What makes an RPG become fast-paced and action-oriented?
I'm posting this thread almost as a sequel to two previous posts with a quite similar topic: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=440489 - Made by KevinM about features an RPG should hold, http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=441883 - Made by me for opinions about good types of movement and combat in a top-down-view RPG. I don't want you to feel restrained by any details now though. You don't have to think that the feature should to be limited to a top-down, 3d, 2d or platform RPG or whatever. You shouldn't be forced to consider available buttons and complexity of use. For all I care you can come up with an idea that would be outright impossible to accomplish with today's technology. Or if you wish, you can add any realistic details and restrictions that you feel is necessary. The thing is, I'm making a concept for (what I'm hoping will become) a fast-paced, very action-oriented and competetively centered RPG (or as some other might call it; an adventuregame) and I'm really curious to see what people actually make of words like "action", "fast-paced", "challenging" and "competetive" when thinking about a game (preferrably in the RPG genre) in general. As I said already, if you don't want to make it specific (with required controls etc.) then don't. All I'm really looking for is a whole lot of different opinions about how these different aspects can be added to a game in some way or another. So, indulge me![Edited by - Sadr on April 13, 2007 1:30:19 PM]
Working for WeWantToKnow. Also working on jMonkeyEngine and Maker's Tale.
Well, I've said this time and time again, but one more time can't hurt.
There are five things that can increase the skill required to play an Action RPG that I've noticed to be sucessful.
(1) Recoil system: like in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, where blocking sends the attacker back and damaging the opponent stops their attack animation, allowing you to attack. This is probably the most important because it means that the player can't just hammer away at the attack button.
(2) Fatigue system: also seen in Oblivion, it is a physical energy bar that goes down with each attack, jump, or physical movement, and when it reaches zero, attacks do much less damage and I believe power attacks are disabled. It keeps the player from attacking non-stop and forces attacks to be chosen with care.
(3) Lock-on feature: like in games such as Zelda and Fable. This allows the character to strafe and roll around the opponent, as well as jumping over them.
(4) Melee skills: especially important in any game with a class system. This prevents the magic using classes as being the only fun or interesting ones.
(5) Combos: making certain skills harder to get off. It makes the player feel accomplished when he actually does them, and separates the skilled players from the noobs.
There are five things that can increase the skill required to play an Action RPG that I've noticed to be sucessful.
(1) Recoil system: like in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, where blocking sends the attacker back and damaging the opponent stops their attack animation, allowing you to attack. This is probably the most important because it means that the player can't just hammer away at the attack button.
(2) Fatigue system: also seen in Oblivion, it is a physical energy bar that goes down with each attack, jump, or physical movement, and when it reaches zero, attacks do much less damage and I believe power attacks are disabled. It keeps the player from attacking non-stop and forces attacks to be chosen with care.
(3) Lock-on feature: like in games such as Zelda and Fable. This allows the character to strafe and roll around the opponent, as well as jumping over them.
(4) Melee skills: especially important in any game with a class system. This prevents the magic using classes as being the only fun or interesting ones.
(5) Combos: making certain skills harder to get off. It makes the player feel accomplished when he actually does them, and separates the skilled players from the noobs.
Competitive - This makes me think there must be online PvP play. Which doesn't really make sense in the cotext of an RPG which is presumably singleplayer or it would have some more letters tacked onto it. Me personally, I don't like competitive games, but I know a lot of people do. By definition, a competitive game must keep track of players' scores so you can see who's winning.
Usually competitive games must have realtime combat (or strategy, sim, racing, whatever kind of competitive gameplay). Because, who really cares who wins a chess tournament or other turn-based game? Nobody, but millions of people care who wins basketball games and other more exciting sports. Which brings us to...
Action and Fast-paced - These words imply that gameplay is at least partially a race against time, requiring manual dexterity and quick reflexes. I wouldn't usually associate these with an RPG, single player or otherwise, but maybe with a more arcade-style RPG like Golden Axe or Super Metroid. Some single-player RPGs (Vagrant Story, FF8 and up) have made half-hearted attempts at this sort of combat by requiring players to hit a button or combo with good timing to achieve a critical hit or special attack. I would really enjoy playing a Final Fantasy style RPG which switched to something like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat for the battles.
Challenging - I usually wince at this word. Challenging usually means frustrating because you die a lot and have to re-attempt particularly difficult segments several times, and often these sorts of games also like to annoy the player by restricting inventory sizes, availability of healing and saving, and requiring you to invest your exp or skill points perfectly and/or grind a lot to buff yourself up. All horrible game design choices IMHO. I believe that games should not make players angry and should especially not make the player quit playing because one part is just impossibly difficult for that player's abilities.
So yeah, it depends on what your target audience is - do you want to do a MMOFPS or MMOsports game which appeals to people hungry for an adrenaline fix and eager to beat each other up and work to get the most godly equippage? That's what this batch of keywords says to me. Not a game I would play, but lots of people would. Or did you have in mind something less predatory like an RPG-type story-structure with realtime arcade or platformer-style combat? _That_ I might like to play.
Usually competitive games must have realtime combat (or strategy, sim, racing, whatever kind of competitive gameplay). Because, who really cares who wins a chess tournament or other turn-based game? Nobody, but millions of people care who wins basketball games and other more exciting sports. Which brings us to...
Action and Fast-paced - These words imply that gameplay is at least partially a race against time, requiring manual dexterity and quick reflexes. I wouldn't usually associate these with an RPG, single player or otherwise, but maybe with a more arcade-style RPG like Golden Axe or Super Metroid. Some single-player RPGs (Vagrant Story, FF8 and up) have made half-hearted attempts at this sort of combat by requiring players to hit a button or combo with good timing to achieve a critical hit or special attack. I would really enjoy playing a Final Fantasy style RPG which switched to something like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat for the battles.
Challenging - I usually wince at this word. Challenging usually means frustrating because you die a lot and have to re-attempt particularly difficult segments several times, and often these sorts of games also like to annoy the player by restricting inventory sizes, availability of healing and saving, and requiring you to invest your exp or skill points perfectly and/or grind a lot to buff yourself up. All horrible game design choices IMHO. I believe that games should not make players angry and should especially not make the player quit playing because one part is just impossibly difficult for that player's abilities.
So yeah, it depends on what your target audience is - do you want to do a MMOFPS or MMOsports game which appeals to people hungry for an adrenaline fix and eager to beat each other up and work to get the most godly equippage? That's what this batch of keywords says to me. Not a game I would play, but lots of people would. Or did you have in mind something less predatory like an RPG-type story-structure with realtime arcade or platformer-style combat? _That_ I might like to play.
I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.
Quote:
Original post by sunandshadow
Action and Fast-paced - These words imply that gameplay is at least partially a race against time, requiring manual dexterity and quick reflexes. I wouldn't usually associate these with an RPG, single player or otherwise, but maybe with a more arcade-style RPG like Golden Axe or Super Metroid. Some single-player RPGs (Vagrant Story, FF8 and up) have made half-hearted attempts at this sort of combat by requiring players to hit a button or combo with good timing to achieve a critical hit or special attack. I would really enjoy playing a Final Fantasy style RPG which switched to something like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat for the battles.
Have you played Tales of Symphonia or any other games in the Tales series? They all have combat that's closer to a fighting game, while still having the great stories and puzzles from other RPGs.
----------------------------My site: www.sudoexec.net
Personally, I think a good way to make an RPG fast-paced is to decide on an action- or reflex-oriented mechanic and work it into the combat somehow. My two favorite RPG battle systems were the ones in the Megaman Battle Network series (which I know a lot of people didn't like for its card-collecting elements, so this is of course just a matter of opinion) and Mario & Luigi 2.
The former of the two was all of those things. Sure, a lot of your damage was determined by what attacks you had in your "folder", but it there were very few abilities that would help you dodge or guard (at least, compared to all the others), so there was a lot of dodging, especially in the later areas. And because of the customization inherent in anything where you use a limited number of collectible abilties, the game had a competitive multiplayer mode that played pretty well, as long as certain single-hit combos were avoided (though admittedly, they did pose problems).
Mario & Luigi 2 wasn't competitive, but it was challenging and fast-paced. The jumping mechanic in the game allowed you to dodge literally any attack if you were good enough at it, and the enemy-damaging Bros. Items played like mini-rhythm games, some continuing their effects until you messed up, making the game more about being good at keeping up with them than building your stats (although in both examples, stats played a significant part, it was a much lower part than most RPGs).
Of course, you also need to make the decision of whether battles take place in the world, or if they're initiated upon contact with an enemy (or via some random battle system). Both of the examples above did the latter, but some games, like Star Wars: KoTOR (which I've unfortunately never played much of), do the former. Generally, though, if it takes place upon being "initiated" by something, the game's system is more abstract than if it takes place in the overworld.
These examples, though, are just examples, and as far as I know, they were both the first games to pull off the kinds of battle systems they use, yet they both used action elements. So I guess the trick is to look at your genre, and find what fits, then come up with an actiony way of doing it. Megaman Battle Network was a computer-themed game, so it had you collecting programs to use in battle. Mario & Luigi are known for jumping, so the game gave you the ability to use their jumping in order to dodge attacks. But you don't have to just limit yourself to building off the genre. If you want to, you could base the game off of the system. If someone made an RPG that used a modified Breakout or Pong as its battle system, I could see it being good.
The former of the two was all of those things. Sure, a lot of your damage was determined by what attacks you had in your "folder", but it there were very few abilities that would help you dodge or guard (at least, compared to all the others), so there was a lot of dodging, especially in the later areas. And because of the customization inherent in anything where you use a limited number of collectible abilties, the game had a competitive multiplayer mode that played pretty well, as long as certain single-hit combos were avoided (though admittedly, they did pose problems).
Mario & Luigi 2 wasn't competitive, but it was challenging and fast-paced. The jumping mechanic in the game allowed you to dodge literally any attack if you were good enough at it, and the enemy-damaging Bros. Items played like mini-rhythm games, some continuing their effects until you messed up, making the game more about being good at keeping up with them than building your stats (although in both examples, stats played a significant part, it was a much lower part than most RPGs).
Of course, you also need to make the decision of whether battles take place in the world, or if they're initiated upon contact with an enemy (or via some random battle system). Both of the examples above did the latter, but some games, like Star Wars: KoTOR (which I've unfortunately never played much of), do the former. Generally, though, if it takes place upon being "initiated" by something, the game's system is more abstract than if it takes place in the overworld.
These examples, though, are just examples, and as far as I know, they were both the first games to pull off the kinds of battle systems they use, yet they both used action elements. So I guess the trick is to look at your genre, and find what fits, then come up with an actiony way of doing it. Megaman Battle Network was a computer-themed game, so it had you collecting programs to use in battle. Mario & Luigi are known for jumping, so the game gave you the ability to use their jumping in order to dodge attacks. But you don't have to just limit yourself to building off the genre. If you want to, you could base the game off of the system. If someone made an RPG that used a modified Breakout or Pong as its battle system, I could see it being good.
Quote:
Original post by BenThereDoneThat
Have you played Tales of Symphonia or any other games in the Tales series? They all have combat that's closer to a fighting game, while still having the great stories and puzzles from other RPGs.
*nods*
ToS really surprised me because the combat was so atypical from normal RPGs. While the action was nice, you could essentially only control one character at a time and relied on AI for the rest of your party. I found the gameplay difficult and almost a bit frustrating, because I couldn't employ very much strategy into my fights. It was a non-stop brawl to beat down your opponents, lest they beat you down first. There are probably many people who enjoy that type of system, but I'd like to be more calculating and strategic in my fights.
Unfortunately, I think that it would be incredibly difficult (nay I say, impossible) to blend action and strategy together well in RPG battles.
Hero of Allacrost - A free, open-source 2D RPG in development.
Latest release June, 2015 - GameDev annoucement
Quote:
Original post by Roots
Unfortunately, I think that it would be incredibly difficult (nay I say, impossible) to blend action and strategy together well in RPG battles.
Well, there is one way it could be done. You could have a turn-based system like in Fire Emblem, but when the characters engage each other it switches over to a real-time battle only between the two fighters. This would be similar to how Rome: Total War works, but you would control individual characters on a smaller scale.
No I haven't played Tales of Symphonia, I'll look into it.
You could put the strategy into the pre-combat phase of rearranging equippage and maybe crafting armors or potions to be used during combat.
You could put the strategy into the pre-combat phase of rearranging equippage and maybe crafting armors or potions to be used during combat.
I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.
You should look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_of_Eternia first. As it's earlier work in the series. (and first that was able to process all actions simultaneously)
Action RPGs are not actual RPGs, and they tend to break the story by frequent save reload procedure. RPG could be fast paced if it would have autosave, so when there would be electricity breakdown, player will not miss 3 hours of play.
BTW was anyone on this forum able to finish tales of eternia without aurora barrier?
Action RPGs are not actual RPGs, and they tend to break the story by frequent save reload procedure. RPG could be fast paced if it would have autosave, so when there would be electricity breakdown, player will not miss 3 hours of play.
BTW was anyone on this forum able to finish tales of eternia without aurora barrier?
I think to make an RPG Action oriented you need to make it Immediate and Tactile.
Immediate means that the information the player is give (positioning of the enemies, what they are doing, the character's health, etc) is only relevant in the hear and now.
Tactile means that the input the player give the system is also based in the here and now.
Both these combine to make it so that the player is presented with a particular situation and they must make a decision and provide input to the game and the resolution of theses action all take place very close to each other in time.
Essentially: Short term choices.
This doesn't mean that long term choices can't play a part, but that during battles (or other action scenes), the vast majority of the choices that the player makes must be concerned with what is going on in that combat and that the player has direct control over the actions of their character.
If any actions the character performs is not under the direct control of the player, then the decisions that the player made about them is not immediate and tactile.
Immediate means that the information the player is give (positioning of the enemies, what they are doing, the character's health, etc) is only relevant in the hear and now.
Tactile means that the input the player give the system is also based in the here and now.
Both these combine to make it so that the player is presented with a particular situation and they must make a decision and provide input to the game and the resolution of theses action all take place very close to each other in time.
Essentially: Short term choices.
This doesn't mean that long term choices can't play a part, but that during battles (or other action scenes), the vast majority of the choices that the player makes must be concerned with what is going on in that combat and that the player has direct control over the actions of their character.
If any actions the character performs is not under the direct control of the player, then the decisions that the player made about them is not immediate and tactile.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement