RPGDX > Forums > General Discussion > Battle systems

Quickbeam · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:44 pm Post subject: Battle systems - what works?

I'm sure this topic is a common one around here, and I apologize if its come up before (I did do a quick search and didn't find anything general like this). Anyway, the question I'm basically posing here is what battle systems do you like in games? Turn-based? Zelda-esque? Stuff like that.

The reason I ask is that I'm kind of undecided as to what I want to do with Project Island Game, as I've been spending most of my time so far on art and setting and stuff. I was originally going for something turnbased, kind of like Chrono Cross, where you can perform as many actions as you have stamina for. But here's the catch: there are some things that need to be taken into consideration for this game.
-There is only 1 PC
-There cannot be seperate battle screens (so, kind of like CT or Zelda, either way, you don't leave the main screen)
-There is no magic whatsoever in the setting I've created, so that means that special abilities are basically limited to combos and stuff

Anyway, I'm really not sure now if I want to go the action-RPG route and just have Zelda-style combat, or if I want to stick with traditional stuff and do a turnbased system. So I could really use some general opinions and input. Just let me know what you guys think would work for this project, or what kind of systems you like to play, pros and cons of different systems etc.

Also, don't think I'm milking the topic just for the sake of my game. If you want to give me suggestions, thats great, but feel free to just discuss the topic in general.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions. :)

Rainer Deyke · Demon Hunter Joined: 05 Jun 2002 Posts: 672

I like both turn-based tactical and real-time action combat. However, if there is only one character and no magic, the tactical options are probably going to be severely limited. Go with the action. I didn't particularily like the combat in Chrono Trigger, which seemed to lack depth.

js71 · Wandering DJ Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 815

Rainer Deyke · Demon Hunter Joined: 05 Jun 2002 Posts: 672

Locrian · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:29 am Post subject:

Hoorah! One vote for action/real time! I'll be second vote. Do you have an artist slave chained down in the basement? I'm not a big fan of turn based but it does allow for as low as one sprite per enemy. Not as fun as real time though, being able to actually try and dodge attacks or run away or get in close for a powered up attack rather than scrolling to the word "dodge" or "retreat" or "attack" on a friggen menu. I wasn't too fond of Chrono Trigger's battle system either. But I'm not fond of anything that isn't real time heh...

[EDIT]

js71 · Wandering DJ Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 815

Suchiiben · Guest

I'd really like to see something not hack and slash and turn-based, but like a fighting game or FPS. That would be the coolest RPG ever! You see... The game depends on stats... But it mostly depends on skill! It makes it more dashing!

Mandrake · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:29 am Post subject:

Jihgfed Pumpkinhead

Uh-oh, looks like this is going to be one of those "what is and isn't an RPG" threads.

I did play a fantastic first-person shooter called System Shock 2 with really well-implemented RPG elements, at the very least. Magic, statistic levelling, RPG-style item-management, engrossing story, all very well put-together. One of my favourite games, and I think one of the best examples of the good that can come out of cross-genre fertilization.

That said, I do prefer turn-based combat, especially for RPGs. Why, on God's green earth, would I prefer that? Because with an RPG, I like to sit back, relax, and make my choices. I like tactics, and I like the ability to think things through. Of course, it's largely a matter of choice, but when I go to an RPG, I want a game I can be swept up in, not one I have to try to control, which is the feeling I get from more action-oriented games. I don't know if I'm expressing myself properly.

Also, real-time seems to favour identification with a single character, the one you actively control, while I've always liked the sort of ensemble aspect of RPGs.

Shifting to a discussion of turn-based battles, perhaps more strategy would be nice, but the cost is that it is much more difficult to create and design, and much more difficult to play. I'm a big fan of the intuitive and simple game, which can still yield much strategy. By contrast, strategy games often get extremely complex and difficult to play, I find. What's worse, the more complex the game is, the harder it is to fix when broken.

Mandrake · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:33 am Post subject:

that point was well made, Messir PumpkinHead, adn I agree with all you said. I think I should apologise for my rashness: I'm not against cross-genre pollinisation in games, I am against people saying that they "hate" one aspect fo a genre that they not only claim to enjoy playing, but also want to design and implement a video game in said genre.

It's like saying "I love platform games, but what's up with all teh running and jumping? Now put it into an FPS engine and that owld be awesome!". It makes no sense.

ps- i have purty new avatar.

EDIT:
also, just so everyone knows, I'm not being a hate monger, and I'm not pointing the finger at people who like action RPG's. I like them as much as anyone else...it's people that complain when other people make games with turn based combat- like peopole dropping scores in a games review because it was turn based instead of action based. That's just wrong to me.

And saying "console games" or X games suck because they use turn based- I don't know. It's like comparing apples to oranges. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it doesn't mean games with a diferent element (and thus aappeal to diferent people) are not as valid as the games you enjoy.

Locrian- I like your ideas on combining Tactical game play with classic RPG gameplay...for an RTS on the scale of an RPG (ie: not big armies, but a small party of characters). I've often thought about doing this in a game. I'll talk to you more about it tonight
_________________
"Well, last time I flicked on a lighter, I'm pretty sure I didn't create a black hole."-
Xmark

http://pauljessup.com

Locrian · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:44 am Post subject:

Hmmm not to butt heads with you or anything... but since when did battle system style become part of the definition of RPG? There are certainly some often used styles, but saying you have to go with these for it to be an RPG is like saying your main character has to be a young man whos family has been murdered and must go fight the evil wizard and rescue the damsel in distress. If someone wants to use these typical-to-RPG elements thats fine, but if they want to conciously avoid them thats cool too, and doesn't automatically take away from the game's RPGness. Just kinda sounds like youre saying these are necissary for it to be an RPG. You could have an RPG with no battle system at all. I have no idea what that guy meant by making it more like a fighter or FPS though... he needs to explain his thoughts a little more.

Did you use a 3D program to make the spell effect? It kinda looks like it for some reason. Man I gotta track down that guy that was making awesome spell effects with the aid of 3DSMax. They looked really professional.

Ah, Jihgfed, turnbased is more relaxed, ok... I can kind of see how someone could prefer it to real time now. Though it tends to do the opposite to me. Hit for 50 points of damage? bullshit! I can dodge your stupid attacks! Lemme move dammit! Also interesting how you feel turnbased allows you to be swept in more. I feel the opposite. All of a sudden being unable to move freely, or even worse being teleported to another screen... Crazy how differently two people can be effected by things.

Hehehe its fun to see a bunch of people who are all passionate about the same thing, but have slightly different tastes and biases, thrown into a topic with each other.

Quickbeam · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 3:09 pm Post subject:

Heh, wow, this got responses fast.

js71 · Wandering DJ Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 815

Try daggerfall, of which morrowind was a sequel to. It's very RPG-like, even though it's first-person. the combat is WAY better than morrowind's, imho, as you have to hold down the right mouse button and drag the mouse in the direction you want to swing your weapon as opposed to just clicking over and over again. Also, the world is HUGE. One group of enthusiasts sat down and decided to study how long it would take to traverse the world of daggerfall, and it took them approx. a WEEK AND A HALF (In real life, not game time!) to cross it, corner to corner. Now THAT's and rpg.

Quickbeam · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:52 pm Post subject:

I've never really played Daggerfall. I mean, I did, for like 10 minutes at a friend's house years back, but that's it. The thing with that game, though, is that a whole bunch of it is randomly generated, right? I -despise- randomly generated dungeons/towns/anything. I'd rather have small well-done areas than gigantic empty/crappy ones.

But yes, the combat as you describe does sound better than Morrowind's clickfest.

Bjorn · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:55 pm Post subject:

Pity Daggerfall was repetitive (in it's landscapes and dungeons) and buggy (falling through the ground and stuff). But still, I think I liked it more than Morrowind, if only Daggerfall's quest system would have worked in my hacked version... :-(