and he instructs Watson -- you -- to solve the case in his stead, to avoid the trap.  And he trails around after you, just as Watson typically did in the original Holmes stories.

Can someone point us at a couple games where you don't control the main character of the story?  I can't immediately think of any off the top of my head.  I mean, it seems to me that by virtue of having the player's character always in center stage, they effectively become the main character, even if they're not precisely the center of the story (see "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", for the classic example of this). 

(And for what it's worth, this would be an awesome TIG competition theme;  create a game where the player controls someone other than the main character)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic