Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
THINGS I'VE LEARNED
Posts
Ramshackin
1462
Ramshackin
View playlists
CloseI've been making games for over a decade. Now every few years, I go back and play my old games. This year, I decided to make a list of everything I've learned, good or bad, from my past games.
What concepts were so simple even 13 year old Ramshackin got it right? What mistakes kept being made despite repeatedly watching play testers run into them? Here's my list:
If there is a way to fully heal, player's will always rely on it, no matter how inconvenient
One game featured a coliseum where the party was fully healed after each battle. When a player needed a heal, they would leave where they were, walk to the coliseum, fight a battle, then walk back. This was fun for no one. But was too effective not to do.
If 4 characters can battle at a time, only 4 characters will be used
This comes in two flavors: large number of characters to recruit to the 4 man party, or large party of freely swappable characters, where only 4 can battle at a time. Having not finished a game of the second type, I'll use Edifice as my example. My party always consisted of the same characters. Craze must have known this when making the game, because there are battles that force you to use a random party.
This problem compounds when unused characters don't receive updated equipment or battle experience. I thought I could be clever by making side quests that required a certain character. It just meant I spent time on content that will never be played.
Defend/Guard option is never chosen
Some games make guard more enticing by offering a side benefit, like MP recovery. It ends up being the free MP heal command. Other games will force a battle with an enemy that charges, followed by a strong attack. The best battles aren't often inspired by the question, "How do I make this menu command useful?"
Don't wait until level 20 to introduce the interesting mechanics
This is the recurring theme of my games. The interesting skills, original mechanics, and character building come later in the game. I always have this need to ease players into the game by starting off with the generic RPG systems. Player's interest is gone by the time the game gets good.
Enemies should be more than bags of HP
Enemies never did anything interesting in my early games. No threat. Nothing to react to. The challenge was how fast you can kill them.
Repeatedly failing to apply a condition due to chance is frustrating
Especially when there is no indication that the boss was just straight up immune.
Players use money on combat; Aesthetics and minigames are second priority
I had a great idea. There would be a costume shop. Players could change the main character's graphic through buying all sorts of outfits. It would be awesome.
No one bought anything. All money went towards making the party better in combat. The only exception was towards the end of the game when the player was overflowing with money. And then, it wasn't to wear the outfits. It was for the completionist need to unlock everything.
Make sure the player knows where they can go
50 side quests aren't important when the player doesn't know where to go to start them. Maps are best when the exits are clear. I should have known my mapping was bad when I had to tell every player, "By the way, you can enter a different room by going here."
Don't underestimate giving the player mementos
This was one of my favorite parts of my earlier games. Each adventure would award you with a memento. A little item with no use outside of flavor text reminding you what you did to earn it. There is something satisfying about scrolling through the list near the end of the game.
Jumping can completely change the way players view the game world
A simple feature that opens up new opportunities for map design.
Enemy encounters are more enjoyable when there is a story behind them
Random encounters? Not too exciting. An enemy with personality and motive and a reason for the player to fight them? Much better.
One thing I just realized I liked about my earlier games: random encounters were unusual. Scripted encounters were the majority of battles.
The characters you interact with can really drive the game
Extending the previous to allies and NPCs. Sometimes friends want to play my old games. It's not because they loved the epic battle against the evil dragon. It's because they want to go back and once again meet the wacky characters we created when we were young.
Don't underestimate the driving force behind "who will I meet next?" and "I want to know more about him."
What concepts were so simple even 13 year old Ramshackin got it right? What mistakes kept being made despite repeatedly watching play testers run into them? Here's my list:
If there is a way to fully heal, player's will always rely on it, no matter how inconvenient
One game featured a coliseum where the party was fully healed after each battle. When a player needed a heal, they would leave where they were, walk to the coliseum, fight a battle, then walk back. This was fun for no one. But was too effective not to do.
If 4 characters can battle at a time, only 4 characters will be used
This comes in two flavors: large number of characters to recruit to the 4 man party, or large party of freely swappable characters, where only 4 can battle at a time. Having not finished a game of the second type, I'll use Edifice as my example. My party always consisted of the same characters. Craze must have known this when making the game, because there are battles that force you to use a random party.
This problem compounds when unused characters don't receive updated equipment or battle experience. I thought I could be clever by making side quests that required a certain character. It just meant I spent time on content that will never be played.
Defend/Guard option is never chosen
Some games make guard more enticing by offering a side benefit, like MP recovery. It ends up being the free MP heal command. Other games will force a battle with an enemy that charges, followed by a strong attack. The best battles aren't often inspired by the question, "How do I make this menu command useful?"
Don't wait until level 20 to introduce the interesting mechanics
This is the recurring theme of my games. The interesting skills, original mechanics, and character building come later in the game. I always have this need to ease players into the game by starting off with the generic RPG systems. Player's interest is gone by the time the game gets good.
Enemies should be more than bags of HP
Enemies never did anything interesting in my early games. No threat. Nothing to react to. The challenge was how fast you can kill them.
Repeatedly failing to apply a condition due to chance is frustrating
Especially when there is no indication that the boss was just straight up immune.
Players use money on combat; Aesthetics and minigames are second priority
I had a great idea. There would be a costume shop. Players could change the main character's graphic through buying all sorts of outfits. It would be awesome.
No one bought anything. All money went towards making the party better in combat. The only exception was towards the end of the game when the player was overflowing with money. And then, it wasn't to wear the outfits. It was for the completionist need to unlock everything.
Make sure the player knows where they can go
50 side quests aren't important when the player doesn't know where to go to start them. Maps are best when the exits are clear. I should have known my mapping was bad when I had to tell every player, "By the way, you can enter a different room by going here."
Don't underestimate giving the player mementos
This was one of my favorite parts of my earlier games. Each adventure would award you with a memento. A little item with no use outside of flavor text reminding you what you did to earn it. There is something satisfying about scrolling through the list near the end of the game.
Jumping can completely change the way players view the game world
A simple feature that opens up new opportunities for map design.
Enemy encounters are more enjoyable when there is a story behind them
Random encounters? Not too exciting. An enemy with personality and motive and a reason for the player to fight them? Much better.
One thing I just realized I liked about my earlier games: random encounters were unusual. Scripted encounters were the majority of battles.
The characters you interact with can really drive the game
Extending the previous to allies and NPCs. Sometimes friends want to play my old games. It's not because they loved the epic battle against the evil dragon. It's because they want to go back and once again meet the wacky characters we created when we were young.
Don't underestimate the driving force behind "who will I meet next?" and "I want to know more about him."
turkeyDawg
195
These are all really good points, and extremely oft-ignored ones, too. I have no experience MAKING games, but as a player, pretty much all of these are "yup, know them feels", and are on my list of things to keep in mind whenever it is I get to my own projects.
"Waiting until level 20 to introduce the interesting mechanics" and "enemies are just bags of HP" are definitely my two biggest gripes with the RPGs I've played so far, and this even applies to a lot of other genres.
"Waiting until level 20 to introduce the interesting mechanics" and "enemies are just bags of HP" are definitely my two biggest gripes with the RPGs I've played so far, and this even applies to a lot of other genres.
I saved this post as soon as I saw it. Thanks for sharing, Ramshackin! This is extremely useful stuff to keep in mind.
These are some great observations, and they make lovely food-for-thought! Thanks very much for all of it! ^_^
Single best topic I've seen here in years (and the quality of recent topics has been far from shabby). Good job!
As a player I'd agree with all of these, except the second paragraph of point two. If you put in a side quest that requires a certain character, I'm going to play it. Quite simply because it does help alleviate the +4 characters not having any opportunity to gain experience and growth.
GoatBoy
706
Lots of good points--some of which I hadn't consciously realized, but upon reading them, they're definitely true.
I dunno though, I would definitely spend my game-fortune on nifty costumes instead of potions 'n junk.
I'm also with nhubi about the side quest that requires a specific character. I'll do it as long as the quest is fun or rewarding.
"Make sure the player knows where they can go"
THIS really speaks to me right now. I've been playing a game lately that breaks this rule so hard. I don't mean unclear maps, just no direction at all for the player. They just kind of set you loose and expect you to find your way through the game. It's absolutely aggravating, since it's coupled with random encounters that occur with ridiculous frequency, so exploring is anything but enjoyable.
I dunno though, I would definitely spend my game-fortune on nifty costumes instead of potions 'n junk.
I'm also with nhubi about the side quest that requires a specific character. I'll do it as long as the quest is fun or rewarding.
"Make sure the player knows where they can go"
THIS really speaks to me right now. I've been playing a game lately that breaks this rule so hard. I don't mean unclear maps, just no direction at all for the player. They just kind of set you loose and expect you to find your way through the game. It's absolutely aggravating, since it's coupled with random encounters that occur with ridiculous frequency, so exploring is anything but enjoyable.
Yeah, a lot of these are really good points, but, like any advice, it's just a generality and there are exceptions. I'd like to point out this point, though:
I'm not sure if this is entirely true, because I've played a few games that do use Guard as MP recovery that utilize it very well, namely the Red_Nova games Soul Sunder and Remnants of Isolation. I assume in the latter, the choice to implement Guard as an MP recovery system was partially suggested by Red_Nova, and it works extremely well to provide a good balance to the game's mechanics and make every move useful. In fact, I'd suggest that last sentence is incorrect - quite often, if a battle command is superfluous, you get rid of it, but if it's there, it may as well come to good use. So often thinking, "How can I make this menu command useful?" is the exact question you need to ask yourself, and if the answer is, "I can't", then you nix it.
This is a great idea. Just like dungeons and locations should have a backstory or flavour that influences their architecture, so too does it help to have monsters that fit into their environment and have a reason for being there. Heroes and enemies can benefit from having skills and playstyles that suit their character. Timid characters can be healers, aggressive types are warriors, passive aggressive neurotics can have super strong attacks that take turns to charge.
Ramshackin
Defend/Guard option is never chosen
Some games make guard more enticing by offering a side benefit, like MP recovery. It ends up being the free MP heal command. Other games will force a battle with an enemy that charges, followed by a strong attack. The best battles aren't often inspired by the question, "How do I make this menu command useful?"
I'm not sure if this is entirely true, because I've played a few games that do use Guard as MP recovery that utilize it very well, namely the Red_Nova games Soul Sunder and Remnants of Isolation. I assume in the latter, the choice to implement Guard as an MP recovery system was partially suggested by Red_Nova, and it works extremely well to provide a good balance to the game's mechanics and make every move useful. In fact, I'd suggest that last sentence is incorrect - quite often, if a battle command is superfluous, you get rid of it, but if it's there, it may as well come to good use. So often thinking, "How can I make this menu command useful?" is the exact question you need to ask yourself, and if the answer is, "I can't", then you nix it.
Ramshackin
Enemy encounters are more enjoyable when there is a story behind them
Random encounters? Not too exciting. An enemy with personality and motive and a reason for the player to fight them? Much better.
One thing I just realized I liked about my earlier games: random encounters were unusual. Scripted encounters were the majority of battles.
This is a great idea. Just like dungeons and locations should have a backstory or flavour that influences their architecture, so too does it help to have monsters that fit into their environment and have a reason for being there. Heroes and enemies can benefit from having skills and playstyles that suit their character. Timid characters can be healers, aggressive types are warriors, passive aggressive neurotics can have super strong attacks that take turns to charge.
Cernus
674
Make sure the player knows where to go is also something I've been thinking a lot of lately.
There's this odd thing with dungeons in RPG's. Say you reach a map with two paths so you take the left one and progress to the next screen. And then you progress to the screen after that and then the one after that you'll end up thinking "crud, I've accidentally gone the right way. I better go back all the way back and take the other path just in case there was a treasure chest at the end of it."
I agree with GoatBoy that the player should always have a strong indication of which path leads to the exit because blind exploration becomes a chore.
There's this odd thing with dungeons in RPG's. Say you reach a map with two paths so you take the left one and progress to the next screen. And then you progress to the screen after that and then the one after that you'll end up thinking "crud, I've accidentally gone the right way. I better go back all the way back and take the other path just in case there was a treasure chest at the end of it."
I agree with GoatBoy that the player should always have a strong indication of which path leads to the exit because blind exploration becomes a chore.
Ramshackin
1462
Thanks for the kind responses :)
Soul Sunder and The Heart Pumps Clay are two games that come to mind where I've actively used the Guard option. So I'll agree there are games out there that put it to good use. I think the developer has to actively decide early on whether the guard option is going to be a key mechanic.
I know this feeling exactly. The disappointment of realizing you've been going the right way in a dungeon because it means you're missing out on treasure. Definitely something to keep in mind when designing a good dungeon.
This is important to me. I love playing and making games that set you loose and have you find your way through the game. And the last thing I want to do is make a game called absolutely aggravating.
Any insight into how to make an open game, without the player feeling lost? I've never felt lost in an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game.
author=CashmereCat
I'm not sure if this is entirely true, because I've played a few games that do use Guard as MP recovery that utilize it very well, namely the Red_Nova games Soul Sunder and Remnants of Isolation. I assume in the latter, the choice to implement Guard as an MP recovery system was partially suggested by Red_Nova, and it works extremely well to provide a good balance to the game's mechanics and make every move useful. In fact, I'd suggest that last sentence is incorrect - quite often, if a battle command is superfluous, you get rid of it, but if it's there, it may as well come to good use. So often thinking, "How can I make this menu command useful?" is the exact question you need to ask yourself, and if the answer is, "I can't", then you nix it.
Soul Sunder and The Heart Pumps Clay are two games that come to mind where I've actively used the Guard option. So I'll agree there are games out there that put it to good use. I think the developer has to actively decide early on whether the guard option is going to be a key mechanic.
author=Cernus
Make sure the player knows where to gois also something I've been thinking a lot of lately.
There's this odd thing with dungeons in RPG's. Say you reach a map with two paths so you take the left one and progress to the next screen. And then you progress to the screen after that and then the one after that you'll end up thinking "crud, I've accidentally gone the right way. I better go back all the way back and take the other path just in case there was a treasure chest at the end of it."
I agree with GoatBoy that the player should always have a strong indication of which path leads to the exit because blind exploration becomes a chore.
I know this feeling exactly. The disappointment of realizing you've been going the right way in a dungeon because it means you're missing out on treasure. Definitely something to keep in mind when designing a good dungeon.
author=GoatBoy
"Make sure the player knows where they can go"
THIS really speaks to me right now. I've been playing a game lately that breaks this rule so hard. I don't mean unclear maps, just no direction at all for the player. They just kind of set you loose and expect you to find your way through the game. It's absolutely aggravating, since it's coupled with random encounters that occur with ridiculous frequency, so exploring is anything but enjoyable.
This is important to me. I love playing and making games that set you loose and have you find your way through the game. And the last thing I want to do is make a game called absolutely aggravating.
Any insight into how to make an open game, without the player feeling lost? I've never felt lost in an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game.
the13thsecret
867
author=Ramshackin
If 4 characters can battle at a time, only 4 characters will be usedThis comes in two flavors: large number of characters to recruit to the 4 man party, or large party of freely swappable characters, where only 4 can battle at a time. Having not finished a game of the second type, I'll use Edifice as my example. My party always consisted of the same characters. Craze must have known this when making the game, because there are battles that force you to use a random party.
This problem compounds when unused characters don't receive updated equipment or battle experience. I thought I could be clever by making side quests that required a certain character. It just meant I spent time on content that will never be played.
This one caught my attention. I make a lot of frownie faces when I realize that I get more characters than can fight at once and then they don't even get a share of the experience. I'll try the newcomer once, then stick him in the freezer.
Now then, battles where you use a random party? That sounds interesting. I bet random encounters would suddenly have more variety if you also had to use random party members every time.
Cernus
674
author=Ramshackin
Any insight into how to make an open game, without the player feeling lost? I've never felt lost in an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game.
I was actually trying to come up with a way to create maze-like dungeons recently (although I never got round to doing anything with it).
As established, the problem with having maze-like dungeons is that if they contain treasure chests then the player feels compelled to explore every single path in the area, which can be boring, and what you really want is to give the player an incentive to find the exit as efficiently as possible. Having randomised treasure and being able to replay dungeons would solve the problem of feeling that you are missing out if you don't explore everywhere but then there needs to be something else about the dungeon that gives the player an incentive to find the exit as quickly as possible.
A few possibilities could be having a monster in the maze that is pursuing the hero, or maybe the dungeon is slowly sinking? Or even have a mechanic where the player is given treasure proportional to how quickly they found the exit.
Haha, the forced random party was one of my most heavy-handed methods of swapping up the party. Other methods that have and haven't come to light, that I vastly prefer:
>Limited energy, like in Diablocide. You can freely swap in battle, which is essential because everybody only has a limited amount of energy for skill usage, and EVERY ability costs energy.
>Friend-based XP. I have yet to use this, but I really want to (maybe after my busy summer). Basically, you gain XP in pairs -- Cloud and Terra is one pair, then Cloud and Agnes, Cloud and Jessica, Cloud and Kain, Terra and Agnes, Terra and Jessica, Terra and Kain, Agnes and Jessica, Agnes and Kain, Jessica and Kain, as well as everybody else! Each XP pair can only level up to 3 or 5 or so. A character's sum of their friend rankings is their overall level. You absolutely MUST level up everybody with everybody else if you want to get stronger.
>Fatigue. I don't like this one as much because I'm not so much a fan of penalties anymore. I much prefer to reward good play than punish the player for playing the game they way they want to! Regardless, fatigue just means that characters get tired each turn they spend in battle. After a total of 50 turns or so (across any number of battles), their stats are reduced. After another 50 turns, they're reduced more drastically. You'll have to let them rest and use other characters for a while in order to get them back into full health.
>For a more abstract game like Edifice, forced random departures/arrivals. On floor three, the RNG rolls Cyan into your party. On floor five, Carmilla says goodbye (until she decides to join again on floor twelve). The game would intelligently keep your party greater than or equal to <max battle members +1> so you always had a little leeway (except maybe on Hard difficulty, it wouldn't give you that extra character buffer).
I really like this topic. =)
>Limited energy, like in Diablocide. You can freely swap in battle, which is essential because everybody only has a limited amount of energy for skill usage, and EVERY ability costs energy.
>Friend-based XP. I have yet to use this, but I really want to (maybe after my busy summer). Basically, you gain XP in pairs -- Cloud and Terra is one pair, then Cloud and Agnes, Cloud and Jessica, Cloud and Kain, Terra and Agnes, Terra and Jessica, Terra and Kain, Agnes and Jessica, Agnes and Kain, Jessica and Kain, as well as everybody else! Each XP pair can only level up to 3 or 5 or so. A character's sum of their friend rankings is their overall level. You absolutely MUST level up everybody with everybody else if you want to get stronger.
>Fatigue. I don't like this one as much because I'm not so much a fan of penalties anymore. I much prefer to reward good play than punish the player for playing the game they way they want to! Regardless, fatigue just means that characters get tired each turn they spend in battle. After a total of 50 turns or so (across any number of battles), their stats are reduced. After another 50 turns, they're reduced more drastically. You'll have to let them rest and use other characters for a while in order to get them back into full health.
>For a more abstract game like Edifice, forced random departures/arrivals. On floor three, the RNG rolls Cyan into your party. On floor five, Carmilla says goodbye (until she decides to join again on floor twelve). The game would intelligently keep your party greater than or equal to <max battle members +1> so you always had a little leeway (except maybe on Hard difficulty, it wouldn't give you that extra character buffer).
I really like this topic. =)
turkeyDawg
195
To solve the issue of "oh no, I went the right way! Now I can't go back and get the optional treasure!", perhaps you should make it so that EVERY PATH IS THE RIGHT PATH and you can NEVER GO BACK! Buahahah, every fork in the road becomes an irreversible decision to mull over for hours!
Hell, apply this to the whole game! "Wait, what town do I need to go to? I haven't played this for a week. I forget what I'm doing..." FOOL! You were SUPPOSED to go to the town of Nippleheim to save it from marauding Crabmen, but you went to Bongaladoosh instead! But we're not going to wait for you to go back to Nippleheim. We're just going to inform that it was destroyed by marauding Crabmen! FEEL BAD ABOUT YOURSELF. But so long as you're here in Bongaladoosh, you can help the villagers fend off the marauding Poppy Demons! Congratulations! You saved them! Feel good about yourself! ... But everyone in Nippleheim is still dead. And now you know the full weight of CHOICES, and how none of them are truly RIGHT or WRONG!
GAME OF THE YEAR
MISAO SWEEP
VARIOUS OTHER AWARDS AND ACCOLADES
Hell, apply this to the whole game! "Wait, what town do I need to go to? I haven't played this for a week. I forget what I'm doing..." FOOL! You were SUPPOSED to go to the town of Nippleheim to save it from marauding Crabmen, but you went to Bongaladoosh instead! But we're not going to wait for you to go back to Nippleheim. We're just going to inform that it was destroyed by marauding Crabmen! FEEL BAD ABOUT YOURSELF. But so long as you're here in Bongaladoosh, you can help the villagers fend off the marauding Poppy Demons! Congratulations! You saved them! Feel good about yourself! ... But everyone in Nippleheim is still dead. And now you know the full weight of CHOICES, and how none of them are truly RIGHT or WRONG!
GAME OF THE YEAR
MISAO SWEEP
VARIOUS OTHER AWARDS AND ACCOLADES
This is a really good list of shit. I saved a local copy for future reference, good stuff to review every now and then.
The only point that I don't entirely agree on is the "Of X characters only X will be used", although I think the answer lies in the construction of the battle design or the writing, and it's hard to make both or either of those good enough to avoid the problem. I know in Mass Effect 2 I was always switching out party members and taking different squads on each mission, but in more linear RPGs like FF7 I did in fact use the same party for the entire game.
Another thing to keep in mind based on that item is that different people will usually form different party compositions based on who they like best. For example, look at any Tales of title and you'll see that the party comp varies from person to person, with everybody usually keeping the same 4 characters through the game. This is basically the situation you described, but at least as a writer or a designer you know that there aren't characters going totally unused.
Of course, I guess the real way to avoid that would be to make sure there's no dominant strategy, no party comp that was the best in every situation. But that would be pretty difficult.
Just my two cents on that point.
The only point that I don't entirely agree on is the "Of X characters only X will be used", although I think the answer lies in the construction of the battle design or the writing, and it's hard to make both or either of those good enough to avoid the problem. I know in Mass Effect 2 I was always switching out party members and taking different squads on each mission, but in more linear RPGs like FF7 I did in fact use the same party for the entire game.
Another thing to keep in mind based on that item is that different people will usually form different party compositions based on who they like best. For example, look at any Tales of title and you'll see that the party comp varies from person to person, with everybody usually keeping the same 4 characters through the game. This is basically the situation you described, but at least as a writer or a designer you know that there aren't characters going totally unused.
Of course, I guess the real way to avoid that would be to make sure there's no dominant strategy, no party comp that was the best in every situation. But that would be pretty difficult.
Just my two cents on that point.
turkeyDawg
195
More on games with large, freely swappable parties that can't all be in battle at once:
In Tales of Xillia, characters who go too long without being used will WHINE INCESSANTLY AT YOU, so that's pretty good motivation. Being able to swap characters at any time mid-battle is pretty good, too. Benched characters still get full EXP, and I believe also heal a small amount, so switching it up can help save on healing items.
Honestly, most games of this kind should just do like that or Final Fantasy 10. Its about a group of people saving the world, not part of a group saving the world while the rest goes and gets donuts or whatever the fuck they're doing when they're not in your party. (At least Chrono Trigger tells you your buddies are just hangin out on the Edge of Time or w/e it was called)
In Tales of Xillia, characters who go too long without being used will WHINE INCESSANTLY AT YOU, so that's pretty good motivation. Being able to swap characters at any time mid-battle is pretty good, too. Benched characters still get full EXP, and I believe also heal a small amount, so switching it up can help save on healing items.
Honestly, most games of this kind should just do like that or Final Fantasy 10. Its about a group of people saving the world, not part of a group saving the world while the rest goes and gets donuts or whatever the fuck they're doing when they're not in your party. (At least Chrono Trigger tells you your buddies are just hangin out on the Edge of Time or w/e it was called)
GoatBoy
706
author=Ramshackinauthor=GoatBoyThis is important to me. I love playing and making games that set you loose and have you find your way through the game. And the last thing I want to do is make a game called absolutely aggravating.
"Make sure the player knows where they can go"
THIS really speaks to me right now. I've been playing a game lately that breaks this rule so hard. I don't mean unclear maps, just no direction at all for the player. They just kind of set you loose and expect you to find your way through the game. It's absolutely aggravating, since it's coupled with random encounters that occur with ridiculous frequency, so exploring is anything but enjoyable.
Any insight into how to make an open game, without the player feeling lost? I've never felt lost in an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game.
Oh no, there's a difference between a game with open exploration (which I love), and a game that is meant to be played linearly but gives you no direction. The game I'm speaking of not only ruins the appeal of exploration because of the random encounters occurring literally every few steps, but events will only occur in the order they are meant to be played in, so there is no purpose to exploring. If you leave your game world open to the player, I'd hope there are actually things for them to do aside from aimlessly wander.
Alichains
637
author=the13thsecretauthor=RamshackinThis one caught my attention. I make a lot of frownie faces when I realize that I get more characters than can fight at once and then they don't even get a share of the experience. I'll try the newcomer once, then stick him in the freezer.
If 4 characters can battle at a time, only 4 characters will be usedThis comes in two flavors: large number of characters to recruit to the 4 man party, or large party of freely swappable characters, where only 4 can battle at a time. Having not finished a game of the second type, I'll use Edifice as my example. My party always consisted of the same characters. Craze must have known this when making the game, because there are battles that force you to use a random party.
This problem compounds when unused characters don't receive updated equipment or battle experience. I thought I could be clever by making side quests that required a certain character. It just meant I spent time on content that will never be played.
Now then, battles where you use a random party? That sounds interesting. I bet random encounters would suddenly have more variety if you also had to use random party members every time.
I personally liked Breath of Fire IV's and Final Fantasy X and XII's solution to the problem, have the characters switchable during battle and make it so that the player has in order to win major battles.
With the multi member party thing I think it also depends on just how many there are. If you've only get a couple of extras then it becomes something you either juggle or ignore, but when you have the option for multitudes then it goes from treating them like possible valuable members of your group to acting like they are collectables. There was an open world game I played a few months back, Casia, in which you could recruit 23 people. Once I'd got beyond the first 6 or 7 I stopped looking for them as a way to improve my party and acted like I was on a giant side quest to complete a collection as if they were action figures or sporting cards.
Now I'm not saying that wasn't fun, but it I think it may have defeated the vision that the developer intended.
Now I'm not saying that wasn't fun, but it I think it may have defeated the vision that the developer intended.
