Castle Paradox

Rya.Reisender · **Snippy** Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 821

There's no ideal way. Balance means that you can add anything on the left side as long as you add something of the same weight on the right side as well.
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

8bit · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:24 am Post subject:

8bit · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:30 am Post subject:

Rya.Reisender · **Snippy** Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 821

There are some games that only consist out of battling and are fun... there's an RPG (I think it was called Riviera, but I might mix up the titles) where you can only play during the battles and nothing else except that you have the option to repeat the battle to level up or move on the with the story until the next battle. This game is pretty much loved by many people.

Also Darkmoor Dungeon is almost 99% battles if you ask me and both Newbie Power and me think it's a good game if I recall correctly.

The balance here is that the larger the role of the battles is the more interesting the battles need to be. A game with 99% battles need a strong tactical emphasis, need a huge variation of different encounters and probably also different solutions to success (to add replay value).

If you personally think battles are something this bad, then you should make a game without battles! Like City of Dreams. :-)

(almost all the games I made myself, most by pure programming, are 99% battles and I think they are all quite enjoyable and a few even have a sort of fanbase)
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

8bit · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:00 am Post subject:

I don't think battles are bad and never said that they were. I just don't like playing games that have too many tedious battles. That's all. You may disagree.
_________________
Peace and love. Peace and love. No more autographs. Peace and love.

Newbie_Power · Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1762

Rya.Reisender · **Snippy** Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 821

Newbie_Power · Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1762

Rya.Reisender · **Snippy** Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 821

:-)
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Newbie_Power · Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1762

Moogle1 · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:28 am Post subject:

Ah-hem!

Final Fantasy Tactics (and other SRPGs) have an even higher battle content than Darkmoor. If the battles in your game aren't exciting, what are they doing in there? The question to ask yourself is, "What is the best part of this game, and why are the other parts in here?"

Which isn't to say you should remove all the plot from your RPG if the battles are good enough -- sometimes they actually are complementary. Chrono Trigger had really great boss battles, but the time-traveling plot and fantastic settings complemented those battles, making them more interesting. On the other side of the equation, though, boring battles have no place in a game. If your core gameplay sucks, you should seriously consider another medium.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

Rya.Reisender · **Snippy** Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 821

What Moogle1 said.
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Newbie_Power · Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1762

Rya.Reisender · **Snippy** Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 821

It's funny how it happened multiple times now that I wanted to explain something and everyone disagrees, then Moogle1 posts the same thing just in different words and then everyone agrees. xD
Moogle1 has a higher argue level than me. TT

Also, care to try out my game Gerania? The battles are a bit longer, but quite tactical. I wonder if those can convince you that random encounters can still be enjoyable even if they are a bit longer. When I made them and decided to make them not so easy I totally thought of you because you said "OMG 2 MINUTE BATTLES????? TOO LOONG OMG WTF" (not literary

).
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Newbie_Power · Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1762

I never said that random battles can't have tactics (they should), they just don't need to be needlessly long to the point where it gets old, and bosses will likely have far more complex tactics.
_________________

TheGiz> Am I the only one who likes to imagine that Elijah Wood's character in Back to the Future 2, the kid at the Wild Gunman machine in the Cafe 80's, is some future descendant of the AVGN?