Questions for jRPG fans

[grautry]

So, I'm developing a jRPG game for the iPhone and I'm looking for opinions on several matters related to gameplay so that I may better understand my audience.

So, if you're not a jRPG fan, please don't respond to this post because you're not in my target audience. :smallsmile:

If you are, please DO respond as it's going to help me make my game better and hopefully, more fun. You don't have to answer all the questions, obviously, if you feel like responding to question 1A only then it'll still be helpful to me.

1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?
B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?

2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.
B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?
C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?
D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?

3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?

4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?

5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot exactly what you're looking for?

If I think of any additional questions I might add them to the post but for the time being I figure that's enough.

Thanks in advance for any opinions.

[Ikialev]

1. Mixed opinion. Random Invisible Encounters don't bother me so much, but the best way it has been done was in Chrono Trigger, where all monsters were visible on map, and the fight was avoidable, but had to be done in order to play further. I could try not to fight, but when I accidentally did, I was not angry about it.

2. a) No, I don't think timing should make an impact on gameplay. Because I have reflex of a dead rock.
b) *skips*
c) Turn based with a turn-timer. Both in waiting and in a turn(like in Eternal Sonata).
d) No level scaling. This should not exist. I grind for a reason.

3. I like it, it gives me some knowledge of how to use this character. And all-rounds are boring.

4. See 5.

5. I love linearity in mah games, with no detours if possible. That's how jrpgs should be.

[Cubey]

1. Random encounters
They're not vital in my opinion. You can have them, you don't have to. But if you do, make sure the encounter rate is not too high. That's just annoying.
Random encounters can be invisible. No problem for me.

2. Combat
I like timing elements in jRPGs, and everything else that makes combat more than just a simple "select attack, select enemy, repeat". My favorite combat system was implemented in Super Robot Wars Saga: Endless Frontier: it's too long to describe it fully here, but to give a short version - in each round your character performed a sequence of attacks, and each attack could be interrupted in any moment. That means it dealt less damage than an attack that was executed fully, but each attack increased your Frontier Gauge (limit break, basically) to a much bigger degree if you cancelled it at an appropriate moment. There was also an issue of not letting the enemy fall to the ground from the juggling that attacks caused, because they could put their defenses back up or even worse, interrupt all your subsequent attacks in a round.

So basically, timing elements in my jRPG - good. The default style can be interesting as well, if it's given with a twist and attacks you use actually matter, such as in Persona 3 and 4, with a focus on elemental weaknesses.

Turn-based is fine. Real time elements - also fine, but depending on other combat mechanics. The World Ends With You, with its Okami-like battlefield manipulation was great for me. FF XII, with boring "perform the same attack over and over until enemy is dead" mechanics, not really.

Not a fun of scaling encounter challenges. If you want the player not to steamroll over weaker enemies, just make level not matter a whole lot instead.

3. Forced specialization
I prefer systems where you pick a party member because it's a character you like and want to see in your team, rather than because you need a healer/heavy hitter/defender/whatever else. So not really a fan of heavy specialization. Characters should have stuff they do best, but every team combination should be viable.

4. Mini games
No strong opinions here. If it's a well-made minigame, then I like it. But if it's a poor one, then expect me to be annoyed. Especially if it's a minigame that the game proper forces you to play at one point or the other.

5. Linearity
Non-linear is a welcome extra, but jRPGs are mostly about the story. So if your story is great, then so will be the game - even if it's 100% linear.

[Zevox]

You do realize it's only a JRPG if it's made in Japan, right? As in, not in Poland? :smalltongue:

Anyway, since I am a huge JRPG fan and we could get a conversation going out of this, I'll go ahead and give my answers.


1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?
Yea. I like them, and while I do find that games with non-random encounters can be enjoyable too (Knights of the Old Republic, for instance), I'd generally prefer the random ones if given the choice.


B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?
I was under the impression that recent Final Fantasy games had moved away from that, actually.

Anyway though, no, not a problem. I find it lends a "classic" feel to the game. It reminds me of some of the earliest JRPGs I played, such as the first few Dragon Quest games. I don't mind them being otherwise, either - for instance, the "Tales of" series does this quite well - but I'm plenty happy when a game does have "invisible" random encounters.


2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.
Depends. I can't think of many games that do that, but I can tell you that I was fine with it in Lost Odyssey, since it gives you a visual way to track your timing and the benefit of it is unnecessary to fight effectively. On the other hand, I was annoyed by it during the brief time I played Final Fantasy 8, which had a similar sort of timing game for Squall's attacks but gave you nothing to indicate when to use it and was difficult to tell whether you succeeded or not. I just stopped bothering with that one.


B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?
Hm. Well, since you mentioned it specifically, I'll say that the ring system in Lost Odyssey was nothing special and added little to the game.

On the whole, I'd say that which innovations work well will depend on the particular game. For instance, I like some of the things that the Shin Megami Tensei games do differently, such as granting you an extra attack if you strike an enemy with an attack they're weak against or with a critical hit, or in the Persona sub-series also knocking an enemy down when they take one of those types of hits and then allowing your group to do an all-out attack for huge free damage if all enemies are knocked down, creating a combat system where you need to abuse such tactics to overwhelm your enemies before they can do the same to you. But that doesn't mean I'd want that in all JRPGs.

Similarly, I like some of the systems experimented with in the Xenosaga trilogy. Those systems would really take entirely too long to explain in detail, but just as a couple of examples: the second game was set up such that even normal enemies could not be easily defeated unless you took advantage of their weak points, which were usually elemental. There was also a system where attack struck a "zone" on the enemy - C for low, B for mid, or A for high - and striking a combination of these "zones" in succession would "break" the enemy's guard, leaving them vulnerable. That meant you did increased damage and could hit them with an "air" or "ground" attack to knock them into the air or over onto their back respectively, which would further increase the damage you did to them, and in the case of the air status force them to wait an extra turn recovering when they fell back to the ground. All three of these games also had a "boost" system which both you and your enemies could use, whereby a meter filled up during the course of battle as you dished out and received damage, and for each time it filled up you could boost a character, making their turn move up to be immediately after the current one. This was used in combination with the "break" system I described from 2 because the "break" status would not last between multiple characters' turns unless you used a boost (with the exception of the "air" status mentioned before taking an extra turn to fall to the ground).

But again, all of that does not mean I'd want a system like that for all JRPGs, just that I felt it was a good innovation for those particular games.


C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?
Entirely turn-based. There are some rare occasions where a mixed turn-based and real-time system works well - Knights of the Old Republic, for instance - but I do not like Final Fantasy's "active time battle" system at all, and in general prefer purely turn-based or purely real-time systems to any system that combines the two.


D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?
Not sure, I rarely notice whether a game is doing this or not. In general I don't think it should be necessary, unless the game is actively set up to facilitate great grinding, like the Disgaea series is (and even there enemy scaling is voluntary - you have to the Dark Assembly to approve an increase to the level of your enemies). I'd usually consider it poor game design if you can just stumble into an area with enemies far above your ability to handle at the time, regardless of whether enemies scale or no.


3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. When I hear "forced character specialization," I think you're referring to characters simply having a theme of what they're good at - i.e. one is a mage, one is a tank warrior, one is a healer, etc - and not being able to deviate from that much. That I rather like. Anything which enables too much character customization in non-tactical RPGs ends up detracting from the characters' individuality in battle, which I find to be a very bad thing. For instance, in the aforementioned Xenosaga games, particularly in 2, this was a problem. In 2, all of the characters selected their special attacks, spells, etc from the same universal list, spending points earned in battle to unlock them. This lead to there being clear abilities that it was best to have everyone select, such as healing magic and magic to grant elemental effects to characters' normal attacks, which made each character feel more alike, and thus more generic, in battle. That's bad.

On the other hand, what you describe after "forced character specialization" sounds simply like an unavoidable part of having characters with different stats. Someone is always going to be the best at their particular class' role, no matter how you work it. The question is simply whether the game is balanced enough that even using the worst (or at least some lesser characters) at that role is viable, or if you have to use the best to expect to win.


4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?
Minigames are of minimal importance and should always be optional. If I find the game enjoyable, I'll play it (Pazzak in KotOR and Blitzball in FF 10 are examples of this). If I don't, I'll want to avoid it like the plague (anything with Chocobos seems to be an example of this). Either way, I'd rather it not be linked to anything of importance. Example of an extremely annoying, just plain bad minigame: the "lightning dodging" minigame from FF 10, where you had to hit a button just after seeing a flash to avoid being struck by lightning in a certain area of the game, and got rewards for doing so a number of times in a row - the ultimate reward of which was one character's ultimate weapon. No - bad minigame, extremely annoying to play, and linked to an item you really want to have to do some of the post-game material.

Sidequests should be in just about any good RPG, but shouldn't be too expansive in number. They should never reach the point where they start to overshadow or even challenge the main story's predominance as a part of the game. This was one big complaint I had against Fallout 3 and Final Fantasy X-2, for instance. And in general, I would save the biggest side-quests for post-game content - something to do after you've beaten the main story, not something to distract you during it.


5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot okay?
Actually, I feel JRPGs benefit from their linearity more often than not. It allows them greater control over when and where particular story events occur, which tends to make for better storytelling. I've yet to see a game which makes a non-linear structure seem actually superior to a linear one to me, even simply within that game's context.

Games which do significantly non-linear gameplay at best don't benefit from it, and at worst suffer from it, in my opinion. For instance, I don't see the point to the degree of non-linearity in Bioware games - you can select what order to do a few different main-story quests in in their games. So what? It adds nothing to the game, and sometimes results in story events which are oddly placed or forced to occur in whichever area you do first/second/last/whatever (such as the fight with a particular Lotus Assassin leader during the second chapter of Jade Empire, which always occurred as you were leaving the last of the three main quest areas you went to), which just comes across as odd.

For games that suffer from it, I'd point to Fallout 3, which felt like a game with a whole lot of space and nothing worthwhile to do. Every time you turned around there was another side-quest shoved your way, always simple and usually uninteresting, and it was easy to forget there even was a main quest to pursue. That bogged the game down, made it boring, like I was just wandering around doing a series of simple, unrelated, pointless tasks. Really doesn't help that the main quest was boring itself, but the non-linearity of the game hurt it a lot as well I'd say.

Zevox

[Comet]

Random encounters- with moderation, preferably with enemies visible on the map.

Combat- whatever you can think of to make it interesting, go for it.

characters- no preference, either way works. If you can make their mechanical development reflect their development as a person, definetly go for the 'forced' growth.

sidequests- getting increasingly bored of them recently. The enjoyment I get from JRPGs comes mostly from the story, and the sidequests don't really offer much in that regard.

Linearity- not hoping for a sandbox, but I'd definetly like to see some alternate paths through the game. Nothing too complex, just the opportunity to pick between different paths and alter the storyline slightly through dialogue trees, choice of party members etc. A majority of my favourite JRPGs all contain this element and I think having the player make some decision every now and then really works towards immersing them in the world.

[Makensha]

1. Random encounters.
A) I do think random encounters are good, but not when you can't take two steps without another encounter. Maybe having "off the beaten path" areas you never have to touch but have a high random encounter rate and then for normal paths have a much lower rate?
B) I always have hated random encounters where I am just about to get to a town... and then it starts. Visible is not nearly as annoying.

2. Combat.
A) Do you mean those bars that have to fill up before you can attack? Not my favorite mechanic. I never played Lost Odyssey, so I don't know what the rings you are talking about are.
B) Quick forms of transportation. I'm serious. Dungeon crawling might be fine when I'm in the dungeon, but taking ten minutes to get to said dungeon is not fine.
C) Turn Based. Unless you are making an Action RPG, turn based.
D) NO. The idea of leveling is to be able to take on an enemy you find too hard, not go up 5 levels and find your enemy to be even harder (or just slightly easier). If you do have scaling, what about a "scaling cap," Where something only scales with you until a certain point? For instance, the level 1 wolf will scale with you until level 5, but then wolves will just stay level 5 after that.

3. I like to have two or three choices, but not everyone can do everything. Makes characters lose their identity.

4. I find mini-games a waste of time. I thrive on side missions.

5. I find linear stories generally have the most power to them.[/QUOTE]

[Corlindale]

Bear in mind that I do not have experience with a particularly broad range of jRPGs outside of FF and Persona.

1. Random encounters.
I don't really mind random encounters, for the most part. The only time I become really annoyed with random encounters is if I'm in some kind of puzzle-area where I'm going back and forth trying to solve a puzzle while encounters are constantly breaking the flow. FFIX was particularly problematic in this respect, great game though it was.

Actually, I might like the way Persona or Okami handles random encounters better. The encounters are actually visible and avoidable, while still causing the gameplay to switch to a seperate battle mode when touched.

2. Combat.
A) I'm not a big fan of timed elements. I didn't care much for the timed parts of the super-abilities in the various FF games.
B) I'm not familiar enough with the genre as a whole to be qualified to answer this.
C) Entirely turn-based, FFX or Persona-style, has always been my preference. But I'm sure people will differ widely on this issue.
D) Mostly nay, though I suppose it could be done well in some cases. See FFVIII, a strange example of a game that very counter-intuitvely punishes the player for levelling.
Also, I tend to like it when a jRPG gives you access to areas with enemies way above your power level for an added challenge - or a lesson in humility to be followed by triumph 10-15 levels later when you return to said area. . While I did not care much for FFXII in general, this particular aspect was actually pretty well implemented - though it perhaps had the nasty side-effect of encouraging grinding a little too much.

3. I think a good jRPG should strike a balance between customizability and pre-set "classes" for characters. Too much customizability and the individual characters will seem bland and flavourless (see FFXII) - too little and the whole character-building aspect may not be prominent enough (FFIX, to some extent - though the individual characters definately had very distinct feels and flavour because of the lack of customization, so maybe not entirely a bad thing here).

4. Depends strongly on the mini-game in question. In general I think mini-games should be a) entertaining, b) offer some benefit in relation to the main game and c) be for the most part entirely optional.
Triple Triad from FFVIII may be my favourite mini-game, and it clearly fitted all 3 criteria above. (Of course, it was kind of a problem that the rewards from the game were so great they could severely overpower your party almost from the get-go:smallsmile:)
Blitzball from FFX was decent too, but at length it got repetitive, and the fact that every match had to last 10+ min. made it feel less casual than many other mini-games (I never got Wakka's ultimate, but I imagine it would start to feel like a real chore to play that amount of Blitz games - which is BAD).

5. I don't mind linearity in my jRPGs - linearity can help facilitate good storytelling, and I guess I've come to expect linearity from jRPGs. I tend to go to western RPGs when I want something more non-linear and sandboxy.
EDIT: I do like to have a "world map" or equivalent with a lot of optional locations to explore, though. But this is fully compatible with a very linear story.

[tyckspoon]

I was annoyed by it during the brief time I played Final Fantasy 8, which had a similar sort of timing game for Squall's attacks but gave you nothing to indicate when to use it and was difficult to tell whether you succeeded or not. I just stopped bothering with that one.


..what, really? It forced the attack to be a critical hit. You could tell when you'd done it right because there was an explosion instead of just the usual sword-slash mark across the enemy.

[Domochevsky]

1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?
B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?


A. To a certain extend yes, assuming i can circumveit them if i get tired of it, which leads directly into
B) YES. The Grandia series of games did it pretty well, with being able to see the opponents and making them specifically engageable (Running into them while unaware for surprise attack...or being run into from the back for the same.)




2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.
B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?
C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?
D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?

A) Not really, no. It requires reflexes of a gamer that expects to have all the time in the world to think and act. Kind of a break with expectations, and not in a good way.

B) Hum... a difficult one. Not having to wait between actions is one. (No bar that fills up, just straight up combat order that is visible on a long line) Being able to skip longer combat animations or having a "Show always long/show only the first long, then short/show always short" setting. Engaging mobs which are ridiculously weaker than you flee automatically from you or are automatically defeated in order to not waste your time. (like how the battle transition is longer than the fight itself...)

C) Depends on how you are going to present it. Personally i prefer that everything waits for my input so i have time to think and hand out commands.

D) Mostly nay. Having them scale would diminish the feeling of progress the player has. (I remember Loki... horrible game. Everything was always exactly as strong as you. 2 hits to kill a mook from start to end.)




3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?

Im cool with that. I want my mage to be better at being a mage than the fighter. Always. (That also makes it easier to give the character a "theme"/characterization if he/she isn't a generic DoWhateverYouWant.)




4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?

Ugh... boring and annoying time waste.




5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot exactly what you're looking for?

Mostly linear. You want to tell a story first and foremost. I say "mostly" because i want things to progress in a linear fashion but the worldmap should NOT be a single corridor from start to end with things lined up left and right. Make it "round" and believable.

[Prime32]

1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?They annoy me. You could go with something like...
Chrono Trigger: You can see the monsters on the map. Coming within a certain distance of one starts a fight. There is no transition to a battle screen, the controls just pop up over the normal map. Monsters are positioned so that it's hard or impossible to get around them.

Mario RPG series: Monsters wander around the screen and run at you if they see you. Touching a monster starts a battle. You can also attack monsters to start a battle, which results in every monster in the battle taking damage (or being stunned, if you used the hammer)

Pokémon series: There are random encounters, but only in tall grass. Tall grass only covers part of the area, you can avoid it some of the time, and you are encouraged to enter it to find new mons.

B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?
HATE HATE HATE


2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.I'm not familiar with Lost Odyssey, but the Mario RPG series had "Action Commands (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ActionCommands)". If you selected the Jump command and pressed a button just as Mario landed on the enemy he would deal extra damage. If you messed up the timing Mario would stub his foot. Combination attacks required multiple button presses to avoid fumbling the attack. When enemies attacked you could press a button to jump, dodging the attack or even hitting the enemy depending on your timing.


C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?I do not like it when enemies attack me if I spend too long scrolling through my attacks, if that's what you mean.

D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?Trying to increase the stats of monsters to match the players tends to backfire rather easily. If I go back to my home village when I'm level 70 and have the Sword of Unmaking Heaven, I do not expect rats to still challenge me. If the rats are suddenly replaced by ogre elites, then I can take it if it's a once-off thing and it happened because of a story event rather than my stats. Best just to put higher-level enemies in later areas.


3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?
Do you even need to be able to switch classes? I always thought that was weird and made the characters less distinct. Heck, do you even need classes? I think you should be able to have two characters in your party who could be described as "paladin" but who have completely different abilities.


4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?I can only answer this on a case-by-case basis. I tend not to get too interested in minigames, but many do. What is frustrating is if you need to play a minigame to advance the main story, like how in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess you had to catch a fish and give to a cat, despite not having accurate instructions on how to do so.


5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot exactly what you're looking for?Isn't that one of the main distinctions? Apart from not being able to allocate points to different places I mean. Go linear with a few optional side-plots.

[Terraoblivion]

1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?
B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?

Completely removing any kind of random or generic encounters would be quite a change to the genre. However, i really don't like random encounters that just pop up out of nowhere every few steps. It always comes off jarring to me, like i am shaken out of what i am doing in a way that visible encounters aren't. I prefer a style similar to Persona, Okami or so many other games mentioned where touching a visible enemy brings you to a separate battlefield to fight them.


2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.
B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?
C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?
D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?

While i don't love timing elements, i don't have a problem with them either. If they are included, however, they should be a well-documented, integral part of combat and not an appendix relegated to merely being part of a special attack that doesn't work otherwise.

As for innovations i did like the press turn system of Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne, where hitting weaknesses and critting gave you extra turns, while hitting resistances made you lose turns. Other innovations i can think of tie much into the specific flavor of the game in question, though that might just be blindness on my part. And please, for the love of god, don't do something like the ATB system of Final Fantasy IV through IX. I always hated that system, though the inconsistency with which Square dealt with it didn't help.


3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?

Some of this is good, but not too much. There should also be enough redundancy that a wide variety of different party members would be viable, to fit who you like. There should be several viable healers, tanks and so on for example, to avoid anybody being forced to use a character they just don't like. A customizable main character could go a long way to help with that. However, the degree to which characters are locked into a specific path depends a lot on the narrative. If their skills represent pre-existent training or stems from their psychological make-up, then there should be less customization than if there is a large storyline and gameplay segregation on this. But as long as there are several redundancies among the party forced specialization is not too bad.


4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?

Some sidequests are generally a good thing, especially to give more to do for those who want something more than just following the plot. It also allows for extra challenge beyond what a general audience will want. Minigames on the other hand can go die in a fire. I cannot think of any minigame that i thought had improved the game it was placed in.


5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot exactly what you're looking for?

In a story-focused game like a jRPG linearity is a good thing. It helps build a proper narrative arc and place tension at the proper time. Complete linearity is of course not desirable, but the deviations from it should ultimately be pretty minor and not really affect the order of plot events. That is unless you want to go for multiple endings in which case the game should allow for ways to distinguish which the player is headed towards.

[Erloas]

I think so many of the questions comes down to "it depends." Every one of the options works well in some games and not in others, and some combinations make one thing an issue where it isn't an issue without some other design decisions.

The other big thing is a lot of these things would change based on what system you are developing the game for. Seeing as you are targeting the iPhone (which means I for one would never even think about maybe playing it) that is going to need to be taking into account in a lot of design decisions.

Things like turn-based or real time combat will have a lot to do with how you want people to be able to play the game. Is it going to require 100% of their attention at all times while playing or is it something they can leave and come back to quickly?

Depending when you can save will affect random encounters too. If you can only save at certain check-points, just outside of combat, or any time at all that will change things. If there are check-point saves and someone needs to save quickly to do something else with the phone then random encounters are going to get annoying very quickly.

Timing elements to the game are going to depend a lot on how much of an impact you expect them to have and how easy they are to actually do given the controls of the device. If you expect players to get the bonus all the time and design accordingly but its not actually that easy to get right then the game will be harder then it should be. If you expect the timing to be rare and make it powerful, but it ends up being easy to do then you trivialize many encounters.

Mini-games depends on how much time you have to spend doing them and what you get out of them.

Character skill advancement, linearity, and side quests, has a lot to do with how much of a story you want to tell. If you have a good story linearity isn't as much of an issue. If characters are strongly defined by the story and you can build them to no longer fit the story that can be a problem. If you design the game to need X different abilities at Y points in the game its probably best to have more defined character advancement so people have what they need to get through the game. Nothing is worse then having to grind out levels because you didn't get a character with ability X at this point in time to get past some encounter. Side quests also depends on the story. If you want to make a believable time sensitive story then give the option to do 1000 trivial side quests but the "imminent threat" still never happens until they chose for it to happen then that takes away from the believability of the story.
And if you have a lot of side quests, then scaling encounters to the level of the characters is going to be important. If you don't scale and someone does more or less of the side quests then you estimated then their levels going forward are going to make the story missions too easy or too hard.


So the short answer is, every aspect works ok in some games. How well easy aspect goes over has more to do with the implementation then the mechanic itself. And most of it is more dependent on what fits with the game then anything else.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?
B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?


Don't really mind either way, but I do like them visible, as in The World Ends With You. Actually, TWEWY did a lot of things very right, and random enounters was very much one of them.



2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.
B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?
C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?
D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?


A) I like timing elements. I'm not familiar with the aiming rings system, but a quick gander on wikipedia makes it look fairly neat. Kinda like FFVIII's 'hit x for extra damage' mechanic, yes?
B) Semi-real time combat, as others have mentioned. Taking hits lowers a character's position in the initiative order, etc etc.
C) I like the semi real time, as long as it semi enough. I like being able to take my time to think.
D)Neither, really? Scaling mosters are really hard to pull off, and disc one nukes... I don't like them much. Ideally the player should be able to decide at what difficulty s/he wants to play at. See also: Things TWEWY Did Right Number 53.




3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?


I prefer to able able to make my team based entirely on who I think is a cool character that interacts awesomely with other characters, and not who has awesome stats and great synergies with other characters' abilities.

So for me it's less about a given character being better than another character at something, and more about any team line up being viable.



4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?


Sidequests: Hell yeah. Absolutely essential to giving the world some colour and showing that while your merry band is busy chasing the big bad villain, other things happen too.

Minigames can be be fun, but should always be entirely optional. And I don't mean 'Sure it's optional! You'll just have to do without all the best armours and weapons in the game'-optional. I mean really, truly, 'I think this minigame is stupid but I can happily pretend it doesn't even exist'-optional.




5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot exactly what you're looking for?


I'm looking for a good plot with engaging characters. Non-linearity can be nice, linearity can be nice. I'm not really fussed either way.



If I think of any additional questions I might add them to the post but for the time being I figure that's enough.
Thanks in advance for any opinions.

I have one other bit. Don't make the main character a blank slate the player is supposed to relate to/identify with. Make the main character an awesome character in his own right. He or she is the main character, after all. This is not a problem for most jRPGs, but so rampant amongst other genres it's worth bringing up.

[Terraoblivion]

Yeah, it is not like it isn't easier to identify with a real character than a blank slate. Even if said character is nothing like you. After all there is still something there that can be identified with and if it is written well enough it is not like most people cannot understand the underlying psychology behind their actions.

[Weimann]

Well, I'm fan in that I don't dislike them any more than I dislike any other game genre in particular. Good jRPG is good, bad jRPG is bad. I hope that qualifies.


1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?I don't like them much. In most cases, they aren't bringing anything to the table, except increased playtime for grinding xp.

What bothers me most about them is that they hinder movement across maps. It's okay if a group of monsters ambush you in a place that's supposed to be dangerous, but when you are just trying to make your way between places, they can be really time-consuming. This is particularly true later in the game, when most random encounters are one-shottable.


B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?Random encounters that are visible can be avoided, and thus not really random.


2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.I like the idea of something more than the usual stat-mongering. It gives battle interactivity, which is what battles are supposed to be about, right?


B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?I've not player that many, so I can't really comment on this. What I'd like to see is some kind of interactivity between player and character in real time. Maybe pressing up, down, left and right can produce differently aimed slashes when using your sword technique? Which may or may not have any mechanical purposes.


C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?Real time combat, to a degree. I feel turn-based combat is a staple of what says RPG, but it's customizable. Maybe some kind of tick system a la White Wolf's Exalted or Scion lines?


D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?Scaled encounters, hands down. I want encounters that are always relevant, and brings me rewards. Lowlevel encounters bring neither xp nor entertainment.


3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?I have nothing against bias towards a certain class, or even straight out stating what class the characters are.


4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?As long as you relate the minigame to something in the game, it's a-okay. A collection/trading/tournament chain through the game is enjoyable, if it results in some actual reward with relevance to the game.


5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot exactly what you're looking for?Main storyline is a must. The more involved the better.

[Istari]

1. Random encounters.
A) I like to see random encounters similar to Baulder's Gate, where you had them, but only on the travel map which was used infrequently
B) I prefer visible if the encounters are going to happen fairly often, but if they don't pop up constantly invisible is no problem.

2. Combat.
A) Not really.
B) Can't think of anything off the top of my head
C) Real time elements can make combat more interesting, but make sure the system is easy to navigate, so they can pick out the item or spell they want to use quickly.
D) I think some scaling is good, but monsters that scale up should not be as powerful as other monsters of that level, so that as I level up I can notice the difference.

3. I don't like forced specialization, I don't mind characters with higher magical power being poor fighters, no no character should be the best at every aspect of a certain class

4. I enjoy occasionally having a distraction form the main plot, but if it becomes required or psuedo-required (Not, technically required but bypassing it handicaps you) then I get frustrated.
5. I enjoy when plots give you some choices that are not completely linear, KotR was nice because there was plenty of different options but the plot was sill there, as long as there is enough plot guidance that you never get stuck trying to figure out what to do.

[potatocubed]

1. Random encounters don't start out annoying, but become annoying. If you made it so that they no longer occur once you out-level a particular area that would help a lot.

Also, I'm thinking of a particular bit of Lost Odyssey (a haunted house or something similar - it's been years since I played it) where the first few encounters kicked my ass and I struggled to win, but once I'd learned the attack patterns I could own them in one, maybe two turns. Once the encounters stop being interesting, they start being irritating.

Also, if you do ditch them you're going to have to come up with a new way to level up characters and gain money/equipment.

Visible and invisible each have advantages and disadvantages; I have no preference. Although even when other encounters are invisible I do like it when boss encounters are visible (was it Enchanted Arms that did this?). It gives you a bit of a heads up rather than Sudden Boss Fight Argh I Haven't Saved In Six Hours.

2. I love my turn-based combat. To be honest, I would rather see more strategic features implemented a la Devil Survivor (Which allies do you take? Which powers do you have them learn? How do you combine them?) than any sort of real-time extra bonus. Plus I'm wondering how much real-time goodness you're going to be able to implement on an iPhone.

When it comes to scaling, I love the system used in (non-JRPG) Fallout 3: encounters scale with your character, but they scale within a range that is dependent on how dangerous the area is. A noob zone, for example, might cover levels 1-6. A dangerous area might run from 15-20. Go back to the noob zone at level 20 and you'll pwn everything. Go to the dangerous area at level 10, and you'll be lucky to make it out alive vs. level 15 beasts.

3. When it comes to character specialisation... well. I like character personality to be divorced from the class, since often I find myself liking a particular character and wanting them in my party, but then finding I can't cope with a lot of encounters because I haven't got an optimal combination of classes. (NWN2 I'm looking at you. Also, Dragon Age.)

That said, my ideal setup is one where each character leans towards two or three different classes or skill sets, and any of them are equally viable. Perhaps Mad Jake McMad is most suited to the berserker, tank, and fire elementalist classes - making him a white mage is stupid, if I even have the option, but I can still tweak him to suit my party composition.

4. I don't mind sidequests and mini-games, so long as they are optional. Having to do them in order to get anywhere sucks. (Mass Effect 2, this means you.) Having to do them in order to get the absolute best stuff for your party is okay, so long as I don't need that stuff to complete the game or understand the plot. (My first playthrough of FF7 was done without KotR, which was fine; without Yuffie, which was fine; and without Vincent, which meant a lot of stuff that explained the backstory never happened. My second playthrough, with the aid of a guidebook, was rather more satisfying.)

5. I think one of the main strengths of JPRGs is the strong central storyline - when they have a strong central storyline. When they don't, they often suck. Of course, I would also like to see a greater ability to affect the way that storyline plays out - I think you could do a lot worse than check out the Shin Megami Tensei and Persona games (and Chrono Trigger, natch) to see how your actions can still colour the central plot without changing it completely.

[Winthur]

You do realize it's only a JRPG if it's made in Japan, right? As in, not in Poland?


Didn't Lech Walesa plan to make "a second Japan" out of Poland? :smalltongue:

[Triaxx]

1A) I say yes, because they give the opportunity to practice in areas near a safe spot, unlike dungeons which even if the route is safe are a long trek from the nearest inn/healing location.
1B) One of the things Pokemon got right, is the tall grass. Stay off that and you're safe from encounters. But if you venture in, it's your choice. (Once you've got cut that is.)

2A) I haven't played Lost Odyssey, but I did play Legend of Dragoon and it worked quite well there.

2B) The aiming rings.

2C) The turn-based games promote more of a thinking response, but the active ones make it more actiony. The later is better if you have customizable menus.

2D) No. No one ever gets scaling right. EVER.

3) I'd rather be able to specialize the characters myself.

4) Side-quests are a must for the good gear, and mini-games allow for breaks in the pacing, but they shouldn't be MUST's.

5) Balance of the two. It should be linear enough that you're not hunting madly for the plot, but no so much that the route is the only one available.

[valadil]

1. Random encounters.

A) They don't really affect me one way or the other, as long as you can move more than two steps between each fight. Maybe give the players 10 seconds of movement with absolutely no random encounters after each fight. I also like the FF: Tactics model (which was later borrowed by DA: O) which is a set map with cities and encounter areas. Each encounter area has a chance of spawning a fight. But you'll rarely pass more than two of these between any two cities. In DA: O you can hit exactly one random encounter each time you travel. It's a good way to limit how much time is spent on random meaningless fights.

B) I prefer invisible encounters. If I can see them I'm going to avoid them. Then I end up underleveled. If enemy levels scale, this isn't a problem however.

2. Combat.

A) Only if they're optional. I play RPGs when I don't want to use twitchy reflex skills. The game should be beatable without them.

B) I like having a battlefield to fight on. A line of three people swinging at a line of 1-4 monsters bothers me. In recent memory, Eternal Sonata had an awesome battle system, albeit a crappy plot. I'd like my people to be able to move anywhere and I'd like the movement to matter.

C) On an iPhone? Turn based. I don't like real time games on the iPhone. Touching moving things while your finger blocks view of the moving things pisses me off.

D) Sliding difficulty is better if you're a lazy developer. If the difficulty is set in stone, you need to be aware of exactly how much XP the group should have gotten by now. What if they had miraculous luck and hit 0 random encounters? The player should not be punished for that. Of course, set difficulty means players can grind to make the game easy. Is that an option you want? If you have sliding difficulty you don't have to worry about under or over level characters anymore.

3. I don't like forced specialization, but I'm not bothered by it either. I can even deal with a game with no customization whatsoever. All I ask is that if you tell me I can customize my characters, I should be able to do so in a meaningful way.

4. Sidequests are a good thing. I will almost always play them. I enjoy mini games if they're included. I don't notice when they're not.

5. My thoughts on linearity are similar to my thoughts on customization. Don't tell me a game is non linear if it's mostly linear with a couple branches that don't really matter. A couple branches that give you different dialogue and a different boss fight or two do not count as a non linear plot. Something more like Dragon Age does (I realize I'm using this a lot and it's not a jRPG, but it's simply the best RPG I've played in a long, long time). They're not RPGs, but the Jedi Knight games gave one branch. Light side or dark side. But each of those paths was different enough that they were both worth playing. There was only one choice but the choice was meaningful.

I don't know how you feel about tactical games, but I'm of the opinion that FF Tactics is the best RPG I ever played. I'd like to see more games like it. Even if you don't go with the full battlefield, the initiative system alone is worth copying. Basically, some actions take longer than others. Casting a spell might take 10 ticks on the initiative counter. By that point people may have moved. Or they may have attacked you to disrupt the spell. Slow casting is a great way to include powerful spells, without encouraging people to spam them.

[Zovc]

1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?

I'm divided on this issue, but I am definitely more leaning towards "Nay." The problem is, it's hard to 'balance' to a party that skips as much combat as possibile, then have it still challenge a player who fights every enemy he can.

B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?

How else could they be random? That is, how else would you not have control over them?

--

2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.

Timing makes for a great gimmick, but it tends to get sour for me. Legend of Dragoon had an accessory which automatically 'aced' timings for you.

B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?

I liked Persona's combat system. I also liked Time Stalkers* combat system.

*PM me if you want to ask me about it, I'm quite sure you've never played it.

C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?

I really liked Persona's "1 more!" system. Essentially, when a character uses a "super effective" attack, you knock your opponent down and get an extra turn (It's "knocking them down" that triggers the extra turn, so you can't exploit an enemy until they're dead). In addition to that, getting up takes up a character's turn. So, elemental strengths and weaknesses play a huge role in the game's combat.

D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?

I'm divided on this. It's usually frustrating for me when not, because I tend to skip as much combat as possible, then get demolished a few boss battles down the line. (It's actually IMPOSSIBLE for me to beat the boss I'm at in Persona 4 without grinding on one of my saves.) The problem with scaling is, if it's generous, there is less of a sense of progression.

--

3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?

Yes and no. I'd like for each of my characters to be competent in multiple areas. It makes it a lot easier to make 'my own dreamteam'. 'The party warrior' doesn't have to be a great wizard or thief, but it'd be cool if I could have him be a good healer if I want. In Persona 3 & 4, I wished my party members could change personae--not even to the extent that the main characters could--so that my party's entire composition was more dynamic, not just one character.

--

4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?

They are generally either "absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste."*

*Another page you might want to take out of Time Stalkers' book.

--

5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot exactly what you're looking for?

I'm all for non-linearity.

[Zeful]

1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?
B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?It's mostly just a stylistic choice. It doesn't really matter.


2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.Seeing as that would promote unnecessary attacks on the screen (speed=power after all). No, not timed hits.

B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?FFX's CMB system (pulled from the Final Fantasy Tactics series). Each action has a "delay" attached. Smaller delays and high speeds mean that certain characters attack more often without the sheer badness of the Active Time Battle System.

C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?Turn based. The Active Time Battle System only works with very limited options (FF5 You generally had only three options throughout the game (Attack, Run or Item). The only variation was what attack you were using.

D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?I've thought of an interesting balance between the two. Event Based Scaling: You program in a series of "flags" that detect party level at critical junctures (beat a big bad's lieutenant) and the level range prompts different responses from certain characters and change a specific area's encounters. This way places can have encounters change while still making sense (if you powergrind to level 99 the Big bad is going to send more powerful monsters after you rather than the ones that would have challenged you 50 levels ago). It would be pretty complicated, but I think it would be rather fun.


3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?I'd like a little of both. Maybe not with stats or anything. But a small grouping of abilities for each character that I can control (kind of like Diablo 2's skill system rather than FF5's Job system or FFX's Spheregrid).


4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?I've got nothing against them, but they have to have decent rewards for the time spent on them.

[Airk]

1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?
B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?


A lot of people seem to be getting hung up on the use of the word "random" here - I assume you essentially mean "trash encounters that don't further the plot and serve only as minor obstacles and XP building opponents" So...

1a) They're pretty fundamentally difficult to remove, and indeed, if you did, I'm not sure what would be left of the game play (See, FF12 where they essentially abstracted out the combat system as if they were embarassed by how little fun it was). They have to exist, or you just have the player walking from boss fight to boss fight through what is essentially a long non-interactive cutscene. Sure, you're technically in control, but you're not actually DOING anything. Unless you have a means to create gameplay and interaction without these, you pretty much need to have them. The trick is making them fun, not tedious. So yes, they need to be there.

1b) Invisible encounters are a concept whose time has passed. Unless you are facing technical limitations, there is no excuse for not displaying enemies on the map. People who avoid too many of them and are therefore underleveled have only themselves to blame. Plus, if you make battles fun, they won't want to avoid them.



2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.
B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?
C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?
D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?

2a: Timing elements almost universally come off as gimmicky for me. The Lost Odyssey ring added nothing to the gameplay, nor did the FF8 gunblade button press, or the absurd FF10 limit break gymnastics. Of course, having said that, it really WORKED in Shadow Hearts: Covenant. I guess the trick is that if you're going to have this kind of system, it can't be a tacked on extra bit. It needs to be pretty thoroughly integrated with the way battle works.

2b: The best battle systems I've played with have been Grandia 2/3 and Mana Khemia. Both use an "initiative" based system - Grandia's is real time, but pauses when you need to input commands, Mana Khemia's is strictly turn based. Both have their advantages. The thing they both have in common is the concept of time rather than "turns" - some attacks take longer execute and/or will lead to a longer wait time before your next action, and you can interrupt actions or push people back in the initiative order. It leads to a much more dynamic system than the "I hit you, you hit me back" thing that unfortunately tends to happen in more traditional turn based systems.

2c: The active time battle system is garbage. If you want realtime elements, you either create a full on action RPG ala Tales of, or you go with a "realtime with pauses" ala Grandia. Under no circumstances should you have an "enemies beat on you while you select an item from a menu" system like ATB.

2d: Encounter scaling is a really misguided attempt to solve a really simple problem. Namely, trivial encounters are boring. Ergo, all you need is some code that figures out when an encounter is "trivial" and stop having those encounters. Probably the best way to do this is ala Persona 3, where, once you are too mighty for them, the monsters run away from you, and you have to deliberately choose to fight them. This allows you to kill them if you really want to (if you need an item they drop or something) but prevents you from having to chew through wimpy monsters. It also makes sense. When the giant rat sees the guy in full plate mail with the Sword of Godslaying +6, it figures "Maybe I won't try to bite him." If your random encounters are invisible (see 1b, above for my thoughts on that) just don't have trivial encounters occur. The caveat here is that you need to be sure you design it so that the player doesn't -need- those encounters for anything. (i.e. if you have a crafting system and the player needs rat tails, make sure that there are higher level rats in the game that also drop rat tails, or that rat tails become buyable once killing rats is trivial.).

As for "disk 1 nukes" they should absolutely NOT exist in a game with invisible encounters. If encounters are visible, then they're not a totally bad idea, but I suggest a robust autosave function if you have any. Nothing sucks more than "Hey, that's sparkly, I'll try to kill it... oh. ****. I haven't saved in an hour."



3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?

3. Characters absolutely should have specializations. Just from a story and plausibility perspective, the guy who grew up swinging a sword is probably more apt to it than the choir boy, no matter how much rapid-fire RPG development they go through. Some people just take to things better than others. If you want, you can represent this as a "soft" system, where some abilities cost more for some characters than others (Mondo the Rock Crusher needs to pay 10 points to buy Magic Missile, whereas Mordreth the Magnificent gets it for 1.) or you can just build interesting characters with unique skill sets and not worry about it. Ideally, there should be enough of characters in the team that each key role is covered by 2-3 characters, so if the player finds one person incredibly irritating, poorly balanced or hard to use, there's another choice in the role. Tales of Vesperia does a pretty good job of giving each character a number of options while still retaining characters who are both clearly defined and well varied (if not particularly well balanced.).

Additionally, the idea of "classes" should go away - or at least, become superfluous. If a character is a melee fighter, it doesn't really matter if he's a "swordsman" or a "brawler" from a game-function perspective, but the two characters could play quite differently, allowing you to cover the need for a "melee fighter" without forcing either one of the player.

Balance is another important feature, but that should go without saying. Having characters who are 'must haves' or are clearly better (or worse) than other members of the party is no-no (well, unless you want to do the mentor-figure or junior-member thing, in which case the party can be imbalanced for plot reasons for a while, but levels should eventually converse - Phantasy Star 4 does this really well. Alys and Rune start off well ahead of the party in levels, and Rika starts out well behind, but after the equivalent of a dungeon or so, the lagging members catch up because they need so much less XP to gain levels. Exponential style XP systems are good like this.) You should avoid situations where characters need to be "powerlevelled" to ability X before they become useful, or characters who become unstoppable juggernauts of destruction after reaching level Y. Try to maintain relatively consistent balance throughout the game - or at least, throughout the portions of the game in which the player is allowed to choose his party.



4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?

Minigames need to pass a very simple test. Namely, if the game is fun in its own right, and you can while away 10 minutes or so playing it and say, at the end "That was kindof entertaining" rather than "boy, I'm glad that's over" then you can have the minigame. But unless you have some legitimately entertaining minigames, you should avoid them entirely, and even if they ARE fun, they should be optional. People are here to play an RPG, not Popcap's Greatest Hits or something.

Sidequests, however, a whole 'nother animal. These are pretty much REQUIRED in my definition of a good j-style RPG. They add replayability, variety, and opportunity for additional characterization/character development (Tales of the Abyss did an awesome job with these. Many 'sidequests' offered no 'rewards', per se, other than learning more about characters and the world.). They still need to be done intelligently though - sidequests should branch off at logical places in the plot (Not the Tales of Vesperia "oh, in order to do 50% of the sidequests you must complete the game, only stopping short of fighting the last boss, and then go back and visit every town" thing. That was hideous.) and should -mostly- not be "hidden"; I.e. there shouldn't be a lot of quests that start in places and times where there'd be no reason for the player to be in that place at that time. It's undesirable to have the player do the "visit every town between each major event" dance in order to find your side quests. One or two quests that start in obscure locations is fine, but most of your sidequests should present themselves in a fairly organic fashion as the player moves through the game. Ideally, they should also present themselves at such times where a player can pursue them without an immersion breaking "I must save the world before the meteor hits... but first I need to find the old man's missing cane, catch a giant catfish for the boy in the swamp village, and deliver this love letter for the girl in the capital!" kind of way. There should be lulls in the action where the player feels like they have leisure to chase sidequests without the plot nipping at their heels.

On a final note here, sidequest rewards - sidequest rewards should, by and large, fall into the 'fun' category - particularly if the quest is "missable". Thing like titles, costume changes, characterization skits, or a few single-shot items (or at least, gear that's not runaway good.) Quests that give abilities/spells/weapons etc should generally be either part of the main plot arc, or at least, unmissable and fairly obvious. It's also okay to have a single "epic weapon quest" that you can really only do after large amounts of grinding, so long as you don't require the player to have these weapons to complete the game. (Again, take a gander at the Nebilim Weapons quest in Tales of the Abyss). Generally, abilities and items that you consider as part of your character balancing should be hard to miss.



5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot exactly what you're looking for?

I think the point of the genre is to tell a good story, and you can't really tell a good story if events happen in an "A,G,B,D,F,E,I and skipping C and H" order. Sidequests are a good way to break up the linearity a little bit, but the main story should flow in a fairly linear fashion, because that's what good stories do. There should be room for exploring within the world, learning about the characters, and even following other stories that intersect with the main one, all of which can happen in a relatively non-linear fashion, but the main narrative flow should be coherent and linear.



If I think of any additional questions I might add them to the post but for the time being I figure that's enough.

Thanks in advance for any opinions.

Good luck. You've set yourself a hard challenge.

[Zeful]

1b) Invisible encounters are a concept whose time has passed. Unless you are facing technical limitations, there is no excuse for not displaying enemies on the map. People who avoid too many of them and are therefore underleveled have only themselves to blame. Plus, if you make battles fun, they won't want to avoid them.

Err, no, that's not true. If the character model is representative (e.g. The character's symbol on the screen represents the character in the environment), then no there's no excuse. If the character model is abstractive (every Final Fantasy game till 7) then there's a reason to not include enemies on the terrain. Namely being that there's no terrain.

[Winter_Wolf]

It's been a while since I've played, but I did rock the old school consoles for a while. JRPGs and all.

1. Random encounters.
a) Yes. RPGs without random encounters just don't do it for me.
b) I prefer the invisible random encounters. It's irritating sometimes, but I just hate the alternative, the visible faux 'random' encounters that you have to play to get through a section.

2. Combat.
A) I like my turn based combat to stay turn based. Timers have no place in that system.
B) I like tactical movement during combat, but I've seen it really poorly implemented. I do like being able to choose specific targets instead of having characters randomly pick a target and hoping they kill the enemy with 1hp instead of hacking at the full hp monster.
C) HATE real time elements. Hate, hate hate.
D) If you can pull it off, then go for it. If you make the game scale, it can discourage grinding, which has always been an issue for me in JRPGs.

3. I don't understand the question. I suppose if I have a warrior type, I would expect it to always be a better warrior than the spellcaster or scout, if that helps at all. I also am fine with pre-defined party characters. As in, your name is X, you are class Y, and there's no fussing with character customization. (Very old school gaming.) Just make the characters likable. Nothing worse than a forced character you hate. If I have to take the irritating little **** on a quest, and it's useless, you're doing it wrong or just being a jerk.

4. Sidequests & Mini-games.
Concentrate on the main story first and make it solid. Only bother with mini-games and side quests after you've nailed the main game. Otherwise you run the risk of spreading yourself too thin. I hate to say it, but if you end up with a mini-game more engaging than the main game, you're really doing it wrong.

Personally, I usually get bored with small quests pretty quickly, unless I have reason to believe I'm going to get a powerful item in return. And you can be damn sure if I get some piddly little token for undertaking a quest (or get cheated--it happens), I'll remember it in a negative way for a long time. If you go that route, at least make it possible to get satisfying revenge.

5. Linearity.
If you have a solid story, then having it linear doesn't much bother me. A solid story makes or breaks the game for me, not whether I can sandbox it. To expand a bit more, I've played both Western RPGs and JRPGs, and just because something is non-linear, that doesn't make it automatically good. Polish that story 'til it shines, I suspect most people will forgive linearity if it's good, whereas if the story sucks, it won't matter that you've got a hundred different ways of suckiness. That said, if you can swing a few key choices which will lead to a completely different ending, that is great.

[Airk]

Err, no, that's not true. If the character model is representative (e.g. The character's symbol on the screen represents the character in the environment), then no there's no excuse. If the character model is abstractive (every Final Fantasy game till 7) then there's a reason to not include enemies on the terrain. Namely being that there's no terrain.

What do you mean there's no terrain? There absolutely is, and, in general, I'm not talking about "overworld movement" here, but rather, "in dungeon" stuff. Even in early final fantasy games (like say, 1) the character's icon on the world map was still representative of their position, so truthfully, I have no idea what you're saying? @_@

I can see a point for this if you have a highly abstracted world map that's basically just "points of interest between which you move without really passing over anything in between" but I've never seen a game that uses that kind of map and has random encounters occur on it. Every game I've seen that uses that sort of configuration, there are no random encounters on the "over map" only in the "points of interest" therein.


b) I prefer the invisible random encounters. It's irritating sometimes, but I just hate the alternative, the visible faux 'random' encounters that you have to play to get through a section.

I'm confused by this too. How does having say, 20 visible "random encounters" (That you may or may not need to fight, depending on whether you go to the trouble of walking around them or not) annoy you more than "statistically, you get one random encounter every 45 seconds, so you will have an average of 20 random encounters while doing this 15 minute dungeon"? It would seem that in the former situation, you have more control over the number of encounters you have, whereas in the latter you really DO have to 20 encounters, or hope you get lucky and only get 17...which is about as likely as you instead getting 23. Right? Either way, you HAVE to play through the encounters (though LESS so in the model you dislike) but in one model, you at least get to choose when (and sometimes which).

[Prime32]

I can see a point for this if you have a highly abstracted world map that's basically just "points of interest between which you move without really passing over anything in between" but I've never seen a game that uses that kind of map and has random encounters occur on it. Every game I've seen that uses that sort of configuration, there are no random encounters on the "over map" only in the "points of interest" therein.
Zelda II did it this way.

[SephlidJam]

1. Random encounters.
A) At worst, a necessary evil for me. At best, a nice way to check out my shiny new spell/sword/whatever. Overall, one of the key pieces of the genre.
B) Not at all, but the rule of thumb is that the player shouldn't have to fight every two steps.

2. Combat.
A) As the common answer goes, depends how well you do it. If it comes across like Paper Mario, where the timing is fun and involves varied commands, then I say go for it. If it's just tacked on to the end of the combat system? Then, just don't do it at all.
B) Call me old fashioned, but I prefer my combat without all the shiny new elements. Just picking attacks and watching how things happen.
C) Well, the only thing I can say for the ATB is that it offers fast but weak characters the ability to be effective. On the other hand, nothing's more annoying than having my characters get wailed on while I pick things from a menu. If you go with time-based system, and you have a menu that involves scrolling, pause the clock. Please. Your players will thank you later.
D) What'd'ya mean, scaled? Like if I level up, then the monsters get tougher? Or as I naturally progress through the story and plot, then I get to face more powerful monsters? The first one can be done... but only if you expect people to grind. I remember reading about a game that made the monster difficult based purely off the party's level... and then made the items give the stronger boosts to attack and the like. Needless to say, the best way to play was simply to run from every encounter. The other one can and should be how the game works. If you want to put a UBERHIGHPOWER area near the end of 'Disc 1' that you don't expect anyone to be able to survive in - at least one person'll do the grind to get there. And, you know, that might be rewarding for him. Just make sure there's a save point never by.

3. If it makes sense for the characters. Honestly, Final Fantasy 3 and 5 both had pretty much blank slates in terms of how the characters were integrated into your party; and frankly? It worked. On the other hand, you run into Final Fantasy 4 and 9, were everyone has a pre-defined role and, well, again, I think it worked. Each character had their own specialization, and you picked the characters you needed for a given situation. Really, it's a matter of answering "What makes the most sense, given the character?"

4. My thought here is pretty much just a repetition of the general motto - if it works and adds value to the game, if it's a fun break from the main story, but it doesn't feel like it takes away from that plot - then yes.

5. The plot is before all. If you could some how manage to write a non-linear plot, I will salute you heartily, because non-linear, coherent and well-written plots tend to be rare </understatement> I don't mind linearity if the story's well written; in fact, I find that having too many options makes me enjoy a game less, because I get distracted by all the other things going on, and not on the plot at hand.

In summary, make sure that the game is fun and the plot is good. The details will work themselves out in the end.

[valadil]

I have a couple more thoughts to add.

You could mix invisible and wandering monster encounters. Just call the invisible ones ambushes. Those monsters successfully jumped the party who had no chance of seeing them. Other encounters could be avoided. I think Chrono Trigger did it this way.

What you could do that would be interesting though is let the party's level determine if they can detect an ambush or not. That way if a group is underleveled, a greater percentage of encounters will be invisible and therefore unavoidable. If the group is high enough level they can skip encounters as they please.

Regarding classes, I think you could mix this too. Have some characters who obviously fill certain roles. Have a few other characters that have decent stats, but don't obviously lend themselves to any particular class. If a player decides he likes the magic system in your game he can make a mage out of the nonspecific character and use that character in a party where everyone else was a natural mage.

[Prime32]

You could mix invisible and wandering monster encounters. Just call the invisible ones ambushes. Those monsters successfully jumped the party who had no chance of seeing them. Other encounters could be avoided. I think Crono Trigger did it this way.Chrono Trigger had some invisible encounters, but they weren't random.

[potatocubed]

B) Not at all, but the rule of thumb is that the player shouldn't have to fight every two steps.

Just as an aside, in Final Fantasy 8 one of the more powerful summons was in a location where you did have to fight a powerful random encounter every two steps. Basically, you had to be seriously badass to get to it or you had to have trained Diablos in the skill Enc-None, which let you just walk over and pick it up. So you can use more-common-than-usual random encounters as a part of the game, whether to guard something special or just to make an area more dangerous.

Just don't do what Suikoden IV did, which was to combine random encounters every 30 seconds or so with painfully slow travel. (Also, game-breaking bugs.)

[shadow_archmagi]

D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?

Oblivion taught us that scaling the world to the player removes the sense of progression and devalues exploration. Good games have rough patches and easy spots.

When I think about a game, what I'm most likely to remember are "That time I got absolutely trashed" and "That time I absolutely blew everyone away"

Furthermore, keeping the party at a constant "Level appropriate" challenge rating is impossible anyway. You'll still have easy and hard parts, only now one level will be really easy because of some coding flaw or an oversight in how levels are calculated.

With scaled levels, your difficulty stalactites and stalagmites are randomly placed rather than thematically appropriate. Players feel cheated and betrayed when a random, insignificant fight is extremely difficult, and let down when a boss fight is extremely simple.

[valadil]

Chrono Trigger had some invisible encounters, but they weren't random.

My mistake about the randomness. The point of the post though was that visible encounters are avoidable, invisible ones aren't. Level dictates how many encounters are invisible. Call the invisible ones ambushes so that they make sense and don't just seem like a cheap way to force low level groups to fight more.

[Zeful]

C) Well, the only thing I can say for the ATB is that it offers fast but weak characters the ability to be effective. On the other hand, nothing's more annoying than having my characters get wailed on while I pick things from a menu. If you go with time-based system, and you have a menu that involves scrolling, pause the clock. Please. Your players will thank you later.

The CTB (Conditional Turn-Based Battle) system is superior in all ways to the ATB system, as it works pretty much identically to the ATB system without the inherant problem of punishing people for not knowing exactly what their battle plan will be for the entire game.

[Airk]

Zelda II did it this way.

No it didn't. Zelda 2 (which, by the way, I would exclude from this discussion, since I don't consider it remotely an RPG) still had a map with terrain where you walked across the terrain. You knew if you were in a marsh, or a field, or a forest, or whatever. (And, come to think of it, weren't monsters visible on the map in Zelda 2? Why yes, yes they were. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7g8WKfIE5M#t=0m8s))The system that I think is "abstracted" enough to merit "invisible" enemies would be more like the overworld map from Mana Khemia or La Pucelle Tactics - you don't "travel", you just pick a point from a menu or move the cursor between points on the map, so, in essence, you are always at your starting point until you select a destination, at which point you are at your destination, without traversing anything in between. I've never seen a game that uses that kind of map system that used random encounters on the map at all.

Every other map system, you have an understanding of what terrain you are on, and therefore, you can represent monsters on it.

I agree complete with Zeful about the CTB system being in all ways superior to the ATB system, though the CTB system is, in turn, not as good as either the Grandia II or Mana Khemia system. (Mana Khemia's battle system is a lot like the CTB, but allows for things like recurring effects, and far more dynamic party member switches.)

[Airk]

My mistake about the randomness. The point of the post though was that visible encounters are avoidable, invisible ones aren't. Level dictates how many encounters are invisible. Call the invisible ones ambushes so that they make sense and don't just seem like a cheap way to force low level groups to fight more.

But isn't it still a cheap way to make lower level groups fight more, even if you call it something else?

I stand by my position that invisible encounters should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you need to have an encounter that happens at a specific place for plot/tension/blahblah/whatever then fine - the characters step into that position, a little mini-cutscene occurs, and you break straight to battle with no chance to "dodge" the encounter. Done. But that should be a special case, and not in any way a normal mechanic.

[Calemyr]

Because I just can't keep my stupid mouth shut...


1. Random encounters.
A) Yay or Nay? Do you consider them to be a fundamental(or, more importantly, enjoyable) part of the genre or an annoyance that you'd be glad to get rid of?
B) Is it a problem/an annoyance if the random encounters are 'invisible' like in FF series?

A random encounter system is an inexpensive tactic (both design wise and implementation wise) that lets you focus on other parts of the game more effectively. They work reasonably well when handled properly, but their success relies very heavily on how often they are triggered, how important they are (how grind-centric the game is), and how taxing the encounters are.

A few things to keep in mind on the matter:
1) Generally give people a choice. Make encounter rates lower on beaten paths, provide items that reduce or even eliminate random encounters, make encounter rates related to player level (encounters in a level 1 zone could be REALLY uncommon if you're level 18), make escaping more streamlined and easier... any of these go a great distance to giving the player the feeling that fights are their choice even when they aren't.

2) Provide some sort of indication when enemies are present or particularly powerful. My personal favorite was Ryu's pet in Breath of Fire II, visable in the menu screen, which became more active when there were enemies about. This was actually very useful in one mission, where you had to kill an undetermined number of enemies in each zone of a dungeon, but you could tell when an area was clear because the pet had fallen asleep.

3) Don't make spells and attacks take a long time, especially if encounter rates are high. Badass effects are fun when they are rare, but get old easily. If you want badass effects, make them a random but uncommon attribute to the spell and treat it as the magical equivalent to a critical hit.

4) Keep the enemies sensible, or at least fitting to the environment. Alternately, make them consistently nonsensical - it worked for Earthbound.

5) If encounters are numerous but easy, provide an AI option, possibly just a set of default commands that can be quickly and easily accessed rather than having to order the entire party individually. The Persona games have all done this pretty well.


2. Combat.
A) Would you consider the addition of timing elements to be an improvement to the combat system(turn-based in this case)? The thing I'm thinking of implementing is similar(but not quite the same and quite dramatically expanded) as Lost Oddysey's aiming rings.
B) There's been a lot of variation in the combat systems of jRPGs over the years, so to put it simply - which innovations(like the aforementioned aiming rings) do you consider to be the best in the genre?
C) Simply: entirely turn-based or do you like real time elements like some of the FF games implemented?
D) Encounters scaled to your level: Yay or Nay? Do you think that Disc One Nukes are the best thing since sliced bread or do you think that combat should always be scaled to your abilities?

The style of combat isn't something that should be decided without regard to the setting and theme of the game. There are good situations for most combat paradigms, but none of them is the answer to every situation.

Timed hits are a good idea as long as the bonuses are moderate - they reward the player for paying attention and keep them engaged, but the difficulty of a fight should never be determined assuming the player can consistently pull them off. A small bonus and some kind of special effect (even if it's just a crunchier sound effect) is usually sufficient.

Scaling enemies is a very tricky proposition, as Oblivion proved painfully. Random encounters should not be scaled unless they are meant to be rare and thus every encounter precious. Bosses and special encounters can be scaled, but care should be taken not to let the scale be linear - players who powerlevel generally do so because they LIKE to feel significantly more powerful than their enemies.


3. Characters do you like 'forced' character specialization(ie. character A simply has better stats/limit breaks/skills/whatever for being a member of class <X> than any other character and he will be the best <X>, no matter what you do?) or is it something you'd rather not see?

Characters should be characters first and units second. It's best to give characters an edge in their chosen specialties and then allow the player to customize them according to their tastes. Limited proficiencies is a good idea, too, limiting certain gear to certain characters. Final Fantasy VI did a good job of this - Using espers, you could model anyone into anything, but their natural skills, stat gains, and weapon/armor proficiencies still enforced a feeling of their original natures.


4. Sidequests & Mini-games. How important do you think that mini-games are? Do you consider chocobo raising/card games/other mini-games to be something that's absolutely fantastic or is it a boring and annoying time waste?

Mini-games are a risky proposition. Do not make them too important (I'm looking at you Quina Quen) but at the same time do not make them too unrelated to the game itself. Small minigames are a fun diversion as long as they're short, simple, and above all voluntary. Larger minigames (chocobo breeding, for instance) should have an impact on the game, but not make the rewards so great that it would be stupid not to play them. One instance I can think of is the monster arena in Dragon Quest VIII, where you got the opportunity to collect monsters for the arena and build them into teams. The rewards were quite good, but the best part of the minigame was the ability to SUMMON those teams to attack as a spell. Not overly powerful, but it was a nice tie between the game and the minigame and felt like it mattered somwhat.


5. Linearity. Do you think that jRPG's could benefit from increased non-linearity or is the standard linear structure of the plot exactly what you're looking for?

Do not be afraid of linearity. Good storytelling requires some control of the plot and suffers when the hero can go anywhere and do anything from the start. Don't hold them too tightly to the rails, but don't be afraid to keep some things under your control. There are generally three options that accomplish this:

1) Give the player a list of objectives they can fulfill in any order (the Megaman solution). The three scenarios from FFVI are a great example of being able to control the story while still allowing the player to decide what order they want to approach it from. Suikoden III is an interesting example as well, but some people don't really like that setup.

2) Include non-critical plot arcs that the player can pursue or not as they wish. Especially nice if they eventually tie into the story or if they're somewhat ironic as an injoke (Namingway's story in FFIV DS). Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced did this by including several non-required missions at every point in the plot, as well as the one that was critical to the overarcing story. Some non-required ones meshed together into bigger stories. As a non-JRPG example, Mass Effect 2 did this pretty well in my book by making the recruitment and loyalty missions largely voluntary but kept the plot controlled through a set of core missions that you had to accomplish to further the plot.

3) Side quests are a relatively easy way to expand the world and provide some freedom to the player as well, but take care that they don't get too repetitive.

In short, give your players choices but don't let them run the show. If you do, you end up with a horribly disjointed plot or simply a very weak one.

Well, that's my take on it, anyway.

[Winter_Wolf]

I'm confused by this too. How does having say, 20 visible "random encounters" (That you may or may not need to fight, depending on whether you go to the trouble of walking around them or not) annoy you more than "statistically, you get one random encounter every 45 seconds, so you will have an average of 20 random encounters while doing this 15 minute dungeon"? It would seem that in the former situation, you have more control over the number of encounters you have, whereas in the latter you really DO have to 20 encounters, or hope you get lucky and only get 17...which is about as likely as you instead getting 23. Right? Either way, you HAVE to play through the encounters (though LESS so in the model you dislike) but in one model, you at least get to choose when (and sometimes which).

It's a psychological thing for me. Seeing them waiting there on screen just bugs the hell out of me. Realistically I'm just as likely to face the same number of encounter or maybe more with the invisible thing, but it's how I like my game. One might even call it a personal preference. :smallwink: