^The exception to the rule.Ieyke said:Unless it's Pokemon in tall grass, I fucking HATE random encounters.
That's a brilliant post.encapturer said:I can't honestly vote for either option because each one creates a different 'feel' for the game.
Known encounters makes the gameplay flow better as there is no interruptions, however, it makes the encounters more 'safe'. Basically, known encounters are just that: known. There is little tension before the encounter, you know there is an enemy at that place, and you can choose how you want to engage with that foe, if at all. Simple, and gives lots of control to the player.
However, sometimes that level of player control could be detrimental to the game as a whole. Random encounters create a more tense atmosphere where a monster can come out of nowhere and eat you alive. If a location is deemed dangerous because it's filled with dangerous monsters that hunt people, the encounters there work better random. In fact, there have been entire sub-genre of RPGs that thrive on this level of tension: the dungeon crawler. Give the player a winding dungeon (or forest, or whatever) to get through with limited supplies, combine that with monsters that come out of nowhere to attack them, throw in a dash of surprises in the dungeon, and you get a game that thrives in part *because* the encounters are random. Instead of planning how to fight each encounter on their own, the player plans out whole dungeon runs. Perhaps the first time they stick their head in to gauge the strength of the foes, and the next they push in as far as they can, until they run out of resources or the player encounters a monster that they weren't expecting to encounter. It's one of my favorite types of RPGs.
That said, random encounters work best if the monsters generally are enough of a threat that the players might lose the encounter... or at least use up resources that are limited. Any game that you can just press 'A' to win, or has little emphasis on resource management, will probably now be a good fit for random encounters.
Why not just allow the player to save anywhere? Does it really break the game? If it does, can there not be some kind of limit that still allows players to save and switch off whenever necessary? Maybe delete your 'anywhere' save when you reload, with your checkpoint saves to fall back on if something goes horribly wrong?Danbo Jambo said:Save points are also a big consideration. Real life exists, and often when you play you just sometimes need to save so you can pop out, have dinner, or whatever. Trudging through to a save point in those scenarios is very annoying.
Very good shout. Personally I don't see any issue with saving anywhere, and think your alternative is one worth consideration too.Bad Jim said:Why not just allow the player to save anywhere? Does it really break the game? If it does, can there not be some kind of limit that still allows players to save and switch off whenever necessary? Maybe delete your 'anywhere' save when you reload, with your checkpoint saves to fall back on if something goes horribly wrong?Danbo Jambo said:Save points are also a big consideration. Real life exists, and often when you play you just sometimes need to save so you can pop out, have dinner, or whatever. Trudging through to a save point in those scenarios is very annoying.
Option two would seem like a hindrance for some games who's appeal is grinding or involves a lot of farming.inu-kun said:Two good examples of how to improve random encounters:
1. After finishing the area first time, let the player disable them (Wild Arms 4).
2. Have a set amount of encounters for the area (Ar Tonelico).
Most JRPGs let you save anywhere outside of combat, and a lot let you make temp saves.Danbo Jambo said:Very good shout. Personally I don't see any issue with saving anywhere, and think your alternative is one worth consideration too.Bad Jim said:Why not just allow the player to save anywhere? Does it really break the game? If it does, can there not be some kind of limit that still allows players to save and switch off whenever necessary? Maybe delete your 'anywhere' save when you reload, with your checkpoint saves to fall back on if something goes horribly wrong?Danbo Jambo said:Save points are also a big consideration. Real life exists, and often when you play you just sometimes need to save so you can pop out, have dinner, or whatever. Trudging through to a save point in those scenarios is very annoying.
I love JRPG's, but for me the big gaps between save points have been their most frsutrating aspect as I've aged and not been able to dedicated the time to gaming I once could.