Hello, I was just thinking of FFX and started think how much better I enjoyed the story compared to the constant battles. So I had an idea, what if when you started an RPG the player choose one of the 4 modes to play in. Combat Free: No battles, For players interested in experince the epic story and not wanting to get bogged down with distractions. Key Combat: The only combat the player experinces are story imporant ones such as boss battles, For players looking for adventure and some action. Normal: The way the game was made to be played. Action Hero: More combat the normal, for people who like more action and battle then you can shake a stick at. Would it be worth the extra effort to include these options? Would people even be inclined to take advantage of them? Or is it best to just leave things as is? It might be important to note that removing combat from the game, would also mean throwing out the standard experince and leveling system all together. Not really imporant if challenges where overcome by player skill and not character skill. ----------------------------------------------------- Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades Current Design project Chaos Factor Design Document

Certainly I love the idea of letting the player choose what kind of experience he wants to play. But if you decided to keep "important" fights even in a combat free mode, you have to remember that the players wouldnt be used to the fighting at all ! This would mean, for you the designer, that you either have to make it extremely clear to the players that they better train a bit before the final clash, or you have to make sure that the players have a possibility to overcome bosses using their brains ! And to make sure that they KNOW that they can.
dont forget that most players will assume that they have to fight ! I remember when I first played FFVII and I had this bad ass Spider boss at the beginning I automatically assumed that I had to kick its ass. Until I realised that the damn thing kept ressurecting and decided to run for it... which was what you had to do in the first place if you didnt want to explode with the rest of the island.
If you have multiple characters in your party, I suggest that the other team members make "suggestions" to the main character when appropriate, to remind the player of other approaches.
Say, you could have your strong man suggest "Let''s run for it, it''s too slow to follow us!"
Or "Look, this big rock up there! Maybe we can use it to crush the beastie". Or why not even a bit of flattery : "I am sure if you talk to it, you could tame it and we could pass through unarmed"

My point is, yeah it''s cool to make something different, but make sure the player KNOW they can do different things.
Allow them to see monsters in the wilderness from a distance, for instance. Then they can decide to go for it or take the lond way around.

There is certainly plenty of room for cool gameplay elements

---

Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !

super mario rpg style

you could jump over or run from monsters because then walked/flew/swam around on the main world, they took some skill to dodge if you were trying to, but you always had the option. (though the battles were so fun i tended to fight everything i found)

i''have play METAL GEAR SOLID 2 exactly that way :D
very easy to follow the story and then switch to extrem whitout radar and skipp the cinematics and dialogue!

both fun it''s metal gear! :D but sure they can''t mix up well (well it''s a part of my challenge to find an action orianted storytellings, were the action didnot drop, by action i mean interactivity)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Key combat you could turn into like a puzzle game: You set up the characters with specific levels/skills/etc and make it possible to beat the boss with a few different strategies or different character combinations.

My personal opinion is that I don''t mind random battles, I just hate ones with WEAK enemies. Earthbound was the greatest in this regard, you automatically won fights against severely weaker opponents without having to fight at all (you''d get the EXP/Money bonus even).

So.... I'm not sure if people are for or against the idea? One person seems to like the idea.

The point of the 4 modes is the play can play the game how they want. If you want to play normal you play normal. If you want to hack away at enimes you play action hero.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I'm a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document



[edited by - TechnoGoth on September 15, 2003 4:33:54 PM]

If you want all the plot with just boss battles, you''d have to get rid of the EXP system, or modif it enormously. There was some crappy game for the PS2 (Shadow of Destiny?) where you ran around talking to people and getting info, then running around looking for stuff, and just about anything you''d do in an RPG except actually fighting. It had multiple paths and several endings, but let me tell you, when you''ve got to run six miles through a city, and there are no fights to break up the jog, the game really sucks. A lot.

The reason I can tolerate the endless travelling and backtracking in an RPG because I know that the trip will at least raise one or two levels, and I might get some good items or skills along the way. Take out that potential, and you lose a big dynamic element of both characters and story.

The only thing that might have sucked harder than Shadow of Destiny would be any other RPG without fights. At least the designers knew that there''d be no fights, so they kept most areas small and challenges quick. FF3 (6) without enemies would be Hell on a cracker. I''ve used the Moogle Charm, and it just bites. Unless you''re just trying to explore or are already on crazy high levels.

It seems to me that what you''re looking for is all the gratification of getting places and doing things without having to level up or heal your guys. The solution for this is simple: Just cheat at existing RPGs. What you want is spoilers with FMV sequences. So get a Gameshark, start on Lvl 99, and disable random encounters. The only risk left is that you''ll crash the game. Or you could save your money and buy a strategy guide instead of the game, and just read that.

Any attempt to make a game with the four possible play modes described here would lead to one mode that''s okay and three that are horribly unbalanced.

It''s worth mentioning, however, that recent RPGs (Final Fantasy series, I''m looking at you) pretty up their battle sequences to a point where battles take too damn long to fight. I''m running through FF9 (oldish, but still), and it takes ten to fifteen seconds between the map encounter and the first strike. Then you have a little victory animation, and the info screens for what you got. Short, easy battles are 40% fighting and 60% graphics and data. I remember in FF2 (4), you''d encounter, fight, get your little dance, and hit the bricks in no time. That''s the way it ought to be. I really liked Ogre Battle 64, where you could turn off all unnecessary animation and go from "Fight It Out" to the end of a fight in just a few seconds. Sweet. Battle engines are a centerpiece in most RPGs, but too much showboating makes them a hassle. I want to fight the monsters in the cave, but I don''t need a three-ring circus for every one. At least give me an option to disable it.

I''ve thought about this before and thought it was a good idea. But then I thought, why not go to the root of the problem and make the battles fun instead of boring? Right now the gameplay of the battles are meaningless. It''s not really gameplay at all actually (if you define gameplay as a series of interesting choices). And on top of that theres the endlessly long and boring animations you get for every little thing you do. And then off course the intro and score screens and bla bla bla. That''s why people (including me) would like to skip the battles.
But as someone pointed out that wouldnt be good either.. then the game would get sorta boring. So instead i say kick the battle directors at Square-Enix and put me in charge ^_^

quote:

---

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
It''s worth mentioning, however, that recent RPGs (Final Fantasy series, I''m looking at you) pretty up their battle sequences to a point where battles take too damn long to fight. I''m running through FF9 (oldish, but still), and it takes ten to fifteen seconds between the map encounter and the first strike. Then you have a little victory animation, and the info screens for what you got. Short, easy battles are 40% fighting and 60% graphics and data. I remember in FF2 (4), you''d encounter, fight, get your little dance, and hit the bricks in no time. That''s the way it ought to be. I really liked Ogre Battle 64, where you could turn off all unnecessary animation and go from "Fight It Out" to the end of a fight in just a few seconds. Sweet. Battle engines are a centerpiece in most RPGs, but too much showboating makes them a hassle. I want to fight the monsters in the cave, but I don''t need a three-ring circus for every one. At least give me an option to disable it.

---

FFX has an option to turn off battles. It''s pretty funny how they do it.

You basically need to obtain an item that has an "Off-Season" enchantment. You wear that item and you won''t fight battles ever again (except key battles). That''s if you find that item.

It''s also funny (and annoying) that they use items and item enchantments to solve problems like this.

You need a "Rename Card" to rename an aeon. In order to get a "Rename Card", you need to kill an insanely powerful beast. Why wouldn''t just they provide a button with a "Rename" on it?