Gaming World Forums
Creativity => Game Design & Demos => Topic started by: nickmasterx on December 13, 2009, 12:01:53 am
-
In an effort to improve my game, Aptos Adventures II, (since I'm making it for you guys) I'd like to get a general idea of what kinds of things you like to see in an RPG. You can vote for all of the options if you like. If you choose "other" please say what that is. thanks!
-Nick
-
Really, I like all of the options, if they're done well. Minigames I'm mildly on the fence about, but if they don't break the flow of the story, it's fine.
-
Multiple endings are sort of a turn on for me. Especially several multiple endings. If you can pull that off I will play your game and beat it to get to all the endings.
-
Tactical elements, like FFTactics, or Fire Emblem.
-
All of them. The more elements the better. The best games have the most gameplay elements.
-
Here is the ABSOLUTE SINGLE THING all jRPGs and wRPGs NEED to have... a difficulty setting
Almost every jRPG I play is so ridiculously easy, it takes away from all the tactical elements the creators think up and program... I don't understand why they would omit a difficulty setting! Harder games = more gameplay time, some critical thinking into how to proceed each battle, and above all, so much more fun. I had a blast with demon's souls, but if it was super easy, it wouldn't be near that great.
Same goes with the other billion jRPGs out there. Mini-bosses, secret dungeons and secret bosses are the most fun aspects of RPGs, imagine an entire game with that sort of challenge. I absolutely loved FF12, though the main quest was super easy, it had tons and tons of HUNTS where satisfied my craving for challenge.
My ideal RPG would be:
-50-60 hours long
-Epic storyline with great likable characters
-Very DARK, like actually ominous and fairly adult rated
-Difficult, with optional dungeons and bosses
-Tons of sidequests and secret bosses
Now that I think of it, Digital Devil Saga meets a lot of those requirements... my only problem with that game is the pacing... dungeons run hours followed by story elements and then more and more dungeons.
-
I like a fairly linear story but with many sidequests.
I like good old-fashioned turn-based combat that succesfully incorporates a bit of strategy, more than just GRIND AND MASH A BUTTON.
Puzzles are pretty nice too, to keep the dungeons a bit more interesting and a bit less repetetive.
-
Quick comments:
Turn Based Combat: Like it.
Real Time Combat: Like it also. Turn based combats may get annoying with time. Real time is more dynamic (I understand this as action combat).
Half turn based/half not IE Super Mario RPG, KOTOR: Don't know it.
Minigames: Extremely important, unless your basic systems (i.e. combat system) are super awesome.
Lots of complex systems like materia in FF7: Not really necessary. May get confusing. One complex system is fine.
Nonlinear story (open ended): Definitely.
Linear story (not open ended): No, unless you're a really great story writer.
Sidequests: Sure.
Multiple Endings: Yes, if it's open-ended.
Good/Evil rating affecting the outcome of the game: Overdone.
Puzzles and other Adventure game elements: Sure, like minigames.
-
Turn Based Combat, Linear story (not open ended), Sidequests, Puzzles and other Adventure game elements please
-
what kind of things i like in an rpg depend on how i feel. sometimes I just want to go all like actiony and play a game like Mass Effect, Secret of Mana, etc... but then others I'll be in the mood for Baldurs Gate or FF. Though, I have to say my favorite battle system of all time is probably the one in Heroes of Might and Magic 2.
a cool "element" I liked is having artifacts, which will boost up a given stat or whatever. though, my favorite part of HOMM2 is the way it handles leveling, you choose between 2 things each time you level up, whether it Necromancy Advanced(Ups the amount of skeletons a Necromancer makes after winning a battle) or estates basic(Ups the amount of gold you get per day.) idk it's just a realllly good game, and it's even more fun playing with friends. battles can be very challenging when you start a map, but it usually gets easier and then the computer wins because it cheats! it also makes you use a lot of strategy, as most battles can't be won just fighting blindly.
another cool thing is if your hero and his troops are really strong, it would say something like "The enemies are awed by the power of your forces, and scatter away. Do you wish to pursue them?(yes/no)". Or, sometimes they would offer to join your group if you diplomacy skills are high enough, but declining would result in them getting mad and attacking you.
it did so much, yet it was simple. plus the graphics are so damn charming and the music is catchy. so yeah basically everyone make games like this. :D
anyways, sidequests are great if they're actually important and feel like part of the story(Chrono Trigger for example!) and open/linear stories are both good, as long as the story is good.
-
Good/Evil systems are pretty bad really. I like the way Dragon Age did it. You can be a prick, but theres no YOU GAINED 3 EVIL POINTS or any bullshit.
-
Real time combat would be prefered, a linear storyline with open endedness such as the ability to go explore a multiple places, continents, side quests, minigames and multiple endings for replay value.
- Real time combat because noone likes waiting a long time to be able to attack again and do other things that take up a turn but in some games like Heroes of Might and Magic 3 especially have done turn based combat really well.
- A linear storyline because if it was non-linear it would just feel like a grinde game.
- Open ended environments, give more replay value and extend gameplay time. Side quests also mixes well with open endedness I'm sure you can imagine.
- Minigames are fun, especially when they are done well but they have to be fun otherwise that will just defeat the purpose of the minigame.
- Multiple endings for added reply value, lets the player experiment with actions and conversation choices.
-
- A linear storyline because if it was non-linear it would just feel like a grinde game
Do you actually know what non-linear means? It has like, no bearing on how much of a "grinde game" it is.
-
Do you actually know what non-linear means? It has like, no bearing on how much of a "grinde game" it is.
Well when I made that statement I had MMORPGs in mind, I guess I should elaborate and say that making the game have a linear storyline is better because then you don't give the player to go off on a tangent. I usually find myself being "lost" because of unclear goals but I don't wanna sterotype and say thats true for all games.
-
Hah, ironically "sidequests" has the most votes.
Anyway, I voted for;
Turn Based Combat
I like planning out my moves and taking my time overviewing the battle. Not like in Kingdom Hearts for example, where it's like no time to think, just move move move, dam forget on what shortcut I put my potions, dead.
Minigames
If they're done well. Some minigames I've played were really impossible to do. Things like that just enrage me to no end.
Lots of complex systems like materia in FF7
Not too complex, but I liked the idea of equipping magical abilities to characters.
Linear story (not open ended)
I like stories where it's always clear what the objective is, and what the main objective is of the game / journey.
Sidequests
These are a great way to flesh out individual characters and their stories. They're also a great way to ruin a game, by making them like "Kill five bears and get 20 claws off them and bring them back, and when you're done with that you can do it again except this time twice the amount".
Multiple Endings
Multiple endings. I like it if the ending changes depending on what you do in the story. However, these can also be used to display "What If" scenarios, like in Chrono Trigger.
Good/Evil rating affecting the outcome of the game
Not sure what you meant with this, but if it's something like in Fable, then yeah, that's pretty cool.
Puzzles and other Adventure game elements
Yep. Puzzles are always nice, when done well. Zelda is the champion in these.
-
BATTLE SYSTEM:
The only one I don't like are realtime battles (since I often put my games on hold for a few). My preference goes to Conditional Turn Based, à la Wild ARMs 4/5 or perhaps FFX is a better and more popular example.
MINIGAMES:
There is a delicate balance between "too much" and "too little". That said, I rather have too little minigames than too many minigames. Too few, you just finish and complain. Too much, I get put off and complain without finishing. I can only stand WHERE'S WALDO five times before it starts to become annoying.
COMPLEX SYSTEMS:
... Uh. Materia is... complex...? I'm of the mindset that any 'complex' system should be introduced slowly and steadily, but within a timeframe of one hour for RPGMaker games to get the hang completely of, or at least to such extent you know what's what. I'm fond of character customisation to a degree, but if you offer it, it best be real character customisation. None of this "you can twink for defense" followed by "AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR SEGMENT YOU MUST TWINK FOR DEFENSE".
STORY:
I prefer linear personally, with no more than three different endings if different endings must be possible. Corrolary: If it's more like, "Side with one group/person" where you base your ending off of personal ideas, then it is fine to use as many as is necessary.
SIDEQUESTS:
Like minigames, just don't oversaturate. Depending on the amount of SQs, adjust rewards accordingly. Lots of them? Try to include information on what you will probably win with it. A few of them? Make it good and a surprise. (Good equals 10 health potions if your game is in the first hour of gameplay/battle and potions can reasonably be expected to be used)
RATING AFFECTING GAME:
No thank you. I like playing my games without having to check OH CREP DEW EYE DOO EVUL OR GUD NAOW? to get optimal rewards/endings/branches/whatever. Usually, good/evil are really two extreme sides of the spectrum anyway, where a "Good" character is a dumb idiot with detached delusions about the state of the world and an "Evil" character is a homicidial maniac who enjoys running around like some clown trying to hide his bauble in a hole.
PUZZLES:
YES. Put puzzles in. One per dungeon. Maybe two. Hell, make a puzzle dungeon. Do it. DO ITTTTTT.
-
A job system?
-
A job system?
Yeah, I don't really take an RPG elements poll seriously if it doesn't include an option to vote for job classes.
I'm going to assume that's what all the people who voted for "other" meant to specify.
-
guys, maybe, JUST MAYBE games have more to do with being a single, well thought out and well put together sum of their parts than a checklist of features
how can you really say what features you like in rpgs in this context??? you can say what features you liked in a SPECIFIC rpg maybe, like "i really liked the combat in this game", but that doesn't mean that that same type of combat's going to be any good in another game. i like the puzzles in zelda but not the puzzles in haunting ground. i mean it's one thing to sort of say "well i liked this type of combat in a lot of rpgs so i guess i like usually", but this guy is asking because he wants to figure out what to put in his game. maybe a forum poll isn't the best way to approach a design document for a game?!?!?!
i like all of these features when they're done well and in the right games but how the fuck am i supposed to tell this guy what he needs to improve his game?
-
guys, maybe, JUST MAYBE games have more to do with being a single, well thought out and well put together sum of their parts than a checklist of features
how can you really say what features you like in rpgs in this context??? you can say what features you liked in a SPECIFIC rpg maybe, like "i really liked the combat in this game", but that doesn't mean that that same type of combat's going to be any good in another game. i like the puzzles in zelda but not the puzzles in haunting ground. i mean it's one thing to sort of say "well i liked this type of combat in a lot of rpgs so i guess i like usually", but this guy is asking because he wants to figure out what to put in his game. maybe a forum poll isn't the best way to approach a design document for a game?!?!?!
i like all of these features when they're done well and in the right games but how the fuck am i supposed to tell this guy what he needs to improve his game?
Here's a thought: Maybe most of the people involved in this topic already know this.
Also here's the answer to your question: You don't. Just because that's what the guy wants out of the topic doesn't mean that's what you are supposed to go out of your way to get it for him. You are supposed to humor the guy by letting him assume that he can post up a popularity poll on a website expecting an ideal formula for developing the perfect game on the spot.
Who are you to say he can't find his own reason to develop an RPG from a completely revolutionary concept using the data this poll provides in a way you couldn't ever assume just by looking at it on the surface? (You see how easy this is? Just humor the guy and let him make the game he wants to make, since that's what he'll end up doing regardless of the number of opinions provided. You can't make it your own responsibility just because it might happen to turn out to result in a game you would never want to play.)
-
You are supposed to humor the guy by letting him assume that he can post up a popularity poll on a website expecting an ideal formula for developing the perfect game on the spot.
Maybe instead we should encourage people to plan their games out a little better because we're supposed to be helping people become better game makers???
Nobody's stopping him from making the game he's going to make, but what if he reads something telling him to rethink it and he DOES rethink it and makes a much better game because of it?
-
Fine, I'll write a tutorial. (I mean damn, someone's got to do it eventually.)
-
the main thing i care about is graphics,,,
but thats just a pet peeve