I've got a bit of a change for those making games. You know, we've got those healing items. The tiny heal, the mid heal, the x-heal, whatever you want to call 'em. Every game has their bunch of potions covering usually the lower tier until you get super cure spells that everyone promptly switches to. And everyone keeps with this even as they add in the special ones: elixirs that give full hp and mp! Then, you know, they tend to keep going. They'll give maybe one or two megaelixirs... And then the game breaks. Right there.
Yeah, I know, hard to say as usually most these games aren't the height of difficulty to begin with, but just think about what they give. In theory, a megaelixir doubles the capacity of the party. It allows them to go right back to perfect state for pretty much everything. In theory. In practice it isn't that good as you generally don't get more than 50-70 percent restored back (You don't go all the way to the brink with everyone still alive). But hey, that tends to mean that if you're anywhere near being capable of taking down a boss, you'll take them down with an extra 50 percent of your ability. And that's not to say if you have two or three or...fourty. Could they balance against this? No, because it is a consumable item you don't necessarily get, so balancing against it would screw over everyone who doesn't get it and make the whole thing feel miserable to begin with.
Why are they needed? FFIVa opened my eyes to the sheer silliness of them, giving me the opportunity to collect 41 of them by the time I fought the hardest boss in the game. 41 megaelixirs. Had I wasted them frivolously at the rate of one per 'round', I would've not run out by the end of the battle. Had I used them conservatively? The boss could have had thirty trillion hp and I would've outlasted him. That's insane. Was there the illusion of challenge? Sure, but how well can it really work when an intelligent play style and those items can poof everyone back to perfect in the flick of a wrist? Bosses shouldn't need thirty trillion hp to push heroes to the edge and give them the sensation that they're going to lose. Even with one or two, it vastly extends the ability of the heroes to survive, usually making any sort of risk illusionary and based on the fact most folks are too conservative to 'waste' such a valuable item on a boss that clearly isn't hard enough to merit it. The boss almost never ends up being hard enough to merit it, so they end up beating the game with 1 or 2 or 20 of them.
But wait, what about bosses that just win by doing damage quickly? Well, sure, they still work, but then it fiercely limits the type of bosses you encounter. When the majority of a bosses danger is placed solely in moves that kill in one or two hits or dash out all group status ailments, it just becomes a battle of dishing out damage really quickly and equipping the right stuff before hand. Instead, to get the 'length' type bosses, designers are just adding in billions of hp. That's retarded. Sure, a boss that's going to be doing something other than brutally dishing out near death or death hits to everyone needs lots of hp, but would they need it if the heroes didn't have a few things stuck in their bag to allow them to go to max right at the wink of an eye? Could we do without this being a semicommon reward for one of the side quests?
I think we could get rid of the whole set. The item concept really could be done without and just sits there in the inventory either unused or ruining any future 'hard' bosses that are come across.
Quote
Instead, to get the 'length' type bosses, designers are just adding in billions of hp. That's retarded.
Or they make bosses temporarily immortal and "script" the heros' deaths, in order to make him seem like a really badass. Of course, this doesn't work when you meet him again and he dies of the flu when you sneeze on him.
Quote
Sure, a boss that's going to be doing something other than brutally dishing out near death or death hits to everyone needs lots of hp, but would they need it if the heroes didn't have a few things stuck in their bag to allow them to go to max right at the wink of an eye? Could we do without this being a semicommon reward for one of the side quests
Or maybe just turn it back into a rare item. Perhaps a unique nonfarmable item that you have to actually quest for, not just find in some guy's sock drawer.
They shouldn't just make elixirs helpful. They should make them addictive, like a drug. The more you use them to get high on HP/MP, the more addicted you get to them, until you end up with no money or good weapons/armor due to all the megaelixirs in your inventory. Attempting to go cold turkey to remove addiction results in a loss of exp, HP and MP as well as a certain amount of money to be given to a hospital depending on the level of addiction. If you finish the game with a certain level of addiction, you automatically get a "Bad Ending" as opposed to a good ending, where we see a twitching hero restrained in a padded cell, tied to a bed through his straitjacket, muttering about his megaelixirs. Pan out to other cells where we see the other characters suffering similarly, as doctors shaking their heads, muttering about how it's a shame such people were once known as heroes.
Thus, the amount of usage that the items get becomes significantly lower due to the price for using them.
Quote from: "Jason_Miao"
Or they make bosses temporarily immortal and "script" the heros' deaths, in order to make him seem like a really badass. Of course, this doesn't work when you meet him again and he dies of the flu when you sneeze on him.
For the love of God, no!
Scripted boss battles that you're forced to lose are the worst form of laziness. Star Ocean 2 did this - I'd done a pretty good job twinking out my party to blow through everything they came across, then I ran into a boss I could barely scratch. So I start using up items and whatnot, but eventually I'm worn down to party death.
Crap. Looks like I'll have to powerlevel for a... huh? That's not the game over screen!
This elicted a hearty 'Fuck you!' in the game's direction, whereupon I loaded my last save so I could throw the 'boss' fight and save all my items.
Then, as you said, the next time I met that boss outside of his scripted awesome plot device aura I killed him flat in no time at all.
Quote from: "MercForHire"
They shouldn't just make elixirs helpful. They should make them addictive, like a drug. The more you use them to get high on HP/MP, the more addicted you get to them, until you end up with no money or good weapons/armor due to all the megaelixirs in your inventory. Attempting to go cold turkey to remove addiction results in a loss of exp, HP and MP as well as a certain amount of money to be given to a hospital depending on the level of addiction.
Play Fallout. Right now. There are a variety of drugs in the game, from crack-a-likes that do nothing but get you high, steroids, psycho-combat-drugs, brain pills, anti-radiation medicine, the lot. And every one of them has a chance of getting you addicted on repeated use (the crack drug does so if you even use it once). Going cold turkey is not pretty, and you can indeed buy (or do a sidequest to create in the case of the crack-type drug) medicine to cure the addiction.
It's awesome.
Quote from: "Ebiris"Quote from: "Jason_Miao"
Or they make bosses temporarily immortal and "script" the heros' deaths, in order to make him seem like a really badass. Of course, this doesn't work when you meet him again and he dies of the flu when you sneeze on him.
For the love of God, no!
Scripted boss battles that you're forced to lose are the worst form of laziness. Star Ocean 2 did this - I'd done a pretty good job twinking out my party to blow through everything they came across, then I ran into a boss I could barely scratch. So I start using up items and whatnot, but eventually I'm worn down to party death.
Crap. Looks like I'll have to powerlevel for a... huh? That's not the game over screen!
This elicted a hearty 'Fuck you!' in the game's direction, whereupon I loaded my last save so I could throw the 'boss' fight and save all my items.
Then, as you said, the next time I met that boss outside of his scripted awesome plot device aura I killed him flat in no time at all.
Triace deserves much hate for those. Rather than the piles of cash they get =p
Dracos
testyedit
Quote from: "Jason_Miao"Quote
Instead, to get the 'length' type bosses, designers are just adding in billions of hp. That's retarded.
Or they make bosses temporarily immortal and "script" the heros' deaths, in order to make him seem like a really badass. Of course, this doesn't work when you meet him again and he dies of the flu when you sneeze on him.
Quote
Sure, a boss that's going to be doing something other than brutally dishing out near death or death hits to everyone needs lots of hp, but would they need it if the heroes didn't have a few things stuck in their bag to allow them to go to max right at the wink of an eye? Could we do without this being a semicommon reward for one of the side quests
Or maybe just turn it back into a rare item. Perhaps a unique nonfarmable item that you have to actually quest for, not just find in some guy's sock drawer.
Making them rare doesn't help its base condition: If you have a megaelixir in your inventory, bosses are inherently significantly less effectual against your entire party to a degree where the sense of real danger is largely moot. Special armor might accomplish similar stuff, but it is usually only for one person at least.
Dracos
Quote
They shouldn't just make elixirs helpful. They should make them addictive, like a drug. The more you use them to get high on HP/MP, the more addicted you get to them, until you end up with no money or good weapons/armor due to all the megaelixirs in your inventory. Attempting to go cold turkey to remove addiction results in a loss of exp, HP and MP as well as a certain amount of money to be given to a hospital depending on the level of addiction. If you finish the game with a certain level of addiction, you automatically get a "Bad Ending" as opposed to a good ending, where we see a twitching hero restrained in a padded cell, tied to a bed through his straitjacket, muttering about his megaelixirs. Pan out to other cells where we see the other characters suffering similarly, as doctors shaking their heads, muttering about how it's a shame such people were once known as heroes.
Hey, buddy. You look a little depressed. You gotta fight the Dark Lord Kwok? Well, I've got just what you need. I'm tellin' ya, one hit of the Megaelixer, and you'll feel like you're the healthiest you've ever been. You'll feel like a million bucks, I tell ya! And that's how much it costs: a million bucks...hey, where are ya goin? Come back!
Quote
Making them rare doesn't help its base condition: If you have a megaelixir in your inventory, bosses are inherently significantly less effectual against your entire party to a degree where the sense of real danger is largely moot.
Which isn't bad in itself in small doses. Sometimes you just want to get that last goddamn item so you can just move on, but the characters you've chosen to level up are all weak against that boss, and you'd rather not spend another 3 days leveling up the other ones.
OTOH, it's a real problem when none of the game feels challenging, because you have a billion of the things lying around.
Quote
Scripted boss battles that you're forced to lose are the worst form of laziness. Star Ocean 2 did this - I'd done a pretty good job twinking out my party to blow through everything they came across, then I ran into a boss I could barely scratch. So I start using up items and whatnot, but eventually I'm worn down to party death.
I did the same thing in Skies of Arcadia for about half an hour. Then, I realized that the health bar had not decreased one bit, and I promptly screamed by rage at the heavens and lazy game designers.
The thing with Megaelixers (and their ilk) is they're basically rainy day items, and when they're scarce, it's been my experience that they tend not to get used anyway. Basically, it's the assumption that there's always the chance something worse is going to come along where they'll really be needed. And boom, before you know it, it's the end of the game as we know it, and everybody feels fine.
In part, I think it's because a lot of people learn, quickly, to work within the confines of what they're given. Preserving the valuable tools or skills, getting by obstacles with as little effort or wasted resources as possible - these are fairly intuitive concepts with everyday applications, and they translate to a variety of in-game scenarios. Point is, by the time a halfway decent player gets them, they probably don't need them, as they'll be trained to get by without jumping for the big guns first.
Meanwhile, these items, as has been said before, are so powerful that they're likely to break the challenge of a given fight. Of course, there is a practical benefit to having an item that can turn around a fight that just went sour, or something that the player simply wasn't ready for - and such situations can still be challenging. I don't think they break the whole game unless they're easy to acquire and/or fairly numerous, but I do see the argument about difficulty.
Also: I second the recommendation of Fallout, and not only because it proves that drugs can do good things when you're trying to save/depopulate the world.
Quote
The thing with Megaelixers (and their ilk) is they're basically rainy day items, and when they're scarce, it's been my experience that they tend not to get used anyway.
Which neatly solves the balance issue. :) Actually, it's better, because it gives a "Really Cool Reward" for some sidegame noone really wanted to play anyway, but if it's never used, then it won't break any future challenges.
Quote
Also: I second the recommendation of Fallout, and not only because it proves that drugs can do good things when you're trying to save/depopulate the world.
But...but then you'll be encouraging them to take drugs. Jack Thompson(sp?) says that people can't distinguish games and real life. Just ask all of those people he found who used to play Tetris and were then compelled to become bricklayers and stonemasons!
Quote from: "Jason_Miao"Quote
The thing with Megaelixers (and their ilk) is they're basically rainy day items, and when they're scarce, it's been my experience that they tend not to get used anyway.
Which neatly solves the balance issue. :) Actually, it's better, because it gives a "Really Cool Reward" for some sidegame noone really wanted to play anyway, but if it's never used, then it won't break any future challenges.
Eeeh. Whatever happened to the good old days of giving a medal for it or something?
Dracos
Quote from: "Ebiris"Quote from: "Jason_Miao"
Or they make bosses temporarily immortal and "script" the heros' deaths, in order to make him seem like a really badass. Of course, this doesn't work when you meet him again and he dies of the flu when you sneeze on him.
For the love of God, no!
Scripted boss battles that you're forced to lose are the worst form of laziness. Star Ocean 2 did this - I'd done a pretty good job twinking out my party to blow through everything they came across, then I ran into a boss I could barely scratch. So I start using up items and whatnot, but eventually I'm worn down to party death.
Crap. Looks like I'll have to powerlevel for a... huh? That's not the game over screen!
This elicted a hearty 'Fuck you!' in the game's direction, whereupon I loaded my last save so I could throw the 'boss' fight and save all my items
Quoting Ebiris for TRUTH. Fuck, scripted auto loss battles are the fucking pits. They're usually horrible laziness, unless it's possible to win them with absurb powerlevelling and get cool rewards or even find a hidden path. (Leon 1 from ToD and Gades 1 from Lufia 2 come to mind.) Most of the time, it's infuriating to have a battle that's rigged to smash you apart, moreso if it's done in bad taste.
Quote from: "Jason_Miao"Quote
Sure, a boss that's going to be doing something other than brutally dishing out near death or death hits to everyone needs lots of hp, but would they need it if the heroes didn't have a few things stuck in their bag to allow them to go to max right at the wink of an eye? Could we do without this being a semicommon reward for one of the side quests
Or maybe just turn it back into a rare item. Perhaps a unique nonfarmable item that you have to actually quest for, not just find in some guy's sock drawer.
Pretty much. Elixers and the ilk are nice if they're both rare and appreciated when you find one. Make a single Elixer or two a worthy reward for beating a touch boss or solving a difficult puzzle, not something you find in every clock in the world. A single Megaexiler in the game is great, especially if you give a boss near it a massive HP to 1 and MP to 0 draining attack, say...
In other words, make them count or they make your PCs resistant to HP and MP death.
Quote
Eeeh. Whatever happened to the good old days of giving a medal for it or something?
If the player never uses it, that's exactly what it is.
Quote
They're usually horrible laziness, unless it's possible to win them with absurb powerlevelling and get cool rewards or even find a hidden path. (Leon 1 from ToD and Gades 1 from Lufia 2 come to mind.)
Heh. Ever try to go with some absurd powerleveling in ChronoTrigger and beat Lavos the first time through? (As for me, the answer is yes. But I get
really bored from 'leveling up' in FF games, so I gave up after half an hour)
Well see...
I'm of the thought that the 'everyone hp to 1' gets overused as it stands. but meh.
Dracos
Quote from: "Jason_Miao"Heh. Ever try to go with some absurd powerleveling in ChronoTrigger and beat Lavos the first time through? (As for me, the answer is yes. But I get really bored from 'leveling up' in FF games, so I gave up after half an hour)
Powerlevel in Chronotrigger? Beating Lavos at the start is what New Game + is for!
Quote
Heh. Ever try to go with some absurd powerleveling in ChronoTrigger and beat Lavos the first time through?
Operative phrase. ^_^
Of course everyone's done it in +. Hopefully. Unless there's just a really bad player somewhere who can't beat the game.
Quote from: "Ebiris"Quote from: "Jason_Miao"Heh. Ever try to go with some absurd powerleveling in ChronoTrigger and beat Lavos the first time through? (As for me, the answer is yes. But I get really bored from 'leveling up' in FF games, so I gave up after half an hour)
Powerlevel in Chronotrigger? Beating Lavos at the start is what New Game + is for!
I have. I'm a freak like that, however. Go go getting the Ocean Palace ending first! New Game + is for powering up to 6000 damage Luminares, silly Usagi-chan. <_<
Hm. I don't mind scripted battles, usually.
For the most part its rather obvious when a battle is scripted. When you go from basically slaughtering any and every creature that pops up to being manhandled in the first round you should understand that something is up.
The only problem I have is when you cannot 'win' a scripted battle. You know when you have to basically defeat a boss before plot-powers kick in and you lose. I enjoy those fights because if you haven't reached plot-power-point you can still lose.
As for elixirs, I usually forget I have them until the end game. >_>
Magic is where its at!
Elixirs aren't the only abusable items, though. Take Grandia 2 for example. Near the end of the game there is an item that you can purchase that gives you a huge amount of ability points that you use to buy your skills. The item isn't very expensive to begin with, and you don't have much use for money throughout the game so you end up able to buy all the skills you would otherwise have to fight for. Its an extremely broken item, made moreso by one of the 'Wings of Valmar's skills which effectively shuts down all the bosses in the game.
Now THAT is item abuse.
Anastasia-
QuoteMost of the time, it's infuriating to have a battle that's rigged to smash you apart, moreso if it's done in bad taste.
I take it none of you have played the RayEarth RPG - you have to fight your friends, but you can't kill them... They cause almost NO damage to you and you CAN'T hurt yourself, making you wait an hour just to die...
In reality, there IS a [very] simple resolve to that whole issue: If you script the enemy's victory, just script the heroes as well.
Take the controls away from the user and just do it like an in-game FMV. A FULLY scripted battle. No items will be lost and the player won't feel cheated. Not only that, you also gain the ability to demonstrate the power and effectiveness of the enemy character in battle without resorting to infinite life or instant kills.
Of course, you could also resort to doing what Final Fantasy 7 did on that final battle with Sephiroth - only give your characters the option of choosing FIGHT, one super-move, or counter-attacking (if your life gets too low).
DEFEND or TWIDLE-THUMBS would work just as well.
Dracos-
QuoteI'm of the thought that the 'everyone hp to 1' gets overused as it stands. but meh.
That's the only fair way to use ultimate attacks. An attack that takes a lot of life away will just end the game every time. Leaving one HP at least lets you recover if you don't have a lot of life.
Personally, I happen to love the ol' Sneeze (Final Fantasy 6), which slowly removes all the characters you have to fight with. If done properly, it could make a battle somewhat fun.
Jason_Miao-
QuoteIf the player never uses it, that's exactly what it is.
That would be true if anyone ever used them. You don't waste Megaelixers on anyone other than the Final boss (or the optional secret boss). Combine that with the fact that the game is usually balanced with the notion you have NONE, then the battles will ALWAYS be broken.
To be honest, you would have to FORCE the user to use them more often to make the game more balanced. If you can just power-level to save your hand from being forced, then the game will break again.
The problem isn't with the Megaelixers. RPGs tend to break themselves by the very notion of leveling (it leaves the difficulty of the game in your hands). Those people who love RPGs will fight more battles and thus will only make the game easier, which is the opposite of what they want - a challenge.
It's a problem.
The only way to win is not to play.
-22
Quote from: "twentytwo"
I take it none of you have played the RayEarth RPG - you have to fight your friends, but you can't kill them... They cause almost NO damage to you and you CAN'T hurt yourself, making you wait an hour just to die...
In reality, there IS a [very] simple resolve to that whole issue: If you script the enemy's victory, just script the heroes as well.
Take the controls away from the user and just do it like an in-game FMV. A FULLY scripted battle. No items will be lost and the player won't feel cheated. Not only that, you also gain the ability to demonstrate the power and effectiveness of the enemy character in battle without resorting to infinite life or instant kills.
Of course, you could also resort to doing what Final Fantasy 7 did on that final battle with Sephiroth - only give your characters the option of choosing FIGHT, one super-move, or counter-attacking (if your life gets too low).
DEFEND or TWIDLE-THUMBS would work just as well.
I'm generally keen with that. Though, I don't really see the point in the classic "Press big red button to win or lose battle" scenario.
Quote
Dracos-
QuoteI'm of the thought that the 'everyone hp to 1' gets overused as it stands. but meh.
That's the only fair way to use ultimate attacks. An attack that takes a lot of life away will just end the game every time. Leaving one HP at least lets you recover if you don't have a lot of life.
Personally, I happen to love the ol' Sneeze (Final Fantasy 6), which slowly removes all the characters you have to fight with. If done properly, it could make a battle somewhat fun.
Sneeze, and its predecessor Black Hole, are very neat. that said, I disagree with the 'only fair way to do it'. Mass HP attacks are keen, but more relevantly, percentile losses are fine too. An attack that does 80 percent damage isn't quite as silly as one that drops everyone to 1. The drop everyone to 1 thing is basically a "use megaelixir here" call.
Quote
Jason_Miao-
QuoteIf the player never uses it, that's exactly what it is.
That would be true if anyone ever used them. You don't waste Megaelixers on anyone other than the Final boss (or the optional secret boss). Combine that with the fact that the game is usually balanced with the notion you have NONE, then the battles will ALWAYS be broken.
To be honest, you would have to FORCE the user to use them more often to make the game more balanced. If you can just power-level to save your hand from being forced, then the game will break again.
The problem isn't with the Megaelixers. RPGs tend to break themselves by the very notion of leveling (it leaves the difficulty of the game in your hands). Those people who love RPGs will fight more battles and thus will only make the game easier, which is the opposite of what they want - a challenge.
It's a problem.
The only way to win is not to play.
-22
Mmm, I disagree there. Not with the theory so much as your interpretation. A setup designed to get easier as you spend more time wiith it does not imply, logically, that including broken stuff is good. If that was the case, then there'd be no issue with giving all the best weapons, infinite cash, and infinite stats at the beginning. There'd be no difference. But there is one. There's a noticiable change in the texture of the experience.
I don't think it is about challenge so much as something that breaks ranks significantly with the rest of the avaliable stuff.
Dracos
Dracos-
QuoteThough, I don't really see the point in the classic "Press big red button to win or lose battle" scenario.
It's somewhat better than the original alternative...
Actually, I like to think more along the lines of that Arrow boss in Super Mario RPG, where he disabled certain abilities. If your characters get attacked by some uber-super attack as part of an animation, it could disable your abilities as you get up to fight him. In that way, you can work it well into the plot, make it seem real, and make the player somewhat less displeased.
Dracos-
QuoteA setup designed to get easier as you spend more time wiith it does not imply, logically, that including broken stuff is good.
I'm just disagreeing with your idea that the Megaelixer is a BROKEN item. As stated before, it loses effect when any characters are dead, it should only be used when fighting difficult bosses, and it can only have maximum effect if all of the characters are at minimum HP (or almost dead). It only then becomes an item that can double the length of the play time. This isn't necessarily a break... (in fact, it's often times a very lucky situation to be in - as more often than not, you don't end up getting that max effect)
What I was actually suggesting was that the game assumes you do not own ANY of them, and thus the balance of the game is thrown off should you possess even one. The only way to make the game balance itself is to assume the opposite: that the player HAS an elixer and that he WILL use it to survive. That's where Game-Balancing comes in.
My biggest gripe is the fact that every boss has a static set of abilities, and thus should you over-compensate with higher levels, you will only end up breaking the balance of the game, and thus doing exactly the same thing as having a ton of Megaelixers. Here's the question: When your characters are on Level 100, do you ever even end up using all those elixers? Of course not. You've already broken the game with or without the supposed broken item. Either way, the game is NOT balanced properly.
It's not the question of whether or not the item is broken. It's whether or not the system really works...
With so many complaints, how can it?
-22
On the flip side, bosses that level up as you do also have some rather annoying aspects. Does anyone remember Ghaleon from the PSX version of Lunar: Silver Star Story? Before you bum rush the final dungeon and him, you're allowed to rob as many free items from the hero's best friend for free.
The game assumed you didn't use any of your awesome free items through the final dungeon or at least it struck me that way, since Ghaleon's double round attacks and high stats based on Alex's level turned it into a war of attrition where only those limited items I could carry were all that kept me from being annihilated when Jessica's mp ran out.
Ever since then, I've been ever so grateful when bosses were balanced without taking into consideration all the powerful healing items you have or should have. I would've died a billion more times in my RPGs if they had.
Quote from: "twentytwo"Dracos-
QuoteThough, I don't really see the point in the classic "Press big red button to win or lose battle" scenario.
It's somewhat better than the original alternative...
Actually, I like to think more along the lines of that Arrow boss in Super Mario RPG, where he disabled certain abilities. If your characters get attacked by some uber-super attack as part of an animation, it could disable your abilities as you get up to fight him. In that way, you can work it well into the plot, make it seem real, and make the player somewhat less displeased.
Unnecessary for scripted battle. That though is a kind of attack that isn't used often enough. More specifically: If you cut off half my abilities, I would not instantly assume I was forced to lose. In fact, I would assume that the boss is intended to be extra challenging. In effect, the games train us to believe that if they're giving us the option, we can win. these battles that break this rule make up less than 1/20000 battles, in my own experience of things. Many good games are made entirely without them while others that do use them tend to have only a one (with SO2 being a notable exception). On top of that, the vast majority at least give the dignity of a one hit superkill attack, even if that itself is stupid.
Scripted battles or cutscenes for things you're going to lose anyway are inevitably the way to go. Anything else goes against the grain of both the genre and, more importantly, what we tend to be taught the entire rest of the game.
[/quote]
Quote
Dracos-
QuoteA setup designed to get easier as you spend more time wiith it does not imply, logically, that including broken stuff is good.
I'm just disagreeing with your idea that the Megaelixer is a BROKEN item. As stated before, it loses effect when any characters are dead, it should only be used when fighting difficult bosses, and it can only have maximum effect if all of the characters are at minimum HP (or almost dead). It only then becomes an item that can double the length of the play time. This isn't necessarily a break... (in fact, it's often times a very lucky situation to be in - as more often than not, you don't end up getting that max effect)
What I was actually suggesting was that the game assumes you do not own ANY of them, and thus the balance of the game is thrown off should you possess even one. The only way to make the game balance itself is to assume the opposite: that the player HAS an elixer and that he WILL use it to survive. That's where Game-Balancing comes in.
My biggest gripe is the fact that every boss has a static set of abilities, and thus should you over-compensate with higher levels, you will only end up breaking the balance of the game, and thus doing exactly the same thing as having a ton of Megaelixers. Here's the question: When your characters are on Level 100, do you ever even end up using all those elixers? Of course not. You've already broken the game with or without the supposed broken item. Either way, the game is NOT balanced properly.
It's not the question of whether or not the item is broken. It's whether or not the system really works...
With so many complaints, how can it?
-22
I think this is a difference in principle. I do not see levels as broken. They are, instead, fulfilling their exact primary purpose in almost every game. As designed in the first console RPG, they exist as a sort of sliding difficulty bar. An acknowledgement that the games are primarily for the masses and that a large section of the game content depends on story. Thus levels exist as a dynamic way of dealing with skill levels and providing a perpetual way of improvement in all cases. Can it be abused? Certainly. Is it broken inherently? No, because it fulfills an important game purpose and in regular usage does not lead to overpowering. The game bosses haviing static strength is also a representation of this. Is it the only way to achieve it? No. But what happens when you balance towards the hardcore enemy campers is that you inevitably draw a line and say "These people, they cannot enjoy my game". Are games a bit easy as it stands? yeah, I'd say so and I'd indicate that there's often good ways to minimize leveling abuse.
In other words: The game design concept at its base demands one dynamic power structure. Some games do more. Others less (these games are usually either bad or extremely frustrating, see Lunar story above =P). In most, they use levels as it is a simple representation of the dynamic. Some use weapon or magic development in addition or replacement (See Disgaea, FF7, FF8). Some use class systems or ability growth (See FFtactics, Disgaea, every bloody tactstrat ever, and the last several DQs). Each of these dynamics, by virtue of being dynamic with respect to time spent modified by certain ingame features, is capable of breaking the game through abuse. But, without them, RPGs wouldn't be RPGs, in a sense, as one of the core design concepts has been removed making a story heavy game with multiple characters with abilities that are at most dynamic to position in game, and static with regards to time spent. An individual at a certain point in the game would be unable to enjoy further points as they would lack a way to use time to make up for skill. This is, by nature, particularly bad in RPGs relative to other genres.
Dracos
Breakfast...
Olguin-
QuoteOn the flip side, bosses that level up as you do also have some rather annoying aspects.
Yeah, I really hate those, too. It's never good to go to ANY extreme.
FF8 defeated itself with this system because it made leveling up a BAD thing (to be successful in that game, you had to use ONLY GFs, because they level up, giving you better abilities, and yet keep the enemies weak enough to kill - or you could just DEVOUR everything...).
To be honest, I'm thinking more along the lines that the game should be more dynamically balanced based on the stats of your characters, which is what really measures your strength. But, to not make that system EXACTLY the same as the level up one (or probubly worse...), you would have to add a few things as well, including a way of measuring the survival skills of the player from some of the smaller battles (like sub-bosses).
In other words, I believe the future of RPGs is making games more like GameMasters who don't just follow a set of rules but rather break them in order to give the player a good deal... (be fair, but don't give them a free ride)
Dracos-
QuoteI think this is a difference in principle. I do not see levels as broken. They are, instead, fulfilling their exact primary purpose in almost every game. As designed in the first console RPG, they exist as a sort of sliding difficulty bar.
I guess I just look at leveling a little different than most.
While it IS true that levels can be used to create a sliding difficulty, that's not what they end up being. This is a problem with Theory vs Practice...
When I play a game I really enjoy, I tend to exceed the required levels (usually by quite a bit). This isn't because I want the game to be easier but because I enjoy fighting and getting that much stronger (if 5 points of Strength are good, 10 must be better!). As an example, in Dark Cloud 1, I'm currently fighting to build up the level of my weapons in order to create a super weapon. I enjoy doing this, so I tend to do it a bit in excess. I want to see what other forms the sword can take. That's a part of playing the game - discovery and adventure.
The problem with your logic is that you're on the borderline of suggesting that "Playing the Game" is subservient to "Watching the Story".
Those that don't enjoy the game enough to level up or become good at it generally don't deserve to get all the way through it; I'm not suggesting that this is my way of thinking but rather that this is the type of logic used in almost every other genre (which you say that RPGs are so unlike). This especially applies to story-based Fighting games. Have you ever thought that maybe this is how it should be? Do I deserve to win at Monopoly if I don't know how to play it (or enjoy it...)? I wouldn't think so. This is a part of the very nature of Games...
In reality, the story should be an incentive to play the game, not the other way around... (especially because those that buy these games enjoy them for their Gameplay - the Story is just the beautiful icing on the cake)
After some point, when your level is high enough, the game reverts back to its roots - a Text Adventure (all you do is press a few buttons and the game keeps pumping story bits out). Keep on going with this logic (I know it's a bit extreme) and you have an interactive branching animated novel that randomly asks you to "Push FIGHT to Continue".
It sounds to me that RPGs are suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis. They plug in all kinds of random games into themselves until you don't know where the RPG starts or ends. Is it a puzzle game, an adventure game, a strategy game, a battle simulation game, a card game (!?), ...
And the ability to be challenged by this game hinges on this leveling system that almost seems to break the very concept it tries to stand for: If you don't enjoy fighting, you won't fight and the game will be more difficult (thus giving you a harder time); however, if you really love it, the game's challenge will degenerate rapidly before you can get to the end (making the game far less enjoyable).
In Theory, it sounds nice, but in Practice, it only works when the player actually lives by the principles that the theory is grounded on: play the game more for Easy Mode and play the game less for Hard Mode.
Sounds a bit broken to me...
-22
Twentytwo, I'm not certain what you were trying to say in the later half of your post but what I got out of it was that 1) leveling is inherently broken and 2) that the story, not the battle system, should be the focus of an RPG. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
For point 2, I cannot agree with that. There has to be a balance of story and entertaining battle system to hold a players interest. If either fails the game usually isn't worth playing, but a bad storyline is usually less annoying than a bad battle system. Most of the time you spend in an RPG is going to be either battling, equipting for battle, or solving puzzles. The story comes in spurts.
I played through FFT and hated the battle system. Even though I like the story I will probably never play the game again. That is how much I hated it.
I've played through FFX2 twice andplan on trying it again sometime. The storyline was crap, to put it simply, but the fighting was and is still some of the most fun I've had in an RPG. I can forgive a crappy story. Crappy GAMEPLAY is not so forgiveable.
At least not to me.
As for the first point, I do not believe this to be true. There are too many different systems doing to many different things to dismiss all leveling as broken. The best example that comes to mind at the moment is the early Shining Force games. When you leveled not only did the exp to level up next go up, but the higher in level you were the less exp you were awarded when fighting weak monsters. It was a system that created natural platau that made it difficult to overpower in any given scenario. That is, unless you liked farming 1 exp enemies.
It kind of reminds me of D&D, in that when a GM anounces a campaign he also anounces the levels your character should be between if joining. By the end of the games you had some powerful characters, but they were still at a level that left the final stage challenging.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: "twentytwo"
Dracos-
QuoteI think this is a difference in principle. I do not see levels as broken. They are, instead, fulfilling their exact primary purpose in almost every game. As designed in the first console RPG, they exist as a sort of sliding difficulty bar.
I guess I just look at leveling a little different than most.
While it IS true that levels can be used to create a sliding difficulty, that's not what they end up being. This is a problem with Theory vs Practice...
When I play a game I really enjoy, I tend to exceed the required levels (usually by quite a bit). This isn't because I want the game to be easier but because I enjoy fighting and getting that much stronger (if 5 points of Strength are good, 10 must be better!). As an example, in Dark Cloud 1, I'm currently fighting to build up the level of my weapons in order to create a super weapon. I enjoy doing this, so I tend to do it a bit in excess. I want to see what other forms the sword can take. That's a part of playing the game - discovery and adventure.
This is true. What I see from this is a need for difference in implementation, not in concept. In concept, the premise behind the RPG basic is that it has a dynamic scale differing according to time. The concept does not necessarily need to change to accord for this, if the implementation takes this into effect.
This, itself though, has its own issues. As you note, you like getting stronger. That's one of the draws behind leveling up. The issue with this of course is that it feels cheap to a player if his strength is meaningless. Implementations that work enemy side to address this issue tend to create this problem.
Quote
The problem with your logic is that you're on the borderline of suggesting that "Playing the Game" is subservient to "Watching the Story".
No, I'm actually suggesting at the very root of console RPGs following Dragon Quest is that if playing the game is not subserviant to watching the story, it is very close. This assumption was part of the basis for the DQ designs that in making less of a challenging 'game' aspect that they'd be able to create something entirely new and popular and, in a very blatant way, they've got twenty years of sales records to back them being right on this. It's no question that FF often puts gameplay subservient to watching the story and, in a very real way, built their franchise off it. Is this a great assumption? I'm not judging it, but it is an assumption well ingrained in RPGs. Simply put...it's in another article I've still not revised for posting X_X. =P I'll get that up soonish.
Quote
Those that don't enjoy the game enough to level up or become good at it generally don't deserve to get all the way through it; I'm not suggesting that this is my way of thinking but rather that this is the type of logic used in almost every other genre (which you say that RPGs are so unlike). This especially applies to story-based Fighting games. Have you ever thought that maybe this is how it should be? Do I deserve to win at Monopoly if I don't know how to play it (or enjoy it...)? I wouldn't think so. This is a part of the very nature of Games...
The philosophy behind all games, at the root, is that they should be enjoyable. A fighting game that you can't beat is still enjoyable, in fact, daresay more enjoyable than one you can as the lion's share of the enjoyment is intended to be derived from the fighting experience. This sort of thing is true for most genres out there. It's not explicitly true for RPGs due to their unique combination (there are others that fit this as well). That said, the premise that all should be this way is not necessarily true, nor is the premise that that because you're intended to win that they must be pushovers.
A lot of this though could be resolved by simple reflection on the past and evolution of the genre's methods. There's a lot of room between more intelligent adaption and tying monster strength to level or time. Recognizing that providing dynamic scale improvement does not have to necessarily mean that you're going to become massively overpowered fighting enemies.
Of course, for many, becoming massively overpowered is part of the fun.
Quote
In reality, the story should be an incentive to play the game, not the other way around... (especially because those that buy these games enjoy them for their Gameplay - the Story is just the beautiful icing on the cake)
Yeah, I verily should get that article up :)
Quote
After some point, when your level is high enough, the game reverts back to its roots - a Text Adventure (all you do is press a few buttons and the game keeps pumping story bits out). Keep on going with this logic (I know it's a bit extreme) and you have an interactive branching animated novel that randomly asks you to "Push FIGHT to Continue".
And all that'd indicate is a poor implementation, but, that said, most implementations fall to that with infinite time.
Quote
It sounds to me that RPGs are suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis. They plug in all kinds of random games into themselves until you don't know where the RPG starts or ends. Is it a puzzle game, an adventure game, a strategy game, a battle simulation game, a card game (!?), ...
And the ability to be challenged by this game hinges on this leveling system that almost seems to break the very concept it tries to stand for: If you don't enjoy fighting, you won't fight and the game will be more difficult (thus giving you a harder time); however, if you really love it, the game's challenge will degenerate rapidly before you can get to the end (making the game far less enjoyable).
In Theory, it sounds nice, but in Practice, it only works when the player actually lives by the principles that the theory is grounded on: play the game more for Easy Mode and play the game less for Hard Mode.
Sounds a bit broken to me...
-22
In that sense, you're correct. and... indigestion scatters my thoughts. I'll try getting back here later.
Dracos
Anastasia-
QuoteTwentytwo, I'm not certain what you were trying to say in the later half of your post but what I got out of it was that 1) leveling is inherently broken and 2) that the story, not the battle system, should be the focus of an RPG. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Yeah, sorry. I tend to be somewhat vague when I argue. The way I write is actually based on the way I talk (which is based on the way I think), and I usually make suggestive swipes at a concept rather than nail it down completely. I tend to view constructs as being more agile / maleable / less-concrete than most. Words, as well as their meanings, are constructs (in fact, I am known to constantly redefine a word as I continue to use it, progressively using each and every meaning behind the word to prove my point - to many, this can be somewhat confusing...).
That second point was actually more along what you were saying: Story is not as important as good Gameplay.
Anastasia-
QuoteThe best example that comes to mind at the moment is the early Shining Force games. When you leveled not only did the exp to level up next go up, but the higher in level you were the less exp you were awarded when fighting weak monsters. It was a system that created natural platau that made it difficult to overpower in any given scenario. That is, unless you liked farming 1 exp enemies.
Ephemeral Phantasia, though not the greatest game, had a system similar to that. In fact, they extended it somewhat, making one of the most interesting systems I've ever seen (or at least refreshing). Beyond each individual character's level, there is also a party-wide level that builds up as you fight. The further away any character is from that team's level, the more experience they get; the closer, the less. This made super powerful characters get nothing but 1's all the time while weak characters would get boosted quickly and catch up. Not only that, but as you approached the end of the game, your levels would actually start to exceed the party level, making it harder to level up to maximum.
In other words, there are some versions of the level up system that work well. Another example would be Dark Cloud 1, where your weapon gets leveled up instead of your character (it works almost exactly like the Disgaea system, only with weapons instead of demons). However, I do believe that these are ADDED concepts and are not innately a part of the original idea behind Leveling - in fact, they tend to cover-up the problems that Leveling alone tends to not address.
My whole point in bringing up the level-up system is that every game has a form of balance they try to keep. That balance is made assuming that your characters are at a specific range of ability at a specific time. There is almost no way in predicting what EVERY player will have at that point. While some may have one Megaelixer, others may have twenty. In order to make the game fair, most designers choose to opt for balance at the one Megaelixer end (or less), rather than the other. This is intended to appeas the casual gamers, but it only ends up making most of the hard-core RPG fans feel it is somewhat broken.
-EDIT: Oh yeah, and then there was Soul Blazer. In that game, you had to fight each and every enemy in order to unlock all the game's secrets. Once defeated, the enemies would actually be removed from the game. This made it so that the growth of your level was limited, resulting in a very low divergence from mean (english: the game made sure you were either at, or around, a specific experience level at all times). This meant the game was extremely balanced... (of course, the game had major control issues and such a poor fighting mechanic, but oh well...)
Anastasia-
QuoteIt kind of reminds me of D&D, in that when a GM anounces a campaign he also anounces the levels your character should be between if joining. By the end of the games you had some powerful characters, but they were still at a level that left the final stage challenging.
Which is my point. Most video games lack that kind of control, which is what almost all good [pen and paper] RPGs require (obviously for good reason...).
Dracos-
QuoteWhat I see from this is a need for difference in implementation, not in concept. In concept, the premise behind the RPG basic is that it has a dynamic scale differing according to time. The concept does not necessarily need to change to accord for this, if the implementation takes this into effect.
The concept assumes that such a simple system is sufficient to control difficulty, and I argue that it is not. This implies that that concept itself must be broken: partially, if not completely.
Dracos-
QuoteI'm actually suggesting at the very root of console RPGs following Dragon Quest is that if playing the game is not subserviant to watching the story, it is very close.
...
I'm not judging it, but it is an assumption well ingrained in RPGs. Simply put...it's in another article I've still not revised for posting X_X. =P I'll get that up soonish.
Good, I look forward to reading it :) .
QuoteOf course, for many, becoming massively overpowered is part of the fun.
I view this as a natural part of playing the game. Almost every RPG makes you feel like "the more you fight, the better you get, so go ahead and fight some more". For some, it gets as addictive as a slot-machine (and in fact, it fundamentally works about the same - especially with randomly dropped rare-items).
I just happen not to like the idea that Time = Power is a very good way to make these kind of games. Personally, I would rather see more Skill involved (heck, even puzzle-solving mid boss-battle would be a bonus - remember that boss in Final Fantasy X where you had to hide on the three squares behind him in order to avoid getting killed?).
You never see RPGs in game tournaments (like G4's Arena), do you? I wonder why...
"You have three hours to build up and beat the first dungeon!" Sounds exciting...
***
Of course, what you tend to not talk about is the simple fact that Leveling is also used for one other dasterdly deed: artificially extending the length of a game.
Why do RPGs take 60+ hours to beat? Any game would if you had to fight 1000 battles to get through it (or walk a million miles one square at a time).
If you've ever played Seiken Densetsu 3, you'd know what I mean. At one point, the game had 8 stages where you had to get 8 crystals in order to fight the final boss (to be honest, you had to go to these 8 stages over and over again, for different reasons each time). After each stage, the level of each enemy (which was displayed) would increase by 2. Progressively, you had to keep leveling up in order to stay up with the current level of the enemies. After a while, you realize that the dungeons are really weak and the enemies are just forcing you to continue fighting.
That's filler... and it sucks.
-22
Quote from: "twentytwo"
Ephemeral Phantasia, though not the greatest game, had a system similar to that. In fact, they extended it somewhat, making one of the most interesting systems I've ever seen (or at least refreshing). Beyond each individual character's level, there is also a party-wide level that builds up as you fight. The further away any character is from that team's level, the more experience they get; the closer, the less. This made super powerful characters get nothing but 1's all the time while weak characters would get boosted quickly and catch up. Not only that, but as you approached the end of the game, your levels would actually start to exceed the party level, making it harder to level up to maximum.
Mmm, that sounds like it'd be interesting for really small parties and exceedingly frustrating for larger ones. I know part of the concept of giving character options is to reduce the odds that you're stuck with someone you grossly dislike in your party. Now there's ups and downs to doing this, but it'd not work well with that concept really, though it'd work great in small teams.
Quote
In other words, there are some versions of the level up system that work well. Another example would be Dark Cloud 1, where your weapon gets leveled up instead of your character (it works almost exactly like the Disgaea system, only with weapons instead of demons). However, I do believe that these are ADDED concepts and are not innately a part of the original idea behind Leveling - in fact, they tend to cover-up the problems that Leveling alone tends to not address.
I disagree. I haven't played DC1, but I sure as heck played DC2 a fair ways and the end result was very strongly "Here's this neat thing that can dynamically up your power based on the time you put in. Put in too much? Everything is super easy". I think it was a very fluid example of leveling for all intents and purposes, even if separated onto the items.
Quote
My whole point in bringing up the level-up system is that every game has a form of balance they try to keep. That balance is made assuming that your characters are at a specific range of ability at a specific time. There is almost no way in predicting what EVERY player will have at that point. While some may have one Megaelixer, others may have twenty. In order to make the game fair, most designers choose to opt for balance at the one Megaelixer end (or less), rather than the other. This is intended to appeas the casual gamers, but it only ends up making most of the hard-core RPG fans feel it is somewhat broken.
That's not so much my point there. It's that there's no benefit to balancing for megaelixirs, so might as well remove them. Yes, this is a bit of my own philosophy showing that there's no point in giving something not meant to be used, but more that there's a lot of better things than it. If, persay, one got ten full ethers at the end of a sidequest, it'd probably have the same happiness effect, but instead give something you'd end up using by virtue of suddenly having a supply of it to test out. Moreso, it's something that is very useful, yet at the same time clearly limited. Megaelixirs only limitation is that of character death, which I think is too minimal. In general, you shouldn't have a lot of things avaliable 'ever' of that tier and I question if any of them benefit in any sense.
also, quick recovery...
Quote
And the ability to be challenged by this game hinges on this leveling system that almost seems to break the very concept it tries to stand for: If you don't enjoy fighting, you won't fight and the game will be more difficult (thus giving you a harder time); however, if you really love it, the game's challenge will degenerate rapidly before you can get to the end (making the game far less enjoyable).
In Theory, it sounds nice, but in Practice, it only works when the player actually lives by the principles that the theory is grounded on: play the game more for Easy Mode and play the game less for Hard Mode.
To think about this, I played a bunch of games in other genres and found...this concept is very strongly represented in them anyway. If you don't like searching, action games are much harder, whereas if you do, they're much easier, thus rewarding the best players with an easier game. Sports games that allow customization often reward time with improved stats and such. See Tony hawk for example. The more you play, the easier the game is to play, whereas an individual who doesn't enjoy grinding will find future things significantly less easy.
I dunno now if I can really qualify it as different in practice since it appears to my eyes to be something common: That most games include a play the game more for easy mode. This being more visible in the recent eras with timed challenges largely going to the wayside in favor of 'collect all of these'.
Quote
-EDIT: Oh yeah, and then there was Soul Blazer. In that game, you had to fight each and every enemy in order to unlock all the game's secrets. Once defeated, the enemies would actually be removed from the game. This made it so that the growth of your level was limited, resulting in a very low divergence from mean (english: the game made sure you were either at, or around, a specific experience level at all times). This meant the game was extremely balanced... (of course, the game had major control issues and such a poor fighting mechanic, but oh well...)
I remember that game, though you're mistaken. As a true leveling goon, there were plenty of infinite enemy spots to gather xp from. It was unnecessary as they generally kept you on a good scale throughout, but if needed, they made sure to place a few enemies in every level that would respawn each time you went through.
Illusion of gaia, to some respect, used the same kind of thing, but even more limited opportunities to do such.
The final game in the series did away with that kind of thing entirely choosing instead to have enemies just respawn and trusting (fairly effectively) that the generally good scaling would prevent an urge to overlevel.
Mmm, and I've got an article in mind on just that now =)
Quote
Dracos-
QuoteWhat I see from this is a need for difference in implementation, not in concept. In concept, the premise behind the RPG basic is that it has a dynamic scale differing according to time. The concept does not necessarily need to change to accord for this, if the implementation takes this into effect.
The concept assumes that such a simple system is sufficient to control difficulty, and I argue that it is not. This implies that that concept itself must be broken: partially, if not completely.
But, in the vast majority of cases, it works just fine, precisely as intended. This is particularly evident in the game where the whole concept spawns from, Dragon Quest, as they do not reduce xp on death (like many do because they're morons), meaning that those who are underleveled and go to a boss, will ALWAYS find themselves a bit stronger after their defeat, a bit more capable, etc, by sheer fact of running through the dungeon again. That alone indicates that the concept is not broken inherently, simply that many implementations of it are wrongheaded.
This isn't to say we couldn't and shouldn't have more and different solutions to this issue. We certainly should. It's just that this one isn't broken at the concept level. As long as there is some guarentee that when folks encounter a challenge to hard for them that they will end up fighting more times and gaining more xp before another go, then it works on the low end, works on the mid end, and on the high end, it is implementation based whether it breaks or not.
Quote
Dracos-
QuoteI'm actually suggesting at the very root of console RPGs following Dragon Quest is that if playing the game is not subserviant to watching the story, it is very close.
...
I'm not judging it, but it is an assumption well ingrained in RPGs. Simply put...it's in another article I've still not revised for posting X_X. =P I'll get that up soonish.
Good, I look forward to reading it :) .
Thanks. Hopefully tonight. It and leveling pondering.
Quote
QuoteOf course, for many, becoming massively overpowered is part of the fun.
I view this as a natural part of playing the game. Almost every RPG makes you feel like "the more you fight, the better you get, so go ahead and fight some more". For some, it gets as addictive as a slot-machine (and in fact, it fundamentally works about the same - especially with randomly dropped rare-items).
I just happen not to like the idea that Time = Power is a very good way to make these kind of games. Personally, I would rather see more Skill involved (heck, even puzzle-solving mid boss-battle would be a bonus - remember that boss in Final Fantasy X where you had to hide on the three squares behind him in order to avoid getting killed?).
I'm a firm believer that it has it's place in some game designs.
I am also a firm believer that such active things have their place most firmly as well and are underrepresented.
Quote
You never see RPGs in game tournaments (like G4's Arena), do you? I wonder why...
"You have three hours to build up and beat the first dungeon!" Sounds exciting...
They could set them up, and aside from any concept of giving G4 credibility...
they're not as televisible. You look at an FPS? Someone is winning or losing every 5 seconds. It's extremely active and competitive in that regard. Now show me the last time we had a katamari type in one of these, even if it's more suitable. The reason you don't see RPGs isn't that they aren't fun and/or exciting, it's that they aren't built towards good competitive practices. Goals placed in them are more awkward compared to the linear action games and even these are less desired than the massive intentionally designed for competition games that entirely dominate every tournament I've ever seen or heard of.
Why don't you see Deus Ex or ICO at these? It's not the levels. It's that they just don't fit well in a competitive framework. They're not built that way anymore than bookreading is.
Quote
***
Of course, what you tend to not talk about is the simple fact that Leveling is also used for one other dasterdly deed: artificially extending the length of a game.
Sometimes it is indeed.
Often it isn't and instead it's the desire to kill monsters that does it.
Quote
Why do RPGs take 60+ hours to beat? Any game would if you had to fight 1000 battles to get through it (or walk a million miles one square at a time).
This is true, but I often find that comparitively shorter games don't often have as much real content either. Gradius V is awesome, but it only has 7 levels as I recall. A 'good' player could beat them all in two hours abouts and probably be deep into the next cycle through. Meanwhile, most players will eat 10-20 hours filler replaying the same exact stuff over.
Not contesting that many games do have unnecessary filler, but those are both examples of separate issues.
Quote
If you've ever played Seiken Densetsu 3, you'd know what I mean. At one point, the game had 8 stages where you had to get 8 crystals in order to fight the final boss (to be honest, you had to go to these 8 stages over and over again, for different reasons each time). After each stage, the level of each enemy (which was displayed) would increase by 2. Progressively, you had to keep leveling up in order to stay up with the current level of the enemies. After a while, you realize that the dungeons are really weak and the enemies are just forcing you to continue fighting.
That's filler... and it sucks.
-22
Some, eight to ten times through I believe. At least once or twice with every single character as leader. I'd like, in the sense of fairness, to give another twist on that. Their story, plotted out well in advance of making the levels, called for the heroes to traverse the world fighting the eight demons released when the crystals cracked. Naturally, their design system said each of these got a level so it didn't feel jump-skip. Someone pointed out, quite rightly, that if they mandated the levels statically, then they'd be mandating the order the players had to go through them and without the players having any hint in that regard. This would be undesirable as encountering suddenly ten level higher enemies followed by weaklings would be annoying to a player. Additionally, they knew if they set a static level so that the first was beatable and all were equally hard, the last two or three would be easy because you would've killed a few hundred enemies and be higher leveled. In this perspective, while I don't disagree with it being fillerish, the entire design makes perfect sense. Here we ensure that neither the enemies nor the boss is too hard to handle. We allow things to go up so that they don't become massively easier. We don't mandate an order, so that there's no guesswork based on zero hints.
It does make sense that way, even if they didn't do a great job on those levels and let the level progession rise too quickly.
Dracos
Dracos-
Quote
twentytwo-
QuoteEphemeral Phantasia...
Mmm, that sounds like it'd be interesting for really small parties and exceedingly frustrating for larger ones.
Which is exactly what broke it. The game had at least 12 unlockable (almost secret) characters that ultimately made it impossible to level up any further... (not only that, but you couldn't remove your main character from the party, so he was always forced to get 1's EVERY TIME!)
Again, good in Theory...
Dracos-
QuoteI disagree. I haven't played DC1, but I sure as heck played DC2 a fair ways and the end result was very strongly "Here's this neat thing that can dynamically up your power based on the time you put in. Put in too much? Everything is super easy". I think it was a very fluid example of leveling for all intents and purposes, even if separated onto the items.
:{P
Oops...
Actually, this was really just an example of a game whose level-up system was somewhat more balanced than others. In DC1, it's hard to get weaker weapons to higher levels because they have HORRIBLE max stats and will break if you hit anyone with it (once broken, you lose the weapon AND anything attached to it >_<). However, building weak weapons up remains the best way (and sometimes only) to build an ultimate weapon. The concept is that you don't just get infinitely more powerful unless you intelligently know how to do it properly; that was my only point.
For me, DC2 is next, so I'll get to that eventually...
Dracos-
QuoteThat's not so much my point there. It's that there's no benefit to balancing for megaelixirs, so might as well remove them.
I've played many games where you were always on the brink of death. When the enemy has instant kill moves and you're getting killed left and right, you WILL need something to help that last guy save everyone (Final Fantasy even had a Pheonix Pinion that brings everyone back to life with Full Life - that and a Final Attack skill that lets you come back to life when you die).
However, these sort of things are only useful when fighting the "optional" bosses. Some of those guys were great fights. Skies of Arcadia had the Angel of Death. Final Fantasy has always had its secret penultimate (heck, FF9 had a final boss who could do PERMENANT kills - Life3 be damned) [; FF7's Ruby Weapon was fun!]. At first, they seem impossible, but with these kind of special items, even those that can't achieve Level 99 (or casual gamers) might have a chance at them.
My only point is that Megaelixers DO have their uses (and at some points are absolutely necessary). As you say, the game has a sliding difficulty bar. Level Ups, Special Items, Learned Abilities, Attack Patterns, Equipment, and Dumn Luck are all a part of it. Each one can be used to overcome a defficiency in the other. There's ALWAYS a way to win. The idea is to give the player as many options as you can...
Dracos-
QuoteIn general, you shouldn't have a lot of things avaliable 'ever' of that tier and I question if any of them benefit in any sense.
Yes, and too many of those items is a break in the balance of the system (it slides the difficulty bar too far towards easy).
Dracos-
QuoteAs long as there is some guarentee that when folks encounter a challenge to hard for them that they will end up fighting more times and gaining more xp before another go, then it works on the low end, works on the mid end, and on the high end, it is implementation based whether it breaks or not.
Yeah, I guess I was a wee bit hard on it.
Time is a precious thing and, at least in my opinion, whenever a game robs you of the time you've put into it [with a full gameover reset], it typically does itself more harm than good.
Though I don't LOVE games that lose all challenge over time, I don't typically HATE them either...
In fact, when a game remains impossibly difficult, I tend to feel cheated (The Bouncer was like that...).
A sliding difficulty isn't so bad, as long as it is well engineered and thoroughly balanced.
Dracos-
QuoteThey could set them up, and aside from any concept of giving G4 credibility...
I liked the channel better when it had a more "let's talk about games in depth" as opposed to... The Man Show!?
They've really gone down hill... (especially G-Phoria)
But then again, Arena was always a horrible show... (Icons / GameMakers is the only thing worth watching...)
Dracos-
QuoteThe reason you don't see RPGs [in competitions] isn't that they aren't fun and/or exciting, it's that they aren't built towards good competitive practices.
Actually, now that I think about it... It's because they're not multiplayer, and the point is to compete AGAINST eachother, not just the game... (this goes double for ICO/Katamari)
Dracos-
Quote
twentytwo-
Quote... levels artificially extend game length...
Sometimes it is indeed.
Often it isn't and instead it's the desire to kill monsters that does it.
When all you want to do is get to the next part of the story (like Final Fantasy X or Disgaea) without having to level up, you generally end up dissappointed. Sometimes, the level-up system can feel like it demands a bit much from you (this was true in many of the older games - nowadays, they tend to make the games somewhat easier).
Sometimes, an interactive animated novel can be better than a game...
-22
At the least, you've inspired an article on leveling design theory, so it can't be that bad. :)
Dracos
Quote from: "Olguin"On the flip side, bosses that level up as you do also have some rather annoying aspects. Does anyone remember Ghaleon from the PSX version of Lunar: Silver Star Story?
*eye Twitch* Froggin Ghaleon..... 5 tries.... to beat...and even then over a hour and half, plus I had only two charcters still tanding on their last legs.... (If i hadn't gotten in that finishing blow he would have wiped my party out.)
Natuarally of course I then proceeded to get fried by Luna walking up a set of Friggin STAIRS.... >_< (Thank god I had compulsivly saved after beating Ghaleon...I odn't think my PSX would have survived me fighting him one more time)
As to Mega Elixers... most of the time when I reacha final boss I'm so overpowered that I never even have to bother with them.... UNless the boss has a 'reduce to 1 hp' attack.
And I agree with Draco on this 'Reduce to 1hp' attacks are prett much a mega-elixer invitation.