IGN's Top 10 Ways to Fix JRPGs...

Recommended Videos

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Internet Kraken said:
Again, how does being able to save anywhere outside of combat make battles any easier? You haven't really answered this.

The battles do not get any harder. The enemies do not get any weaker. Being able to save anywhere has no influence on combat difficulty. A boss is still going to rape me if I am unprepared, regardless of whether or not I have a save right outside of his domain. The only difference is that I don't have to spend 20 minutes fighting the same enemies all over again.

I really don't see your logic.
I'm not arguing that if you add a chance to save and reload before and after it changes the difficulty of what comes in between.

If I play Super Mario World on an emulator using save states then none of the jumps get easier but a level where I have to do 20 jumps does get easier if I make a new save state after every jump. In reality, if Super Mario World was created with save anywhere in mind then I imagine that Nintendo would have changed the design a lot. This game where a developer just adds save anywhere and changes nothing is not a real world game. Or at least not a very good one.

If someone is creating a combat encounter for an RPG they might do something like increase a monster's critical hit rate if there is no real penalty for to death add a higher blind luck factor the game. Risk vs reward is a key factor that keeps a lot of players interested in a game.

You are also working on the assumption that nobody is thinking about adding save points during combat when, in fact, in a real time game it can be quite hard to work out when saving should be disabled. Also, in practice, many turn based western games do allow saving inside combat mode.

Of course, in competitive multiplayer the concept of one person quick saving every turn and reloading if something goes badly for them would not fly. It would be like admitting defeat. I believe that the rougelike save scheme of only being able to save on exit is still the best scheme for properly balancing challenge in single player games. And before you point out that if they just added that to existing games without changing anything else then it would be absurd, I know. They would have to change a lot.
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,915
0
0
More Fun To Compute said:
If I play Super Mario World on an emulator using save states then none of the jumps get easier but a level where I have to do 20 jumps does get easier if I make a new save state after every jump. In reality, if Super Mario World was created with save anywhere in mind then I imagine that Nintendo would have changed the design a lot. This game where a developer just adds save anywhere and changes nothing is not a real world game. Or at least not a very good one.
Well if the jumps in Super Mario RPG are so frustrating that I resort to using save states constantly, I'd say the game has some pretty poor design. However I never encountered jumps like than so I never resorted to save scumming just to jump over a pit successfully. And even if you did fall, the only consequences were that you have to try again. I really don't see how letting the player save at any point during an easy platforming section in an RPG would break the difficulty.

If someone is creating a combat encounter for an RPG they might do something like increase a monster's critical hit rate if there is no real penalty for to death add a higher blind luck factor the game. Risk vs reward is a key factor that keeps a lot of players interested in a game.
And how does letting you save anywhere completley remove risk? Again, there is just as much risk involved in battle with goblins no matter what save system the game has.


You are also working on the assumption that nobody is thinking about adding save points during combat when, in fact, in a real time game it can be quite hard to work out when saving should be disabled. Also, in practice, many turn based western games do allow saving inside combat mode.
Well I don't know to much about coding but I doubt it's that hard. A game detects when you should be in combat and has the AI change accordingly. I'm pretty sure it's harder to make the AI respond to a combat situation than the save system.

Of course, in competitive multiplayer the concept of one person quick saving every turn and reloading if something goes badly for them would not fly. It would be like admitting defeat. I believe that the rougelike save scheme of only being able to save on exit is still the best scheme for properly balancing challenge in single player games. And before you point out that if they just added that to existing games without changing anything else then it would be absurd, I know. They would have to change a lot.
And what's your point? Sorry, I don't understand what you were trying to say with this paragraph. However, I did understand that you think that the roguelike save system is the only one that can properly maintain balance. Well I say that's simply not true. Dragon Age: Origins is balanced so that every battle can pose a significant threat to your progress. Being able to save anywhere outside of combat doesn't make the game any easier.


Axolotl said:
Internet Kraken said:
Well then here's a crazy thought; don't reload.
I don't but saying "you don't have to use it." is a bad rebuttal for a feature that removes consiquences, reduces difficulty and encourages stupid decisions.
The way you describe makes it sound like this feature was implemented specifically to eliminate all consequences. That's obviously not true, as then the developers wouldn't bother to put consequences in the game. People who reload after every minor consequence are abusing a system the developers added for the convenience of the player. It's not the way the game is meant to be played. But even if you couldn't save anywhere this wouldn't stop some players from doing this.

So far only Pyode [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.167575.4513376] has shown me a situation in which not being able to save anywhere is acceptable. But even then I still see no reason to not have temporary saves.
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
Internet Kraken said:
The way you describe makes it sound like this feature was implemented specifically to eliminate all consequences. That's obviously not true, as then the developers wouldn't bother to put consequences in the game.
I never said it was intentional, but it's what it results in. The consequences and skills like steal/speech become null and void when it's easy for a player to just instantly redo any mistakes.
People who reload after every minor consequence are abusing a system the developers added for the convenience of the player. It's not the way the game is meant to be played.
And? That doesn't stop it being bad game design. It's like Dark Messiah, the devs built a fairly robust and pretty good combat system, then they added the kick button and all the effort was wasted because it was an instant win. I should not have to play around the games design mistakes.
But even if you couldn't save anywhere this wouldn't stop some players from doing this.
But it would discourage them and add some punishment for failure.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Internet Kraken said:
Well if the jumps in Super Mario RPG are so frustrating that I resort to using save states constantly, I'd say the game has some pretty poor design. However I never encountered jumps like than so I never resorted to save scumming just to jump over a pit successfully. And even if you did fall, the only consequences were that you have to try again. I really don't see how letting the player save at any point during an easy platforming section in an RPG would break the difficulty.
I was talking about Super Mario World. I don't know how challenging the jumps are in Super Mario RPG but in Super Mario World it is harder to play without using save states and the levels are designed to be re-played and learned.

And how does letting you save anywhere completley remove risk? Again, there is just as much risk involved in battle with goblins no matter what save system the game has.
It doesn't completely remove risk. It removes the risk of having to replay more than one encounter at a time which is the risk that you want removed.

Well I don't know to much about coding but I doubt it's that hard. A game detects when you should be in combat and has the AI change accordingly. I'm pretty sure it's harder to make the AI respond to a combat situation than the save system.
I'm pointing out that the choice is not as clear as you make out. There are games that let you save in combat so that you can save after every shot or blow.

And what's your point? Sorry, I don't understand what you were trying to say with this paragraph. However, I did understand that you think that the roguelike save system is the only one that can properly maintain balance. Well I say that's simply not true. Dragon Age: Origins is balanced so that every battle can pose a significant threat to your progress. Being able to save anywhere outside of combat doesn't make the game any easier.
The concept of save and reload basically breaks some fundamental concepts of what a game is.

The assumption that every battle has to pose a significant threat, for example, is only something that you think of as naturally right because you can save before every battle.
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,915
0
0
More Fun To Compute said:
I was talking about Super Mario World. I don't know how challenging the jumps are in Super Mario RPG but in Super Mario World it is harder to play without using save states and the levels are designed to be re-played and learned.
Oh my bad. I just thought you were talking about Super Mario RPG since, well you know, we're talking about RPGs. Platformers and RPGs are completley different, and hence should usually have different save systems.

But looking back on these posts I'm not quite sure what we are arguing about at this point anyways. So I apologize for continuing what has become a pointless argument.
Axolotl said:
And? That doesn't stop it being bad game design. It's like Dark Messiah, the devs built a fairly robust and pretty good combat system, then they added the kick button and all the effort was wasted because it was an instant win. I should not have to play around the games design mistakes.
But even if you couldn't save anywhere this wouldn't stop some players from doing this.
But it would discourage them and add some punishment for failure.
Well I haven't played Dark Messiah but it sounds like the kick button you are describing is overpowered. But I believe that being able to save at any point and an overpowered attack are completley different.

The main difference is that there is actually a reason to let the player save anywhere. It's convenient to the player and only screws up parts of the game if it is abused. You're not supposed to use it to avoid consequences. On the other hand an attack only serves one purpose and that is to fight your opponent. So there is no reason for an attack to be overpowered, as that is it's only use. You're supposed to use it to fight, hence it being overpowered is a problem.

And I disagree that save systems add any significant punishment for failure. If I fail a steal attempt, the punishment is usually so benign that reloading won't be worth my time, regardless of the type of save system in place. But if the game has a severe punishment then the player probably will reload, regardless of the save system being used. Even if Fallout 2 had save points and each was 2 hours apart I would still reload if I failed a steal attempt, since that results in everyone trying to kill you with no way of redemption.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that if the punishment is light then the player will probably accept. If it is to harsh then they won't. It doesn't matter which save system the game has.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Internet Kraken said:
More Fun To Compute said:
I was talking about Super Mario World. I don't know how challenging the jumps are in Super Mario RPG but in Super Mario World it is harder to play without using save states and the levels are designed to be re-played and learned.
Oh my bad. I just thought you were talking about Super Mario RPG since, well you know, we're talking about RPGs. Platformers and RPGs are completley different, and hence should usually have different save systems.
In terms of save systems, I think that there is more variation between different titles than between the genres. In general, I don't think that RPGs are that exceptional as far as video games go and can be directly compared to games in other genres.
 

PhunkyPhazon

New member
Dec 23, 2009
1,967
0
0
I can't really bring myself to read it, I can't stand IGN's stupid rant articles. They're always filled with factual errors and straight out lies, and then their suggestions range from irrelevant to things that no one else agrees with them on. (Example: One of their last Sonic rant articles said Sonic games have been bad since StH3...what?)
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
A couple of their points are good (like losing the save points) but if they did a lot of those they would cease to be JRPGs.

It also seems to miss some of the points, like the fact that while the "static" character art with text might be inferior to fully voiced presentations in games like Dragon Age: Origins, you typically also have a much larger roster of characters aside from the generic backround characters. Fully voicing and animating all of them would get very expensive and greatly increase localization costs.

Truthfully I think the JRPG genere is decent as it is, I don't nessicarly think turning them into WRPGs (which I generally prefer) is the right course. Having more than one flavor is always nice. I think JRPGs are almost zen like in their perfection and simplicity when you get down to it. I feel the same about Roguelikes. :)

The part about bringing them online kind of blew my mind though. No offense but I like my single player RPGs. Also games like Borderlands are *NOT* RPGs, they are shooters with a few RPG elements (and very mild ones overall). It's like comparing apples and oranges.

White Knight Chroncles is a neat idea, and I plan to try it, but even if it rocks, I am STILL going to want to play solitary RPG games, and probably more frequently. :p
 

TelHybrid

New member
May 16, 2009
1,785
0
0
Removing save points isn't the solution. As for being able to leave as you wish, a quicksave option similar to what was implemented in the GBA ports of Final Fantasy IV/V/VI would do nicely. You can save and leave the game at any time, but you can't use the quicksave option to set checkpoints.

Also multiplayer? Fuck that!