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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsCRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE
Crystalgate
694
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
What gameplay does Accuracy and Evasion provide?
author=Liberty
Actually, when using evasion the percent amount is going to be higher than damage (if you're smart in any case).
Evasion is very worth playing with and using. A class with low defences is given the chance to survive by giving them higher evasion. For a rogue class with 20% less defence I would give double that of evasion to make it count... but it would still count. And we're not starting from 0 here - it starts from a number already assigned. So I'd never make a game where it's a case of either 30 defence OR 30 evasion. That would be stupid. Instead it'd be a case of a default amount (say 10 because I like small numbers) with the addition of either/or, as well as a subtraction. So it would be more 70% defence/130% evasion or 130% defence/70% evasion.
Besides, not getting hit at all is just as good as negating damage as being hit for less. Remember, we're talking one attack per enemy as a base. In an enemy group of, say, 4, the chances of the speedster taking a hit is pretty low (depending on enemy accuracy of course) while the defender will take hits but for less damage. Either way, if the speedster gets hit once, it's about as much damage as the defender getting hit each time but the chances of a hit connecting are a lot lower. It's basically the same thing but played out in a different way.
It gives a different feel to the characters and can work for the different skills they have, too, making them functional, but different.
So instead of 30% damage reduction vs 30% evasion, let's make it 25% damage reduction and 50% evasion vs 50% damage reduction and 25% evasion. It's the same here, the one with the higher damage reduction has the better deal. In average, they take the same amount of damage, but the one with higher damage reduction gets KO'ed less. The reason for that is while the average damage taken is the same, the fluctuation of damage taken is higher for the evasive one. The evasive one eats more damage spikes (while also being more likely to get away completely unscathed from a couple of attacks).
That said, you can indeed make a game where evasion is very valuable. It just takes more thought than defense since evasion means RNG gambling.
What gameplay does Accuracy and Evasion provide?
author=Liberty
Evasion is useful for non-tank classes as a way to avoid damage. Frankly, it's very useful and worth using.
I think the problem is that avoiding damage isn't a priority in most modern RPGs, only avoiding death is. Evading 30% of all attacks is equally good at avoiding damage as negating 30% of the damage via defense is, but the latter does a better job at avoiding death due to not being vulnerable to unlucky RNG. For the majority of RPGs starting from the playstation era, running out of healing isn't practically plausible, so avoiding damage isn't important.
Themes and Messages
I have read quite a number of books, but I'm still strongly in the gameplay > story camp. When I read a book, a good story is important, but when I play a game, it's the gameplay that's important to me.
Part of it may be because books are generally, but certainly not always, far better written. However, I think it's largely because when I play a game, I expect my interaction with it to be the core point.
Most importantly, though, I think the requirement for a good video game story is different from a good book story. Ideally, videogame stories should work in harmony with what the player is doing. I'm the one making my character/characters ultimately succeed in whatever they're doing and I want the story to give me a very good reason for doing that.
Imagine if the main character makes a stupid decision. He decides to do something I consider a bad idea and now I either must execute that decision or stop playing, because doing something smart just isn't available. Alternatively, I make the heroes defeat a certain villain, but the main character then does something stupid which not only lets the villain get away, but he also succeeds with the plan we were supposed to stop, thus negating my work.
I'm not saying the main character can't do something stupid, but it should not work against whatever I as the player am doing. For example, after defeating the villain, if the main character instead of negating the victory instead does something stupid that causes him a great personal pain, I'm more likely to accept that as it doesn't play against whatever I did.
I don't mind if say the main character besides saving the world/country/whatever is also trying to score a nice guy/gal. However, if the characters are spending a long time with some inner supposedly deep thing that has jack all to do with whatever I'm doing, the deeper message or theme is likely to get lost to me.
Part of it may be because books are generally, but certainly not always, far better written. However, I think it's largely because when I play a game, I expect my interaction with it to be the core point.
Most importantly, though, I think the requirement for a good video game story is different from a good book story. Ideally, videogame stories should work in harmony with what the player is doing. I'm the one making my character/characters ultimately succeed in whatever they're doing and I want the story to give me a very good reason for doing that.
Imagine if the main character makes a stupid decision. He decides to do something I consider a bad idea and now I either must execute that decision or stop playing, because doing something smart just isn't available. Alternatively, I make the heroes defeat a certain villain, but the main character then does something stupid which not only lets the villain get away, but he also succeeds with the plan we were supposed to stop, thus negating my work.
I'm not saying the main character can't do something stupid, but it should not work against whatever I as the player am doing. For example, after defeating the villain, if the main character instead of negating the victory instead does something stupid that causes him a great personal pain, I'm more likely to accept that as it doesn't play against whatever I did.
I don't mind if say the main character besides saving the world/country/whatever is also trying to score a nice guy/gal. However, if the characters are spending a long time with some inner supposedly deep thing that has jack all to do with whatever I'm doing, the deeper message or theme is likely to get lost to me.
Is it possible to make a good game with only one player and a turn based battle system?
There's a large tactical advantage with multiple characters. If we have four characters and let's say they have each four options that are worth considering, that gives you a total of 4*4*4*4=256 options. With one single character, giving that one all those options lands you at 16 options.
Of course, most RPGs has very little focus on in battle tactical choices. It often how you configure your characters and what items you get that matters, once a battle starts, it tends to be obvious which choice you should use. However, usually the same goes here as with in battle tactical options. Four characters with six classes to choose between gives you more potential configurations than one character with 24 classes. Of course, you could try to let that one character, instead of one class, choose four "gifts". However, this setup usually doesn't in practice amount to more viable configurations than the earlier mentioned list of 24 classes.
There should be ways around those problems, but a good question to ask oneself is; "can I even create fun battles with multiple characters?" This is one that even commercial projects often fail.
Of course, most RPGs has very little focus on in battle tactical choices. It often how you configure your characters and what items you get that matters, once a battle starts, it tends to be obvious which choice you should use. However, usually the same goes here as with in battle tactical options. Four characters with six classes to choose between gives you more potential configurations than one character with 24 classes. Of course, you could try to let that one character, instead of one class, choose four "gifts". However, this setup usually doesn't in practice amount to more viable configurations than the earlier mentioned list of 24 classes.
There should be ways around those problems, but a good question to ask oneself is; "can I even create fun battles with multiple characters?" This is one that even commercial projects often fail.
What gameplay does Accuracy and Evasion provide?
Personally, I prefer if accuracy and evasion is handled like in Final Fantasy X main game, meaning that missing is a thing, but only if you do something wrong. Randomly missing is what enemies does.
As for risk vs reward, I think that works better with games based on resource management than with games where if you win, you're doing fine no matter how beat up you got. Taking a risk and performing extra well can conserve resources compared to choosing a safer way, but you can never "survive more".
As for risk vs reward, I think that works better with games based on resource management than with games where if you win, you're doing fine no matter how beat up you got. Taking a risk and performing extra well can conserve resources compared to choosing a safer way, but you can never "survive more".
Themes and Messages
My favorite PS 2 game is Kingdom Hearts. I have played it over ten times and it's certainly not due to its shallow messages. So, I guess I'm one of those who vastly values fun over anything else. In fact, if an RM game focuses more on theme and/or message than fun and I realize that, it means I won't play the game.
But then, I have noticed I respond better to intellectual messages than emotional ones. I enjoy it far more when the heroes figures out something clever or outsmart the villain than when they start talking about something supposedly deep. JRPGs focus on emotional stimuli however. Also, it doesn't help that half the time an RPG has a message, it's crap.
That said, while I consider fun the main aspect, that doesn't mean the theme of the game can't serve as spice. The theme of the game and it's messages can enhance the enjoyment I derive from the game. It can also decrease the fun I derive from the game if done poorly. So, here's my advice, this coming from someone who considers theme and message secondary:
Realize that it's a one way communication and the risks it brings. If you and me are discussing something, we can give each other feedback. Imagine you say something I don't agree with and I make an argument against what you said. You now have the option to make a counterargument against my argument if you still think what you originally said is right. However, this doesn't work in a game. If your game gives me a message and I disagree, this is pretty much it. I will form a counterargument in my head and your game will continue to make a point that, as far as I'm concerned, has been refuted. When delivering a message, consider how likely the player is to disagree and how heavily the game hinges on said message.
Make sure your game actually supports whatever message you give. There's one game I know which at one point let you choose between pursuing your own goals or first helping a party member out. The former choice leads to a catastrophic ending while the second one leads to a non catastrophic one (none of them is really good). Now, what changes the ending is that if you choose to help earlier, the main character will later upon confronting the last boss listen to him and he reveals his plan. This makes it possible to stop said plan after killing him. However, if you choose the more selfish option earlier, the main character will instead go all "nope, don't care about hearing you out" and the plan then comes to fruition as it doesn't require the villain to be alive anymore.
The game then makes a spiel about how it's not cool to abandon your friends or whatever. It tries to attribute the failure to everything except the main character not giving the villain a chance to be a complete idiot. Worse, not giving the villain time to talk would realistically be the strategical correct since they are in his place and there could at any time emerge more enemies.
This is also where I think the friendship/hope/whatever messages fail. I wouldn't mind a "friendship allowed us to succeed" message if friendship actually was a major contributing factor.
A theme is easily ruined by negative behavior. If a character has family problems and due to them acts obnoxious, chance is I'm thinking about the obnoxious behavior and not the family problems. The family problems ends up being a reminder of the obnoxious behavior.
Finally, don't try force a message into your game. You should not leave a message because you think your game has to state something deep and thought provoking. If you do that, your message is almost guaranteed to be crap.
But then, I have noticed I respond better to intellectual messages than emotional ones. I enjoy it far more when the heroes figures out something clever or outsmart the villain than when they start talking about something supposedly deep. JRPGs focus on emotional stimuli however. Also, it doesn't help that half the time an RPG has a message, it's crap.
That said, while I consider fun the main aspect, that doesn't mean the theme of the game can't serve as spice. The theme of the game and it's messages can enhance the enjoyment I derive from the game. It can also decrease the fun I derive from the game if done poorly. So, here's my advice, this coming from someone who considers theme and message secondary:
Realize that it's a one way communication and the risks it brings. If you and me are discussing something, we can give each other feedback. Imagine you say something I don't agree with and I make an argument against what you said. You now have the option to make a counterargument against my argument if you still think what you originally said is right. However, this doesn't work in a game. If your game gives me a message and I disagree, this is pretty much it. I will form a counterargument in my head and your game will continue to make a point that, as far as I'm concerned, has been refuted. When delivering a message, consider how likely the player is to disagree and how heavily the game hinges on said message.
Make sure your game actually supports whatever message you give. There's one game I know which at one point let you choose between pursuing your own goals or first helping a party member out. The former choice leads to a catastrophic ending while the second one leads to a non catastrophic one (none of them is really good). Now, what changes the ending is that if you choose to help earlier, the main character will later upon confronting the last boss listen to him and he reveals his plan. This makes it possible to stop said plan after killing him. However, if you choose the more selfish option earlier, the main character will instead go all "nope, don't care about hearing you out" and the plan then comes to fruition as it doesn't require the villain to be alive anymore.
The game then makes a spiel about how it's not cool to abandon your friends or whatever. It tries to attribute the failure to everything except the main character not giving the villain a chance to be a complete idiot. Worse, not giving the villain time to talk would realistically be the strategical correct since they are in his place and there could at any time emerge more enemies.
This is also where I think the friendship/hope/whatever messages fail. I wouldn't mind a "friendship allowed us to succeed" message if friendship actually was a major contributing factor.
A theme is easily ruined by negative behavior. If a character has family problems and due to them acts obnoxious, chance is I'm thinking about the obnoxious behavior and not the family problems. The family problems ends up being a reminder of the obnoxious behavior.
Finally, don't try force a message into your game. You should not leave a message because you think your game has to state something deep and thought provoking. If you do that, your message is almost guaranteed to be crap.
Ludonarrative Dissonance In Simulationist Logic 01: Teleporting Items In RPGs
The games which handles this well is games where characters have separate inventories. In those games however, this is handled automatically, the developer doesn't even have to think about it. It's for games with shared inventories that this is an issue.
If characters start apart, but then later joins, you can have separate inventories and then merge them. However, things becomes trickier if they later split up. The only way I can see that handled reasonable is to let the player choose how to distribute the items and make it start distributed 50/50. However, if the inventory is large, then either the split is pointless since the player has more than it needs anyway, or if the item management is a big thing, the player will probably have to manually shift trough the whole inventory and choose how to split it.
Chance is it's not worth it.
If characters start apart, but then later joins, you can have separate inventories and then merge them. However, things becomes trickier if they later split up. The only way I can see that handled reasonable is to let the player choose how to distribute the items and make it start distributed 50/50. However, if the inventory is large, then either the split is pointless since the player has more than it needs anyway, or if the item management is a big thing, the player will probably have to manually shift trough the whole inventory and choose how to split it.
Chance is it's not worth it.
Character Selection!
There's Seiken Densetsu 3, a sequel to Secret of Mana, where you select three characters out of six to form a party. Whoever you pick first determines what the very beginning and the very end will be, but over 90% of the game is the same. I've played it more than ten times and I simple picked my favorite characters the most.
There is no most important aspect when it comes to allowing the player to choose different characters, what matters is that whatever you do, you're doing it well. For example, if the idea with choosing main character is to let the player see multiple stories, but 90% of the story is the same, that's a major failure. However, if the idea instead is that the different character have different play-styles, then it doesn't matter if 90% of the story is the same. What does matter then is that the characters indeed have different play-styles and that all works at least semi equally for an average player.
To be honest though, there's no game where the choose the main character aspect has really impressed me. As a general rule, the more of a difference there is, be it story or gameplay or both, the more it means the developers simple has to split the effort. Two different stories means you have to write for both and two characters with vastly different play-styles means enemies have to be designed to work with both. You can make it easier on yourself by making things same-ish, such as the already mentioned "90% of the story is the same", but the more you do so, the less of a point there is to multiple characters.
There is no most important aspect when it comes to allowing the player to choose different characters, what matters is that whatever you do, you're doing it well. For example, if the idea with choosing main character is to let the player see multiple stories, but 90% of the story is the same, that's a major failure. However, if the idea instead is that the different character have different play-styles, then it doesn't matter if 90% of the story is the same. What does matter then is that the characters indeed have different play-styles and that all works at least semi equally for an average player.
To be honest though, there's no game where the choose the main character aspect has really impressed me. As a general rule, the more of a difference there is, be it story or gameplay or both, the more it means the developers simple has to split the effort. Two different stories means you have to write for both and two characters with vastly different play-styles means enemies have to be designed to work with both. You can make it easier on yourself by making things same-ish, such as the already mentioned "90% of the story is the same", but the more you do so, the less of a point there is to multiple characters.
Choices with consequences: Why?
author=CashmereCat
Well practically games can't have every single choice we want to, sadly. But I think that catering for a variety of different types of player reactions is good. Are you saying that there's not good enough of a range of ways that a player can react, so it feels like you can't really make your character your own?
In the case of Persona 4, it's not a case of not having every single choice we want to. "Shut up Yosuke" is the most commonly desired choice and there's no way the writers couldn't have known that the players would want to say that. They simple didn't want to give the players that choice because that would prevent some (often not so) funny scenes from occurring. A common example is that the game decides to be funny at the expense of the main character and it simple won't allow the player to steer the main character out of that situation.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
