Scenario RPGMaker 2003 - What Do You Play ?

To answer some of these questions, you will need to look back, almost 30 years ago or further to when computers were not commonplace in the household yet and paper/pencil/dice RPGs ruled social gatherings and friend get-togethers.
I wrote an article detailing RPGs, especially for those new to the subject, and you can read it by clicking HERE.

Like all good RPGs we are used to the battling of evil opponents such as the evil warlord GrumpALot or the evil Dr. Rainbladder to rescue the luscious Princess who went by titles such as Lai Mi, Pinkie Poofies, and Princess Rubylips. But is this as far as RPGs go ? Merely a diversion to enter a fantasy world where we defeat the evil to gain a virtual date with an unbelievably naieve girl that is half our age ? How many RPGs and RPGs like this have there been ? Fight the Dragon, rescue the Princess, save the kingdom.

Doesn't it make more sense to launch an all out nuclear weapons disposal facility against all the Dragons in the Realm so you can spend more quality time with all the mentally challenged and air-headed damsels in dis-dress ?

Well, if you think so, then you missed the point entirely.

RPGs (when done correctly) enter the reader and player into a wonderful world where only their laws of the universe apply. Like a well-written novel with the Player as the primary focus, a good RPG challenges not just the brain but the heart to new conditions and emotions. Some of this seems to have been lost in RPGs made today and it is up to people like you and others to bring back the intellectual pursuit of happiness and where RPGs go outside the Princess/Dragon themes.

Enter and welcome to

oncepts.

This is an exchange of excellence, ideas, and innovations that have been done in RPGs or have yet to be and to dismiss some of the more bludgeoning and horrendously tedious RPGs and concepts we have seen today. The answers, are provided by yourself and others just like you. This is an open conversation and everyone is welcome to participate !

Everyone will get their unique opportunity to agree / disagree / or comment in depth about RPGMaker and RPG topics of interest. You are also welcome to open new concepts and ideas that you would like to discuss with others. Everyone is welcome here but you must leave your arcade shooter guns and platform bouncing shoes outside the gate to participate in this intellectual immersion of

oncepts.

#1 The Exchange Game

You've seen it all before. It's where you can't get an important token item in a game until you do a different task or acquire something else for someone else, and you can't get that item until you do something for them, and so on.

What would be some good examples of this in RPGs today and how would you apply it effectively where it keeps the player's interest today ?

Wolfette:
Can't think of a game title, but it's been done before in a lot of games.
There should be a Main Quest that the player finds out about at the beginning, and the player is then lead through the game in search of this by way of smaller quests.

Arrakis:
well. An example that comes straight to mind would be FFVIII where you have to get the Moomba from the artisan in FH in order to get the Artisan in Shumi to help on the staue of laguna and so on and so forth.

These would be best written into an RPG as a sub quest part of the main quest. For example.. you could play an RPG right the way through and it have a nice story line with a sweet ending but all you have done is what you coulda done by reading a book.

I would say to use them as sub sections to lead you onto other sub sections and maybe even have sub sub sectios.

Sayonaran Avon:
I couldn't come with any good examples, since all the games I played were full of secondary missions!

I only throw in sub-missions to
1) get an alternate ending,
2) get an item you missed a few stages back [it happens], and
3) to find really special items that contrubute nicely to the game, but was never mentioned in the help file/game handbook.

Also, I suggest only putting secondary missions with an option to choose 'no'. It saves frustration and cursing at the screen [since you don't REALLY want to go
on the mission because you've got everything to kick the enemy's pants!]

Wren Pheonix:
I have seen this done recently in Chrono Cross, and Grandia III.
I usually use this tactic to fill in small gaps in the plot action, and as a device to
get the player to leave town and go to a different town or cave.

Eilu:
the whole ZELDA series! specially the one for Gameboy.. a big chunk of time is spent trading. I'd agree with Wren phoenix as to the use of this concept.

Kami:
I think the best current example of this is in Kingdom Hearts.

Now, you can just finish the game on Lvl 50, big deal. Woo-hoo. However, theres a shed load of sub quests, by completing them, you get rarer items, and ultimately, a secret ending. In KH, you must collect items to synthesise. This nets you the Ultima Weapon, a requirement for the secret ending.

theres two current uses for a sub quest:
1) Explain or expand on a plot.
2) A bit of harmless fun, something you can do to get rewarded with extra items and skills.

Sub Quests, especially trading, should never be part of the whole, but a rewarding and challenging extra for players, to ease them out of the current plot to refresh them. Zelda: Links Awakening did break this rule, but not enough to beat it down.

In the end, it comes down to: a fun diversion from the whole. Should never draw away too much though, and should not really have a huge bearing on the game. Have fun!

Topaz:
Hey Kami:

Kingdom Hearts, now that is one RPG I would most definitely like to play. The combined product of both Squaresoft and Disney ! That has got to be one great game !

On the line of optional sub-quests. I have played Legend Of Mana for the PSX about 2-3 times now. There are all kinds of weird spices, herbs, and elements you gain by opening chests which must be for sub-quests of mixing, brewing, and forging new weapons and armor. But I tell you, I never could figure them out at all. I like the game so much cause you can just go tripping through the maps and whack the skittles out of the critters with no planning or strategy involved. You can play the whole game from beginning to end just whacking on those bosses with the (X) key, rarely casting a single spell, and just keep getting in those whacks at perfect timing so no critter can hit you even once. Very satisfying, but, probably not the best way to play that game.

I think we are seeing more RPGs that do not require sub-quests to be completed in order to win the game, but are optionally there with benefits like incredible weapons and armor for the player to make fighting the last boss easier if and when they do complete this sub-quest. I like it where you are given a choice of continuing towards finishing the game or go off in left field to a secret hidden sub-quest that may actually be quite difficult to complete. Saga Frontier does this quite a bit and the reward factor for completing these sub-quests grants the player new and hard-to-find magical weapons/armor/items to assist the player for later difficult battles.

CC!:
well im a HUGE RPG fan! I love all zelda games and they are full of going back to get one thing to open up a new area and so on! for example not being able to move a rock out of the road in order to pass untill you get the bracelet of strenth! Thats in most Zelda games actually!

Yellowgirl15:
I'm a massive RPG fan and have been since I first played my copy of FFVII and I think sub-quests are a great way of taking some time out and having a little fun especially if the plot is complex like in the FF games.

Neowulf:
I'd like to see more games that make use of a Mentor or Master character--a character present often (but not necessarily always) who gives some training, assigns small quests, and in other ways inspires the development of the player's character. This "impact character" maybe gets kidnapped a little while into the game and the player must use the newly acquired skills and powers to rescue him/her.

I'm tossing around the idea of doing such a game myself, except that there are two or three Impact Characters that the player meets and, depending on choices early in the game, the player can shape the Main Character into one of several different kinds of character (a rogue, a holy man, a loyal warrior, a profitteer, etc.), and that changes the way that the overall game story "feels" and what the "goals" are.

It's just an idea. Feel free to steal it.

Jed:
I'm trying to make a trading system which is necessary in order to get a mystical item to break a seal to the boss's dungeon. However, the reason is very difficult to implement and sound convincing.

It's a case of: "You can't save the world until you have given the old woman the blue collar for her cat that is suffering from an identity crisis " in order for you be rewarded with the item you need. Please suggest meaningful reasons.

Topaz:
Hi Jed:

Ah ! A question !
Okay, here are a few reasons. First off, the talisman is one that the old woman has passed down from generation to generation in her family. In itself it holds no meaning, but it is an ICON in her family to represent unity. You must show her to give it to you to "save the world," but you have to be convincing ! She won't give it up easily.

Hope this helps !

#2 Mourning The Passing Away Of A Dear Friend

Some RPGs, noticeably Final Fantasy 7 have introduced some disturbing topics into RPGs. The death of someone very close to the player, perhaps a lover. While this most certainly might draw the player into the focus of the game, do you think it is necessary or a terrible thing to do, and, if so, how would you apply or remove it best towards modern RPGs that are written today ?

Poet: (July 14th, 2004)
I think personally that it shouldn't be taken out or put in for any reason. If you have a death in your story you're writing. Keep it...

Don't take it out to please people. On the same note, if you don't, don't add one just to please people. It can be a very effective tool if used properly. I'm not a big fan of FF7 like everyone else I know, I loved FF8... But I will admit that the boldest move made in an RPG ever was Aerith's Death...

And you know what? IT WAS A GOOD MOVE. The game turned out great, it really made the storyline deep and emotional. An RPG IS NOT truly a great RPG unless you're sad when it ends, because you feel you grew to be part of it and you're sad to see it over, whether or not all members of your party lived or all died.

Wolfette:
Hmmm...I honestly find the lose of a characters lover/friend in an rpg unpleasant and unnessasary.

To me the most affective way of handling this lover/friend relationship is to have things develope or not develope depending on how the player interacts with
them. IE: does the player remember the characters birthday with something nice? Or do they goof up continually. If this kind of thing happens in real life, the person would be either snubbed or rewarded in some fashion.
This is how I think rpgs should develope.

F.I.A:
Well..there's is one word of the old saying,"Like season,life comes and passes."Thus, the characters in the game should not have a 'Shield' to protect them from death.It will be most awkward if a character fell into many misfortune and stays alive.(Like E-Coyote, who never cannot bear the fall.

)

Dying makes players to remember the characters.For example,Aerith Gainsborough, every time I play her theme song(The one when she passes away), sometimes I found out that my eyes naturally welled up.
In short, dying should be natural in RPG.(Not to limit it for the nemesis, who bound to die every time.)

Arrakis:
I think it worked really well in FFVII cause you got kinda really attached to Aeris while she was there and you really felt for Cloud when she died.
It drew me and probably many others more into the game...and I bet you all booted serious ass on the following fight with Jenova.

I dont think it is nessesary to add or remove it all different games have thier own different ways of getting the player involved in the story line, but killing a character is definitely makeing a good way personal.

Sayonaran Avon:
I think that the use of the passing of a dear friend is unecessary in an RPG.
It's bad enough with real death, then you have to start with it as a background to get the game going!

RPG's and any other game, in my opinion is to get away from life, not to be reminded of it. When a character dies in a game, you know that he/she can be revived by some magical means, or using an invincible cheat, for those who hate making decisions.

In closing, make games far away from reality as possible. I would have killed some people and landed in jail for life if I didn't own Mortal Kombat (and its sequals!)

Wren Pheonix:
This device has been used before and after FFVII.

Even as far back as 8 bit nintendo games had the element of death for some of the "good" guys. It all depends on the atmosphere you are trying to achieve for your game.

It is fine in some games, but for a goofy RPG like Earthbound, it would be out of place for them to be killed off (even though the first cool guy, the cool fly guy, get swatted with a rolled up newspaper and dies) and maimed.

Clowd:
I think that is is good for a charecter in an RPG to die during the story, it proves that the people in the world are NOT invincible, and that gives a sort of sense of realism in itself. If no-one ever died in an RPG, what would there be to fight for?
nothing!

So the loss of a character close to the main character will only make the main character desire to destroy and stop the evil plaguing their world.

Topaz: (now using Trebuchet font!)
I think Clowd is right on the mark here. I'm thinking of those old Hanna Barbera cartoons where even years ago it was too wrong to put in a child's mind, "You will be destroyed" and some cartoons even today stick with the theme, "You will never be able to leave here" or watered down threats such as this.

I like Blake's 7 for the very reason that the characters can die. This adds a sense of concern for the watcher and adds to the sense of danger when there is something that does threaten to do in one of the characters.

Final Fantasy 7 portrays it best of all I think with Sephiroth stabbing Aeris and yet .. While we may all agree this is tragic and terrible, perhaps .. it is a necessary element to add to the sense of concern and realism for the player. When Celes threw herself from the cliff in Final Fantasy 3, all of these things. We are more in tune and in touch with the game or series when the very real sense of limited mortality is threatened. It puts the player that much more in the game and shatters the notions of 100% invulnerability we see in so many other programs before.

I think we can all readily agree that this is something terrible, but if we are to think beyond the invulnerability of Captain Kirk, or Simon Templar and others. The story becomes much more interesting when we can see that it is possible to lose a fond character, NPC, and let's go as far as to say Friend or Lover which RPGs are very much making use of today to make the stories that much more interesting.

Game Players, Worlbuilders, and Gamewriters are no longer children despite any age differences. We request, demand, a story that thoroughly wraps up the reader and player into a complex set of story elements fraught with both victorious gains and bitter painful losses. If any of the elements are missing today, such as death of a fond NPC or character, it does seem to take away from that game overall, especially if it is a lengthy saga worthy of having such a dramatic set of elements fall into play such as these.

DarkLink:
Although a character dying is not neccessary for an excellent RPG, it can improve of hinder the game a great deal.

When I character dies, you may seem extremely frustrated as you have worked hard to raise them to the appropriate level to do battle with the next foe.

On the other hand, executed properly, accompanied with and excellent score (music), it can bring out the deepest raw emotion from the player from hatred to literally putting the player into tears, emotions that really SHOULD be emphasized when playing an RPG. They should evoke emotion as if you were in the game yourself.

Kami:
Lufia 2 has one of the most superior examples I can think of. Because the leads die right at the end, they die saving the world. You really feel for them, it's heartbreaking, they leave behind a child. They travel in spirit to places they've already been. The bond between them is so strong, you follow their relationship throughout the game, and it ends. It really is one gaming moment I thoroughly admire, and remember with great fondness as I actually cried (Never have since then). It was a heartbreaking end to a fantastic tale.

An RPG should stir up emotions, especially at the end. Sad endings are rarely used now, maybe casual players want to see a "Happy Ever After" ending. I don't, if there is to be a sad moment, then so be it. I regard RPG's like books, and I want a book to move me somewhat. Which is where I find commercial RPG's today sadly lacking. Have fun!

TrueBladeMaster:
In FF7 when aeris died it was sad and depressing yeah but think about it were you actually expecting that to happen? No in most games the hero saves the damsel in distress man thats not real no Hero is Perfect no one can always get it right sometimes the hero SHOULD screw up maybe there was a certain itme he needed to stop lets say a meteor now lets say there was this evil sorcerer that in one scenerio he destroyed the item and the hero still maybe using his own life force at the end destroyed the meteor and the Sorcerer or another scenerio is the evil sorcerer held someone he held dear or a whole village over a pit or threatened to let loose a horrible spell if the hero didn't give up the item he'd have to amke a choice and either way it would cause somehting bad to happen. sometimes it helps to add shock effects to games where something you think is hapenin one way turns all the way around.

Sayonaran Avon:
Ya, I still read this thing, and I have some new tidbits to add, 'specially to this topic. Other than what I wrote before hand, I now think that if the major character dies, and you have a buddy or another on the same/almost near that hero's level, it's makes you want to go on a revenge mission and kick all sorts of butt! Well, that's the way my mind works. I'm already angry that my best guy died, now I have to go in circles to find the idiot, kill him (if possible, or just deal him a world of hurt) and revive the hero, who's going to be a bit on the low pointer side...
This is one way to get you sucked into the story!

Phoenix:
I think that when a charecter dies in a game it has to be done in the right way.
I remember in FFVII when Aries died. It was a big shock because I had never experienced that in a game before. I thought that was done well and helps you feel for the charecters and draws you deeper into the game and story.

Vivlorn:
Death is a great thing for RPG's.
I fell in love with these games because of FFVII, Aeris' demise included, and I think that had that story changed at all then it would be less of a story.

I completely agree with clowd that these deaths allow a certain urgency into the plot. You are forced to realize the consequences of actually failing! (If you lose, pure evil WILL rule all!) After a death, the player without a doubt becomes twice as determined to defeat the enemy. My favourite example, for it's simplicity, is in FF Tactics.

You have a small armada underneathe you throughout the game and they grow with you without ever actually adding to the story. When you build one of these faceless characters up and they fight with you through the thickest battles they are almost as dear or even more so that the main people you're fighting to save.

The chilling fact that if these faceless characters are killed in battle, you will never see them again. (barring the reset button and redoing the battle)
There motality, makes your struggle more meaningful!!!

that's all I wanted to say...

Jed:
If anyone's seen the TV Series Farscape then I'm sure you'll agree the acting is so bad but anyway. I thought the scenes where Aeryn Sun died as John killed her from the craft above her was so incredibly directed that I consider it to be the most effective death scene I've seen.
Regarding games. I think it Final Fantasy provides the best examples of the emotion involved in such scenes. I believe that death in games adds to the story.

JustMe:
I think in some ways it's cool to have a character die in an RPG. Why do some people swarm to tragic films and poetry? On another note, it might not be such a good idea for someone who's a little too vulnerable for that type of thing at that time. In all of the games I can think of (programmed) all of them have the good times and the bad times. Why? Because we see when there are good times. I mean people go to theatres and read books to laugh and cry with the plot/story. We play these games for a challenge and for some introspection (well on the latter, I do.) To have a wide variety of events occur keeps an interest in the game. If it were all prim proper and dainty we'd get bored with it real fast! lol

I still cry sometimes when Anna dies in Damcyan castle in FFII. Yet one thing I noticed in most of those games, even in death they continue to fight the others realize this can become even more powerful or at least more emotionally involed. You've ogt to have a balance, yet neither too intense or too watered-down.Think back on the dumbest RPG you've ever played? It either had no plat or there was no "action."

Ok anyway, not that I like to see my favorite character die, but then what about making that character begin a quest on a different level. while the others are still doing their thing and mourning the loss of their firend, yet not even knowing that their other fried is keeping them alive. Maybe twist something around to make it less "painful." In FFVII Aries dies yes, but even then she was still part of the game even though not controlled by one of us playing the game.

For those who have much pain in their lives related to death and suffering, maybe make it to where it's not just that but a blessing masked as a curse?

Anyway I'm rampling now so I think I'll just end here.

tchao

#3 Laughter Is The Best Medicine

Missing quite often from most RPGs today is a good tongue-in-cheek bit of humor. While there are smiling moments in some RPGs, some of them such as Working Designs for their Lunar Silver Star stories and related have gone out of their way to make very amusing situations for the player and I admire then for that.

What are some interesting and amusing things you would like to see in RPGs today that have not been done or done extensively ?

oncepts does not just answer questions but is also a pooling of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom towards useful and desired issues.

Wolfette:
This is going to need a bit of thought! Will let you know later

F.I.A:
Some zany features like from fairy tales will salt the game.(Eg:Imagine a Red Hooded undead knocked the door and said,"It's me, grandma.")

Sayonaran Avon:
Some games are just too serious to have comic releif. It depends on the story or on the characters you pick up to gain that comic relif.

My humor is rather dry, so I don't pick up or make games with humor in them.

Wren Pheonix:
Again, the overall atmosphere of the game should be considered. However, puns about current affairs, pulp culture, and blatent paradies should be used more.

DarkLink:
Of course, we don't want the RPG to turn out to be a sitcom! lol. The game shouldn't focus solely on humor but there should be a good amount. Like the smart alleck or a character that can be REALLY slow sometimes.

Kami:
RPG's must have some light relief. I find those which don't rather bland. However, you can overdo it (BAD Squaresoft! Kefka was NOT funny!). You really need to find places to drop subtle humour. FF7 has that whole Cloud-as-a-woman thing, which, when done right, was REALLY funny! Grandia was comical at the start, and even Lufia 2 had moments where you'd smile (The "Master Thieves" a good example)

It's not easy, but it should be done more often. Have fun!

Klim Sarnage:
I think humor in a video game is a great thing to have, although it isn't quite as necessary as a good storyline. In my worlds, expect to see a sort of mix of the two...once I get my first world out, perhaps you will see what I mean and comment on it here.

Ah, what the heck, I'll give you an example.

For a table, I have a sprite that, when you examine the table, will run and ask you if you want to check to see if there is something hidden underneath it. If you do, you will find some nasty ABC gum :)

So...anyways, bottom line, I believe, is that humor in a game could really add to its enjoyablility (is that a word? LOL), although it isn't absolutely necessary to make a game good. Just be sure that when you DO make something humorous in a game, make sure its something simple so that the majority of your players will understand it...

#4 Play It Again

Few RPG games today would do very well in the marketplace if they did not have some degree of a Replay Value. That is, you play the game once, but you are ready to play it again later. Because if not, wouldn't it make more sense to merely rent the game from a store like Blockbuster to play once and forget later ?

How would you describe something that is interesting that would have good RPG playing Replay Value later ? What is it you look for in a game that captivates your interest so you would want to play it again later ?

Wolfette:
A game that takes a very long time to finish! And has so many twists and turns that you can't possibly see and do it all the first time through!

Topaz:
I would have to agree with Wolfette whole heartedly here.

While it is difficult for the Worldbuilder to create a universe that is exceptionally complex, it is what we look for as a RPG game player. Few people, if any want to play another hand at the RPG in it's entirety if it is exactly the same the 2nd time through. I don't see enough of this in modern RPGs and would like to see it in the future, not just done by commercial companies, but by the very many good Worldbuilders for Scenario and Venture of the future.

Worldbuilders are not just writing games for themselves but for hundreds, thousands of other people who may tweak when they should have twirked, or may decide to check out that one inviting tile that looks different from all the rest. Not everyone is expected to catch these subleties but it is up to the Worldbuilder in a good RPG to reward and delight the dilligent player who does.

F.I.A:
A game with a lot of alter roots is also a good one. It also should have unique features to make it more interesting and heartpounding sound which is the most important part.(Who will play a game if its sound is not sweet to hear even a hundred times.)

Arrakis:
Games that have different endings when and different events when you do different things for instance Chrono Trigger.

This makes the games almost obligatory re playable. Also things like Skies of Arcadia where you can get different members on your crew and search for discoveries.

Not exactly big in the story line but alot of peopole wanted to tweak thier crew to perfection and see if they could make all the discoveries for large amounts of cash.

Sayonaran Avon:
To earn Replay Value, the game should be marketed to whoever the worldbuilder wants. If they slap something for the hardcore gamer in mind, and a socialite picks it up, then by of mouth, the game is touted horrible.

Also, RPG's need to get rid of cliched topics and others (e.g. save someone of royal nobility, save the world, or dungoen crawl). Even if those elements were still used, the thing that gets on my last nerve is random battles.They're good, but not too good every two turns. Last thing: a good deep storyline. Like the poor author, a game needs a rich storyline, especially if it is run by decisons that change the ending, or if you choose a different party memeber instead of default.

If you have a simple world that goes by the rules of earth, then who would like to play? Worlds also can't be too complex to make the gamer want to chuck
the PC and curse the screen.

Wren Pheonix:
I would like to agree with some points made by Wolfette and Sayonaran Avon, as well as make a few of my own.

Indeed, a long, complicated story line, with multiple endings, as well as multiple recruited allies would put into the replay value.

This could be combined with an equipment building system, a town building system, or other player driven interaction within the game, that would give benifits only once per game, and had many different options. Another aspect would be some sort of pet breeding program (think chocobo racing in FFVI) or other enjoyable mini-games.

Vencabot Teppoo:
Hmmm. I've just stumbled upon this site, and this particular conversation caught my eye.

There are four things that I think give a game replay value, or two if you put them into two groups.

1: Many endings, BUT, that means nothing alone. A "Role Playing Game" is, of course, a game where you roleplay. Thus, in a game like "Star Ocean: The Second
Story", you can actually change the main character's personality, alignment, friends and enemies, etc. This WILL make you come back for more, especially when done in combination with the next two (which, sadly, "Star Ocean: The Second Story", does not do).

2: Captivating art. Oh yeah; You know it's true...
Especially when hand-drawn. If the detail is good enough that you discover something new almost EVERY time you see the image ("Legend of Mana", "Saga Frontier 2") you will want to play the game.

3: Compelling music. If the music gives you goosebumps, and you find something new in it every time you hear it, it alone can draw you back to a game.

4: Optional collectables. Cards, monsters, bromides (you Lunar players know what I'm talking about), or even optional cinematics. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has searched for that rare conversation that you can only see after completing a series of mini-games.

Alright then, now the two groups, which are created to simplify the above.

1: Detail. Yes, if you make an RPG VERY carefully, with near endless detail in music, graphics, and conversation, you will be attracted.

2: Optionals. They SAY they're optional... The side-quests, alternate endings, (Catchin' 'em all, if you catch my drift) but we all know they that aren't REALLY optional. You don't feel like you've TRULY beaten the game until your eyes have seen everything that game has programmed into it.

Kami:
OK, FF7 time. How many times have people finished it? Am I the only one who goes well into double figures?

What draws me in is the plot. Sure, secret endings, hidden cutscenes yadda yadda. For me, what brings me back is a good, solid story. Theres no point findinmg everything in a game if you're not going to enjoy the experience. Have fun!

Elsydeon:
Just go and play Beyond the Beyond for PSX... if you can find it, that is.

Phoenix:
How many rainy sunday afternoons have I stared at my copy of FFVII or IX and started them again? Must be over 15 times now. I think the plot and the charecters really make me want to play it again. Plus first time I play a good RPG I don't ever see it all, get it all so its good to go back and pick up the pieces you've missed

Klei:
The best way to implement replay value is Multiple endings. Isn't that what role playing is all about, you place yourself into a role, and then your individual actions effect the everything as a whole, perhaps on Monday you don't want to save Princess Toadstool from the evil King Koopa, maybe you'd rather go play cards with Al the Alchemist.

Replay value is firstly about making choices, and then secondly about finding something new each time you play.

Klim Sarnage:
Now, this topic has indeed caught my eye. Guess it's time for my two cents...or would you prefer a whole dollar?

I believe they are several things that add to the replay value of a game...

A) A multiplayer feature (which most RPG's, aside from FF5 and FF6, don't have, and even then it was only 2 Player, but, ah, I shouldn't complain)

B) Alternate storylines! For example...Front Mission 3 (awesome tactical game for PS1 that's very similar to Final Fantasy Tactics). I've played that game over fifteen times, and I'm still not tired of it. Why? Because right at the beginning you can pick one of two different storylines (whatever one you don't pick, you basically have to fight against). And, even within these two storylines, there are SEVERAL different places where you can see different events/get different characters/see different places by performing certain events. This, I believe, is one of the number one ways in my book to get me to play a game again. Hidden cutscenes and events are cool, but unless it's a hidden quest or really cool item, chances are I won't replay the entire game just for it (unless it's a really fun game)

C) Collectables, as stated above, do add to RPG value.

Basically my strongest point there is B. If you have an RPG with multiple different ways you can go with the story, count me in for hours of replay action.

#5 I Can't See The Forest For The Trees

We are witnessing a steady decrease in the number of top-view map graphic RPGs and are now getting well saturated in 3-D games using the classic ID engine found in Doom. This discussion also asks the importance and/or your opinions on Isolinear View, that is, the entire map is tilted 45 degrees and when the player walks forward facing the screen, instead of going down, they go diagonally down and left.

With personal interests and suggestions in mind, which is it that you prefer, top-view, isolinear view, and 3D for modern RPGs and RPGMakers as well as taking into consideration view shifts that occur in the combat field and how would you back up your opinions regarding these viewpoints ?

Wolfette:
I find the top view like in Scenario the best; however, if I could change/add a feature it would be the player being able to move in 8 directions instead of just 4! Don't hate me David!

Having said that though, I wish there was more perspective in it. houses that you could see 2 sides of at once, and the camera angle following the player around like in the ID engine... but with the simpler graphics of Scenario/old NES/SN games.

I guess it would work out as while out in the world map, it's top view. And when in a town or shop it would be a perspective veiw. Reasons: Maps are easier to navigate when there is a definate North, South, East, and West. Towns etc are more involved when things can be looked around, under and above.

Sayonaran Avon:
I like the 4 directions best. 8 is harder to code, and when playing, you could accidently hurt your partner when trying to smack an enemy that is southwest of you, not west.

3D is starting to become the norm of games, making them easier to play in the matter of a month, or for the HC Gamers, 40 hours. With all the code for graphics, the desiners are too tired to put in something else.

I don't really care what view i'm playing the game in, either top down, or facing straight at targets and what have you. As long as you can see what you're
hitting, i'm fine.

DarkLink:
I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but I feel that 3D RPGs, have really lost their way. The only RPG that really made me proud recently was Chrono Cross. That was an excellent 3D rpg. Not only graphic wise but also sound and music wise. It made me think about the grand RPGs of the SNES.

With that said, I much rather prefer the 2d style or even a 3d top down view, somewhat like in lost kingdoms. It seems that top down left more to the imagination and let the player sculpt the characters in their own image in their mind.

Kami:
Mode 7. 'Nuff said. Seiken Densetsu, Secret of Evermore, Terranigma... the flat map with a very distinct 3D feel to it. To me, the graphics aren't important, but the maps should be relatively easy to follow. But not TOO easy (FFX anyone?). Have fun!

Topaz:
Adding some of my bits. I thought the mapping to Saga Frontier 2 was downright horrible as was the way you traveled in the PSX RPGMaker by AgeTec.

It's very strange sometimes. You play a great game, the first in a series and then expect something better in the next release and sometimes it is just so off-base and unoriginal from the first model you don't want to play it at all.

If I can't see behind me or bring up an instant map from a forced 3-D map view like Arcana for the SNES, chances are pretty good I'm going to get lost, stay lost, not complete the game nor attempt trying. I like top-view in that you can see all around you.

While it may have been loads of fun back in the Apple ][ times to take a pencil and draw out the map top-view on real graph paper as you entered it 3-D for Wizardry, I would like to believe we are well beyond this now.

With several 3-D videogames taking over the PSX by storm when it made it's initial debut, it was very nice to know that there were some people out there who still focused on making top-view old-school RPGs like Wild Arms and Lunar Silver Star. These will always have a special place in my interests and I never could get into 3-D views though it was pretty well crammed down our throats by modern gamewriters for the Sega Saturn, PSX, and N64 once 3-D was readily and easily available and started to be the "in" style of game developers. I am more than disappointed to find that RPGs for the IBM-pc today are naught but badly written DOOM clones using that repetitive ID library and those games that were or are top-view turned out to be tactical monsters much worse than Ultima and just about as busy as Final Fantasy Tactics.

Now I don't mind a good 3-D racer or shooter which does not require us to map the track, but a RPG has too many facets and easy ways of getting unbelievably lost, especially if you can't think 3-D in your head all the time and you are required to navigate 3-D to travel from one place to the next.

#6 Complexity versus Simplicity

Writing a RPGMaker is no easy feat and a lot of things have to be taken into consideration. First off, that a RPGMaker is a tool that is supposed to aid and facilitate the needs for someone wanting to make their own RPG.

What are some of the things you have seen that are good or not that may make a RPGMaker too simple and some of the things you have seen that are good or not that may make a RPGMaker too complex and unwieldy to manage ?

Wolfette:
Hooooo boy! Here goes... I want complete instructions for switches! How they work and why they work!! It's ever so much better when you understand *why* somethings work and others don't! *wolfette ducks and runs while giggling

Topaz:
Hey, come back here so I can SPANK your sassy self !!

You really need to ask this in Q & A as it applies directly to Scenario.
I'm serious, just ask the same question there and I'll lay out a good detailed answer. This area of

oncepts is for the what-if type of situations.
What we'd like to maybe see for the future, in any RPG or RPGMaker, and not specifically the current Scenario engine, Venture, or it's related written quests.

You can read detailed instructions on ALL of switch building and usage by clicking HERE.

Sayonaran Avon:
It depends on how much you know or how much you're willing to learn. (or it could depend on how much you can process after working, college, and screaming at your 'rents when you walk in the door).

This particular RPGmaker is easy for some games I've deemed hard for another RPG maker and vice versa. Some traditional RPGs can be written, also some RPG acion. If i write RPG action and it's on left feild (and not in the traditonal action RPG sense,) then I can't use this maker.

So there's nothing wrong and don't change a thing (unless your're updating, then that's cool).

Wren Pheonix:
I think David was looking for aspects and characteristics of RPGmakers in general, not just compairing his.

So, without any more bla-blah. Event or action scripting should be instinctive, and not based upon page upon page of script. Events are what propells the game, and so they should be easy to script, and then they should be easily copied for simular events.

Another good quality would be an easy importing of files.

DarkLink:
To keep it simple, I think simple menus and easy to implement features that create complex results. Dynamic weather effects for example.

Kami:
An RPG Maker should never be too simple. It should be a challenge, not an impossible feat, but after learning the basics, offer enough to enable the maker to add more. Too simple, and the likes of me (Who enjoy scripting and programming a little) will lose interest, rather like a game. Having good, simple bone structure is one thing, but adding meat to those bones offers more choice, more value in reusing and makes it more fun. Have fun!

Jed:
Scenario is great because all its options are available to use. With other things it requires a supremely-expert knowledge to take full advantage of all that is on offer and so many things can be wasted. Keep it up, Topaz ! ( )

Akis Mooglebane:
RPGmaker program does not have a good battle system... to simplistic to the point where battle is not apreciated, tedious.

The most inovative battle system I saw in a long time was probably Star Ocean 2 the Second Story's battle system.Now I know RPGmaker isnt about the graphics in term of sophistications, but thats just my 2 cents. :D

Topaz:
Hi AM:
Welcome to

oncepts !
The

engine does not have too much sophistication as I saw combat a very small part of the engine itself. I.F. for instance, has no combat engine whatsoever.

However, once items are in place, then combat will be improved by allowing the player to have NPCs being able to attack during combat the same time as the player and allowing the player to use sometimes unpredictable items as well, based upon how the Worldbuilder sees fit to design them.

. . .

JED, thank you very much for your very nice contributions in

oncepts recently !

#9 Multi-party RPGs and the Tactical Engine

Where would you draw the line for the maximum # of people in a RPG party ?
Games like Final Fantasy Tactics have 20 or more players involved.

Would you prefer more RPGs that are tactical in nature involving several detailed steps in combat or do you feel it is important to focus more on the story and emotions a RPG portrays with perhaps a lesser combat engine in exchange ?

There is no either/or and both are possible. It is just what are your ideas both negative and postive regarding each of them.

Wolfette:
Maximum # of ppl would be 3 excluding the player for me.

This would allow a mage, fighter, etc to join and fight with the player. However on the con side of that, I don't think it's any good unless all those people can interact with the other characters in the game. lol! That can also be a pro too though, depending on how much time you want to dedicate to your creation!

Arrakis:
im not saying only this many but I would like to see a really good single player battle system.

I can under this could b quite difficult to do. Thats why I want to see it. I think that it would take a lot of innovation on the designer/programmers part to acheive something really interesting for 1 player.

Sayonaran Avon:
20 players at a time????

The max of players I have used are nine, it's bad enough trying to watch
the others back. Also depending on characistics, the might have a hard head and walk straight onto the battle line.

For the player to control, 4 is fine, unless you play as one (the hero) and the others are automatic. Depending on the game, the recent one I have created lets the player control 2 simontaniously while the other friends are controlled automatically by the computer.

You can only control what spells/weapons/armor are used, but have to think ahead on which to use in combat.I think that it matters to how many people are used if you're using a turn-based engine, die rolled/card pulled engine or real time. For those engines to work, you need a maximum amount of people.
For the hardcore gamer, she can pull off twenty people at a time. For the
socalite, 9, 6, 4 or even 2 is best. (maybe 4 or 2)

Topaz:
First off Sayanaran Avon I would like to say Hey ! thanks for the good comments you've posted thus far ! I bet your world is gonna rock once you guess how to program Scenario cause I know there aren't many instructions .. (Changed today tho), I have Chibi's website page listed on my front page now. He wasn't going to wait around for me to write the instructions so he did so himself.

Secondly I will have to agree with you and Wolfette.
I think the one-man/woman-against-the-world themes are pretty tired and trained and we do more appreciate a good RPG where we have someone watch over us, or we can watch over them.

Future Scenario will make room for 3 players each quite different from each other with their own strengths and weaknesses forming a balance when they are united as a trio.

F.I.A:
RPG should do with multiple characters in a team.One character game will not be interesting as those with party.It do also support some story background, as the party will help the player to solve his problem. And there's another joke but quite reasonable to this aspect:

"When fighting a dragon, make sure you got a bunch of friends together, as there will be more target for the dragon to roast before it's your turn."(Chuckle)
----------------------------------------
Tactical battle engine is also an important aspect.
If FF from Square has no special features mostly in Battle Field, that will not earn its credit as one of the best RPG series.

Wren Pheonix:
I think David/Topaz is asking if a tactical engine or a party driven rpg engine is better than the other. My answer is, ..hehe, depends. If the game is supposed to be about war, then usually a tactical battle system would be the way to go, if it is about adventure, or maze crawling, then the party combat system
would be better.

What would be hard would be to combine both into a semi-real-time system, where you could pause the action, post commands for each party member, and set tactics and formations for the entire group, and just let them do it until you need to intervene again.

Topaz:
Hi Wren:

First off, there was a game that did what you describe called Drakkhen.
It might not be the best example, but I didn't like it. You had multiple characters in the party and you could tell them what to do. It was like a bad version of Lemmings and they died off just about as quickly. It could be my lack of interest in such games also.

It should be readily apparent that the kind of games or RPGs I like are for combat, no surprises. Like Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, you could see the baddies and go around them. They didn't move like in Azure Dreams or Lufia for the GBC either.
For control of characters, I think it's great to have independently operating players, but, if that is the case, then it would be a little unfair for them to receive damage since you have no DIRECT control over them. Thus my interest in the Companions seen in the B&W Gameboy Cart titled Great Greed.

In there, although you could only have one companion at a time (

will not however and have as many as you please), they never got hurt in combat, and at random times assisted the player. You could not RELY on them which I think added to the chance and worry that you are not going to make it without their help, but then, that's like most things, isn't it ?

The companions in Doctor Who rarely got hurt if ever (with the exception of Adric), and when you're playing a game, it's nice to know you don't have to keep jamming a dozen heal potions down their gullet just so they can survive a combat round.

But this also changes for BOSS characters. I think they should always have an unfair advantage over the player and completely surprise the player with attacks as well as special moves. Boss Combat is no fun if you know it's an easy win and you just slug it out. Some degree of thinking and rationalizing (as well as rationing resources) should be applied. Boss battles are meant to be hard to win and force the player to really think about what they are doing. If they lose, well they are that much wiser in not losing next time, perhaps having to backtrack some in order to achieve or complete this area again.

It's also no fun to get whacked by pure BAD LUCK in a random encounter. Those combats are to hone the player and fine-tune their abilities for the BOSS which follows. I've gotten into long battles in Final Fantasy 2 and Final Fantasy 3 for the SNES nearly using all my resources just to get by the random encounters, and no in-between critters to build me up so I am stronger either. Some random critters can kill a player outright with a simple spell. Final Fantasy 2 did that a lot.

While you did learn how to protect yourself, you are left with more of a feeling, GEEZ I sure hope I don't have to do this again ..and guess what, they're not going to want to play that game again if random encounters are that taxing on the brain.

Just some of my thoughts on this.

DarkLink:
I think that 3 characters should be allowed to be in your party at once with from 5-20 in your reserve list. If any of you have played FFIII, you will remember that several parties had to work together to escape through some dungeons. It added a whole new dimension to the game. I believe every single character should be incorporated into the story (where's yuffie and vincent at the end of FFVII??)

Topaz:
Greets DarkLink:
I've been giving this some thought myself and am playing around with the concept of having up to 3 players simultaneously in combat with 9 players total, 6 couched until needed (or allowed to change to).

The disadvantage to this is, there would be no items POCKET.
Each of the 3 players in combat would not be permitted to reach into a bag and see 99 potions waiting for them, no, they would have their oiwn inventory, and that could get limited and messy to manage.

Alternatively I could use a new original technique where your companions are items with "AbilityPoints" that can get damaged in combat and do unique effects based upon whom it is, but you cannot control them directly. In this, you could have many many companions, but they wouldn't have real attributes like the player, maybe just one or two, and would be listed in a 50 item list. Whereas you can see the immediate disadvantage as they are not true companions that you control in combat, you could also have any number of items to use in or out of combat, not a 4-6 limit which makes sense if you are controlling more than one real player in combat.

What are some of your (to you, the reader) ideas on this ?

Kami:
Chalk and Cheese. Tactical RPG's differ from Conventional RPG's. I like tactical RPG's, Ogre Battle and Tactics Ogre, just as much as any other RPG out there. Tactical RPG's are their own niche in the market, having dozens of characters in the arena at once. As long as tactical RPG's don't overly confuse the player, I don't have a preference. have fun!

Fallen:
I think that the max number of players should be about six or seven, with only three allowed in a battle at a time.

This allows the player to customize different characters the way they want to, yet allows them to worry less about who is low on health, and who is doing what.

Also, thanks David for such a great RPG Maker!! Scenario is awesome!
( )