On Fights That Are Not Meant To Be Won

[Dracos]

Some have heard my thoughts on this before, but as old games are worth replaying, so too are old arguments worth revisiting.  For simplicity's sake, I will group battle types into three general categories based on the possible end conditions: fights that may be won or lost, fights that are meant to be won, and fights that are meant to be lost.  Note that by 'meant', I mean that the plot specifically requires the player enter that fight and win or lose; as opposed to random encounters, which the player can possibly escape from or avoid, and which are neither predetermined nor relevant to the plot.  The overwhelming majority of fights in RPGs fall into the first category and indeed for many, it is the only type of battle that exists in that environment.  The other two are related to each other; both are instances where story progression overrides the mechanics of the game, yet the scene is still meant to be played through the in-game battle engine.  In general, I object to both of these categories as design that is, at best, lazy and full of contempt for the player.

Regarding the second category, battles meant to be won, a game without lose conditions is not a game at all.  In the old days this could be forgiven, in that the battle engine was indeed the most effective way to display such an encounter.  However, that is no longer the case, and is thus not a solid justification for having the player dance through a predetermined event.  That said, it is a more forgivable category than the third.  The player isn't harmed by it, and given the number of normal fights in the game, no-lose encounters can sometimes go unnoticed.

The real problem is the third category, those fights the player cannot win for plot-related reasons.  In a normal battle experience, there is no flag indicating the winning or loss conditions because they are typically self-explanatory: whichever side beats the other wins the fight.  Typically, only strategy games and their ilk explain specific win/loss conditions.  In any case, this third category, the no-win battles, tends to betray the player's expectations in several ways.  Some, for instance, are simply impossible to win; the enemy is meant to defeat you and whether it takes a while or happens quickly, any effort or resources expended fighting back are wasted.  Others are worse, requiring the player to stay alive for a set number of rounds or inflict some damage on the enemy before battle can end, otherwise the player loses.  Still others are scripted or set up in a truly unusual fashion, punishing a player for trying to fight back and having victory only possible through defensive strategies; Star Ocean features some of these battles as well.

I am of the belief that all of these are unnecessary.  They're examples of poor game design that discourages the player from fighting difficult enemies, under the belief that the fight may not be winnable, and thus crippling their chances of survival against a legitimate foe.  Additionally, they're often frustrating, since such battles are custom events which invalidate past game experience.  If the narration of the game's plot must override the mechanics, there are better means of doing so than simply denying the player any chance of victory, or expecting them to fulfill arbitrary and unexpected criteria.

   With my opinion so stated, I now address the following question.  Assume I'm wrong and there is a good way to do these: What would that be?

   I turn to two games that both are fairly popular, despite lackluster sales figures: Xenogears and Lufia 2.  Lufia 2 wanted to establish that the Sinistrals in it were bad dudes, and not of the ninja-fighting president-saving variety.  Thus, they put one in early to have you lose against it.  This boss, naturally, was overwhelming.  It was placed early enough that you clearly didn't have tons of resources to burn through and it did enough damage with each attack to end the fight quickly and decisively.  This is a fairly standard must-lose battle, with one important exception: you could actually defeat the boss, to an extent.  Survive long enough and deal enough damage and he would go down like any other enemy; your rewards, a pile of xp and a special sword.  While the plot showed him blasting you away in frustration anyway, I think that was a keen way of doing it.  You don't get as angry about the forced loss because of the rewards from besting him in battle.  Xenogears did have genuinely unwinnable battles, but it also followed in the above example for some, primarily with Grahf.  Grahf was a brutal opponent, one who was often meant to win, but allowed for victory in battle, with the special rewards that would imply.

   To expand on my prior opinion, I state that if a game must have a battle that the player is meant to lose, that's the way to do it.  Don't break your game system for your plot.  If you want to give a ridiculous fight, at least give some incentive to even try to win, lest the player get discouraged from trying when they are meant to.

[Anastasia]

I want to say a lot, but it comes down to one thing. You're absolutely right, Drac. Well spoken.

[Dracos]

Thanks Ana. =)

Dracos

[Olvelsper]

J-RPGs need to start using their fancy schmancy cutscenes right. *agrees with you*