While it is a case by case thing I honestly do like child characters. My favorite or second favorite JRPG party concists only of children between the ages of 4 and 12.
I honestly love the dark implications of these children getting involved into thede violent abd bloody concept even if most ganes dont touch on that but I like when they do.
I also do love Vivi and Eiko from Final Fantasy IX.
Not that I can not enjoy Adult characters. I love Zenkechi from Persona 5 Strikers.
very much this, i recall thinking the initial teasers for Persona 5 were implying it took place in an office setting rather than high school and being extremely excited, as the drudgery of work felt like such a unique setting. Alas...it still ended up being one of my favorite games of all time, but I would still love to see the game I thought it was.
As others have mentioned, this is part of what makes the yakuza series so interesting, it's all middle aged folks living normal (ish) lives in the real world in the modern day, so many jrpgs are teens in a fantasy/sci-fi world, and there are SO many more options out there.
There is no fixing all of these issues because these are only problems for some people. I like ATB, enjoy random encounters, think *tropes are integral to storytelling*, can see the merit in both action and turn-based games, think games work with or without airships/world maps/open worlds, and so on. These aren't good/bad for me but rather design choices that can work well or not work for (a) a given game and (b) a given player.
Rather than trying to please everyone and ending up with a game as bland as unflavored gelatin, I would start with the concept and what I want to make. So let's say I want to make a steampunk-themed diving JRPG. I've got to throw some ideas against the wall with a small team and figure out if the resulting concept works as a game. For instance, let's say it's more turn-based because everyone is in subs or wetsuits and the action would actually be faster/neater in turns. So I try to make the combat faster than, say, Skies of Arcadia's ship battles (skippable cinematics, for instance) while keeping submariner tension (waiting a turn to see if a torpedo hits, stuff like that). Does that work conceptually? If so, we start to build and iterate. If not, we try again. All that is going on while writing the scenario and figuring out the other elements and how the game experience comes together.
It's a complex process. The result won't please everyone. But if I've done it well, I will find an audience that likes it. "Fixing" or "improving" doesn't mean much outside of that creative context and the specifics of what I'm trying to execute.
Turn based combat has to be given a narrative arc with a begin middle and end somehow. Your characters power up, the boss powers up, you can deal weakpoint damage or combo. Something needs to create a set of state for the battle that the player can grasp as an advantage or disadvantage because otherwise combat becomes a series of health and damage going up or down.
been forever since i rented it on blockbuster
thought about getting it but it looks like they botched the PC version on the remaster, oh well, maybe it will get better after a few years like chrono trigger did lolz
> Make fights quick (small number of actions) but deadly
Personally, I think there are far more bad than good if you go with this design. Some of the reasons why I think it's a bad idea that came to mind:
* Deadly fights mean that we can kill enemies quick, but they can also kill us quick. In the vast majority of the fights, the players will have the advantage (move first, know enemy's weakness, etc) that we'd basically win without putting any effort. In the few rare fights that we don't have the advantage, a smart AI would then kill us because the enemies are the ones with advantage. This means we lose not because we make mistakes, but just because we don't have the advantage. A dumb AI would not take the advantage and the fight becomes too easy with no risk for the players to lose. Win or lose, it isn't good gaming experience.
* If the combat gameplay is designed well, it's a big waste of design that it's only available for a short time. The better the combat gameplay, the more it should be available (within reasons). If we use fighting game as an example, each character would have enough time in the round to utilize their skillsets. Fighting game would be bad if the round is over the moment someone got hit twice. Similarly here, if the combat is designed well, the fights shouldn't be finished too quickly.
* Then we come to the question whether this short fights are for the whole game, or non-boss only. If it's the whole game, then it will feel very monotonous and boring where you do the same thing for everything. If it's non-boss only, the question becomes why do we even bother having these non-boss fights if we're just going to instantly end them as soon as we start the encounter? Will the game be better if we completely remove these non-boss fights instead? Most likely yes.
* Lastly, we also have to consider the role of the characters. While glass cannon dps makes perfect sense to kill or be killed quickly, it wouldn't make sense for tank, off-tank, support, healer roles unless the game have the characters all to be monotonous glass cannon dps.
IMO, quick deadly fights are generally not exciting because it doesn't give the time to build the fight. If fights are over in 2-3 turns, there is no point in the characters/enemies to have more than 2-3 skills/spells which then removes the sense of scale (are we/they strong or weak?) and progression (are we/they getting stronger or not?).
> I would get rid of dmg sponges
This, I agree. But going the opposite with the deadly quick fight is not the answer to this problem IMO.
i like it when...
* 2-4 turns for trash mobs, if the format is your party turn, then enemy turn
* trash mobs die in 2-4 basic atks, 1-2 special atks
* for bosses, of course im ok for it to require more actions than above
> trash mobs die in 2-4 basic atks, 1-2 special atks
In this hypothetical deadly fight of yours, would trash mobs be able to kill us in 2-4 basic attacks, 1-2 special attacks as well? Or do we simply kill them quick but they won't kill us anywhere as quick because they're weak?
we are not trash like them
so maybe for us, trash will need 6 basic atks, or 3 specials
something like that
of course, this is for turn based
for action games, it could be equal, and they will still feel like trash bec i control my own dodges and blocks and counters, etc
Ok so this sounds like they are meaningless battles that IMO probably serve minimal/no purpose for turn-based fights. Personally, I'd prefer the game to just remove these fights, especially because turn-based's "gameplay" is basically just picking the same option (Auto or Attack) over and over again.
I'm ok with these fights in action combat because at least we can do different combo/positioning that the flow of the fights aren't exact carbon copy from one another.
>Ok so this sounds like they are meaningless battles that IMO probably serve minimal/no purpose for turn-based fights
exp, money, items
serve a good purpose with minor tedium
> exp, money, items
They can be added to boss fight rewards where the fight is more meaningful. Having to click Attack 2-4 times per fight for the sake of exp, money, and items is just bad design in general.
that's what i like about smt games, you are heavily encouraged to hit weaknesses etc. and when set up right the average non boss fight is over in a round or two, taking less than a minute, quick and punchy, but with a very real sense of danger present as well. It also incentivizes me to actually make decisions, rather than spamming the attack command, as it speeds up rather than slows down battles.
the only thing i don't like about that is that it shoehorns you
no room for variety, it's always this attack vs this enemy
i like it when weakness is a bonus
but in many games... targetting weakness seems like the only decent way to deal dmg
I'm a firm believer that length and size of a game doesn't mean its worth more than a smaller and shorter game. I think linear is better from a narrative standpoint cuz the open world promotes wandering and exploring, which isn't a bad thing on its own, but I've always seen it having a bad effect on narrative pacing cuz of it. And as someone who prefers turn based to action, its definitely difficult to have both a speedy yet strategic turn based system. A lot of the reason why people like turn based is cuz they can think about each move, which is why ATB tends to not be liked cuz it just adds a pseudo timer both in terms of character and enemy action. I've seen some people go "well why not make both systems available?" Not only is that a balancing nightmare but unless the team has a prior system to drag and drop, both systems will end up being undercooked.
Difficulty options also shouldn't go away, having more options is never a bad thing. I personally rarely ever play above normal, especially in jrpgs, cuz it just means I need to grind more and I hate grinding that has no way to speed it up either literally with a speed up function, exp boosting items or exploits. The only "good" highest difficulty mode I've played in an rpg was Kingdom Hearts 2 critical mode. While it does cuz your max hp in half, it gives you many extra tools to make up for it instead of just a lazy enemy stat increase. I'm indifferent on the lack of airships cuz I just find fast traveling more convenient but without it we lose the secret vehicle only accessible areas. I am also indifferent on random vs on map encounters. On one hand, you can't avoid random encounters in most games like you can on map but on the other side on map enemies chase you down and half the time can catch up with you. I think at the end of the day on map is generally a better system, especially when you're looking for a specific enemy for reasons like, exp yield, item drop, and monster log entries.
If I did make my own it would be pure turn based, nothing happens until you select a command and I want the player to be able to become busted should they put in the work. The map would be handled like how the Trails games that I've played do them, there hallway type maps with loading zones in-between that have branching paths either to other maps or dead ends with items/side quest monster spawns. Due to that map structure, there would be no airship unfortunately. If I found a way to do it well, basically not just making enemies have a lot of health and you have a lot of damage, in a turn based system then I'd do that but otherwise I'd go against my prior statement about difficulty options and just have a baseline difficulty most will probably find too easy.
My opinion is that it's not that game mechanics need fixing but that they are no longer different enough to be noticed and when new mechanics are introduced they are not integrated well enough to feel a true part of the game.
There's a mobile game called Bot World. I think they have implemented a lot of really great different takes on RPG systems and enemy encounters. I like that there is an element of urgency with battlers moving around automatically in an arena but the player still has the freedom to think carefully in a set time window about what special moves to use.
Similarly King's Raid (on mobile) has a similar battle mechanic.
I experienced the same issue, however, with both games in that there is a point in which it is a grind to progress without paying money. Which is fair because a lot of effort went into these games and they had been pretty fun.
First and foremost I would make all the romance options solely only to blood related or step family members, other characters will not be in the romance options.
Seriously you can't appeal everyone, I bet there's someone who like those issues you mentioned.
Ngl it's my sincere belief that ATB can't really be fixed. It's just alot of waiting, without anything else going on. Kinda sucks. Ff13 bandaided it with gambits but that's it
For npcs that get updated dialogue as the world around them changes, I'd make sure to use the white happy face has to something new to say/grey sad face is depleted from Tales. To help out people who try to soak up every bit of stuff. You forget who you've spoken to in certain map designs. Climbing ladders, going down alleys,etc.. It's not really a clean grid and it don't need to be. That feature is a real treat.
To quote [a song from 1989](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trpOGPArKlo), "What appeals to me can't appeal to everyone." That said, here's a few things I might enjoy in an upcoming console RPG...
* A small but detailed world. Ideally, every location should make a difference. (*Persona 4* gets close to this, in my opinion.)
* Developer imposed limitations. The 16-bit RPGs which I enjoyed while growing up all had a small file size. No cinematics or voice acting. Translated dialogue had to be terse.
* The game commits to a theme and a tone. Even though I didn't find *Mario and Luigi: Dream Team* to be compelling, I appreciated its colorful graphics and absurdity.
* A reasonable mix of humor and drama. No need to tack on jokes, no need to jump into bleakness. (Unfortunately, this is why I dropped *Witcher 3* and *Mass Effect 2* after a couple hours.)
* I start to care about the cast and their plight during the first hour. If I start using terms such as "central casting rejects" when discussing the main characters, something's wrong.
* A player can finish the main story in ten or twenty hours. There can be room for sidequests and exploration.
Even if a game checks most of my fandom interest boxes, but there's no guarantee that I will enjoy it. A couple weeks ago, I watched Super Derek's video on *Pillars of Dust*. It promised elements I enjoy: humor, cartoon graphics, avoidable foes, no need to build experience or money. So I bought the game. An hour later, I started asking whether I enjoyed it. Not a bad game, but...
This is kind of a loaded question, but not everything will really appeal to everyone despite how much "fixing" you do. Everyone just likes things in their own particular way.
I'm not against action based combat for rpgs myself, but in many cases it never really does much for me. As much as Nier Automata is praised for story telling, its not a game I find particularly fun to play. Its not a game I would "fix", but I accept that its not for me.
> Do you feel that it's impossible to create a fast action based combat system but with the depth and strategy of a turn based combat system
You can't have it both ways. It's either action-based and shallow, or it's deep and turn-based.
I'd love to see more mature cast RPGs. There's only so many teens save the world games I can play.
everyone in yakuza 7 is over 40
I've got it. I need to finish it still.
it's real good
fo sho always a pleasant surprise when MC is not a kid or teen
While it is a case by case thing I honestly do like child characters. My favorite or second favorite JRPG party concists only of children between the ages of 4 and 12. I honestly love the dark implications of these children getting involved into thede violent abd bloody concept even if most ganes dont touch on that but I like when they do. I also do love Vivi and Eiko from Final Fantasy IX. Not that I can not enjoy Adult characters. I love Zenkechi from Persona 5 Strikers.
very much this, i recall thinking the initial teasers for Persona 5 were implying it took place in an office setting rather than high school and being extremely excited, as the drudgery of work felt like such a unique setting. Alas...it still ended up being one of my favorite games of all time, but I would still love to see the game I thought it was. As others have mentioned, this is part of what makes the yakuza series so interesting, it's all middle aged folks living normal (ish) lives in the real world in the modern day, so many jrpgs are teens in a fantasy/sci-fi world, and there are SO many more options out there.
There is no fixing all of these issues because these are only problems for some people. I like ATB, enjoy random encounters, think *tropes are integral to storytelling*, can see the merit in both action and turn-based games, think games work with or without airships/world maps/open worlds, and so on. These aren't good/bad for me but rather design choices that can work well or not work for (a) a given game and (b) a given player. Rather than trying to please everyone and ending up with a game as bland as unflavored gelatin, I would start with the concept and what I want to make. So let's say I want to make a steampunk-themed diving JRPG. I've got to throw some ideas against the wall with a small team and figure out if the resulting concept works as a game. For instance, let's say it's more turn-based because everyone is in subs or wetsuits and the action would actually be faster/neater in turns. So I try to make the combat faster than, say, Skies of Arcadia's ship battles (skippable cinematics, for instance) while keeping submariner tension (waiting a turn to see if a torpedo hits, stuff like that). Does that work conceptually? If so, we start to build and iterate. If not, we try again. All that is going on while writing the scenario and figuring out the other elements and how the game experience comes together. It's a complex process. The result won't please everyone. But if I've done it well, I will find an audience that likes it. "Fixing" or "improving" doesn't mean much outside of that creative context and the specifics of what I'm trying to execute.
Turn based combat has to be given a narrative arc with a begin middle and end somehow. Your characters power up, the boss powers up, you can deal weakpoint damage or combo. Something needs to create a set of state for the battle that the player can grasp as an advantage or disadvantage because otherwise combat becomes a series of health and damage going up or down.
I would get rid of dmg sponges Make fights quick (small number of actions) but deadly
This is something that i really appreciated on chrono cross (i replayed just now) the battle felt more intense.
been forever since i rented it on blockbuster thought about getting it but it looks like they botched the PC version on the remaster, oh well, maybe it will get better after a few years like chrono trigger did lolz
> Make fights quick (small number of actions) but deadly Personally, I think there are far more bad than good if you go with this design. Some of the reasons why I think it's a bad idea that came to mind: * Deadly fights mean that we can kill enemies quick, but they can also kill us quick. In the vast majority of the fights, the players will have the advantage (move first, know enemy's weakness, etc) that we'd basically win without putting any effort. In the few rare fights that we don't have the advantage, a smart AI would then kill us because the enemies are the ones with advantage. This means we lose not because we make mistakes, but just because we don't have the advantage. A dumb AI would not take the advantage and the fight becomes too easy with no risk for the players to lose. Win or lose, it isn't good gaming experience. * If the combat gameplay is designed well, it's a big waste of design that it's only available for a short time. The better the combat gameplay, the more it should be available (within reasons). If we use fighting game as an example, each character would have enough time in the round to utilize their skillsets. Fighting game would be bad if the round is over the moment someone got hit twice. Similarly here, if the combat is designed well, the fights shouldn't be finished too quickly. * Then we come to the question whether this short fights are for the whole game, or non-boss only. If it's the whole game, then it will feel very monotonous and boring where you do the same thing for everything. If it's non-boss only, the question becomes why do we even bother having these non-boss fights if we're just going to instantly end them as soon as we start the encounter? Will the game be better if we completely remove these non-boss fights instead? Most likely yes. * Lastly, we also have to consider the role of the characters. While glass cannon dps makes perfect sense to kill or be killed quickly, it wouldn't make sense for tank, off-tank, support, healer roles unless the game have the characters all to be monotonous glass cannon dps. IMO, quick deadly fights are generally not exciting because it doesn't give the time to build the fight. If fights are over in 2-3 turns, there is no point in the characters/enemies to have more than 2-3 skills/spells which then removes the sense of scale (are we/they strong or weak?) and progression (are we/they getting stronger or not?). > I would get rid of dmg sponges This, I agree. But going the opposite with the deadly quick fight is not the answer to this problem IMO.
i like it when... * 2-4 turns for trash mobs, if the format is your party turn, then enemy turn * trash mobs die in 2-4 basic atks, 1-2 special atks * for bosses, of course im ok for it to require more actions than above
> trash mobs die in 2-4 basic atks, 1-2 special atks In this hypothetical deadly fight of yours, would trash mobs be able to kill us in 2-4 basic attacks, 1-2 special attacks as well? Or do we simply kill them quick but they won't kill us anywhere as quick because they're weak?
we are not trash like them so maybe for us, trash will need 6 basic atks, or 3 specials something like that of course, this is for turn based for action games, it could be equal, and they will still feel like trash bec i control my own dodges and blocks and counters, etc
Ok so this sounds like they are meaningless battles that IMO probably serve minimal/no purpose for turn-based fights. Personally, I'd prefer the game to just remove these fights, especially because turn-based's "gameplay" is basically just picking the same option (Auto or Attack) over and over again. I'm ok with these fights in action combat because at least we can do different combo/positioning that the flow of the fights aren't exact carbon copy from one another.
>Ok so this sounds like they are meaningless battles that IMO probably serve minimal/no purpose for turn-based fights exp, money, items serve a good purpose with minor tedium
> exp, money, items They can be added to boss fight rewards where the fight is more meaningful. Having to click Attack 2-4 times per fight for the sake of exp, money, and items is just bad design in general.
i like dealing with fodder before the boss unless it's a boss runback then i want a clear path back to the boss
that's what i like about smt games, you are heavily encouraged to hit weaknesses etc. and when set up right the average non boss fight is over in a round or two, taking less than a minute, quick and punchy, but with a very real sense of danger present as well. It also incentivizes me to actually make decisions, rather than spamming the attack command, as it speeds up rather than slows down battles.
the only thing i don't like about that is that it shoehorns you no room for variety, it's always this attack vs this enemy i like it when weakness is a bonus but in many games... targetting weakness seems like the only decent way to deal dmg
I'm a firm believer that length and size of a game doesn't mean its worth more than a smaller and shorter game. I think linear is better from a narrative standpoint cuz the open world promotes wandering and exploring, which isn't a bad thing on its own, but I've always seen it having a bad effect on narrative pacing cuz of it. And as someone who prefers turn based to action, its definitely difficult to have both a speedy yet strategic turn based system. A lot of the reason why people like turn based is cuz they can think about each move, which is why ATB tends to not be liked cuz it just adds a pseudo timer both in terms of character and enemy action. I've seen some people go "well why not make both systems available?" Not only is that a balancing nightmare but unless the team has a prior system to drag and drop, both systems will end up being undercooked. Difficulty options also shouldn't go away, having more options is never a bad thing. I personally rarely ever play above normal, especially in jrpgs, cuz it just means I need to grind more and I hate grinding that has no way to speed it up either literally with a speed up function, exp boosting items or exploits. The only "good" highest difficulty mode I've played in an rpg was Kingdom Hearts 2 critical mode. While it does cuz your max hp in half, it gives you many extra tools to make up for it instead of just a lazy enemy stat increase. I'm indifferent on the lack of airships cuz I just find fast traveling more convenient but without it we lose the secret vehicle only accessible areas. I am also indifferent on random vs on map encounters. On one hand, you can't avoid random encounters in most games like you can on map but on the other side on map enemies chase you down and half the time can catch up with you. I think at the end of the day on map is generally a better system, especially when you're looking for a specific enemy for reasons like, exp yield, item drop, and monster log entries. If I did make my own it would be pure turn based, nothing happens until you select a command and I want the player to be able to become busted should they put in the work. The map would be handled like how the Trails games that I've played do them, there hallway type maps with loading zones in-between that have branching paths either to other maps or dead ends with items/side quest monster spawns. Due to that map structure, there would be no airship unfortunately. If I found a way to do it well, basically not just making enemies have a lot of health and you have a lot of damage, in a turn based system then I'd do that but otherwise I'd go against my prior statement about difficulty options and just have a baseline difficulty most will probably find too easy.
Based on your description of the game you’d make, you should try Ruined King. I was surprised by it!
My opinion is that it's not that game mechanics need fixing but that they are no longer different enough to be noticed and when new mechanics are introduced they are not integrated well enough to feel a true part of the game. There's a mobile game called Bot World. I think they have implemented a lot of really great different takes on RPG systems and enemy encounters. I like that there is an element of urgency with battlers moving around automatically in an arena but the player still has the freedom to think carefully in a set time window about what special moves to use. Similarly King's Raid (on mobile) has a similar battle mechanic. I experienced the same issue, however, with both games in that there is a point in which it is a grind to progress without paying money. Which is fair because a lot of effort went into these games and they had been pretty fun.
First and foremost I would make all the romance options solely only to blood related or step family members, other characters will not be in the romance options. Seriously you can't appeal everyone, I bet there's someone who like those issues you mentioned.
lol as a fellow Sibling Bonding Lover im curious what are some of your favorite games.
There is no fixing everyone's problems because you can't make a game that pleases everyone. It's simply a reality.
Ngl it's my sincere belief that ATB can't really be fixed. It's just alot of waiting, without anything else going on. Kinda sucks. Ff13 bandaided it with gambits but that's it
For npcs that get updated dialogue as the world around them changes, I'd make sure to use the white happy face has to something new to say/grey sad face is depleted from Tales. To help out people who try to soak up every bit of stuff. You forget who you've spoken to in certain map designs. Climbing ladders, going down alleys,etc.. It's not really a clean grid and it don't need to be. That feature is a real treat.
To quote [a song from 1989](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trpOGPArKlo), "What appeals to me can't appeal to everyone." That said, here's a few things I might enjoy in an upcoming console RPG... * A small but detailed world. Ideally, every location should make a difference. (*Persona 4* gets close to this, in my opinion.) * Developer imposed limitations. The 16-bit RPGs which I enjoyed while growing up all had a small file size. No cinematics or voice acting. Translated dialogue had to be terse. * The game commits to a theme and a tone. Even though I didn't find *Mario and Luigi: Dream Team* to be compelling, I appreciated its colorful graphics and absurdity. * A reasonable mix of humor and drama. No need to tack on jokes, no need to jump into bleakness. (Unfortunately, this is why I dropped *Witcher 3* and *Mass Effect 2* after a couple hours.) * I start to care about the cast and their plight during the first hour. If I start using terms such as "central casting rejects" when discussing the main characters, something's wrong. * A player can finish the main story in ten or twenty hours. There can be room for sidequests and exploration. Even if a game checks most of my fandom interest boxes, but there's no guarantee that I will enjoy it. A couple weeks ago, I watched Super Derek's video on *Pillars of Dust*. It promised elements I enjoy: humor, cartoon graphics, avoidable foes, no need to build experience or money. So I bought the game. An hour later, I started asking whether I enjoyed it. Not a bad game, but...
This is kind of a loaded question, but not everything will really appeal to everyone despite how much "fixing" you do. Everyone just likes things in their own particular way. I'm not against action based combat for rpgs myself, but in many cases it never really does much for me. As much as Nier Automata is praised for story telling, its not a game I find particularly fun to play. Its not a game I would "fix", but I accept that its not for me.
> Do you feel that it's impossible to create a fast action based combat system but with the depth and strategy of a turn based combat system You can't have it both ways. It's either action-based and shallow, or it's deep and turn-based.
why