next »

[Gravious]

OK so I've started my Zelda clone and while the overall plot and setting is locked, I'm very interested to hear your opinions on what you've enjoyed about the best RPG's you've played, specifically particular gameplay mechanics or features.

For instance, a feature I'm definitely including is a proper XP driven skill tree which governs your success in various actions.

Is it popular opinion that turn-based battling is great or pants?

While making my dream game, i want to make it enjoyable for others so please tell me what you like

[skaldicpoet9]

I think TBS is awesome!

FF Tactics is my epitome of a great TBS/RPG game.

I think the thing that I enjoy the most is the various side-quests that you can do in a RPG game. It really mixes up the gameplay possibilities and steers the game from being too much of a hack and slash grind-fest. What I mean by side-quests pertains to mini games of a sort, for instance, being able to become a gladiator and fight in the arena, learning new skills and opening new quests. Something that has some substance(rather than just being a stupid, pointless distraction) and is genuinely fun, and, will hopefully add something helpful to the game as well.

Really, I think the best way to create something good is to look at your favorite games and try to figure out what it was that they were missing...

Well anyways, good luck man

[Alex May]

OK, these are the features about RPGs that I love:

Fishing
Taking photographs
Cooking
Side quests

These are the mechanics:

Levelling up, of course
Levelling up weapons
Any other non-standard form of levelling up that isn't characters, for instance I loved synthesising objects and upgrading my weapons with them in Dark Chronicle (Dark Cloud 2). I also loved turning standard items into better ones through the method of cooking in Atelier Iris, it was the only good bit of the game if I'm honest. Anything that adds value to items you don't generally use. I loved levelling up items in Disgaea by going inside them, that was GENIUS.

These are the things I like about Zelda:

Great writing.
So-called "Metroidvania" stuff where you have to come back to areas you cleared because you gained a new power.
Side quests.



Generally it seems like people love turn-based JRPG battles but I hate 'em. I like action RPGs or strategy RPGs but not traditional JRPGs.

[Alec]

I've always liked Active Time Battle (ATB) as in FF6. Like the pressure of time mixed with being able to pick actions strategically.

But I felt that FF10 did turn-based combat pretty well, because it was fast paced and you could see whose turns were coming up next. (and various status/spells would change the order of the line up) Made it feel as dynamic as ATB.

[Melly]

Personally, I believe the gameplay mechanics of your game should be chosen and created depending on what kind of feelings you want to draw from the player, how you want to tell your story, etc. I personally somewhat dislike 'RPG's' that get an overdone cookie-cutter gameplay and slap a story on top. Sure, some have done that and still were great games, but it just feels like there was no imagination present in the gameplay design.

It's also interesting to note how little like RPG's most RPG's really are. Let me explain.

RPG means Role-Playing-Game. That implies that you, the player, plays a character role within the game world. Playing a role is, for me, much more than just taking your party through random battles and level progression while reading a story that would lose little if it was rewritten in book format. Playing a role means taking decisions that affect the other characters, the world and ultimately the plot. That's the rarest thing to see in computer and videogame RPG's, which is odd considering that should be the basic concept around an RPG. The worst are the 'RPG's' that don't even let you choose how to develop your characters, that have characters with completely preset skill and level progression in addition to a completely linear storyline. Those aren't RPG's at all for me, more like 'storybook' games.

But of course, that's just my opinion.

[skaldicpoet9]

The worst are the 'RPG's' that don't even let you choose how to develop your characters, that have character with completely set skill and level progression in addition to a completely linear storyline. Those aren't RPG's at all for me, more like 'storybook' games.

Yeah, I totally agree...I think that the term "RPG" is thrown around much too much nowadays. I would love to see a good RPG where your actions actually determine the things that happen in-game (there are a few that do this but they are too far and in between). I also don't want my RPG to feel like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book where the choices are superficial and irrelevant. I want to be able to make choices that will effect my relations with the characters I encounter in the game and the end result of the game itself.

[handCraftedRadio]

The main thing I look for in RPG's is the combat system. I don't care how good the plot or any of the other special features are if the combat system sucks. Its just not fun and I won't play it. I think you should work on getting a solid combat system and basic gameplay that is fun first, then you can add in all the other fancy RPG things that make the game unique.

[Melly]

I think that the term "RPG" is thrown around much too much nowadays.

RPG today apparently means "Game with some kind of level and ability progression based on battle experience, using ideas recycled from decade old games that also failed in delivering an experience more similar to a true RPG."

The main thing I look for in RPG's is the combat system. I don't care how good the plot or any of the other special features are if the combat system sucks.

I wonder why it seems for most people an RPG NEEDS to have combat. Maybe because of my previous statement. Or maybe because most gamers feel killing things = fun, and anything else sucks.

I don't know, but there is no combat written in "role playing game", is there?

[handCraftedRadio]

The main thing I look for in RPG's is the combat system. I don't care how good the plot or any of the other special features are if the combat system sucks.

I wonder why it seems for most people an RPG NEEDS to have combat. Maybe because of my previous statement. Or maybe because most gamers feel killing things = fun, and anything else sucks.

I don't know, but there is no combat written in "role playing game", is there?

Well I don't think an RPG needs to have combat to be fun (Harvest Moon), although it is very hard to pull off without it . Since he was talking about a zelda clone I was thinking action RPG and combat is the main focus of the game, as with many RPGs. Its just that adding many other different features without perfecting the main focus of the game, combat in this case, makes the rest of the game worthless to play, IMO.

[ChevyRay]

PLEASE do not turn this into another "what is an RPG" argument. We should all know by now that everybody has a different opinion of this, and frankly it's been argued to death.

The perfect RPG, for me, is not a clone, unfortunately. But being such a HUGE role-playing gamer, and growing up on them almost solely (not really getting into other genres until later ages) I'll have to comment some more.

• Dynamic characters + growth. The protagonists must develop and grow, the antagonists must develop and grow, and you should almost be somebody completely different and a whole lot more powerful by the end. If your main character does not learn a single thing, ability-wise or emotionally, you've probably gone wrong somewhere.
   
• Awesome antagonist. I'd have even said antagonists, but to think of it, it's always best when it all comes down to one single fellow. Don't just pick any old bad guy cliche out of a hat. Personally, I show more interest in the game's antagonists than I do in the protagonists -- by far. Think of your favorite RPGs, and what made the antagonist so special.
   
• Battles. Since most gamers like battling, and most developers like creating battles, and the best of RPGs had battles, I'll agree that battles are important. As long as the battling feels good to the play and isn't too repetitive, there's not much I can say, because battle systems can be all so different. Look for familiar features, but don't make it too simple thus limiting the choices in battle. Look for ways to expand your battle system as well (eg. materia, espers, limit breaks, movement, weaknesses, etc.) to add strategy and your own personal touch to them. This is brief, but I could go on forever if I were to go into detail.
   
• Exploration and secrets. I've found that, in general, giving the player the opportunity to explore freely and do side-quests makes a game more enjoyable. Side-quests, though, are only annoying if they too are just pulled out of a hat and don't really add to the story or anything. Chrono Trigger was fun because the side quests had backstories and were so effective, allowing the player to change the forestation of an entire continent or bettering the life of a party-member's mother. The ability to explore, whilst not forcing the player to do it too much, always gives a game that extra edge of fun that the player deserves. Why make a big world if you're gonna just give it all away so easily?
   
• Epic. It's gotta be big, with plot twists, emotional battles, a grand climax, with a satisfying (and possibly just a touch open-ended) finish. It doesn't even have to be on a large scale; it can even be more personal, but must be projected, thus perceived by the player, as of utmost importance and value.

I've got a headache now, and should go to sleep, so I won't go on. Good luck!

[Gravious]

No, I'm not interested in an argument over who's favorite is best either, we all know  the Pokemon franchise is best :D

ChevyRay: i agree with your post on what an RPG should be, though i label my game as a "Zelda clone" i mean it in the loosest sense in that it is a top down 2D adventure game.  I am very keen to have the protagonist grow through the game and though i have an XP based skill system, XP is rewarded for objectives and performing certain actions too.  It is infact the most important element of the game for me other than the story and is what I've started work on first as certain options will be made available or not, based on the player skills, this makes a big impact on designing the gameplay.

[Kornel Kisielewicz]

RANDOM
RANDOM
RANDOM
RANDOM
RANDOM

Oh, and in case you didn't get it:

RANDOM

[skaldicpoet9]

Levelling up, of course
Levelling up weapons
Any other non-standard form of levelling up that isn't characters, for instance I loved synthesising objects and upgrading my weapons with them in Dark Chronicle (Dark Cloud 2). I also loved turning standard items into better ones through the method of cooking in Atelier Iris, it was the only good bit of the game if I'm honest. Anything that adds value to items you don't generally use. I loved levelling up items in Disgaea by going inside them, that was GENIUS.

I think Haowan has the right idea here......I really dig RPGs where the skill system is based off of levels of skill rather than an XP/level system. The xp/leveling system has, in my opinion, been done to death. I would really love to see a completely new system arise. Perhaps something along the lines of what Haowan is talking about with weapons and items and such but applied to the characters themselves. Think, for example, how awesome it would be to choose a class and race but then to be able to go down different avenues from within a class rather then just becoming a "lvl 24 Mage" with the same stats as anyone else who is the same level and class. For example: from within the Mage class there can be differing classes of Mages (to be cliche Fire, Ice, Water etc...really any sort of new derivation of the Mage class can be substituted here) and each of these classes would have sub-classes within them as well that give the player the choice to learn completely different things than even someone that was the same exact class as them. I think that this would allow RPGs to cater to roleplayers more as well because of the greater degree of customization (tons of people still play Morrowind for this exact reason) that this system would afford to players.

[Lancer-X]

One problem with traditional experience-based levelling is that it's usually used to make a character increase in power insanely through the game. This doesn't even approach realism or believability. Fighting a ridiculous number of monsters logically does not make you able to hit with a hundred times the force, or take a hundred times the amount of damage, or move a hundred times as fast.

I'm not saying that it should be realistic, just less ridiculous. Use more powerful weapons/artifacts/magic/whatever to realise larger-scale character growth.

[ChevyRay]

Personally, I always enjoyed the experience/level system better. Had less to worry about the statistics and how the "machine" works and could focus on a beautiful storyline, character development, goals, and just enjoy myself.

I'm not saying it's any more realistic or "better", I just enjoy it more.

[Golds]

I really liked Brain Lord, a semi-obscure Zelda-ish rpg/adventure hybrid from the SNES.

... some of the enemies made this great 8-bit sampled "FAK!" sound when they got hit, which inspired me to pay homage in  the B-Games contest.

[Lurk]

One thing I've always found lacking in rpgs, is real choices and my choices having an impact on the game world; at some point, my characters get so powerful that it starts making little sense if they keep taking orders from the seemingly powerless king. "But, you're heroes!" does'nt seem justification enough when you get shopping style errands from someone who still expects you to buy things from his stores, as if the millions of gold coins I already 'invested' in slowly upgrading my arsenal were'nt enough. Oh, we got the demonslaying sword back there that could help you save the kingdom, but, unless we see that iron key that you can only get by bringing the mirror to the mermaid on the other planet, you ain't getting it. I like games like 'adom' that allowed you to play a completely evil character that could be pursuing his own interests while questing to destroy the end-boss. And I made sure I wiped out every living soul in Terrinyo(starting village) with my undead army once I was done with all the neutral quests- to teach them a valuable lesson about selling overpriced rations to a once young and naive necromancer.

[.TakaM]

I've probably played a few dozen RPGs all together, and I think the main motivation for me, and the thing I enjoy the most is a diverse, immersive and detailed world.

I really don't get hung up on the story or battle system much, an detailed world full of culture is the reason I'll play an RPG through to the end

[LuisAnton]

I am not a friend of 'leveling' as such. "Level up! +5 life +3 strength..."...

I would like to find the same design ideas of San Andreas applied to a somewhat more classic RPG. I think that Elder Scrolls does something like that. Raise your abilities depending on your actions: if you run around the world, you raise your stamina; but if you ride on a horse instead, you become a better rider (your stamina would rise slower). If you fight a lot you become stronger and get bonuses with certain weapons, if you read books you get more intelligent. There's an ability that shows this idea: charisma. It does make sense that if you don't talk to people, you lose your social abilities.

If it's about developing a non-predefined character (like Zelda), I think that's a nice approach. You create a character depending on how you play.

[Gravious]

I am not a friend of 'leveling' as such. "Level up! +5 life +3 strength..."...

I would like to find the same design ideas of San Andreas applied to a somewhat more classic RPG. I think that Elder Scrolls does something like that. Raise your abilities depending on your actions: if you run around the world, you raise your stamina; but if you ride on a horse instead, you become a better rider (your stamina would rise slower). If you fight a lot you become stronger and get bonuses with certain weapons, if you read books you get more intelligent. There's an ability that shows this idea: charisma. It does make sense that if you don't talk to people, you lose your social abilities.

If it's about developing a non-predefined character (like Zelda), I think that's a nice approach. You create a character depending on how you play.

I must confess this is my favorite approach and most likely to be used in my effort.