Castle Paradox

[J.A.R.S.]

Following the thematic thread concerning the swords in the equipment, here is one that, I believe, is more interesting and has a lot more potential.
Don't think OHR capacities.
If there wasn't a FIGHT command, how would your hero battle?
You might have read one of my approaches in another thread where the hero was to morph into different subcreatures each of which using magical spells. That, alone, is merely dodging the question, and is pretty much not solving the problem. I have no set answer, just remember that its meant to be a creative discussion on how not to avoid the fight command, but to expand hero's unique factor. So please, do not think that I believe the FIGHT command should be killed out of sight. I don't. It is a part of RPGs that I like. But just fighting IS boring.
As the title states, I also believe that the ability chosen to replace fighting, as extensive as it can be, will probably be a strong vector of the hero's personality.

Let me take an example to start this thread. A man who's fight ability is broken into various sub-specialities such as:
- Sneak: a slower attack which avoids the enemy's defenses
- Spike: a weak attack that, if interrupted by an enemy attack, gives some spike damage for about 5% of the attack (and resuming the attack)
- Deflect: waiting. 80% blocking the next attack, 80% counter-attacking.
Bear in mind that these are actually used in a game I and a team are making presently (which should see a demo somewhere halfway next year ... lol)
As you can see, the mere idea of BREAKING the fight ability in sub-abilities shows you the kind of person he is. This one isn't a "harsh rude barbarian". He's more on the sneaky side, avoiding defenses, quick strikes, and counter-attacks. That's little perhaps, but it is something to start with, especially if a character you made lacks a bit of sneakyness to your liking...

So. What are your ideas?

[Iblis]

I am against the "fight" command, myself. It tends to encourage laziness in both the designer and the player for there to be one default action that fits almost every situation. It makes the decision of what to do less interesting and too easy.

Rather, I would just have a skill menu, or possibly skill menus, if the character has different types of skills that need to be categorized (maybe physical and magic abilities, or offensive and support abilities).

For this to work you'd have to diversify a character's skills, of course, so that they still have something to do in every situation, the difference is that instead of one attack the player can use anytime, it's a bunch of different attacks the player chooses between.

Your idea of breaking up fight into various types of fighting could also work. Remember though, that you have to make sure each one is really equally useful. The player is always looking to maximize damage, so if one of the attacks does more damage directly than the others the player will only use that unless the other attacks have strong enough benefits to balance it out. For example, if one attack is kind of weak but reduces the enemy's defense, that will increase all the damage you inflict later and that encourages the player to use it.
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

[Moogle1]

The fight command is fine as long as it usually isn't the best option. For that matter, if there is a command a character has that is usually the best one, the character probably needs a redesign.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

[Newbie_Power]

The only reason the Fight command is even being addressed is because it is usually the most powerful command. It gets you through random battles and allows you to use the rest of your MP on healing and bosses.

Solution: Make stronger enemies where the Fight command makes random battles more drawn out, and make skills and magic more useful for random battles. The player will try to get as many MP recovery items as possible anyway.

Besides... Most of the time people use the Fight command in commercial games to make random battles quicker, probably because the player probably has seen that same special attack 20 times already and the enemies are weak enough that using special skills and magic is overkill.

[J.A.R.S.]

ya, as I said, I'm not truly arguing to remove the fight per say. I just think like moogle that the whole idea is to have strategical option and that your choices come from measuring the impact, and lemme quote Darkmoor dungeon here in a certain way since it feels appropriate. This game is (correct me if I'm wrong) unbeatable by the sole enter/Fight key, but again, it is unbeatable without it as well. That's what I call lovely, and as much as the story/beauty of the game may seem limited, the FIGHTS are a PEARL in that sense. I loved the challenging idea of it, it is remarkable, yet, it uses very basic FF commands. The idea of breaking the fight command into options is just one way to increase the amount of strategical choices, but there are way more. Unique character traits tend to emphasize this. I think balance is important here too as Iblis pointed.
If fight is greater than the special ability, fight always wins (nearly) and vice versa. Many games do come with a great ability idea which is either overpowered or underpowered, so the balance of the good idea is just as important.
Lemme quote here an ohr classic (in my eyes) Grandtrain's magnus sequel.
In this game, skills and fighting are both necessary and balanced. In certain moments, you need to attack 10 times to match a simple skill's efficiency, at others, its the opposite. Such a minor variation in enemies resistance IS critical.
But I believe that, regardless, there are too few interpretations on how to create an alternative to the fight command. The idea of a list of skills is "over-used" (note: I do not mean to remove them, because they ARE strategic, but I feel sometimes there is a large window for better options too). To me, character's abilities are one of the largest combat design perspective next to monster's behaviours (and sub-puzzles such as CT's bits and FF's shell monster)

[Newbie_Power]

I honestly hate this thread. It is just another finger that points, "the Fight command is to blame for games being so easy!"

No. It's not the command to blame. Easy enemies that don't need to have status effects put on them and have weak enough attacks to not warrant spell protection is to blame. Even if you removed the fight command, one would probably set up their party that uses the best offensive techniques at the most efficient MP cost because enemies get taken down in one hit anyway.

Keep the fight command, and make the enemies tougher.

[J.A.R.S.]

you are a fan of non-originality. I never said there were mps or anything. You're just implying there are because you're implying there is also a fight command. That's plain conservatism, which is the opposite of the researched goal. ONCE AGAIN, I'm not saying or blaming the fight command, I am merely stating there are other ways and I'm curious as to what other people figure these options can be WITHOUT REMOVING the fight command. In fact, you might rather see these solutions as replacing the normal options known as spells though they serve as an alternative option to the fight command by filling the position of the spells, hence the name ability. Sorry if the thread title is misleading, but I thought I had made it clear in my last 3 replies that the focus was NOT to blame or remove the fight but to give it options of creative interest that are not the commonly accepted FIRE 1 spells (once again, I've got nothing personal against these spells, I just think it is refreshing to visit other horizons sometimes, this said though that I tend to love rpgs with level 1 to 3 spells and crystals...)

[Newbie_Power]

I put my 2 cents already: Make the enemy stronger so that skills are actually useful.

No matter what kind of game you create, if your enemies are so pathetic that you don't need to tap into what your character can do, then there is a lot of waste no matter what skills or battle engine you create.

Final Fantasy is horrible about fixing their problems in this area. They've only gotten worse and worse. SO2 had terrible magic spells because they only did 1 hit of damage compared to physical attacks which were real time and could do 2-6 hits depending on the attack, but SO3 actually improved magic to be real time and do multiple hits of damage. Physical skills were still better in SO3, but magic was actually useful if you had a magic user in your current party due to its nature of making enemies suffer.

Tales of Symphonia is the exact game you want to play. Skills and magic up the wazoo and you will find yourself using pretty much everything. Magic DOESN'T SUCK in Tales of Symphonia because it actually juggles enemies around to stall their attacks (even bosses!) And physical skills are actually extensions of your "fight command" (which is actually the pressing of the A button to do an attack).

And the best part about ToS is... The enemies aren't too pathetic if you play on Hard Mode.

[J.A.R.S.]

[Newbie_Power]

You will also have to PM Fenrir-Lunaris about that.

Also, FFVI has an issue where any character can learn the best magic spells in the game, making most initial skills useless. The best way to counter this and have a playthrough of FFVI where more skill use is involved is to have a "Natural Magic" game where you are only allowed to learn magic through either leveling up or Strago's Blue Magic. This will turn FFVI into a good example of skill diversity while keeping Terra and Celes as your main magic users. Otherwise, using Espers pretty much throws skills out of the window.

[J.A.R.S.]

the calling of espers WAS a good idea... but yeah, the learning of spells allowed to everyone was a little... ruining. Everyone had all the magical options sorta screws character's unicity... yes, you keep tools, blitz, swordtechs but, everyone has the same magics! I fully agree with you there.

[Moogle1]

[J.A.R.S.]

one more time... they are not things I want to do, they are exercises of creativness. And your latin refers to "before humans" which I'm not too sure on the actual use here. It is some ex nihilo argument where you're playing ego sum deus
Darkmoor dungeon is a marvel battle-wise up to a certain extent. There is NOTHING new in that game, and that is why I did not bother finishing it (stopped where you have to battle countless monsters to get to the next golden head...) It was interesting, but the options grow thin. I'm not willing to remove swords, I just don't want to center the story around them unless necessary, favoring axes if it fits best the lore. I'm not willing to remove fight or magics, but adding unique traits to heroes. You seem to be a fan of dares and achievements (or so I'd gather from your current thread where you seem to take pleasure in figuring out how you'll solve the problems of incorporating the monster ideas) but as much as this is undertakement and achievement, it does not, alone, make a great game. It may ensure a decent to good game, but the GREAT game is not secured. You are very theoric (from the few games I'Ve played from you that is, which is a limitated amount, I agree)
And trust me, if there is any underlying game behind this box I'm talking about, its been filled months ago (though still opened to edition). The core is there, and one of the rules is that each hero has a unique ability that breaks the usual battle system. This, as far as I know, is the only very non-cliche side of the game. Escaping from all cliches is like using them all I believe, and as such, I don't feel an urge to run away from them when it adds fun to the game. But I believe each game should have an original view on one or many fields.
The discussion however, is purely rhetoric. This is Design, this is a question a designer should ask himself... As I said numerous times already, I believe it is fairly probable that the answer to this question, in many cases, will be "I will use the normal idea" but the understanding of the underlying reasons why you do so is very important to the cohesion of the other design elements as far as I am concerned.
This said, I don't have the OHR background to back my claims, nor am I entitled to any form of "good designership", so this remains a mere comment, an interpretation, and a point of view.
Whether you disagree on the design focus points I submit is up to you (and potentially to your game making experience) and though I have no player group to back my claims once again, I am still fully aware of what I research in a game and it includes a portion of unexpected, some law-breaking, but subtle one to a certain degree both on flavor and combat behaviors. I personally hate systems that completly convert the environment of magics, for example, I never got used to Chrono Cross' system which utterly pisses me off, BUT, I did like Sword of Jade's simple take on the "mp" system which was both elegant and offered a variety of loose ends that could've been developped at any point if the battles were to become bored... sadly, not long after the introduction, the game crashed on my nightly, so I got the basic idea of the game, but that's it.

To sum it up, I am fully aware that trying to change everything is vain and a very bad idea. I am sorry if I gave the impression that it was my goal, but these threads are mere idea gatherings and brainstormings that can be used by many (including myself) for various projects. Ultimatly,most ideas will end up rejected for the final designs, but just because you dismissed these ideas doesn't mean the process wasn't worth it. It shows in a game that's unoriginal whether the choice was counscious or automatic. It shows mostly because when the system was chosen counsciously, it "perfectly" fits the game's mood and pace.
There are choices squaresoft made, and many of these choices is why they came up with good game, and why we got addicted to this universe of rpg computer games popularized on the snes (not only that, but its an example). Most of these choices were and are still good, but occasionally, asking ourselves the initial question they asked themselves and coming up with an alternate possibility can bring a very interesting ideas forward, even if, ultimatly, during the course of their realization, we end up agreeing with the maker's choices for clarity, simplicity and elegance.
I try a lot of things, I fail often, but I take pride in failures for as long as they were the result of experiments. Once upon a time, I do not fail, and realize there was a flaw in Squaresoft's judgement, or simply, another way to make it right. It suffices me to think "maybe this could make an interesting game?" And I exploit the idea.
This is my method, I hope it clarifies the methodology behind my threads. Now that you are enlightened on the purpose of this thread, I would appreciate that people stop accusing me of trying to break every law. We learn from questionning these laws and that is my point. The OHR engine has several assets over many engines in that its plotscripting allows to digress from the laws. We are not limited to RPGs as a matter of fact. We can make hybrids, tweak certain laws until we come up with a decent formula of "fun factor". Original games are not the only good games, not at all. Conservatism can do some real good game. As a matter of fact, the game my team and I are hard-coding is a very conservative rpg aside from the hero-unique-ability thing. But we did explore a lot of path as to how the game could be "sold" in 10 lines. Why people might wanna play it? Because its meant to give you that old feeling of a snes rpg but with this lil something original that yet feels slightly new so that you are still caught a lil offguard. I wouldn't attempt a 100%, nor even a 20% original game (arbitrary numbers really). Just a touch, a small sparkle. But to pick the RIGHT thing to make original, it is important to look at everything that we convey as non-original stuff and see what can or cannot be changed. And then, the whole idea is to see what might give good results.
I think this thread proved that several good games use small tweaks on this theme, and that its therefore a fertile ground for ideas, mostly because battles are a large piece in several rpgs. They contribute to the overall enjoyment, and might I add, to the overall feeling of participating IN the game. On a symbolic level, when your mind considers the options of a fight, it does not bother reminding you that you are NOT this person. It takes decision for this person as though it were you (well not totally since you don't really have your own fears imprinted unto the hero, so its more like your ego part of you). IF all options you are given are boring or unabalanced, it does not feel real. As soon as options pop-up, you are binded to this world.
Answering to the initial question could've also be done by simply listing spells with interesting effects not previously used, or underused, or with a new balance. MOST (though not all) rpgs use stat tweaking spells that do not truly matter against monsters most of the time. In Darkmoor dungeon however, a couple monsters can get pretty much invincible if you don't carefully plan a strike. That, as I previously said, I applaud. New strategies born from old spells, somewhat underused or underbalanced in the environment they were shown. I admire this effort. Sadly, however, it feels to me this game could've done with a little more, a little something else (aka, I wouldn't give it a 10/10 if I reviewed it) So its not about passingfrom a 7 to a 9 here, but more from a 9 to a 9.1 Most people won't bother because they're happy with a 9. I'm not. I can spend days, weeks,months (or even years for this current project) to figure out how I'd get that +1% on overall quality because to me, it matters. Details matter.
Just because the ohr engine is old doesn't mean it cannot deal with details. We've seen graphical details (forgot the name but they bothered to make a climbing animation for the demo), we saw music detail, we saw plotline detail, and we saw gameplay too. The point is proven, it can be done. Why dismiss my questions on the sole purpose that it MAY not be necessary to do so? You take my questions as a whole. I see them as different cases.
*falls asleep on keyboard*

[J.A.R.S.]

actually its not ad hominem. It'd be ad homo or ad vir (for masuline gender)...

[Me]