Okay, have another RPG related question. How do people feel about dungeons? Do they enjoy develing 10 stories down through a maze of passage ways, or would they rather spend as little time as possible in them. So which is the more popular choice? 1)long, deep and crawling with monsters 2)short, sweet and challenging 3)? 4)???

I say give the players a variety. Sometimes they like the open air, sometimes a quick visit into a cave, sometimes a foray through a castle, sometimes a deep delving into a dungeon.

Personally I'm for the open ended form of outdoor adventuring, but I'm sure that after I claim the area as my own, I'll want a dungeon to cleanse!

[edited by - Waverider on July 19, 2003 7:36:06 AM]

I like dungeons ok, as long as they''re not just run around and kill stuff. I also don''t like how in some games while you''re trying to explore, every other step you run into a random fight scene, and then by the time you kill the bad guys you forget where you were going, so you make a wrong turn and of course run into ANOTHER fight scene. And then as soon as you decide ok I''m gonna just walk back and forth here and collect a few levels, suddenly the fight scenes seem to be few and far between.

I like the way Lufia 2 does its caves/dungeons. You can see the critters in them, and they move around just like you do. Sometimes in a pattern, sometimes not, yet once you actually fight them there''s a bit of surprise because along with all those frogs there might be a couple of mosquitos. Sometimes you have to use the bad guys strategically, like to lure them over to stand on a switch and then zap them with your arrow so they stay put long enough for you to get to the door. And there''s puzzles galore, involving moving stuff onto switches or grappling across holes and pushing stuff over so you can grapple in from a different direction and push more stuff over and...well you get the idea. I think they went a bit TOO far when they put in that 99 level dungeon though, but luckily you don''t HAVE to get through it to finish the game heh.

I personally enjoy exploring dungeons in an RPG. I agree with waverider, give the players variety. I also agree with onyxflame where it isn''t just about killing monsters and every other step taken is a random fight. What I think makes a dungeon interesting is hidden areas, hidden treasure, that sort of thing. If a game is going to have a lot of dungeons, then I would prefer to have it either real-time battles, like Zelda or Dark Cloud, or if they are to be turn-based allow the players to see the enemies like in Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross.

Those aren''t bugs, they''re added features

Dungeon crawls can be interesting or they can be annoying as hell. Just to make my point in advances, we have a consensus, no random battles, nifty puzzles.

Anyways, lets use an example game. Breath Of Fire Dragon Quarter (I love this one). The whole game is ONE HUGE DUNGEON. The point of the game (after an hour into the story) is to get out of the dungeon by working your way up over a kilometer. Every enemy can be seen wandering the dungeon on their own, you can lure them with traps and stuff, fight in these turn based tactical battles, or ignore them all together. The item questing is fun. Each level has a treasure box, and one of the enemies in the level has the key. And then, on top of that, theres an interesting story showed through cutscrenes that are short and not that intrusive. It just seems its a game done right.

Anmother example? Vagrant Story, one big dungeon, real time fighting, puzzles, item hunting, yes.

In ''modern'' RPGS - I''d rather have a large number of relatively ''short'' levels that are memorable and have a unique atmosphere and or plot-critical nature.

The exception to this rule is roguelikes. Roguelikes are allowed to just keep going and going and going. Because they are just like that.

- It''s a life''s work
-ryan@lecherousjester.com

I personally enjoy tremendously large and challenging dungeons with increasing levels of difficulty of random encounters the deeper you go, but also increasingly powerful treasures as you go deeper. I also think that you should not generally be ''forced'' to explore most dungeons.

A prime example of a well done RPG, I think, is basically the entire Might and Magic saga.. which I''ve played through from original to part 9. Another extremely well done RPG was final fantasy 3 ( American FF3 ). There were a multitude of large and challenging dungeons offering rewards for those who explored them, there were also a variety of semi-hidden and useful places. For example, the Imp weapons/armor from the dinosaurs.

I generally prefer open-ended outdoor exploration. I''m like a freaking virtual bishop_pass. I''m sure I''d like Unreal 2 if I bought it because you can explore. I like Morrowind because I can explore outdoors. I generally don''t like dungeons, but they can be fun sometimes.

To me, the problem with dungeons is that sometimes they can be long and monotonous. I don''t mind getting to the bottom of a dungeon if there''s a good reason, like to get rid of a boss. But it''s when they are these 10-level complexes, each floor the same as the other one, that dungeons piss me off.

Well, yes, dungeon crawls are ok to an extent.

There''s the definition of it, which are Diablo (which is a rogue-clone), but I think most RPGs these days have it, Arcanum, NWN, Fallout had it at places, etc.

I think it needs to fit the area (not just "you find a hole in the ground") in any "real" RPG. Preferably there should be something to gain in it, story-wise (if that''s a word).

For example, someone could be trapped in the bottom; it could be a secret hideout for raiders that are harassing a city; etc. After eradicating whatever evil that was in there, you should be able to find the kidnapped persons brother, or the mayor of the city to get a big thanks and maybe a reward.

Umm.. diablo is nothing like rogue. Rogue was known for intricacy and game play. Diablo is known for running around hoping a cool item pops off the latest monster you killed in one hit.