Something I don't get about RPGs

[Edmond Dantes]

I'm gonna open by saying that I've played two hours so far of Grandia II, and it looks promising. Right off the bat, it gets positive marks for two things:

One: you can see the enemies on the field, so there's no "random encounter" bulls---.

Two: The battle system encourages strategy and choosing your attacks wisely, as opposed to just physical attack and elemental rock-paper-scissors on the bossfights.

... This got me wondering: Why aren't these things more common in RPGs? It seems like for every RPG that tries to push the genre forward, there are ten more that stick to the old ways of doing things. In particular, "random battle syndrome" REALLY gets on my nerves, even moreso because there are so many games that do something different--Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, the Lunar remakes, heck probably the oldest example I know is Ultima III (made in 1983)--and yet, many designers insist on sticking to the old random encounter model. Is it just traditionalism, lack of creativity, a bit of both or something else entirely?

Thoughts?

[treismac]

I'm not a big rpg man but, from my limited playing of them and observations of others playing them it seems to me that rpgs are steeped in repetitive gameplay ["grinding" anyone?], so I would think most fans of the genre would, for the most part, enjoy the regular fare with an occasional taste for the exotic that breaks from the normal patterns. The same old, same old is probably a-okay for 90% of the fans 90% of the time.

Two worthless cents from an outsider.

[IHatedSega]

It could be from a number of reasons from data storage to wanting to make the game unpredictable. With Chrono Trigger the battles were all programed specifically to those battles one after another, this was a huge pain in the ass to do, so Square and Enix never did that again. So making a system that has random encounters is easy and fast compared to that.

[substantial_snake]

It was probably a trend that originally was simply easy to program durring the 8-bit era that became traditional over time. I started getting into RPGs during the PS1 era and random encounter/turn based combat pretty much defined RPG for both I and my RPG newcommer friends at the time. That is not to say we didn't play alternative battle and encounter systems at the time but when Final Fantasy was huge the standards it laid really defined the genera for us and I think a lot of other RPG makes at the time wanted to stick with the tried and true formula rather then try something that may not work.

Personally my favorite RPG systems I've played are the Star Ocean 1-3 system and FFX's system.

Star Ocean's system rarely became dull because although it "transported" you to a battle map everything was constantly in motion. It effectively acted like an Action-RPG during battles and the ability to jump from 1 of your current 4 party members was a great idea that really kept things fresh as a player. I enjoyed FFX battle system because of how strategic you could play with the system in any situation. The battle turns listed in the side bar along with the ability to hot swap characters made it a lot of fun and resulted in using all of my characters pretty consistently, something I don't get a lot in RPGs.

[wiggyx]

Random encounters are like a double edged sword to me. On one hand, it's annoying as hell, and often more random than I'd care for. I.e. I'll be attacked every 4 steps on my way from a save point to a boss, or once every 100 steps when I'm wandering in circles to try and gain experience. On the flip side, if I could just sidestep a lot of those random battles, then I may not level up enough to have a chance against enemies later on.

I do like being able to choose, but ultimately I think I still prefer random battles.

[Wraith Storm]

As far as "random battles vs. visible enemies" goes, for me, it depends on the game. Usually I prefer random battles. With random battles there are many game mechanics that I love which you cannot implement with visible enemies. For instance, in Final Fantasy 1 there is an area near the entrance of a dungeon dubbed "The Hall of Giants". There is nothing in-game that tells you about it, but it is a corridor where every step you take you encounter a battle with a different type of giant. It's a good way to score gold and Exp early on. Not to mention just a cool idea. Then on Final Fantasy 6 there is a forest dubbed "Dinosaur Forest" and the only enemies you encounter there are dinosaurs. There are also some random islands out in the ocean that have enemies that are found nowhere else in the game.

It's always really neat to discover these things. Any time I see an odd spot on the map I go there and wander around for a bit hoping that there is some secret enemy or the like. If you can already see the enemies then it makes me less motivated to explore every nook and cranny of the game. If I can already see the enemy then I know what is in the area, or I know what is just ahead and it kills my inquisitive nature.

But thats not to say its all golden. If the encounter rate is ridiculously high then that also can kill my motivation to explore. Its a fine balance to be sure, and a lot of random encounter RPGs don't get it right but when they do I largely prefer them over visible enemies. Games like Grandia II which were designed with visible enemies in mind work very well. But that mechanic doesn't work for every RPG. Take something like the Lunar remakes on PS1. The originals on Sega CD were random battles, when they remade the game for PS1 they snipped the random battles and inserted visible enemies and it does not work. The game was not designed for visible enemies and it really clashes with the overall game design. It feels like they took two different game designs and shoehorned one into the other without reason.

As far as unique battle systems I can't say why so many developers stuck with the standard formula, but I will agree with you that the Grandia games have one of the best battle systems ever designed. Its a deep system without being overly complicated. There are lots of interesting, strategic and engaging battle systems however. Wild Arms 4 and 5 use the Hex grid to move characters and determine attack radius's. The different hexes also have different stat effecting attributes and it really spices things up. Shadow Hearts 1, 2 and 3 have the timed reflex based Judgement Ring. It's a kind of risk and reward system that really gets you engaged. Evolution has visible enemies and a battle system similar to Final Fantasy X (Although far better imo) where it relies on the positioning of players and the positioning of characters turns. Some atacks will knock enemies turns back a bit and allow your characters to have several consecutive attacks. It is surprisingly deep for what is usually regarded as a simple beginners RPG. As substantial_snake mentioned Star Ocean 2 has random battles but the battles themselves are very action based where you run around, switch between characters and perform attacks. Saving the best for last is Panzer Dragoon Saga. It has the unrivaled 360 degrees sync battle system. You have three gauges that fill (think Final Fantasy's ATB) and different actions require a certain amount of gauges to use. There are also the quick movements and strategic positioning between you and the enemy. Your dragon can move around the enemy and circle them to avoid their attacks and expose their weak points for maximum damage!

There are RPGs that break away from the traditional battle mechanics, but you have to dig a bit to find them.

[IHatedSega]

I didnt want to mention this, but it does have to do with the original topic. And thats playing with beads after youve grinded in Final Fantasy X. I really didnt see the point of it except as a waste of time, and it was just an attempt to make people think they had customization of leveling up characters. But its all roughly one straight line they just bent into circles. I prefer the way you level up in so many earlier RPG's and FF7 where you beat enemies and you automatically learn stuff and get stronger. The bead path is just an allusion of choice, where there really isnt any, youre going to learn all those things anyway and theres no point in making me have to waste time on this.

Thats just what I think about that useless thing which grinds my gears.

[Edmond Dantes]

I have to disagree with WraithStorm there--I don't know about Eternal Blue, but having played both versions of Lunar: the Silver Star, I liked that the remake let you see the enemies. It didn't feel clashing at all to me. Although, maybe I'll feel different once I've refreshed my memory and played both back-to-back.

when I play RPGs, I primarily like to explore. My mind is entirely on "Ooooh, what's over there?" and "Hey, I wonder what's in that chest?" Other times, I just want to get to the boss, or back to town, and its annoying to put up with an attack every two seconds when you don't really want to fight... especially if the monsters are powerful, or the battle system is involved enough to turn what should be a quick fight into a drawn-out affair (I had this problem with the TG16 game Order of the Griffon, which had the same pseudo-strategy battle mechanics as the AD&D Gold Box games and yet you ran into monsters far too often).

Although it is far easier to level up when encounters are random.

@IHatedSega - I noticed that about the Sphere System too. That kind of irks me about Squaresoft (errr, Square-Enix) games actually... half their "mechanics" are just dressing up something age-old and pretending its new just because they put a new face on it. I'm not falling for it.

[wiggyx]

@Wraith Storm - That patch of forest with the dinosaurs in FF6 is exactly what I was thinking of when I said that I'd be roaming around forever trying to be attacked LOL! Best place to level up towards the end of he game ;)

[Gameguy]

when I play RPGs, I primarily like to explore. My mind is entirely on "Ooooh, what's over there?" and "Hey, I wonder what's in that chest?" Other times, I just want to get to the boss, or back to town, and its annoying to put up with an attack every two seconds when you don't really want to fight... especially if the monsters are powerful, or the battle system is involved enough to turn what should be a quick fight into a drawn-out affair (I had this problem with the TG16 game Order of the Griffon, which had the same pseudo-strategy battle mechanics as the AD&D Gold Box games and yet you ran into monsters far too often).
It sounds like you'd rather be playing an Action-Adventure game than an RPG, something more like the Zelda games.

[kupomogli]

The reason why a lot of developers keep the random battle system is because it's an easier way to add balance to the game. You've got two types of people and how they play games when introducing battles which you can avoid by dodging. Those people who will fight every single battle, and those people who will attempt to avoid every battle. Each type will be either overpowered or underpowered.

I remember playing Star Ocean 3 for the first time and was dodging almost every single battle. It didn't take too long into the game before I couldn't beat any of the battles, some battles all of my characters would even get one shot by the enemies. The one part of the game where I met the group of women warriors, and when going to save the one you got on your team in a dungeon, every battle I either died, or nearly everyone came very close to dying. I had to go through a few dungeons just to get back to the very beginning of that world so I could level up.

I think Wild ARMs 2 and 3 did it best. It kept random battles, but you could dodge fighting the battles if the exclamation points were white. If you started getting too weak, it'd eventually force you into battles. If you didn't skip them or fought too much, it'd give a green one, telling you the battle was too easy. Widl ARMs 3 used this same style but gave you a certain amount of points. Depending on the difficulty of the battle, it'd take points to avoid, if it was green it'd take no points to avoid. So if you kept running away from battles, eventually you'd run out of points and would have to fight. Resting at an inn fully charges your points and each battle you fight adds one point back. It's a nice way to keep the random battle system, but also allow people to avoid a lot of those battles.

[Rickstilwell1]

This is why I like Suikoden so much. Instead of having to grind nearly as much, you can just take your strong characters and a few weak ones, then fight just a few battles to round your other characters' levels up close to your main ones. To level up even faster, send your companions to wait and go out fighting alone or with just 1 other, use a powerful spell to defeat strong enemies and gain more experience for having less people to divide it by.

You still want to fight most battles though because sharpening weapons gets VERY expensive near the end of the game.

[Nature Boy]

I think Random Battles would be far easier to take if I could also save anywhere/anytime.

I decided a week or so ago to replay Final Fantasy III on the SNES, and after humming and hawing on where to play it (The SNES, PS1, GBA, or PSP (emulating the SNES or PS1 versions) being my options), I ultimately decided on the SNES emaultor for PSP in large part because with an emulator I can save wherever I want to, so the aforementioned random battles don't irritate me as much.

I still find myself hesitant to explore (which is a side effect of random battles for me), because I've always hated having to waste healing items/magic because I went down a corridor the ended up being a dead end. But I can't really screw myself over because I can (and do) wisely use Save States so that I lose only 3 minutes if I mess up a boss battle, rather than 10-15 (or more).

I wanted to comment on the 'why is this still so common in RPGs': my guess would be that it still sells, although I will agree with you, as I don't know to whom. To me it's a nostalgic thing that works well for 90s games but not something I'd pay for in 2012.

[wiggyx]

^^^ Do you know if the newer FF games still employ random battles? I stopped playing about halfway through FF10, and haven't really even looked at another since.

[j_factor]

Are there any RPGs that have random battles on the world map, but visible enemies in dungeons? That would make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure there are, but my brain fails me right now.

[Genesaturn]

I guess I'm just old school. I love turn based RPG's. I can't seem to latch onto newer style RPG's at all. I do enjoy Grandia 2 and how they have a hybrid style however...Why do I like them more? Good question.....I don't have an answer for that.

[Edmond Dantes]

^^^ Do you know if the newer FF games still employ random battles? I stopped playing about halfway through FF10, and haven't really even looked at another since.

I believe either FF13 or FF14 finally incorporated visible enemies. As usual, Squeenix acted like this was some new feature that has never been done before :roll:


Are there any RPGs that have random battles on the world map, but visible enemies in dungeons? That would make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure there are, but my brain fails me right now.

I think the PSOne Lunar games were like that.

[MidnightRider]

I don't know if there's a definitive answer to why random battles are still in use, but Dragon Quest is monstrously popular in Japan, to the point where Yūji Horii is video games, to Japanese gamers.

[kupomogli]

^^^ Do you know if the newer FF games still employ random battles? I stopped playing about halfway through FF10, and haven't really even looked at another since.

Final Fantasy 11, although it's an MMO. Final Fantasy 12 has enemies visible on screen and plays like an offline MMO. Like Edmond Dantes stated, Final Fantasy 13 and 14 also have enemies visible on screen.

[Steven]

Are there any RPGs that have random battles on the world map, but visible enemies in dungeons? That would make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure there are, but my brain fails me right now.

Yes, Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals employed this clever mix system, and it worked really well. I liked being able to spot my enemies in the dungeons, but never knowing where they'd come on the world map. Lufia II in general was such a brilliant RPG

[Haoie]

Glad to see another Grandia II fan. I finished it a few months ago and it really impressed me, cliched as it was at many parts.

Action RPGs really are better!

[IHatedSega]

I think Random Battles would be far easier to take if I could also save anywhere/anytime.

I decided a week or so ago to replay Final Fantasy III on the SNES, and after humming and hawing on where to play it (The SNES, PS1, GBA, or PSP (emulating the SNES or PS1 versions) being my options), I ultimately decided on the SNES emaultor for PSP in large part because with an emulator I can save wherever I want to, so the aforementioned random battles don't irritate me as much.

I still find myself hesitant to explore (which is a side effect of random battles for me), because I've always hated having to waste healing items/magic because I went down a corridor the ended up being a dead end. But I can't really screw myself over because I can (and do) wisely use Save States so that I lose only 3 minutes if I mess up a boss battle, rather than 10-15 (or more).

I wanted to comment on the 'why is this still so common in RPGs': my guess would be that it still sells, although I will agree with you, as I don't know to whom. To me it's a nostalgic thing that works well for 90s games but not something I'd pay for in 2012.

Just do what I do and either level up like crazy or cheat with unlimited health and be lvl 99.

[j_factor]

Yes, Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals employed this clever mix system, and it worked really well. I liked being able to spot my enemies in the dungeons, but never knowing where they'd come on the world map. Lufia II in general was such a brilliant RPG

That's what I was thinking of! I loved Lufia II.

[BlastProcessing402]

Are there any RPGs that have random battles on the world map, but visible enemies in dungeons? That would make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure there are, but my brain fails me right now.I think the PSOne Lunar games were like that.

The PSX Lunar games had visible enemies in dungeons, but no encounters at all on the world map.

[FoxNtd]

All the different designs have their ups and downs, and they also give incentive to play different RPGs, don't they?

When I played the first two Final Fantasy games on FC I got to see how the random design can set up a challenge. In FF1 there was a tight limit on magic usage so you had to be cautious. In FF2 there was a tight limit on item inventory, plus the 2 items-per-char restriction for in-battle usage, and no way to save. I remember the very end of FF2 the most, your last save on the world map and literally walking into hell hoping to survive and win the game.

I can understand distaste for random encounters but they can make the game adequately tough. :)

[bigbacon]

I think FF12 got it right. I think that was the best system.

randoms are ok but sometimes just down right annoying.

I liked Grandia 2s system also.

[Aussie2B]

Are random encounters really that common in modern RPGs? It seemed like a dying trend to me, but then I haven't played through a ton of modern RPGs so maybe my perspective is skewed.

When I first really fell in love with RPGs, it was with games like Chrono Trigger, Lufia II, and Super Mario RPG, so from the beginning, I grew accustomed to RPGs that allow you to see what's coming and freely explore without interruption after clearing a room. I can tolerate random battles and some of my very favorite RPGs even sport them (the first two Star Ocean games, just to name a couple), but my preference will always lie with seeing enemies on the field.

[Daria]

I have to say that I also disagree with Wraith Storm. When I think of games with visable encounters done right I immediately think of the PSX Lunar remakes. Prehaps because I played them first, it never occured to me that the enemies seemed out of place. But, I loved the fact that if they spotted you they'd give chase. Yes the battles were possible to avoid, but it wasn't a sure thing.

Personally though my favorite battle system is the tactical encounter. Scripted story furthering battles that are individually crafted to be challenging. I just wish more SRPGs had more of an RPG wrapped around them, because too often they're just battle after battle. The original console Shining Forces are a great blend of strategy and exploration.

I also don't mind random battle systems that try something different to alliviete the inherent frustrations of stepping blindly into combat. I've played games that disabled encounters in certain areas once your levels got too high, or recently I was playing the XBA game Breath of Death VII. Each area has a set maximum number of random encounters you'll trigger before they stop appearing. After that if you want to grind you'll have to summon a battle from the menu.

[Wraith Storm]

I have to say that I also disagree with Wraith Storm. When I think of games with visable encounters done right I immediately think of the PSX Lunar remakes. Prehaps because I played them first, it never occured to me that the enemies seemed out of place. But, I loved the fact that if they spotted you they'd give chase. Yes the battles were possible to avoid, but it wasn't a sure thing.


That's similar to Evolution 1 & 2. The enemies acted the same way. You could see them but if they saw you they would chase after you for a little while. But if you were able to sneak up on them from behind you could get a preemptive attack. It was fun and engaging. I really enjoyed those games. So I can see why you like that style. I just didn't think it fit with the Lunar style.

I can't remember what issues I had with Lunar: TSSS on the PSX but I remember Lunar: EBC quite well. I had numerous issues with that game. I struggled through about 20 hours of it and was determined to beat it because I spent so much money on it. Eventually I just had to call it quits and stick with the Sega CD original.

I had also only played the Sega CD games about a year or two prior to playing the PSX ports so Nostalgia didn't really factor into my disliking of them. I just didn't like most of the changes that were made, they all seemed for the worse to me.



As for the random battles VS. visible enemies debate; If I remember correctly it was Tales of Destiny 1 and 2 on the PSX that had random battles but whenever you were in a room that had a puzzle to solve there were no enemies. I absolutely loved this. So I still had my random battles but they didn't interrupt or slow my progress when I had puzzles to figure out. This gave both games a nice flow and puzzles never felt cumbersome or dragged out due to random battles.

[FoxNtd]

I can't remember what issues I had with Lunar: TSSS on the PSX but I remember Lunar: EBC quite well. I had numerous issues with that game. I struggled through about 20 hours of it and was determined to beat it because I spent so much money on it. Eventually I just had to call it quits and stick with the Sega CD original.

What? I played both Lunars on Saturn; there was nothing so difficult that it was unbearable and dissuading to even finish the game. The games were awesome.

[Aussie2B]

I liked the visible enemies in Lunar too, but I haven't played either of the Sega CD games so I have nothing to compare the remakes to.

[Wraith Storm]

Oh, no. I didn't think that they were hard or difficult. There were just a lot of game mechanics and design changes made to the games that were very unappealing to me. It just killed my desire to continue playing. That's what I meant when I said "struggled through 20 hours".

Game Arts had just made Grandia and my friend Brandon imported it shortly after its release. We loved it and played through using fan translations and walkthroughs. It was unlike anything we had played to that point. Beautiful 3d, sweeping musical score, charming characters, an epic story and an excellent battle system.

We were also taken aback by the animation process for the cut scenes. They used CG for a lot of the environments and areas but then drew the characters over it with traditional hand cell animation. It looked great and was the first time we had ever seen this animation process.

After Grandia Game Arts went on to remake Lunar: EB and it just felt like they made all the wrong decisions to me. They attempted to implement the animation process they had used in Grandia but it ended up half baked. It no longer looked like it did in Grandia with two separate processes working together to create something special. Instead it really clashed and came off as generic and lazy.

Take for instance near the beginning of the game when you first meet Leo. When his ship first appeared all I could think was how terrible it looked. It screamed "glaringly obvious generic CG" and completely clashed with the hand cell animation. Honestly that was my first reaction. Instead of drawing me in it completely took me out of the game and all I could think was "Gee this looks horrible. Why didn't they just use full cell animation like the Lunar 1 remake?"

Then there are the visible battles like I mentioned earlier. I just didn't fell like it worked within the design of the game.

But the one thing that I remember REALLY pissing me off in Lunar: EBC was standard conversation. I usually talk to everyone in RPGs and usually multiple times as you never know what might happen. I remember half the people I talked to had upwards of 4 freaking dialog boxes of text and it was all pointless stuff. It wasn't interesting, it wasn't helpful, it wasn't funny, it was just bullshit and a chore to wade through all the pointless text. I could have probably shaved off a third of my play time by avoiding conversation with town folk. But then I would have felt like I was missing out on half the game. Seriously, who plays an entire RPG and doesn't talk to towns people? So I forced myself to wade through tons of forgettable dialog and it was just not enjoyable for me.

I normally love Working Designs translations (Albert Odyssey is an unforgettable classic in my book) so I'm not sure if its their translation to blame or if it stemmed from the original Japanese release. Either way there were numerous other issues I had as well but those were the biggies to me. I know a lot of people like the PSX remakes of Lunar, and that's fine, but I'm not one of them.

[Koa Zo]

After Grandia Game Arts went on to remake Lunar: EB and it just felt like they made all the wrong decisions to me.
GameArts did not make the remakes. iirc Kadokawa Shoten did the Playstation remakes.

[FoxNtd]

Oh I see. I never even had a taste of the Mega CD originals so I don't know what to compare the SS versions of Lunar to. I'm just aware that on SS the devs packed in everything originally intended to be in the game that the Mega CD didn't have the capacity to allow. I'm quite happy with both Lunar games. :) Apparently non-random encounters was a change coming from Mega CD and I'm not sure how I'd feel about random encounters for those games. Probably harder?

I did play Grandia too. I didn't think it was quite as good coming from Lunar 2, but still a fun game and I certainly loved the characters. The GBC spin-off was an interesting idea with its card system but overall I think the game wasn't so wonderful. Its most rewarding feature was seeing the Grandia characters and having them play their roles in it. I suppose the two new heroes from the ordinary realm were rather generic heroes really haha. One disappointment was how unbearable bosses can be towards the end of the game and you're probably stuck unless you resort to using that world's end card, I think it was, where its attack power continues to climb as you keep casting it. Then the scale of power tips too much the other way and you can wipe out ANY boss easily so long as you just stay alive long enough. Definitely some annoyances in design in overall play and battle for Parallel Trippers. Anyway I keep hearing good things about the primary series so I look forward to playing 2 and 3.

Also did Albert Odyssey Gaiden for SS and thought it was OK. But that's it, just OK. After finishing I knew I'd never bother giving it a 2nd spin so I sold it. For a $3-5 game it's not bad haha and entertaining enough that it's worth going through once. I did like the birdman character though, not a race you normally see in your party in an RPG. :) I wonder how the other titles are. I know there's one on SFC...

[BydoEmpire]

Different strokes for different strokes. I don't mind random battles in of RPGs if they're done right (and not too frequent). It adds a lot of suspense (i.e. can I make it back to town safely even though I'm low on health), and can force the player to make those kinds of strategic gambles. It really comes down to the design of the game, and the preference of the players. For the record, I liked Grandia II a lot.

[FoxNtd]

I don't mind random battles in of RPGs if they're done right (and not too frequent).

Hmm. Don't play SFC Tales of Phantasia. Ever. You will scream. :vamp:

[Edmond Dantes]

Seriously, who plays an entire RPG and doesn't talk to towns people?

I've met people who think Dragon Warrior is unbeatable without a walkthru. When asked, guess what they say.

Yeah -__-

.....

On the last page, Gameguy said I'd prolly be better off playing action-RPGs. He's prolly right. I don't really care for intricate storylines or characters these days, I like games that test me, and then I play RPGs primarily when I want to relax or take a break from getting shot at by Bydo aliens.

It wasn't always this way--RPGs were practically all I played when I was a teen--but after saving the world so many times it gets tiring.