Well, I like random battles. Why? Its because you get items, sometimes rare or even more importantly it lets you level up so you can be better prepared to fight that level or end boss. Personally I love all aspects of JRPG's. Its why I play only this genre and while I have tried, never liked any other.
Umm, what you just said pretty much counts for EVERY RPG IN EXISTANCE, save for a few. Random Battles or not....
Back on topic, Enchanted Arms. Seriously, I stopped playing it BECAUSE of the ridiculous encounter rate and random battles. I mean, it's a decent game, decent graphics, typical story, with a decent battle system. However, the random battles pissed me off SOO MUCH that I decided to stop playing.
Decent is fine and all, but, when I'm having a "decent" battle system forced down my throat every 3 steps, is when "decent" becomes "fucking annoying". Especially since all I want to do is get out of this "decent" dungeon and just fight this "decent" boss to advance in the "decent" story.....
I liked the game and story itself, and I really liked the battle system. I think the biggest problem though was the length of the battles. Because of the battle system, the battles tended to be longer than normal, and with the random encounter rate so high, it really drug things out a lot longer than necessary.
I thought Enchanted Arms was excellent. Too bad it's coming to the PS3. [spoiler:57ace0e68c]Die, PS3, DIE![/spoiler:57ace0e68c] But, really, it's a good game. Glad it's getting more exposure, even if it is on that evil brick.
Now if they could port all of the 360 JRPG's to the Wii or PS3 than all reasons for me buying a 360 would vanish.
Short of the next four games made by Mistwalker (Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, and two unnamed titles) I have a feeling all JRPGs on the 360 will be available on the PS3 as well. Fable 2 will be 360 only but that isn't a JRPG.
I thought it was shit. Pure and utter shit. The story was horrendously slow moving, the acting was purely dreadful, the initial characters you get made me cry and I only kept pushing onwards as I was told it would get better.
It didn't.
And truth be told, the graphics aren't as nice as people are making out, they're incredibly stale.
mainly the graphics made me wish for a 360 remake of FFVIII
Well, I like random battles. Why? Its because you get items, sometimes rare or even more importantly it lets you level up so you can be better prepared to fight that level or end boss. Personally I love all aspects of JRPG's. Its why I play only this genre and while I have tried, never liked any other.
Umm, what you just said pretty much counts for EVERY RPG IN EXISTANCE, save for a few. Random Battles or not....
Back on topic, Enchanted Arms. Seriously, I stopped playing it BECAUSE of the ridiculous encounter rate and random battles. I mean, it's a decent game, decent graphics, typical story, with a decent battle system. However, the random battles pissed me off SOO MUCH that I decided to stop playing.
Decent is fine and all, but, when I'm having a "decent" battle system forced down my throat every 3 steps, is when "decent" becomes "fucking annoying". Especially since all I want to do is get out of this "decent" dungeon and just fight this "decent" boss to advance in the "decent" story.....
I liked the game and story itself, and I really liked the battle system. I think the biggest problem though was the length of the battles. Because of the battle system, the battles tended to be longer than normal, and with the random encounter rate so high, it really drug things out a lot longer than necessary.
Which, is unfortunately, why I didn't get very far. I tend to play my JRPG's at a breakneck pace, advance as far as I can get in the story, and then, level up. I tend to appreciate story first, with the Battle system being the awesomesauce icing on the cake.
While I was interestead in the battle system, and, interestead in the story, the fact that I had the battle system forced upon me, when I just really wanted story at that point, is what turned me off. Especially since it was so early in the game, for me.
The discussion of Pokemon and random battles got me thinking. It sounds like it would be much cooler to have to hunt down pokemon using clues from other trainers and figuring out its patterns (is it nocturnal? is it shy? Is it carnivorous, or is there a plant it can be found eating much of the time?)
That sounds way more engaging than running in circles hoping to get a particular monster in a random battle. I've done that in enough JRPGs that I think I'm about done with it.
[spoiler:341fba7b17]I'll still do it anyway, because I'm a whore.[/spoiler:341fba7b17]
In some ways the radom encounter methods I mentioned are. I like getting every treasure chest in each dungeon. Being able to fight a few random battles (so my characters keep leveling up) and then being turn off combat all together is a nice feature.
Random Encounters:
+Keeps character LVs & gold at forseeable levels
+Doesn't penalize players that lack quick reflexes
+Good for randomizing (like rare extra-hard enemies)
+Generally there are ways to remove combat entirely when overpowered and visiting old areas.
-Can't avoid combat
-Some games have the encounter rate up way too high which can be very frustrating
-Lacks immersion
See enemies before Fighting:
+Allows players to chose their battles to a certain extent
+More skill involved on the # of battles fought
+Often have systems that give bonuses or penalties to the player depending on how he enters combat
+Good for low level runs
-Bad for power levelers unless the monster's respawn
-Revisiting old areas, you still have to deal with the monsters.
-The system feels unfair in many games (gives you the illusion of being able to avoid combat whereas in reality, it's impossible to avoid combat most of the time)
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that being able to see monsters beforehand is inherently better than random encounters. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. What is far more important is whether or not combat is fun. Put simply, the player shouldn't want to avoid combat most of the time (unless he's exploring an old area that he's already completed), because he's having so much fun fighting.
Oh and I thought the gay guy was funny, but I too had the Japanese voice acting on (I have the Asian version so there isn't an English voice acting option available).
I think the most important part of this thread is that the OP is one of those old school Playstation devotees that sticks around for the JRPG's - a rare Pokemon indeed!
I say we stick him in a red and white pokeball and trade him in for some of those adorable Pikachus.
I'd say we could train him, but I don't think you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Man, I don't know how my experience could be so vastly different from everyone else here. First, I didn't feel the encounter rate was high at all. I found myself running around back and forth on occasion to spawn more encounters. I thought it was between average and high, leaning far more toward average.
Second, battles, for me, were very quick. We're not talking Final Fantasy Tactics-length missions per battle, despite the way battle is laid out. In fact, you are expected to adopt strategies that will resolve battles in a single turn whenever possible, because that allows each golem and character brought into battle to retain their entire stock of VP, allowing you to use them over and over between save crystals. This is particularly important for your more powerful (or potentially powerful) golems, even in the beginning, like APO and Marlin Glave who have 20 AP apiece.
I dunno, I guess I'm used to longer battles because I come from playing a mixture of APRG/CRPG and I've been playing strategy and war games since my wee days as a tadpole, but I think if you're having trouble resolving battles quickly, you are doing something wrong. Battles hardly ever took me more than 20 seconds to resolve. By comparison, Final Fantasy III on the Nintendo DS has an excruciating encounter rate and battles take far longer to resolve, just by way of how the engine works. I mean, you can even fast forward all the battle animations in Enchanted Arms.
Granted, I did pump APO up which makes cheesing battles a little easy. With APO souped up, you can resolve most battles in, like, five seconds. But even without him, with the right assortment of golems at a proper (even non-powerleveled) level, you should be able to resolve random encounters in a single, fast turn.
I think the most important part of this thread is that the OP is one of those old school Playstation devotees that sticks around for the JRPG's - a rare Pokemon indeed!
Wild "Katchem_Ash" Appears!
Go, Dragonite!
Wild Katchem_Ash uses "Old Skool!"
It dosen't seem to affect Dragonite
Dragonite Uses "Hyperbeam"
Wild Katchem_Ash has fainted!
Dragonite gains 500 "Hardcore" points!
Transporter on
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
I would like to say that Earthbound handled the way battles were initiated the best. Enemies visible on the screen, they run at you when you are weaker than them, but run away when you are stronger. Depending on how you or the enemy is facing when combat is initiated determines who goes first in the fight. Finally, and here is the best part, skipping the battle scene altogether when the game knows you are going to win it and just giving you the experience, money and items.
I would like to say that Earthbound handled the way battles were initiated the best. Enemies visible on the screen, they run at you when you are weaker than them, but run away when you are stronger. Depending on how you or the enemy is facing when combat is initiated determines who goes first in the fight. Finally, and here is the best part, skipping the battle scene altogether when the game knows you are going to win it and just giving you the experience, money and items.
:shock:
It is only now that I realize why this game is as loved by all as it is. Why is it not readily available?
Samphis on
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
I would like to say that Earthbound handled the way battles were initiated the best. Enemies visible on the screen, they run at you when you are weaker than them, but run away when you are stronger. Depending on how you or the enemy is facing when combat is initiated determines who goes first in the fight. Finally, and here is the best part, skipping the battle scene altogether when the game knows you are going to win it and just giving you the experience, money and items.
:shock:
It is only now that I realize why this game is as loved by all as it is. Why is it not readily available?
Fingers crossed for Virtual Console release. The battles themselves are pretty basic compared to other JRPGs, but the above mentioned stuff really makes battles a lot better.
I would like to say that Earthbound handled the way battles were initiated the best. Enemies visible on the screen, they run at you when you are weaker than them, but run away when you are stronger. Depending on how you or the enemy is facing when combat is initiated determines who goes first in the fight. Finally, and here is the best part, skipping the battle scene altogether when the game knows you are going to win it and just giving you the experience, money and items.
I think the most important part of this thread is that the OP is one of those old school Playstation devotees that sticks around for the JRPG's - a rare Pokemon indeed!
I say we stick him in a red and white pokeball and trade him in for some of those adorable Pikachus.
I'd say we could train him, but I don't think you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Well, I wouldn't decribe myself as a surely Playstation devotee. I would rather say I am a JRPG devotee seeing how I support both Nintendo and Sony in thier console wars and games. As long as either 2 are supplying me with JRPG I am a happy camper.
Though I dred support the 360 since it seems to just feed barebones to me and I don't see myself buying a $500 + tax dollar system to play 3 or 4 games that aren't going to be ported. Its a really hard buy for me cause probably when I finish, its just going to collect dust.
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Agreed.
While, inherently, it makes no sense, you still can get a nice rush from taking on every single monster in a room, and living to tell the tale, as long as it's implemented properly.
Unless the game comes with some awesome new features, I really see no reason to play it on PS3. Between the achievements and the Live Aware stuff I really see no reason to go PS3 on this title.
I've never played the game but I'm interested. I DO have the choice between the two platforms and I'd go for the 360 version.
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Can you honestly tell me that you would complain if the Earthbound system became the default that developers used when they didn't have some specific reason why they were doing something else (i.e. in 99.9% of cases)?
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Can you honestly tell me that you would complain if the Earthbound system became the default that developers used when they didn't have some specific reason why they were doing something else (i.e. in 99.9% of cases)?
Yes I would. While it sounds like a good idea, you have to remember that sometimes enemies carry weapons or such items that will give you better weapons than you have. To go around the map catching the supposed running enemy is not fun and if your in a maze, you might run into the mid-boss when your not prepared.
I prefer the random battles because it gives me a clear path of level up. Walk -> fight -> win -> level up -> change character, do over. The problem with visible enemies is that once they are gone, you have to come back to fight them agian. This could and sometimes is a pain when your in a puzzle or some thing like that. Plus in Random battles, they are never gone untill you hit a stick or something like that.
In regards to Enchanted Arms, the PS3 version will have 10 minutes of different cinematics than the 360 version, which to me sounds good because I haven't played it, so any extra thing will be a bonus.
Unless the game comes with some awesome new features, I really see no reason to play it on PS3. Between the achievements and the Live Aware stuff I really see no reason to go PS3 on this title.
I've never played the game but I'm interested. I DO have the choice between the two platforms and I'd go for the 360 version.
Eh, either way this game is so average it's barely worth playing. It's only getting by on being the "first" RPG of its type for either system.
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Can you honestly tell me that you would complain if the Earthbound system became the default that developers used when they didn't have some specific reason why they were doing something else (i.e. in 99.9% of cases)?
Yes I would. While it sounds like a good idea, you have to remember that sometimes enemies carry weapons or such items that will give you better weapons than you have. To go around the map catching the supposed running enemy is not fun and if your in a maze, you might run into the mid-boss when your not prepared.
I prefer the random battles because it gives me a clear path of level up. Walk -> fight -> win -> level up -> change character, do over. The problem with visible enemies is that once they are gone, you have to come back to fight them agian. This could and sometimes is a pain when your in a puzzle or some thing like that. Plus in Random battles, they are never gone untill you hit a stick or something like that.
In regards to Enchanted Arms, the PS3 version will have 10 minutes of different cinematics than the 360 version, which to me sounds good because I haven't played it, so any extra thing will be a bonus.
Uh, I will admit that I've never played the game but from what people have been saying, enemies running away from you should only happen the first time you're in a dungeon if you are seriously over-leveled. Making it harder to power up when you go above the curve sounds like a good thing to me.
wateyad on
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
Also, bosses and midbosses in EB were like in every other JRPG, they stood around and waited for you to talk to them to initiate the fight. So no worries about fighting the boss when you were not ready.
I forgot to mention the other aspect of the EB system in my original post. Enemies on the map are one to one with the enemies you fight in the battle. So if you run into one Zombie on the overworld, you are only going to fight one Zombie in the battle. Now, before the game goes into the battle screen, it waits around for a second while the screen changes color. This gives time for other enemies to swarm in, adding more badguys to the ensuing fight.
360's JRPG Enchanted Arms is now for the PS3. It has been released in Asian and will be released in Japan later this week. I does hope it comes to NA though. It would be good that I could play it on the PS3 rather than the 360.
Hehe
Gino on
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
360's JRPG Enchanted Arms is now for the PS3. It has been released in Asian and will be released in Japan later this week. I does hope it comes to NA though. It would be good that I could play it on the PS3 rather than the 360.
Hehe
That reminds of the part in Big Fish where he is reading an Asian to English dictionary.
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Can you honestly tell me that you would complain if the Earthbound system became the default that developers used when they didn't have some specific reason why they were doing something else (i.e. in 99.9% of cases)?
I would like to say that Earthbound handled the way battles were initiated the best. Enemies visible on the screen, they run at you when you are weaker than them, but run away when you are stronger. Depending on how you or the enemy is facing when combat is initiated determines who goes first in the fight. Finally, and here is the best part, skipping the battle scene altogether when the game knows you are going to win it and just giving you the experience, money and items.
This is how it should be done.
Man, that is an awesome system. I hate having to fight silly things that are nothing more than an annoyance. Or make battles as in Baldur's Gate, where there aren't as many battles, but almost all of them are fucking difficult and you have to pay attention or you get screwed.
Basically, make battles challenging and actually rewarding, instead of pressing X for 5 minutes and getting a Cure! in return.
Montreal, CANADA – January 11, 2007 – Today Ubisoft, one of the world’s largest video game publishers, announced that Enchanted Arms™ is being developed for the PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system and will be available in stores this March. Enchanted Arms is being created by development studio FromSoftware in Japan and is one of the first true next-generation Japanese role-playing games (RPG) arriving on the PLAYSTATION 3 system. The adventure takes place in a fantasy world filled with beautiful cinematic graphics and vibrant characters. It includes more than 50 hours of gameplay and is the only next-gen RPG with the fast-action SpeedTactics Battle System, which enables the player to move his or her characters and use distance-dependent attacks while in battle.
In Enchanted Arms, players will embark on an epic RPG adventure and escape to a fantasy world filled with unique and bizarre creatures. Taking the role of Atsuma, enchanter-in-training, players will transform from a naïve student into the most powerful savior in a war 1,000 years in the making. In an immersive, deep storyline filled with increasingly difficult challenges, players will meet new allies and master Atsuma’s special fighting and magic abilities.
Key Features Include:
· SIXAXIS™ Wireless Controller Integration Provides an Immersive Experience: Use the motion-sensitive controller to harness weapons, recover your EX power meter, unlock more powerful attacks and solve puzzles.
· Master the SpeedTactics Battle System: Easy-to-navigate interface, the ability to move characters in-battle and distance-dependent attacks combine to create fast-paced, hands-on gameplay.
· More Than 500 Characters, Including 130 Unlockable Creatures You Control: Find and unlock 130 controllable creatures to use in battle as part of your team. Customize your party and learn to harness their unique abilities. Includes 30 all new creatures exclusive to the PLAYSTATION 3 system.
· Includes Both the Original Japanese and an All-New English Language Track: Choose to play the game with either Japanese or English dialogue.
· More Than 50 Hours of Epic Gameplay: Delve deeper as you meet new characters and explore over 75 environments with multiple objectives and branching missions.
· Includes More Than an Hour of Anime Cinematics and Video: Including ten minutes of all-new exclusive video.
Ubisoft is a leading producer, publisher and distributor of interactive entertainment products worldwide and has grown considerably through its strong and diversified lineup of products and partnerships. Ubisoft has offices in 21 countries and sales in more than 50 countries around the globe. It is committed to delivering high-quality, cutting-edge video game titles to consumers. Ubisoft generated revenue of 547 million Euros for the 2005–2006 fiscal year. To learn more, please visit www.ubisoftgroup.com.
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Can you honestly tell me that you would complain if the Earthbound system became the default that developers used when they didn't have some specific reason why they were doing something else (i.e. in 99.9% of cases)?
Yes.
I doubt you're going to be swayed at this point but just in case, I'll offer some further explanation of what I'm trying to say.
Shadow Hearts (the first one an Covenant anyway, not sure about FtNW) has a reason for using random encounters, the first one was a horror game, covenant liked to sort of maybe pretend it was. Random encounters produce tension. Covenant at least (I remember little of how the first one played and FtNW isn't out where I am) had an extremely low encounter rate which helped make them quite a lot less annoying.
MegaTen games have a couple of reasons. Firstly, they're horror games, see above. Secondly, they are evil, that is their MO, huge, monotanous dungeons with rediculously high encounter rates are what they do.
(pre-IX) Dragon Quest has a reason, it's traditional to a fault, that's part of what it does (or did).
I'm not trying to say that games where they've clearly sat down and thought about this should change what they're doing. There is, however, always going to be a status quo that devs just sort of default towhen they don't have some grand scheme already in mind for any given element of a game and while we've recently been seeing somewhat of a shift towards encounters appearing in the field, every so often a game still comes along that proves that random encounters are still the status quo. They are annoying and at this point should have long been rplaced in this role by something, the Earthbound system (or some variant, encounters apearing in the field and the auto-win thing are the important bits) sounds like the best candidate for that replacement I've heard of.
The only times when I've seen evidence of devs sitting down and saying "Right, random encounters can be really annoying and we need to do something about that" and coming out with answers other than the seeing enemies on the field thing are Atelier Iris 2 and the Wild Arms series. I honestly feel that AI2 would be better served by enemies in the field (the encounter limit in the last few dungeons was set so high it may as well not have been there anyway) and Wild Arms seems to have increasingly been going in the direction of being different just for the sake of being different at which point it isn't really possible to argue with anything it does.
wateyad on
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
Or there is always the new way of doing things, by having no battle screen and enemies visible on the screen (FFXII, Chrono Trigger, most western RPGs). People really seem to like the way these are handled, but it requires more work.
Actually, I think the best "random" encounter I ever had in an RPG was in KotoR. My party was just walking down an alley and was confronted by some thugs, taking me into the dialog screen. They were trying to extort money and I took the option that they should go F themselves. Immediately after I was in a battle with them. Just thought it was a nice transition and felt more real than walking down an alley and randomly fighting a million "Bandits", each time jumping me to another screen, playing a victory song and taking me back only to fight another 3 or 4 invisible enemies 5 steps later.
Also, to keep this from becoming a WRPG v JRPG discussion, Chrono Trigger also had great examples of random battles done right. Walking along where everything looks safe and then BAM, enemies coming up the hell right now. Goblins jumping out of bushes, lizard men being dropped in via pterodactyls and trap doors revealing other baddies. My only beef was that these battles weren't really random, as they would occur in the same place every time the player would go to that area.
Or there is always the new way of doing things, by having no battle screen and enemies visible on the screen (FFXII, Chrono Trigger, most western RPGs). People really seem to like the way these are handled, but it requires more work.
Actually, I think the best "random" encounter I ever had in an RPG was in KotoR. My party was just walking down an alley and was confronted by some thugs, taking me into the dialog screen. They were trying to extort money and I took the option that they should go F themselves. Immediately after I was in a battle with them. Just thought it was a nice transition and felt more real than walking down an alley and randomly fighting a million "Bandits", each time jumping me to another screen, playing a victory song and taking me back only to fight another 3 or 4 invisible enemies 5 steps later.
Also, to keep this from becoming a WRPG v JRPG discussion, Chrono Trigger also had great examples of random battles done right. Walking along where everything looks safe and then BAM, enemies coming up the hell right now. Goblins jumping out of bushes, lizard men being dropped in via pterodactyls and trap doors revealing other baddies. My only beef was that these battles weren't really random, as they would occur in the same place every time the player would go to that area.
In Chrono Trigger's case, it's more of a cosmetic than a mechanical difference, I see your "beef" as more of a positive really. The only Western RPGs I've ever liked have been Diablo clones so I will admit to somewhat of a vested interest in the eastern and western schools not mixing. I haven't actually had a chance to try FFXII yet, living in the UK but I don't think I've ever heard anything about it to make me optimistic. I can imagine a game that did something similar that I would like but it would have to do some things in a very specific way. A lot of that is probably just me though.
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Can you honestly tell me that you would complain if the Earthbound system became the default that developers used when they didn't have some specific reason why they were doing something else (i.e. in 99.9% of cases)?
Yes.
I doubt you're going to be swayed at this point but just in case, I'll offer some further explanation of what I'm trying to say.
Shadow Hearts (the first one an Covenant anyway, not sure about FtNW) has a reason for using random encounters, the first one was a horror game, covenant liked to sort of maybe pretend it was. Random encounters produce tension. Covenant at least (I remember little of how the first one played and FtNW isn't out where I am) had an extremely low encounter rate which helped make them quite a lot less annoying.
MegaTen games have a couple of reasons. Firstly, they're horror games, see above. Secondly, they are evil, that is their MO, huge, monotanous dungeons with rediculously high encounter rates are what they do.
(pre-IX) Dragon Quest has a reason, it's traditional to a fault, that's part of what it does (or did).
I'm not trying to say that games where they've clearly sat down and thought about this should change what they're doing. There is, however, always going to be a status quo that devs just sort of default towhen they don't have some grand scheme already in mind for any given element of a game and while we've recently been seeing somewhat of a shift towards encounters appearing in the field, every so often a game still comes along that proves that random encounters are still the status quo. They are annoying and at this point should have long been rplaced in this role by something, the Earthbound system (or some variant, encounters apearing in the field and the auto-win thing are the important bits) sounds like the best candidate for that replacement I've heard of.
The only times when I've seen evidence of devs sitting down and saying "Right, random encounters can be really annoying and we need to do something about that" and coming out with answers other than the seeing enemies on the field thing are Atelier Iris 2 and the Wild Arms series. I honestly feel that AI2 would be better served by enemies in the field (the encounter limit in the last few dungeons was set so high it may as well not have been there anyway) and Wild Arms seems to have increasingly been going in the direction of being different just for the sake of being different at which point it isn't really possible to argue with anything it does.
I think you misunderstand me.
There should be no default system. At all. Period. I am thoroughly against any "default" formula, for RPGs or any other system. There are genre-specific elements that make a game a part of the genre: there are things that make an RPG an RPG. Beyond that, there should be no default formula.
Neither the old "enemies spring into existence" method of random encounters nor "you can see enemies on screen" method should be default.
Your point is that the Shadow Hearts system works because they thought it through and had a specific reason for implementing encounters in that fashion.
Precisely.
Similarly, Contact and Earthbound both implemented their systems for specific reasons.
I will reiterate...there is no bad formula, there is only bad implementation. There should be NO system without careful thought as to why it is being used.
So, to sum up, you are correct - I am unwavering on this. The Contact/Earthbound/KOTOR system should not be the "default" and neither should the Final Fantasy X or D&D or Baldur's Gate or Fallout or Digital Devil Saga systems.
Everything should be carefully planned out, no matter what formulas are being used or modified.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
You know what, screw it. They should just stop making traditional RPGs and just keep making RPG/Platformer hybrids like Castlevania. That is the best way combat is handled. :P
You know what, screw it. They should just stop making traditional RPGs and just keep making RPG/Platformer hybrids like Castlevania. That is the best way combat is handled. :P
Personally I enjoyed Fable more than any Castlvanias I've played. I really liked the combat in that game, for an RPG.
Accualt on
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
You know what, screw it. They should just stop making traditional RPGs and just keep making RPG/Platformer hybrids like Castlevania. That is the best way combat is handled. :P
Personally I enjoyed Fable more than any Castlvanias I've played. I really liked the combat in that game, for an RPG.
Man, note the :P . I was just trying to lure Drez back in here and have him rant about my comments on a particular RPG combat system.
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Can you honestly tell me that you would complain if the Earthbound system became the default that developers used when they didn't have some specific reason why they were doing something else (i.e. in 99.9% of cases)?
Yes.
I doubt you're going to be swayed at this point but just in case, I'll offer some further explanation of what I'm trying to say.
Shadow Hearts (the first one an Covenant anyway, not sure about FtNW) has a reason for using random encounters, the first one was a horror game, covenant liked to sort of maybe pretend it was. Random encounters produce tension. Covenant at least (I remember little of how the first one played and FtNW isn't out where I am) had an extremely low encounter rate which helped make them quite a lot less annoying.
MegaTen games have a couple of reasons. Firstly, they're horror games, see above. Secondly, they are evil, that is their MO, huge, monotanous dungeons with rediculously high encounter rates are what they do.
(pre-IX) Dragon Quest has a reason, it's traditional to a fault, that's part of what it does (or did).
I'm not trying to say that games where they've clearly sat down and thought about this should change what they're doing. There is, however, always going to be a status quo that devs just sort of default towhen they don't have some grand scheme already in mind for any given element of a game and while we've recently been seeing somewhat of a shift towards encounters appearing in the field, every so often a game still comes along that proves that random encounters are still the status quo. They are annoying and at this point should have long been rplaced in this role by something, the Earthbound system (or some variant, encounters apearing in the field and the auto-win thing are the important bits) sounds like the best candidate for that replacement I've heard of.
The only times when I've seen evidence of devs sitting down and saying "Right, random encounters can be really annoying and we need to do something about that" and coming out with answers other than the seeing enemies on the field thing are Atelier Iris 2 and the Wild Arms series. I honestly feel that AI2 would be better served by enemies in the field (the encounter limit in the last few dungeons was set so high it may as well not have been there anyway) and Wild Arms seems to have increasingly been going in the direction of being different just for the sake of being different at which point it isn't really possible to argue with anything it does.
I think you misunderstand me.
There should be no default system. At all. Period. I am thoroughly against any "default" formula, for RPGs or any other system. There are genre-specific elements that make a game a part of the genre: there are things that make an RPG an RPG. Beyond that, there should be no default formula.
Neither the old "enemies spring into existence" method of random encounters nor "you can see enemies on screen" method should be default.
Your point is that the Shadow Hearts system works because they thought it through and had a specific reason for implementing encounters in that fashion.
Precisely.
Similarly, Contact and Earthbound both implemented their systems for specific reasons.
I will reiterate...there is no bad formula, there is only bad implementation. There should be NO system without careful thought as to why it is being used.
So, to sum up, you are correct - I am unwavering on this. The Contact/Earthbound/KOTOR system should not be the "default" and neither should the Final Fantasy X or D&D or Baldur's Gate or Fallout or Digital Devil Saga systems.
Everything should be carefully planned out, no matter what formulas are being used or modified.
There aren't that many good reasons for the old bog standard random encounter method to be used though. I see where you're going but there's always going to be games where the designers come up with a bunch of ideas and just slide in whatever the normal mechanism is wherever they haven't had a particular idea. How encounters are handled, up until recently has been one of those things that just is the way it is. Would you at least agree that something where the enemies apear on the map would work better thatn what's in place in say... Skies of Arcadia or the majority of the Final Fantasy series? Or that it would be a good idea on most occasions when someone has an idea for, say, a neat combat system or storyline that doesn't automatically result in the game being particularly off kilter from what is regarded as the norm for these things.
You know what, screw it. They should just stop making traditional RPGs and just keep making RPG/Platformer hybrids like Castlevania. That is the best way combat is handled. :P
Personally I enjoyed Fable more than any Castlvanias I've played. I really liked the combat in that game, for an RPG.
Me too, it was the only thing that Fable managed to pull off perfectly IMHO.
There is no single way that encounters should be handled. There is only good implementation and bad implementation. I'm not knocking the Earthbound/Contact method (yes, Contact works the same way), but I wager that if every RPG used that system, it would get old fast. Formulas dilute themselves through overuse and replication, which is why genres evolve at all. Otherwise, we'd still be playing the same fucking games over and over and over that have existed since the early 80s. Not that those games are or were bad; my point is that there are other encounter systems and philosophies that work just as well.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Can you honestly tell me that you would complain if the Earthbound system became the default that developers used when they didn't have some specific reason why they were doing something else (i.e. in 99.9% of cases)?
Yes.
I doubt you're going to be swayed at this point but just in case, I'll offer some further explanation of what I'm trying to say.
Shadow Hearts (the first one an Covenant anyway, not sure about FtNW) has a reason for using random encounters, the first one was a horror game, covenant liked to sort of maybe pretend it was. Random encounters produce tension. Covenant at least (I remember little of how the first one played and FtNW isn't out where I am) had an extremely low encounter rate which helped make them quite a lot less annoying.
MegaTen games have a couple of reasons. Firstly, they're horror games, see above. Secondly, they are evil, that is their MO, huge, monotanous dungeons with rediculously high encounter rates are what they do.
(pre-IX) Dragon Quest has a reason, it's traditional to a fault, that's part of what it does (or did).
I'm not trying to say that games where they've clearly sat down and thought about this should change what they're doing. There is, however, always going to be a status quo that devs just sort of default towhen they don't have some grand scheme already in mind for any given element of a game and while we've recently been seeing somewhat of a shift towards encounters appearing in the field, every so often a game still comes along that proves that random encounters are still the status quo. They are annoying and at this point should have long been rplaced in this role by something, the Earthbound system (or some variant, encounters apearing in the field and the auto-win thing are the important bits) sounds like the best candidate for that replacement I've heard of.
The only times when I've seen evidence of devs sitting down and saying "Right, random encounters can be really annoying and we need to do something about that" and coming out with answers other than the seeing enemies on the field thing are Atelier Iris 2 and the Wild Arms series. I honestly feel that AI2 would be better served by enemies in the field (the encounter limit in the last few dungeons was set so high it may as well not have been there anyway) and Wild Arms seems to have increasingly been going in the direction of being different just for the sake of being different at which point it isn't really possible to argue with anything it does.
I think you misunderstand me.
There should be no default system. At all. Period. I am thoroughly against any "default" formula, for RPGs or any other system. There are genre-specific elements that make a game a part of the genre: there are things that make an RPG an RPG. Beyond that, there should be no default formula.
Neither the old "enemies spring into existence" method of random encounters nor "you can see enemies on screen" method should be default.
Your point is that the Shadow Hearts system works because they thought it through and had a specific reason for implementing encounters in that fashion.
Precisely.
Similarly, Contact and Earthbound both implemented their systems for specific reasons.
I will reiterate...there is no bad formula, there is only bad implementation. There should be NO system without careful thought as to why it is being used.
So, to sum up, you are correct - I am unwavering on this. The Contact/Earthbound/KOTOR system should not be the "default" and neither should the Final Fantasy X or D&D or Baldur's Gate or Fallout or Digital Devil Saga systems.
Everything should be carefully planned out, no matter what formulas are being used or modified.
There aren't that many good reasons for the old bog standard random encounter method to be used though. I see where you're going but there's always going to be games where the designers come up with a bunch of ideas and just slide in whatever the normal mechanism is wherever they haven't had a particular idea. How encounters are handled, up until recently has been one of those things that just is the way it is. Would you at least agree that something where the enemies apear on the map would work better thatn what's in place in say... Skies of Arcadia or the majority of the Final Fantasy series? Or that it would be a good idea on most occasions when someone has an idea for, say, a neat combat system or storyline that doesn't automatically result in the game being particularly off kilter from what is regarded as the norm for these things.
I will say that I mostly detest systems in which enemies appear on the screen before hand and more or less prefer games with random/spawning encounters, which probably biases me in this debate. I am opposed to the opposite system becoming the default. However, I don't believe this system should be the default either. Design is a fluid, evolving process, and no aspect of it should just be chalked to "tradition," including combat or the way encounters are dealt with.
You obviously feel that enemies appearing on screen is automatically more logical or just all out better. I disagree. It boils down to taste. That said, I think both systems have equal merit and I do not think either design method should be adopted as a default in any way, shape, or form. No, I will not agree that "something where the enemies appear on the map" works better, because there are games in which enemies appear that way that are simply awful, and the same goes for the other way.
To be blunt: I love Contact, and Final Fantasy XII, and KOTOR, but that would get old really, really, REALLY fast for someone like me.
Posts
I liked the game and story itself, and I really liked the battle system. I think the biggest problem though was the length of the battles. Because of the battle system, the battles tended to be longer than normal, and with the random encounter rate so high, it really drug things out a lot longer than necessary.
Short of the next four games made by Mistwalker (Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, and two unnamed titles) I have a feeling all JRPGs on the 360 will be available on the PS3 as well. Fable 2 will be 360 only but that isn't a JRPG.
Which, is unfortunately, why I didn't get very far. I tend to play my JRPG's at a breakneck pace, advance as far as I can get in the story, and then, level up. I tend to appreciate story first, with the Battle system being the awesomesauce icing on the cake.
While I was interestead in the battle system, and, interestead in the story, the fact that I had the battle system forced upon me, when I just really wanted story at that point, is what turned me off. Especially since it was so early in the game, for me.
That sounds way more engaging than running in circles hoping to get a particular monster in a random battle. I've done that in enough JRPGs that I think I'm about done with it.
[spoiler:341fba7b17]I'll still do it anyway, because I'm a whore.[/spoiler:341fba7b17]
Random Encounters:
+Keeps character LVs & gold at forseeable levels
+Doesn't penalize players that lack quick reflexes
+Good for randomizing (like rare extra-hard enemies)
+Generally there are ways to remove combat entirely when overpowered and visiting old areas.
-Can't avoid combat
-Some games have the encounter rate up way too high which can be very frustrating
-Lacks immersion
See enemies before Fighting:
+Allows players to chose their battles to a certain extent
+More skill involved on the # of battles fought
+Often have systems that give bonuses or penalties to the player depending on how he enters combat
+Good for low level runs
-Bad for power levelers unless the monster's respawn
-Revisiting old areas, you still have to deal with the monsters.
-The system feels unfair in many games (gives you the illusion of being able to avoid combat whereas in reality, it's impossible to avoid combat most of the time)
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that being able to see monsters beforehand is inherently better than random encounters. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. What is far more important is whether or not combat is fun. Put simply, the player shouldn't want to avoid combat most of the time (unless he's exploring an old area that he's already completed), because he's having so much fun fighting.
Oh and I thought the gay guy was funny, but I too had the Japanese voice acting on (I have the Asian version so there isn't an English voice acting option available).
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
I say we stick him in a red and white pokeball and trade him in for some of those adorable Pikachus.
I'd say we could train him, but I don't think you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Second, battles, for me, were very quick. We're not talking Final Fantasy Tactics-length missions per battle, despite the way battle is laid out. In fact, you are expected to adopt strategies that will resolve battles in a single turn whenever possible, because that allows each golem and character brought into battle to retain their entire stock of VP, allowing you to use them over and over between save crystals. This is particularly important for your more powerful (or potentially powerful) golems, even in the beginning, like APO and Marlin Glave who have 20 AP apiece.
I dunno, I guess I'm used to longer battles because I come from playing a mixture of APRG/CRPG and I've been playing strategy and war games since my wee days as a tadpole, but I think if you're having trouble resolving battles quickly, you are doing something wrong. Battles hardly ever took me more than 20 seconds to resolve. By comparison, Final Fantasy III on the Nintendo DS has an excruciating encounter rate and battles take far longer to resolve, just by way of how the engine works. I mean, you can even fast forward all the battle animations in Enchanted Arms.
Granted, I did pump APO up which makes cheesing battles a little easy. With APO souped up, you can resolve most battles in, like, five seconds. But even without him, with the right assortment of golems at a proper (even non-powerleveled) level, you should be able to resolve random encounters in a single, fast turn.
Wild "Katchem_Ash" Appears!
Go, Dragonite!
Wild Katchem_Ash uses "Old Skool!"
It dosen't seem to affect Dragonite
Dragonite Uses "Hyperbeam"
Wild Katchem_Ash has fainted!
Dragonite gains 500 "Hardcore" points!
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
:shock:
It is only now that I realize why this game is as loved by all as it is. Why is it not readily available?
Fingers crossed for Virtual Console release. The battles themselves are pretty basic compared to other JRPGs, but the above mentioned stuff really makes battles a lot better.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
This is how it should be done.
Well, I wouldn't decribe myself as a surely Playstation devotee. I would rather say I am a JRPG devotee seeing how I support both Nintendo and Sony in thier console wars and games. As long as either 2 are supplying me with JRPG I am a happy camper.
Though I dred support the 360 since it seems to just feed barebones to me and I don't see myself buying a $500 + tax dollar system to play 3 or 4 games that aren't going to be ported. Its a really hard buy for me cause probably when I finish, its just going to collect dust.
In short, there is no inherently bad way of handling encounters; there is good design and there is bad design. That's what it comes down to - blame the developers and designers for choosing a system they couldn't engage you with, not the formula itself.
Agreed.
While, inherently, it makes no sense, you still can get a nice rush from taking on every single monster in a room, and living to tell the tale, as long as it's implemented properly.
I've never played the game but I'm interested. I DO have the choice between the two platforms and I'd go for the 360 version.
Can you honestly tell me that you would complain if the Earthbound system became the default that developers used when they didn't have some specific reason why they were doing something else (i.e. in 99.9% of cases)?
Yes I would. While it sounds like a good idea, you have to remember that sometimes enemies carry weapons or such items that will give you better weapons than you have. To go around the map catching the supposed running enemy is not fun and if your in a maze, you might run into the mid-boss when your not prepared.
I prefer the random battles because it gives me a clear path of level up. Walk -> fight -> win -> level up -> change character, do over. The problem with visible enemies is that once they are gone, you have to come back to fight them agian. This could and sometimes is a pain when your in a puzzle or some thing like that. Plus in Random battles, they are never gone untill you hit a stick or something like that.
In regards to Enchanted Arms, the PS3 version will have 10 minutes of different cinematics than the 360 version, which to me sounds good because I haven't played it, so any extra thing will be a bonus.
Eh, either way this game is so average it's barely worth playing. It's only getting by on being the "first" RPG of its type for either system.
SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
Diamond: 2320-2615-4086
Uh, I will admit that I've never played the game but from what people have been saying, enemies running away from you should only happen the first time you're in a dungeon if you are seriously over-leveled. Making it harder to power up when you go above the curve sounds like a good thing to me.
I forgot to mention the other aspect of the EB system in my original post. Enemies on the map are one to one with the enemies you fight in the battle. So if you run into one Zombie on the overworld, you are only going to fight one Zombie in the battle. Now, before the game goes into the battle screen, it waits around for a second while the screen changes color. This gives time for other enemies to swarm in, adding more badguys to the ensuing fight.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
Hehe
That reminds of the part in Big Fish where he is reading an Asian to English dictionary.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
Yes.
Basically, make battles challenging and actually rewarding, instead of pressing X for 5 minutes and getting a Cure! in return.
What's interesting is that they are using the Sixaxis motion sensor within the gameplay. I wonder how that will shake out.
I doubt you're going to be swayed at this point but just in case, I'll offer some further explanation of what I'm trying to say.
Shadow Hearts (the first one an Covenant anyway, not sure about FtNW) has a reason for using random encounters, the first one was a horror game, covenant liked to sort of maybe pretend it was. Random encounters produce tension. Covenant at least (I remember little of how the first one played and FtNW isn't out where I am) had an extremely low encounter rate which helped make them quite a lot less annoying.
MegaTen games have a couple of reasons. Firstly, they're horror games, see above. Secondly, they are evil, that is their MO, huge, monotanous dungeons with rediculously high encounter rates are what they do.
(pre-IX) Dragon Quest has a reason, it's traditional to a fault, that's part of what it does (or did).
I'm not trying to say that games where they've clearly sat down and thought about this should change what they're doing. There is, however, always going to be a status quo that devs just sort of default towhen they don't have some grand scheme already in mind for any given element of a game and while we've recently been seeing somewhat of a shift towards encounters appearing in the field, every so often a game still comes along that proves that random encounters are still the status quo. They are annoying and at this point should have long been rplaced in this role by something, the Earthbound system (or some variant, encounters apearing in the field and the auto-win thing are the important bits) sounds like the best candidate for that replacement I've heard of.
The only times when I've seen evidence of devs sitting down and saying "Right, random encounters can be really annoying and we need to do something about that" and coming out with answers other than the seeing enemies on the field thing are Atelier Iris 2 and the Wild Arms series. I honestly feel that AI2 would be better served by enemies in the field (the encounter limit in the last few dungeons was set so high it may as well not have been there anyway) and Wild Arms seems to have increasingly been going in the direction of being different just for the sake of being different at which point it isn't really possible to argue with anything it does.
Actually, I think the best "random" encounter I ever had in an RPG was in KotoR. My party was just walking down an alley and was confronted by some thugs, taking me into the dialog screen. They were trying to extort money and I took the option that they should go F themselves. Immediately after I was in a battle with them. Just thought it was a nice transition and felt more real than walking down an alley and randomly fighting a million "Bandits", each time jumping me to another screen, playing a victory song and taking me back only to fight another 3 or 4 invisible enemies 5 steps later.
Also, to keep this from becoming a WRPG v JRPG discussion, Chrono Trigger also had great examples of random battles done right. Walking along where everything looks safe and then BAM, enemies coming up the hell right now. Goblins jumping out of bushes, lizard men being dropped in via pterodactyls and trap doors revealing other baddies. My only beef was that these battles weren't really random, as they would occur in the same place every time the player would go to that area.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
In Chrono Trigger's case, it's more of a cosmetic than a mechanical difference, I see your "beef" as more of a positive really. The only Western RPGs I've ever liked have been Diablo clones so I will admit to somewhat of a vested interest in the eastern and western schools not mixing. I haven't actually had a chance to try FFXII yet, living in the UK but I don't think I've ever heard anything about it to make me optimistic. I can imagine a game that did something similar that I would like but it would have to do some things in a very specific way. A lot of that is probably just me though.
I think you misunderstand me.
There should be no default system. At all. Period. I am thoroughly against any "default" formula, for RPGs or any other system. There are genre-specific elements that make a game a part of the genre: there are things that make an RPG an RPG. Beyond that, there should be no default formula.
Neither the old "enemies spring into existence" method of random encounters nor "you can see enemies on screen" method should be default.
Your point is that the Shadow Hearts system works because they thought it through and had a specific reason for implementing encounters in that fashion.
Precisely.
Similarly, Contact and Earthbound both implemented their systems for specific reasons.
I will reiterate...there is no bad formula, there is only bad implementation. There should be NO system without careful thought as to why it is being used.
So, to sum up, you are correct - I am unwavering on this. The Contact/Earthbound/KOTOR system should not be the "default" and neither should the Final Fantasy X or D&D or Baldur's Gate or Fallout or Digital Devil Saga systems.
Everything should be carefully planned out, no matter what formulas are being used or modified.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
Personally I enjoyed Fable more than any Castlvanias I've played. I really liked the combat in that game, for an RPG.
Man, note the :P . I was just trying to lure Drez back in here and have him rant about my comments on a particular RPG combat system.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
There aren't that many good reasons for the old bog standard random encounter method to be used though. I see where you're going but there's always going to be games where the designers come up with a bunch of ideas and just slide in whatever the normal mechanism is wherever they haven't had a particular idea. How encounters are handled, up until recently has been one of those things that just is the way it is. Would you at least agree that something where the enemies apear on the map would work better thatn what's in place in say... Skies of Arcadia or the majority of the Final Fantasy series? Or that it would be a good idea on most occasions when someone has an idea for, say, a neat combat system or storyline that doesn't automatically result in the game being particularly off kilter from what is regarded as the norm for these things.
I will say that I mostly detest systems in which enemies appear on the screen before hand and more or less prefer games with random/spawning encounters, which probably biases me in this debate. I am opposed to the opposite system becoming the default. However, I don't believe this system should be the default either. Design is a fluid, evolving process, and no aspect of it should just be chalked to "tradition," including combat or the way encounters are dealt with.
You obviously feel that enemies appearing on screen is automatically more logical or just all out better. I disagree. It boils down to taste. That said, I think both systems have equal merit and I do not think either design method should be adopted as a default in any way, shape, or form. No, I will not agree that "something where the enemies appear on the map" works better, because there are games in which enemies appear that way that are simply awful, and the same goes for the other way.
To be blunt: I love Contact, and Final Fantasy XII, and KOTOR, but that would get old really, really, REALLY fast for someone like me.