next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Two recent popular ones, which aren't really great examples, are Metal Gear Solid 2 -- Snake was the main character but you only controlled him for the first part of the game -- and Final Fantasy X -- Yuna was the main character but the "player" was more identified with Tidus than with Yuna. But as I said, those aren't great examples because the player characters were still pretty important parts of the story.

Final Fantasy XII may be a better example than those two, because Ashe was clearly much more important to the story than Vaan, who despite being the character the player starts as and identifies with, doesn't actually *do anything* in the story but tag along for the action and help out occasionally.

There are also RTS games, where the player often plays a nameless general or commander. For instance, the player's character in Starcraft or the Command & Conquer series is not usually an important part of the story, to the degree that he or she doesn't even have a name, the player in those games is just some guy or gal that handles the troop movement, whereas the real story is about other characters (Kerrigan etc. in Starcraft, Tanya etc. in Command & Conquer). Those are also pretty good examples.

Another really great example is the Wing Commander series -- the player character is a pilot among many, and the story isn't really about your pilot at all, but about the events surrounding the space station and the other pilots. Your pilot does successfully win missions as part of a team of other pilots, but he has no special role in the story, the story is interesting and detailed but it isn't about the player character at all.

[joshg]

Grinding is bad, but do we need to eliminate character progression to solve the problem?  It seems like the biggest problem mentioned here is that combat-based level /power progression allows for too much variance between player experiences - eg. either way-easy boss fights because people took their time, or impossible boss fights that lead to level grinding because someone went "too quickly" through earlier parts of the game.

So if the core problem is combat-based leveling, why not make leveling based on something other than combat?  Tie in XP to plot events such as critical conversations, major exploration moments and maybe even specific battles.  Plan out the XP rewards in such a way that two players reaching the same point in the game will have the same XP.

As far as eliminating numbers, I think for a lot of players (myself included), being able to see the numbers involved allows for more strategic play and adds some fun.  But a good compromise in my mind would be to make them optional.  Alternately, if you really want to eliminate numbers, then make your underlying system number-less as well.  In other words, make a more interesting combat mechanic that doesn't simply fall back on "bigger number -> better".  A rock-paper-scissors sort of thing involving combinations of elements or runes or whatever other symbols, maybe, so that the strategy becomes more about which options you've made available rather than whether it's a +13 or +25 Sword of Icy Doodness?

Rinkuhero, having the player play as a secondary character would be a fantastic experiment, but it probably wouldn't work as a rule.  The reason we view the world through Watson's eyes is so that we can try to play along and figure out what Holmes' solution is without having full access to what he's doing and thinking.  It works in detective fiction because we identify with the more passive character who is following along - but in a game, we naturally have the capability to be active and have more direct control.  You could still have the player character be someone other than "Holmes", but then I think you might end up creating a sort of competition of you vs Holmes, rather than you vs. the mystery.

I dunno, maybe that would be awesome though.  I guess someone should make it so we can find out.  :D


Edit: ah, count on Infocom to have tried a wacky game/literary technique and proven me wrong!  :D :D

Edit again: wow, people keep posting while I'm busy typing all this gibberish.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

"Rinkuhero, having the player play as a secondary character would be a fantastic experiment, but it probably wouldn't work as a rule."

See above for examples of it working ^_^

[joshg]

There are also RTS games, where the player often plays a nameless general or commander. For instance, the player's character in Starcraft or the Command & Conquer series is not usually an important part of the story, to the degree that he or she doesn't even have a name, the player in those games is just some guy or gal that handles the troop movement, whereas the real story is about other characters (Kerrigan etc. in Starcraft, Tanya etc. in Command & Conquer). Those are also pretty good examples.

I dunno, I think pulling examples from outside the RPG realm is missing the point.  RTS games generally don't have a central character in the sense that RPGs do.  Saying you play an "unnamed general" is misleading - you don't play the part of any single character at all, really.  I mean, okay, the little dudes say "Yes, commander?" when you click but that's hardly a character at all in a story sense.

Edit add:  Likewise with Wing Commander games - you're there and you have wingmen, but your "character" is unseen and essentially nonexistent outside of in-game combat actions.

I'll take your word on those FF examples since I haven't played them yet. 

[joshg]

Also, wait, how can we use stock JRPGs such as FF games as examples when the whole reason we brought this up was because the JRPG approach leaves little room for the player's actions to matter?
 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

You are usually addressed directly in cutscenes in the C&C games, so I don't think it's true that you don't play the part of a character at all.

Likewise, in Wing Commander, your character isn't essentially non-existent outside of combat: your character spends time talking to the other characters, and they address him and threat him as a character.

I think the criticism that the jRPG approach leaves little room for the player's actions to matter isn't a valid criticism of jRPGs where the player plays a secondary character, because in those it doesn't feel like you, the player, are being dragged along by what your character decides, it instead feels that you are playing a character who is getting dragged along by what the hero of the game (who is not you) decides. It's a different form of experience, and I think it works better the second way than the first.

[Melly]

So if the core problem is combat-based leveling, why not make leveling based on something other than combat?  Tie in XP to plot events such as critical conversations, major exploration moments and maybe even specific battles.  Plan out the XP rewards in such a way that two players reaching the same point in the game will have the same XP.

Planescape: Torment did that in a very interesting way, in which simply talking to people or investigating objects could lead to large EXP boosts to your character, related to him remembering facts from his many past lives. I felt that I got more EXP out of exploring the world and interacting with its people than I did battling. and it was certainly massively more rewarding to level this way then to grind.

Also, about the fact that the japanese market enjoys the grinding, maybe it's time we showed them more alternatives to it and maybe get them off the bad habit.

[joshg]

You are usually addressed directly in cutscenes in the C&C games, so I don't think it's true that you don't play the part of a character at all.

Likewise, in Wing Commander, your character isn't essentially non-existent outside of combat: your character spends time talking to the other characters, and they address him and threat him as a character.

But what do we know about "you" as a character in those cases?  For narrative purposes the character of "you" is completely hollow, with no characterization at all.  Essentially who "you" are as a character makes absolutely no difference in these games.  No RPG could get away with having player characterization be *this* hollow.  It's a totally different situation.

I think the criticism that the jRPG approach leaves little room for the player's actions to matter isn't a valid criticism of jRPGs where the player plays a secondary character, because in those it doesn't feel like you, the player, are being dragged along by what your character decides...

Okay, that makes sense.  I thought you had meant to bring up the secondary-character idea as a way to offer both player choice and controlled plot, which seemed weird.  But as a way to dodge player choice without feeling railroaded, yeah that makes sense.

[Mitchard]

Grinding is bad, but do we need to eliminate character progression to solve the problem?

Totally. You're just going to adjust the enemies to compensate anyway, so why bother?

I think probably one of the best examples of doing a JPRG system right-ish is Panzer Dragoon Saga.

There is leveling, but it's pretty light and there's next to no grinding needed to keep up with the game, albeit completely arbitrary.
You can totally change your stats in the middle of a battle, so there's no screwing yourself over because you went into a battle unprepared.
The battles themselves are alot more involved than the normal RPG fare. You move around your enemies, looking for weak-points and avoiding area's in which the enemy can attack more powerfully. As the RPG sequel to a rail shooter series, the bosses generally unique, elaborate, multi staged deals with multiple targets that affect them in different ways.

[mewse]

Grinding is bad, but do we need to eliminate character progression to solve the problem?

Totally. You're just going to adjust the enemies to compensate anyway, so why bother?

I find Oblivion (a very western RPG design) to be an interesting example here;  in Oblivion the player levels up from using his core skills (as determined by his chosen character class), but all the enemies in the game, including the bosses, have their levels set relative to the player's level.

Or to put it a different way.. whenever the player gains a level, so does everyone else in world. 

It was an interesting approach for keeping things balanced while still giving the player a sense of progression, but I'm not sure whether it really worked well in practice.  On the plus side, it did remove mindless level grinding from the game.  On the other hand, it did feel kind of weird for wild rats to still pose a credible threat to you, even after you'd.. you know.. done major spoilery things that I won't list here. 

[threesided]

I unfortunately came into this thread a little late and don't have the time to read through all these thorough posts, so if I come to copy a person's idea well.. I guess that goes to show that something like that should be done!

First, I am a fan of HP and MP systems. I think some games however take it too far, such as Final Fantasy series. The amount of HP you gain as you level seems to increase far too fast, and as a result, you end up with that problem of there being no difference between 525 and 510. That's definitely a problem. In my opinion though, that's a very hard thing to fine-tune. Having all enemies and players with the right  HP throughout the entire game, forcing players to think about their attacks, plan a good time for healing etc. and really just THINK about whether that last 10 hp is going to hold out until the end of the battle is such an ambitious and daunting thing to balance. To me I think the flaw in numerical battle systems isn't in the actual concept, but moreso in the inability to get it absolutely right. Perhaps game designers who work on multiple titles (Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest), instead of reinventing every time, try fine-tuning what sucked in the last one. If it was too grindy, make the levelling more streamlined. If there was no point in status ailments, make it so they are important or get rid of them. I think  it moreso comes down to that ADD approach to RPG making.



One more thing I really think would benefit here would be some examples of what kinds of inventive additions to and RPG system has worked.

There are a few I can think of, and I'll go through them by title. These are mainly games I played that stuck with me as something that stood out in the genre, and I've played a lot of RPG's

Super Mario RPG: Secret of the Seven Stars: This to me took a simple jRPG style battle system and just kicked the shit out of it in the best way. The crowning achievement of that game (in the battle system) has to be the timing system. One thing jRPG's lack in battles is interactivity. There's no oppurtunity to affect your attacks or your enemy's attacks on you. You're left helpless to see whether you've hit or not. SMRPG is one of the few games where I loved to battle, it was just cool to see that you pressing buttons during an attack could actually affect things, or block an attack to make it do less damage. There was something inherently natural to me about pressing buttons in reaction to attacks. I really wish more RPG's used this system. It would take the boring grindy shit out of it (in my humble opinion). There's also just a certain charm to this game that remains with me.

Final Fantasy 6: I'd just like to quickly note the sheer number of characters you could be. That was an awesome way to keep the story interesting. Also, the intertwining game stories, where your party gets split up and you play overlapping "missions". I've yet to really find a game that does this as well, if at all.

Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross: This has been mentioned I think, but it has a lot of appeal to it. Multiple endings, Cross had a HUGE list of playables that made you go through at least 3 or so times to get them all I think. Both took a basic battle system and turned it on its head too. Combo attacks in Trigger was great,and such a unique idea. Suikoden did it too, but I think CT did it better.

Earthbound:There's a lot to say about this game too, but one thing that speaks to someone else's point about battles, is that the game didn't force you to fight certain enemies once you were strong enough, you automatically won.

Secret of Evermore/Secret of Mana/Kingdom Hearts: These three would fall more squarely into Action/RPG, although it really highlights how a leveling,hp and magic system can be implemented in a unique and engaging way. Although these may not be considered traditional jRPG's, they still hold true to a lot of the basic outlined qualities they hold as seen in Guert's first post.



So those are just some games that I think illustrate how a cliched battle system can be taken to new heights.



Story-wise, I'm going to say that it's hard to break out of the cliches simply because they do make the most sense in terms of needing to span an entire world/fight an ultimate evil etc. I think the cliches provide a solid foundation to the story. Although, the downfall comes in when those foundations aren't built upon.


AAAANNNNNDDDD my last point to make, about the so-called "Customization of Avatars" thing. This is probably one of my biggest gripes to the game, and that is that there isn't really ever customization. You often have only ONE choice of weapon or armor to upgrade to, or else you're stuck with a weaker weapon. It makes it seem as though you're customizing, but really, this is probably the most horribly linear aspect of the RPG genre. There should be a better way of customizing so that you once again, have to THINK about what you choose to buy. There obviously has to be some linear upgrading of that nature, but I think the equipment systems in jRPG's need a lot of work.

FFXII kind of did something cool by making each person able to use all weapons, but they needed to work towards getting licenses for them first. This could be easily abused, which is where the downfall comes, but I think it's an interesting start towards better cusomizability in equipment systems.



Fug this is long. sry guys and gals. :S

[Inane]

You often have only ONE choice of weapon or armor to upgrade to, or else you're stuck with a weaker weapon. It makes it seem as though you're customizing, but really, this is probably the most horribly linear aspect of the RPG genre. There should be a better way of customizing so that you once again, have to THINK about what you choose to buy.

This is something that annoys me to no end, when the equipment progression is completely linear.
Particularly annoying in FFT (Which isn't really a JRPG, I know) where most equipment had unique abilities, but it usually wasn't worth losing 50 HP or 25 damage per hit over.

[William Broom]

You often have only ONE choice of weapon or armor to upgrade to, or else you're stuck with a weaker weapon. It makes it seem as though you're customizing, but really, this is probably the most horribly linear aspect of the RPG genre. There should be a better way of customizing so that you once again, have to THINK about what you choose to buy.

This is something that annoys me to no end, when the equipment progression is completely linear.
Particularly annoying in FFT (Which isn't really a JRPG, I know) where most equipment had unique abilities, but it usually wasn't worth losing 50 HP or 25 damage per hit over.

I found this in FFXII as well. THe players' stats already increase constantly as they level up, so why do you need ridiculously powerful weapons as well? It would be more tactical, not to mention more realistic, if the weapons conveyed special abilities or bonuses rather than just growing ever more powerful. Using FFXII as an example, they could take out all those 'Green Magicks' that inflict poison/sap/petrify/disable/tuberculosis on the enemies, and give you weapons that do that instead.

[Xion]

Here's something interesting on leveling: http://jice.nospam.googlepages.com/levelingsystem
Although it's pertaining to a (cool looking) RL being developed, I think the system could apply to normal RPGs.

As for weapons, I think it would be more balanced and "customizable"y if all the equipment had maybe a points system to be distributed throughout all the stats, sort of like how in some games you can put points towards certain skills and stuff by taking them away from others. Similarly, let's say all weapons would have like 30 points to distribute among 5 stats. Evenly distributed the stats would all be 6. This would be the baseline for stats, being +0. but say one sword took a point away from attack and put it towards defense, or vice versa. The sword takes a point away from speed and adds it, to attack also, so the weapon now has an attack of +2, def of -1 and speed of -1. The farther you get into the game, the more disparate the weapons' points are distributed, so at beginning areas/low levels, you could have weapons be fairly neutral, but then as you advance, weapons' potential +attack will rise, but if you choose a weapon with a really high attack it will invariably be crippled in one, if not all, other aspects.

All this talk of stats reminds me of another thing:

JRPGs have too many. Luck, integrity, charisma, charm, wtf? I never found out what that stuff does. The only stats I ever pay any attention to are attack, defense, speed, and whatever-it's-called-that-determines-spell-strength. The other stuff just gets in the way on the inventory screen and takes up precious time when I level, what with all the bubbles that tell me what stat's've gone up and such. (in the games that do that, of course.)

I think Tales of Phantasia deserves a mention for its battle system, as well. I've never played any others in the tales of series, though, were they similar? Sidescrolling realtime combat as opposed to the turnbased drivel, ftw. Far from perfect, but it was fresh.

[William Broom]

I would have thought stats like integrity and charisma are more prevalent in WRPGs. Luck, I understand - it modifies the random elements in your favour. I like the idea of luck, because I've always wanted to make a character who has mediocre stats in everything but luck, and gets away with it. He's a bit like Fortune from MGS2, or Captain Kennit from Sara Douglass' The Liveship Traders. However, it rarely works out like this, and instead Luck is used as a crutch to make every character generally stronger.
My imaginary Luck character always finds the key he needs in the first or second treasure chest he opens. He defeats enemies because they trip over, or they ate a bad batch of mushrooms the night before. Merchants accidentally give him too much change.  He slays the dragon because he caught it while it was asleep. Other characters slog through whole dungeons to acquire an item which just turns up on Lucky's doorstep... you get the picture.

Unfortunately this character will probably never come to be, since every modern WRPG resembles Grand Theft Auto more than it does D&D. Age of Decadence excluded, of course 

Sorry, I ended up kind of talking about WRPGs in the JRPG thread.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

But what do we know about "you" as a character in those cases?  For narrative purposes the character of "you" is completely hollow, with no characterization at all.  Essentially who "you" are as a character makes absolutely no difference in these games.  No RPG could get away with having player characterization be *this* hollow.  It's a totally different situation.

That was exactly my point and I think it's desirable. Plenty of RPGs "get away" with it. Persona 3, the Suikoden Games, even Chrono Trigger have very hollow main characters. Those characters are still important to the story, but they have no personality, and I think it works better that way because the player can put his own personality onto a character if that character has very little personality of their own. There's a reason why most playable main characters in RPGs are silent types -- if they talked too much the player would think "I'd never say anything like that!" or "Why did I say such a stupid thing?", whereas if they hardly ever say anything, it doesn't break the illusion that you are the character.

[Bree]

Even in the Mario RPG series, every single character except Mario has dialogue. I suppose this is partly due to the fact that Mario has rarely spoken at all in any of his games, so it seems more natural. While it's not impossible to create a likeable speaking protagonist (the kid from Shadow Hearts: From the New World comes to mind), it's much easier for the developer to just shut him up and let the player inhabit his hollow shell.

Going back to battle systems, I feel Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga has one of the best I've seen in any RPG, ever. This is one of the few JRPGs that I WANT to get into fights. The combos and reaction commands make the battles consistently entertaining- it doesn't hurt that the presentation is charming as well. I'd also recommend Skies of Arcadia's more complex traditional system, as well as one I'm not sure was mentioned earlier:

Pokemon.

Yes, Pokemon. Think about it. That is a traditional JRPG disguised as a Beanie Baby collect-em-up. Your Pokemon have statistics, just like in a JRPG (Health, Defense, Attack, etc.), they level up and gain experience upon winning a battle, and they can use items to help them in battle. Without the amazingly creative designs (my last Pokemon game was Gold, so I can't comment on the ones later added), it would just be another Dragon Warrior knock-off. It's amazing just how much personality can add to a game. Example: Earthbound.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Actually I dislike Pokemon ever since I found out it was pretty much a rip-off of an earlier Megami Tensei game involving a kid collecting devils :D

[Gnarf]

Collecting really weird and cute animals is one million times as awesome as collecting devils though.

[joshg]

Pokemon is an awesome game, despite how overboard the phenomenon went afterwards.  (I blame the CCG.)