Register
I've played a lot of RPGs over the years, and one of the main things that's always bothered me about RPG dungeon design is the concept of:
Correct Path Bad, Dead-End Path Good.
I'm sure we've seen this all too many times, especially in older Dragon Quest and Wizardry style games, but also even in relatively newer titles (Xenogears comes to mind). You come to a fork in the road in a dungeon, and the only way to find out which fork leads to what is to pick one and check it out. Ooh! That's fun and adventurous, right? Wrong!
Many RPG designers put treasure boxes or other goodies at the very end of a dead-end path. Before finishing the dungeon area and proceeding, it is important that the player feels that they've adequately explored their surroundings and not missed anything valuable, for example, random treasure boxes that may contain important, one-of-a-kind items. Putting goodies on dead end, otherwise worthless paths means that the player must not only attempt to go the wrong way first, but that there's a 50/50 chance they will go the *right* way, and after perhaps several minutes and a handful of random battles realize "oh &$#! I'm making progress!!", must backtrack and intentionally go the *wrong* way, then after exploring the *wrong* way they must backtrack to the *right* way, and... and....
I think it's pretty obvious why this is a really terrible, lazy, flawed concept of dungeon design. It forces the player to retrace their steps for absolutely no reason aside from a possible treasure box that could've been placed somewhere that actually makes sense, all the while fighting random encounter after random encounter and wearing down their patience, enjoyment, and HP/MP. It's also disgustingly counter-intuitive; shouldn't the player WANT to be going the right way??
I think it's healthy to analyze why design concepts do or don't work in terms of making a game enjoyable. Feel free to rant about something you hate!
Name a common RPG design flaw you despise, and why.
Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:19 am 
Re: Name a common RPG design flaw you despise, and why.
Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:33 am
Foxley wrote:
Correct Path Bad, Dead-End Path Good.
I totally agree with this, and I recommend that you take a look at Spellshard for some examples of good dungeon design that avoids this problem. One of the easiest ways to avoid this is to make it clear to the player which path is the correct path. Spellshard does this in its early dungeons by having a big door that requires a key to be opened. Once the player's found the key, it's up to them whether they want to keep exploring or to open the big door.
Dungeon design in general tends to be neglected in RPGs. Dungeons and battles should be designed in a way that they'd be enjoyable on their own, not just as an obstacles between story scenes.
Re: Name a common RPG design flaw you despise, and why.
Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:43 am
RMSephy wrote:
I totally agree with this, and I recommend that you take a look at Spellshard for some examples of good dungeon design that avoids this problem. One of the easiest ways to avoid this is to make it clear to the player which path is the correct path. Spellshard does this in its early dungeons by having a big door that requires a key to be opened. Once the player's found the key, it's up to them whether they want to keep exploring or to open the big door.
Dungeon design in general tends to be neglected in RPGs. Dungeons and battles should be designed in a way that they'd be enjoyable on their own, not just as an obstacles between story scenes.
I totally agree with this, and I recommend that you take a look at Spellshard for some examples of good dungeon design that avoids this problem. One of the easiest ways to avoid this is to make it clear to the player which path is the correct path. Spellshard does this in its early dungeons by having a big door that requires a key to be opened. Once the player's found the key, it's up to them whether they want to keep exploring or to open the big door.
Dungeon design in general tends to be neglected in RPGs. Dungeons and battles should be designed in a way that they'd be enjoyable on their own, not just as an obstacles between story scenes.
That is a great way to do it. Things like making "wrong" paths not exist by making every path useful and necessary for proceeding (e.g. finding a key, flipping a switch, gathering information required to solve a puzzle, etc.). *Those* are locations you'd want to put treasure boxes at.
Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:22 am
Flavorless side-questing.
Mostly present in MMORPGs. Get X amount of Y, and/or kill Z amount of K. And nothing more. It becomes the next thing I don't like:
Grindfest.
I don't like to grind. one of AR-PUH-GUH! main goals is to make an experience that just lets you wander from point A to point B without feeling like you HAVE to mess up a ton random creatures to do it. Some would say it isn't that way right now, and they're kinda right. Like I said, it's a main goal.
Anywho, the grind bores me to tears, as the saying goes. If I wanted to do something stupidly monotonous for 15 hours a day, I'd rather go to a call center and work (fun fact, no I wouldn't), at least I'd make money. MMORPGs tend to hurl in piles of those aforementioned side-quests, often for no reward outside of currency and experience points, everywhere. But really, what other things can a side-quest offer?
Well, I can tell you what it can offer. Unique dungeons, perhaps spins on already been introduced concepts, personalized story, unique items, new things to play with in general.
Take The Elder Scrolls games for instance. Pretty much all side-quests have some flavor to them, even IF they're nothing more than a fetch quest.
There's a lady who tends the lumber yard, she wants you to fetch 10 bear pelts. That's about all you're getting from an MMORPG, but TES fleshes it out further by letting you first converse with the lady to find out why she's mad. She's mad because the bears are ruining the local trees by clawing them. She wants the pelts for revenge against bear-kind, and also that she can obtain un-marred lumber more easily. And this is just a generalization, let's not forget the dialog that goes into it. And this is just a fetch quest!
There are also various other things in games, such as this one place I can't remember the name of in Final Fantasy 12 where you can find the ultimate weapon if you happened to have known to NOT open one of various containers containing everyday loot...the dungeon is what I speak of, that sort of hidden stuff isn't something I recommend putting in games often. Often being the keyword.
BACK ON TRACK, the dungeon is purely optional, and contains some of the most powerful monsters in the game, including 3 super bosses who may or may not bring you trouble depending on how prepared you may be. It has a little bit of story to it, and the game even has a mechanic where if you kill enough of the monsters of a given area, you can get lore about the world, most often pertaining to the area you are in.
Um...meowskivich has forgotten what he was going on about, but the thing is meowskivich really likes the side-questing to be done in FF12. Hunts included, as these are often great ways to, as the saying goes, test how unstoppable a force you are by bashing against something hard.
dOn'T MiNd mE! i'M jUsT CoNtAgIoUs!!!
Play Orbs CCG: http://orbsccg.com/r/4r6x
Mostly present in MMORPGs. Get X amount of Y, and/or kill Z amount of K. And nothing more. It becomes the next thing I don't like:
Grindfest.
I don't like to grind. one of AR-PUH-GUH! main goals is to make an experience that just lets you wander from point A to point B without feeling like you HAVE to mess up a ton random creatures to do it. Some would say it isn't that way right now, and they're kinda right. Like I said, it's a main goal.
Anywho, the grind bores me to tears, as the saying goes. If I wanted to do something stupidly monotonous for 15 hours a day, I'd rather go to a call center and work (fun fact, no I wouldn't), at least I'd make money. MMORPGs tend to hurl in piles of those aforementioned side-quests, often for no reward outside of currency and experience points, everywhere. But really, what other things can a side-quest offer?
Well, I can tell you what it can offer. Unique dungeons, perhaps spins on already been introduced concepts, personalized story, unique items, new things to play with in general.
Take The Elder Scrolls games for instance. Pretty much all side-quests have some flavor to them, even IF they're nothing more than a fetch quest.
There's a lady who tends the lumber yard, she wants you to fetch 10 bear pelts. That's about all you're getting from an MMORPG, but TES fleshes it out further by letting you first converse with the lady to find out why she's mad. She's mad because the bears are ruining the local trees by clawing them. She wants the pelts for revenge against bear-kind, and also that she can obtain un-marred lumber more easily. And this is just a generalization, let's not forget the dialog that goes into it. And this is just a fetch quest!
There are also various other things in games, such as this one place I can't remember the name of in Final Fantasy 12 where you can find the ultimate weapon if you happened to have known to NOT open one of various containers containing everyday loot...the dungeon is what I speak of, that sort of hidden stuff isn't something I recommend putting in games often. Often being the keyword.
BACK ON TRACK, the dungeon is purely optional, and contains some of the most powerful monsters in the game, including 3 super bosses who may or may not bring you trouble depending on how prepared you may be. It has a little bit of story to it, and the game even has a mechanic where if you kill enough of the monsters of a given area, you can get lore about the world, most often pertaining to the area you are in.
Um...meowskivich has forgotten what he was going on about, but the thing is meowskivich really likes the side-questing to be done in FF12. Hunts included, as these are often great ways to, as the saying goes, test how unstoppable a force you are by bashing against something hard.
dOn'T MiNd mE! i'M jUsT CoNtAgIoUs!!!
Play Orbs CCG: http://orbsccg.com/r/4r6x
Re: Name a common RPG design flaw you despise, and why.
Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:10 pm
Foxley wrote:
Correct Path Bad, Dead-End Path Good.
Correct Path Bad, Dead-End Path Good.
While I agree that this kind of design is bad today, in the Wizardry era it made more sense. At that time, half of the fun was the immersion of mapping out the dungeon, dying a million times and finding the most efficient way through. But like Columbus looking for India, sometimes that search for the most efficient way lead to unsuspected treasure. And then you'd put that on your map, and have a new waypoint you needed to work into your efficient path out of this deadly dungeon, an added challenge.
In games like Final Fantasy 4 which are tile-based but not first-person, this kind of design is awful. The animation of walking adds a lot of boring, mandatory time to exploration/backtracking, and you can see so many blocks ahead of you that there isn't that same thrill of exploration. As Sephy said, Spellshard did a good job by taking the mystery out of it: You knew you were trying to get through this locked door, and once you found the key you knew where you needed to go next.
Spellshard's kind of naughty in that there's very powerful optional bosses in some of the dungeons, usually without a save point or a hint as to what's about to happen. You can't easily tell if you're dealing with a mandatory mid-boss or Emerald Weapon. I see this as an extension of the same problem.
And it wouldn't be a Giz post without me bringing up Chrono Trigger, so lemme tell you what made it so good: Motion wasn't tile based and it was fast. You never had to go five steps up, two steps left, one step up and then back, risking 16 chances of a battle along the way and taking a mandatory 5 ticks a step times 16 steps. The freedom of motion made you feel way less trapped, which made exploration more exciting. The fast run speed helped, but also served as a way to make the player bumble into battles (which weren't random), and making it their fault, not the games.
It's important when you make an RPG not to take anything for granted. From screen resolution down to hero speed, its all important and you want
to be sure everything plays together well.
Foxley wrote:
for example, random treasure boxes that may contain important, one-of-a-kind items.
for example, random treasure boxes that may contain important, one-of-a-kind items.
This is big enough to be a problem of its own. A lot of games are doing the whole "Hidden optional bonus equipment!" thing, and then forgetting about the "Optional" part. If I had a dime for every time I got stuck in someone's game, and their advice was "Well, go back two dungeons and check every wall till you find the secret passage that gives you Excalibur"... well, I'd have probably thrown the dimes at them.
Final Fantasy 6 is an example of doing it right. It's okay to have something like AtmaWeapon, bonus equipment that requires you to solve a mystery or something, is lost forever if you don't get it in the one possible visit to that dungeon, and which is either immediately or later on a powerhouse. It's not okay if you then balance every future battle around the assumption that a player will have found that secret.
Nobody has trouble beating Final Fantasy 6 without AtmaWeapon, and there's even other equipment in the game that fits the same standard. Every challenge is approachable with only the equipment you can buy. The bonus equipment is a reward for exploring, not a punishment to non-explorers.
And as a side-note to this issue, there's a trend in RPGs now, especially Bio-ware or that style, to have a lockpicking type skill to open chests. That means that sometimes, in a dungeon or early area, you find a chest that you just can't get into. The guy making the game knows "Oh, that's just random loot. A reward for people who put skill into lock-picking over combat. Nothing to worry about!", but the player doesn't know that.
I'm of the opinion that no chest should ever go un-opened. When I see a locked mystery box, I assume it's the solution to any and every problem I encounter afterwards. The Princess was kidnapped by Goblins? They must've hidden her in that chest! Need the Varia Suit to get into Norfair? It's GOTTA be in that chest! I'll drive myself crazy over it, throw all of my skill points into lockpicking... and then open it up to find two potions.
It's interesting that Bio-ware seems to have forgotten their own solution to this problem. Knights of the Old Republic allowed you to blast/lightsaber things open, but some of the stuff inside would be turned into "Broken Junk", whose only value was to be sold. You might wonder what loot you lost out on, but you never felt like every subsequent encounter was looking for the contents of that one locked box.
Foxley wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious why this is a really terrible, lazy, flawed concept of dungeon design. It forces the player to retrace their steps for absolutely no reason aside from a possible treasure box that could've been placed somewhere that actually makes sense, all the while fighting random encounter after random encounter and wearing down their patience, enjoyment, and HP/MP. It's also disgustingly counter-intuitive; shouldn't the player WANT to be going the right way??
I think it's pretty obvious why this is a really terrible, lazy, flawed concept of dungeon design. It forces the player to retrace their steps for absolutely no reason aside from a possible treasure box that could've been placed somewhere that actually makes sense, all the while fighting random encounter after random encounter and wearing down their patience, enjoyment, and HP/MP. It's also disgustingly counter-intuitive; shouldn't the player WANT to be going the right way??
This is where I disagree with you, because it seems you're implying dungeons should be a reception line where the enemies and treasure chests wait patiently for their turn to spring themselves on you, with the boss saving himself for last and without any room for surprises or mystery. There's actually three problems that are combining to create the illusion of one big problem, a big problem which would make RPGs seem pointless if you let it.
1. The biggest issue with your suggested scenario is random encounters. The player doesn't want to walk any more than they have to, because they'd get bored of smashing goblins and wasting their HP every few steps. That's a problem with the random encounters, not necessarily dungeon design.
When a dungeon is going to focus on exploration, it should change its approach to random encounters. They should be very easy, providing a token sum of GP and EXP just to thank the player for wandering around. The serious threat should come from mini-boss style encounters, which serve to let the player know they're going the right way and also add some story to justify the loot they're about to find.
As you get on the route towards the boss and the exit, there should be an obvious save point or recovery spring to let them know that things are going to get more serious. After this point, you can feel free to turn the random encounter difficulty back up and force attrition on the party before they encounter the boss. The sudden bump in difficulty might even send them back to the previous area for more exploration, a good system.
Final Fantasy let you use tents and cabins to fully heal at save points, which made them a way bigger deal in dungeons than most OHR games make them. Little things like that to keep you from having to go all the way back to town.
If your battles are designed to be a constant toll on the player, the kind of thing that makes sure they've got what it takes to beat the boss, then of course no one's going to want to dilly-dally. It's on the designer to make exploration the fun option. You could also argue that random encounters themselves are an outdated notion, but I'm not sure I want to rock the boat that much.
2. The idea that treasures should be put somewhere that "makes sense", as if the path to the boss should be a straight shot with chests scattered around. I don't disagree that exploration in a lot of games is very tedious, and I don't disagree that a lot of games make you walk a long way down a boring path just to find a stupid elixir, but I'm not sure that's a problem. I don't think it's wrong for there to be dead ends in a dungeon, I actually think it's bad that dungeon design has become so indulgent that you're expected to have a treasure chest at the end of every dead end. Sometimes you're gonna go the wrong way, and the only reward is that now you know what not to do next time.
The problem seems to be motivation. You have no way of knowing whether or not it's "worth your while" to go down that other path. People belly-ache that they went a certain way and didn't get anything, and so the designer throws a chest there to be nice. There's a lot of way designers could incentivize exploration beyond just the loot. Flavor text, NPC rumors, the kind of crap the entire genre is supposed to be built on.
Not that anyone listens to NPC rumors or flavor text nowadays, there's been too many years where it's just nonsense.
3. The third and final challenge to this, is that RPGs are a tedious genre. By nature, it's all about grinding forever to get strong enough to get to the next area. Nobody in their right mind wants to risk a few hours of progress on the off-chance they'll find a cool sword. I think it's interesting to note the way you die in Final Fantasy 6: You start from your last save, but with all of the EXP you gained between then and where you died. You don't get to keep items or gold, but those chests are still there to be opened again. FF6 was also pretty generous with save points in dungeons, meaning the loss of time in checking out a dead-end was pretty minimal. FF6 also had sprint shoes and Moogle Charms though, because FF6 understood that RPGs are tedious and you might want to make things more pleasant for yourself. Good lessons to learn from!
I'm also not meaning to refute your point at all, because you're absolutely right. So many modern RPGs (especially amateur ones) just throw shit into the pot without considering how it affects the other ingriedients, or even why older games did the things they did.
Foxley wrote:
I think it's healthy to analyze why design concepts do or don't work in terms of making a game enjoyable. Feel free to rant about something you hate!
I think it's healthy to analyze why design concepts do or don't work in terms of making a game enjoyable. Feel free to rant about something you hate!
Ohhhhh, you'd better believe I'm gonna.
Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:38 pm
Just recently finished a replay of Dragon Warrior 3, begun DW4. Some thoughts on all of this:
1. Speed is important. If you're going to have random battles mixed with exploration, high walking speed and quick-moving random battles become so much more important to the enjoyability. The best feature of an NES emulator is not the auto-save, which threatens enjoyment at times. The best feature is the frame-rate adjustment. If the OHR were to eventually allow player-controlled framerate adjustment, I think it would instantly improve the playing experience of a lot of RPGs (especially mine). Outside of this, the best advice I can offer is that battle speed needs to be higher than I ever think it does while making a game. Now that we have 'pause on all battle menus', there's no reason not to pump the speed up.
2. Dying should not cost the player too much. Giz mentioned FF6; in the DW games, dying returns you to your last save having lost half your money, BUT you keep all of your progress. By that I mean any exp gained, treasure found, etc. The importance of this cannot be overstated. RPGs are about accumulation; no one likes to be punished in the things that matter to them. This requires a modest amount of scripting in the OHR; it was one of the first semi-serious scripts I ever wrote.
3. Retreat should be viable. In the DW games, you've got the spell Outside that takes you out of a dungeon, then Return (or an item) takes you back to town. This allows random battles to be "attritionally" dangerous while allowing the player an escape option. This is pretty easy in the OHR (via item, not as easy via spell), and I think the majority of 'classic' style RPGs would benefit from it. For reference, in DW2 these spells are learned by your mandatory allies; in 3 and 4, where your allies can be chosen to some degree, these spells are learned by the main character IN ADDITION TO several other characters. The designers clearly saw how important this device was.
Now if the 3 points above are satisfied to some degree, I think I will be willing to disagree with Foxley. Here are some aspects that at least add some dimension to the discussion:
A. In some games, finding treasure might actually be the goal of a dungeon. No boss, no clear 'ending' besides the best treasure available.
B. Giz has already said this, but sometimes the fun of a dungeon is the slow steady mapping out of its layout. This requires time and patience that isn't a strong selling point for many audiences, though.
C. Retracing your steps is NOT necessarily a bad thing. As long as walking and fighting both move quickly, there is actually reward for the player here - more exp and gold. In the DW games, this is what removes the grind aspect. Also, this is what makes random encounters better than fixed encounters. With fixed encounters, there are two options - reset the battles (so force the player to replay the same fight) or not (so the player can just walk back the way they came). To me, both of these options are infinitely more boring than potentially fighting a new encounter.
Before replaying these old DWs, I replayed Chrono Trigger last year. The story was so awesome, but the fixed encounter system really helped drag the exploratory areas down for me. The main example that springs to mind for me was the Reptite castle back in 65whatever BC. There are some weird little button-pushing puzzles that might require looping around. Each time this happens, you have to re-fight the same damn encounter. It felt so much sillier than anything in these DWs.
Actually, this makes me want to add another thought:
4. If you're using randoms, make sure to actually have good variety in the encounters. Random shouldn't just mean randomly triggered - it should mean random mixtures of enemies.
I am Srime
1. Speed is important. If you're going to have random battles mixed with exploration, high walking speed and quick-moving random battles become so much more important to the enjoyability. The best feature of an NES emulator is not the auto-save, which threatens enjoyment at times. The best feature is the frame-rate adjustment. If the OHR were to eventually allow player-controlled framerate adjustment, I think it would instantly improve the playing experience of a lot of RPGs (especially mine). Outside of this, the best advice I can offer is that battle speed needs to be higher than I ever think it does while making a game. Now that we have 'pause on all battle menus', there's no reason not to pump the speed up.
2. Dying should not cost the player too much. Giz mentioned FF6; in the DW games, dying returns you to your last save having lost half your money, BUT you keep all of your progress. By that I mean any exp gained, treasure found, etc. The importance of this cannot be overstated. RPGs are about accumulation; no one likes to be punished in the things that matter to them. This requires a modest amount of scripting in the OHR; it was one of the first semi-serious scripts I ever wrote.
3. Retreat should be viable. In the DW games, you've got the spell Outside that takes you out of a dungeon, then Return (or an item) takes you back to town. This allows random battles to be "attritionally" dangerous while allowing the player an escape option. This is pretty easy in the OHR (via item, not as easy via spell), and I think the majority of 'classic' style RPGs would benefit from it. For reference, in DW2 these spells are learned by your mandatory allies; in 3 and 4, where your allies can be chosen to some degree, these spells are learned by the main character IN ADDITION TO several other characters. The designers clearly saw how important this device was.
Now if the 3 points above are satisfied to some degree, I think I will be willing to disagree with Foxley. Here are some aspects that at least add some dimension to the discussion:
A. In some games, finding treasure might actually be the goal of a dungeon. No boss, no clear 'ending' besides the best treasure available.
B. Giz has already said this, but sometimes the fun of a dungeon is the slow steady mapping out of its layout. This requires time and patience that isn't a strong selling point for many audiences, though.
C. Retracing your steps is NOT necessarily a bad thing. As long as walking and fighting both move quickly, there is actually reward for the player here - more exp and gold. In the DW games, this is what removes the grind aspect. Also, this is what makes random encounters better than fixed encounters. With fixed encounters, there are two options - reset the battles (so force the player to replay the same fight) or not (so the player can just walk back the way they came). To me, both of these options are infinitely more boring than potentially fighting a new encounter.
Before replaying these old DWs, I replayed Chrono Trigger last year. The story was so awesome, but the fixed encounter system really helped drag the exploratory areas down for me. The main example that springs to mind for me was the Reptite castle back in 65whatever BC. There are some weird little button-pushing puzzles that might require looping around. Each time this happens, you have to re-fight the same damn encounter. It felt so much sillier than anything in these DWs.
Actually, this makes me want to add another thought:
4. If you're using randoms, make sure to actually have good variety in the encounters. Random shouldn't just mean randomly triggered - it should mean random mixtures of enemies.
I am Srime
Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:42 pm
Forgot to add - the idea of having 'off the beaten path' treasure be NECESSARY (or even borderline necessary) is just awful though. And I also agree that having treasure in every dead end is awful as well.
I am Srime
I am Srime
Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:06 pm
msw188 wrote:
If the OHR were to eventually allow player-controlled framerate adjustment, I think it would instantly improve the playing experience of a lot of RPGs (especially mine).
You have no idea how much this needs to happen, especially with the turn-based system because everything flies by in the blink of an eye which doesn't allow players to actually comprehend what just happened. It's not just me, people I've been having test "merciful mungbeans" have pretty much ALL told me the battles move too quickly.
Quote:
2. Dying should not cost the player too much. Giz mentioned FF6; in the DW games, dying returns you to your last save having lost half your money, BUT you keep all of your progress. By that I mean any exp gained, treasure found, etc. The importance of this cannot be overstated. RPGs are about accumulation; no one likes to be punished in the things that matter to them. This requires a modest amount of scripting in the OHR; it was one of the first semi-serious scripts I ever wrote.
This is what pushes me away from a lot of games, at times. I'm one that tends to have a shaky memory when it comes to saving my game. Sometimes I save every few seconds out of sheer paranoia, other times I flat out forget to save because I'm having too much fun, and then some jerk sucker-punches me and I lose that 1.5 hours of progress and suddenly I have an anti-high and don't touch the game for possibly years (PHANTASY STAR 2).
FF6 was nice for letting you at least keep exp, which is the best the FF series ever got with handling game overs, I believe. All others just have the "restart from last save" thing. Not that this sort of gameplay feature doesn't have it's place, especially for games where you don't want to just LET your players cheese their way to something powerful and escape the dungeon unscathed, but I do rest easier in Dragon Quest games when I can fight with the only threat being to my money. Unless it's Dragon Warrior Monsters, the first game of the series I've owned. In that one you get sent back to the hub world, but all your money and items are GONE. That game reallllllly encourages you to NOT die.
dOn'T MiNd mE! i'M jUsT CoNtAgIoUs!!!
Play Orbs CCG: http://orbsccg.com/r/4r6x
Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:09 pm
The thing that I dislike most about rpg's is the need people seem to have to make them this huge massive thing. This need carries over into everything and causes a ton of other problems.
Such as, the developer wants to increase play time so they increase the need to grind.
Dungeons become far too long and empty because the developer feels they need to be bigger.
Pointless story filler is added to make the game longer. On a quest to save the world from evil dragon lords? How about a side quest where you shrink down to the size of ants and fight roaches.
I'm not saying that I wish all rpg's were 2-3 hours long max or something. I just feel like developers needlessly expand their length for no other reason beyond "RPGs are suppose to be super long"
Such as, the developer wants to increase play time so they increase the need to grind.
Dungeons become far too long and empty because the developer feels they need to be bigger.
Pointless story filler is added to make the game longer. On a quest to save the world from evil dragon lords? How about a side quest where you shrink down to the size of ants and fight roaches.
I'm not saying that I wish all rpg's were 2-3 hours long max or something. I just feel like developers needlessly expand their length for no other reason beyond "RPGs are suppose to be super long"
Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:43 pm
You know, I thought about what I posted and realized I didn't address the meat of Foxley's complaint very clearly. So let me try to contextualize a bit.
Treasures in deadends may lead to increased retracing of steps. But only may. It's up to the player whether or not they feel getting ALL of the treasure is necessary. Consider the following two objectives for a player in a dungeon:
O1. Finishing mode - attempting to accomplish some specific objective, usually beating the boss or getting to the 'end'
O2. Exploratory mode - attempting to map/loot as much of the dungeon as possible
If battles are quick and fun (and cumulatively dangerous), and retreating is a viable option, then there is no reason why the dungeon should focus on allowing both O1 and O2 to occur simultaneously. O1 is the end goal; once accomplished, there is no real need for O2 since the dungeon is completed (again assuming the treasure was not necessary). If the player dies(or needs to retreat) attempting O1, he may attempt O2 as an intermediate goal. If the game is well-balanced, the player learns the difficulty curve of the game. Most 'old-school' RPGs make it clear over time that O2 is often a good idea before even attempting O1 - again, this makes viable retreats a necessity. To me, this can be a fine model for gameplay. O2 serves the player via stat growth (eliminating need for grinding if game is well-balanced), helpful treasure, and learning the layout of the dungeon (all preserved even if the player dies). Without these three things, an unprepared attempt at O1 is almost sure to end in death by attrition. In this scenario, treasures in some (not all) deadends is fine.
Most 'newer-style' RPGs make it clear that O2 and O1 can often be accomplished simultaneously. This can be okay, but it magnifies the problem Foxley has, because if treasures are in deadends, then the two goals come into contradiction with each other. More importantly, O1 and O2 being simultaneously possible means, by definition, retracing steps elongates O1 but does not affect its outcome. In essence, this is saying that the non-boss battles are not dangerous. Fighting 10 random (or otherwise) battles is no different from fighting 5 of them, except it takes longer. This is the real issue. If death by attrition is so incredibly unlikely that O1 and O2 can be accomplished together on the first runthrough, then what gameplay purpose did the non-boss battles serve at all? Actually, what purpose did the dungeon (as opposed to the boss) serve?
This, I think, is the heart of the problem. There are plenty of good non-gameplay reasons for dungeons to exist, to be big and empty or small and crowded, to have treasures in various deadends, etc. There may also be good non-gameplay reasons for non-boss battles to exist. But treasures in deadends, leading to extra walking time and extra battles that have no actual effect on O1, are to me the definition of padding game length with boring filler.
tl;dr
If exploring and finishing a dungeon can both occur on the same runthrough, then having treasures in deadends is pointlessly lengthening the playtime (and maybe random battles are pointless as well). But if the battles of a dungeon are cumulatively dangerous enough that exploring and finishing the dungeon are often mutually exclusive goals (without serious grinding beforehand), then I think there is nothing wrong with putting treasure anywhere (and using random battles). This approach basically necessitates viable dungeon escape options for the player.
I am Srime
Treasures in deadends may lead to increased retracing of steps. But only may. It's up to the player whether or not they feel getting ALL of the treasure is necessary. Consider the following two objectives for a player in a dungeon:
O1. Finishing mode - attempting to accomplish some specific objective, usually beating the boss or getting to the 'end'
O2. Exploratory mode - attempting to map/loot as much of the dungeon as possible
If battles are quick and fun (and cumulatively dangerous), and retreating is a viable option, then there is no reason why the dungeon should focus on allowing both O1 and O2 to occur simultaneously. O1 is the end goal; once accomplished, there is no real need for O2 since the dungeon is completed (again assuming the treasure was not necessary). If the player dies(or needs to retreat) attempting O1, he may attempt O2 as an intermediate goal. If the game is well-balanced, the player learns the difficulty curve of the game. Most 'old-school' RPGs make it clear over time that O2 is often a good idea before even attempting O1 - again, this makes viable retreats a necessity. To me, this can be a fine model for gameplay. O2 serves the player via stat growth (eliminating need for grinding if game is well-balanced), helpful treasure, and learning the layout of the dungeon (all preserved even if the player dies). Without these three things, an unprepared attempt at O1 is almost sure to end in death by attrition. In this scenario, treasures in some (not all) deadends is fine.
Most 'newer-style' RPGs make it clear that O2 and O1 can often be accomplished simultaneously. This can be okay, but it magnifies the problem Foxley has, because if treasures are in deadends, then the two goals come into contradiction with each other. More importantly, O1 and O2 being simultaneously possible means, by definition, retracing steps elongates O1 but does not affect its outcome. In essence, this is saying that the non-boss battles are not dangerous. Fighting 10 random (or otherwise) battles is no different from fighting 5 of them, except it takes longer. This is the real issue. If death by attrition is so incredibly unlikely that O1 and O2 can be accomplished together on the first runthrough, then what gameplay purpose did the non-boss battles serve at all? Actually, what purpose did the dungeon (as opposed to the boss) serve?
This, I think, is the heart of the problem. There are plenty of good non-gameplay reasons for dungeons to exist, to be big and empty or small and crowded, to have treasures in various deadends, etc. There may also be good non-gameplay reasons for non-boss battles to exist. But treasures in deadends, leading to extra walking time and extra battles that have no actual effect on O1, are to me the definition of padding game length with boring filler.
tl;dr
If exploring and finishing a dungeon can both occur on the same runthrough, then having treasures in deadends is pointlessly lengthening the playtime (and maybe random battles are pointless as well). But if the battles of a dungeon are cumulatively dangerous enough that exploring and finishing the dungeon are often mutually exclusive goals (without serious grinding beforehand), then I think there is nothing wrong with putting treasure anywhere (and using random battles). This approach basically necessitates viable dungeon escape options for the player.
I am Srime
Re: Name a common RPG design flaw you despise, and why.
Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:05 pm
FF6 does something totally awesome that I don't see in a lot of other RPGs. Namely, items that you find early on in the game are still useful towards the endgame. This is most true for Relics, which don't really have level-dependent effects, but it also applies to the elemental weapons you find throughout the game. Because of elemental damage scaling, it's often better to switch back to an older weapon with elemental damage rather than a newer weapon with a higher base attack.
The battles in FF6 are balanced in a way that they're beatable if you try to go into them with an under-equipped party, but it also gives you optional equipment that give you a huge advantage if you use them in the correct context. Some people say this makes FF6 too easy, but I think this is exactly what makes it so awesome.
The battles in FF6 are balanced in a way that they're beatable if you try to go into them with an under-equipped party, but it also gives you optional equipment that give you a huge advantage if you use them in the correct context. Some people say this makes FF6 too easy, but I think this is exactly what makes it so awesome.
Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:53 pm
I think randomization is over used, especially in terms of maps. While randomized maps may support replayability, it also strips a lot of incentive to explore.
For example, imagine you are in random Minecraft map with a tremendously huge mountain. There is little incentive to climb to the very top of the map since there are probably smaller mountains elsewhere where minerals can be gathered more easily.
However, in a game without random maps, it is safe bet that there is something awesome on top of that mountain. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so hard to reach.
The same can be said of other random elements as well. If one chest is more deeply hidden than another, it should have something better in it. In many games where the contents of a chest are randomized, it might not.
Randomization is a useful tool, but often I feel developers use it because it easier than hand making world tile by tile.
For example, imagine you are in random Minecraft map with a tremendously huge mountain. There is little incentive to climb to the very top of the map since there are probably smaller mountains elsewhere where minerals can be gathered more easily.
However, in a game without random maps, it is safe bet that there is something awesome on top of that mountain. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so hard to reach.
The same can be said of other random elements as well. If one chest is more deeply hidden than another, it should have something better in it. In many games where the contents of a chest are randomized, it might not.
Randomization is a useful tool, but often I feel developers use it because it easier than hand making world tile by tile.
Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:23 pm
Willy Elektrix wrote:
I think randomization is over used, especially in terms of maps. While randomized maps may support replayability, it also strips a lot of incentive to explore.
For example, imagine you are in random Minecraft map with a tremendously huge mountain. There is little incentive to climb to the very top of the map since there are probably smaller mountains elsewhere where minerals can be gathered more easily.
However, in a game without random maps, it is safe bet that there is something awesome on top of that mountain. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so hard to reach.
The same can be said of other random elements as well. If one chest is more deeply hidden than another, it should have something better in it. In many games where the contents of a chest are randomized, it might not.
Randomization is a useful tool, but often I feel developers use it because it easier than hand making world tile by tile.
For example, imagine you are in random Minecraft map with a tremendously huge mountain. There is little incentive to climb to the very top of the map since there are probably smaller mountains elsewhere where minerals can be gathered more easily.
However, in a game without random maps, it is safe bet that there is something awesome on top of that mountain. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so hard to reach.
The same can be said of other random elements as well. If one chest is more deeply hidden than another, it should have something better in it. In many games where the contents of a chest are randomized, it might not.
Randomization is a useful tool, but often I feel developers use it because it easier than hand making world tile by tile.
Yeah, I hate the totally random stuff like Minecraft where you can never get an honest sense of geography 'cause it's just shit-slapped together any which way. I feel like Terraria and a lot of Roguelikes have it right, where there's a certain context to the randomness. The Jungle is always opposite the dungeon, or the Elven Halls always split off into the Dwarf Mines and the Orc Fortress, and you've got some idea of what you can expect to find in any of those things.
Developers today are lazy as hell.
Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:46 pm
Here's a thing that is demonstrate here that I don't like in RPGs.
Walls of text.
Being the way I am, I can't have my attention held long enough to focus on reading a solid wall of text. This is a problem my earliest versions of AR-PUH-GUH! suffered from, besides bugs. I trimmed it down severely throughout the versions, but I kinda aim to keep text in a box to no more than 4 lines, else people stop caring. Myself included.
This doesn't just apply to games, it also applies to forum posts too.
dOn'T MiNd mE! i'M jUsT CoNtAgIoUs!!!
Play Orbs CCG: http://orbsccg.com/r/4r6x
Walls of text.
Being the way I am, I can't have my attention held long enough to focus on reading a solid wall of text. This is a problem my earliest versions of AR-PUH-GUH! suffered from, besides bugs. I trimmed it down severely throughout the versions, but I kinda aim to keep text in a box to no more than 4 lines, else people stop caring. Myself included.
This doesn't just apply to games, it also applies to forum posts too.
dOn'T MiNd mE! i'M jUsT CoNtAgIoUs!!!
Play Orbs CCG: http://orbsccg.com/r/4r6x
Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:58 pm
Four lines of OHR text is maybe two complete sentences, most people don't have that kind of attention problem. People stop caring if the writing's bad, not if it's longer than a belch.
My RPG Pet Peeve is terrible writing by the way.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
My RPG Pet Peeve is terrible writing by the way.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition