15 replies to this topic

[Mani Kanina]

Nobody Cares About It But It’s The Only Thing That Matters: Pacing And Level Design In JRPGs is an article that talks about the design holes many JRPGs generally fall into in regards to level design, even to this very day when we should know better.

The interesting thing here is to me, that the basic problem is actually that the designers probably never thought about how their design would impact the playing experience. Or in the case of Bravely Default, they knew about it but for some reason thought it was fine as is and just slapped a band-aid on it for the 1.2 edition of the game.


Anyway, the article is an interesting read and if you're an aspiring game designer then it's very worthwhile to read. And personally what I think should be taken from it is that one of the biggest design traps is not considering what the cause and effect of your design actually is.

Edited by Lunaria, 28 March 2016 - 03:57 PM.

[TheLegend_njf]

I agree with the article, but why is the title so extreme?

 

"Nobody cares about it?"

 

That seems a bit condescending because the author of the article assumes that they are the only one who "gets it". The title of the article just rubs me the wrong way. 

[Mani Kanina]

Titles for articles is an artform in itself, you have to sell the topic to the reader to get them interested. This is why newspapers and websites on the net often use "click bait" names. Sure, I mean, it sucks to some degree but it works, that's why people use it. That being said, judging an article based on the title seems kind of lame, since if you read it you get that it's nothing like that at all, it merely points out that there are many games these days in the JRPG genre that don't really care about interesting level design, and I think that's fair to criticise.

[C-Dawg]

That article was as difficult to read as the games the author is critiquing.  

 

Here, let me summarize what I got out of that:

 

"Don't make your games' limiting factor be boring the player to tears with mazes like you would find a four-year old's maze book.  If you want to make a maze, make sure you have other limiting factors (like resource scarcity) that ensure there is something other than boredom that slows down the player."

 

i.e. force the player to do something other than tediously explore a maze or they'll get bored.

[Anthus]

I get what this guy is saying, but it boils down to which form of restriction you prefer. I didn't hate exploring BD's dungeons, even if they are easy. I don't think the dungeons are bad, but they are simple in terms of layout. The FF series, from which BD is a spin-off is hardly renowned for its dungeon design, and almost every game boils down to mazes with random encounters, and maybe a switch here or there, or some teleporters. Those design pitfalls are more bearable in BD than they ever were before, imo, cause BD looks pretty, and it gives you a map at least

 

When you are making a traditional RPG, I'd think the focus is going to be on designing dungeons where it is very likely you will have to fight many, many enemies, and battles, cause the designers, probably, want you to fight stuff more than explore, and exploration is just a side effect of combat. I mean, the people making the game care a great deal more about character building, and battle configurations than they do about making a good dungeon. I honestly wish dungeon design was a lot better in a lot of classic RPGs, cause lets face it, it's not like Bravely Default is the first game to suffer this design dilemma.

[Mani Kanina]

I don't know, a game like say Chrono Trigger has super interesting combat and while most dungeons aren't super interesting either to be honest, but at least they don't drag on. Where as in a game like BD, even when you can lower the encounter rate to something more your preferences (like 50%), since EXP rates and junk don't scale you still have to put that number up later and grind a bit to compensate if you want to stay on curve.

It's a bit ironic, to be honest, since table top RPGs (which inspired the JRPG genre) actually put a great focus on the out of combat interaction. And one of the high notes is allowing the player characters to make interesting choices to progress the game in, possibly, unintended ways. Few video games actually adapted this aspects, most just ripped off D&D combat mechanics and called it a day.

[Anthus]

True, you don't see many video games with entirely open stories, that progress based on your actions, and whatnot. They exist, and are becoming more common, but it is a hard medium to crack. One of my biggest complaints with RPG dungeons is that they give the illusion of having multiple paths, but in the end, there is still usually only one way you can go to actually advance in the game. It'd be neat to see more games have different exits, and have different outcomes maybe based on which exit, or path you take. Lol, I'm just brainstorming here.

 

It's not an RPG by any stretch, but take Super Mario World for example. It had areas with different exits, and this let you explore two (or more) totally different paths at a time, and gave you a wider choice of stuff to do in general.

[SpacemanDan]

See, I was reading this and thought 'Oh, I feel like the Etrian games do a good job on these points' and sure enough it shows up.

 

Thanks for sharing this though! Definitely an interesting read with lots to consider. :3

[LikeLike on fire]

even if it is not a mazey maze. I tend to get lost easy in a game, doing things like thinking I came out of the place I need to go. so desinging things then is harder for me.

[Spacepoet]

I know the 'dungeons' are very youth friendly, and pretty short in general, but i feel like the original Paper Mario and Thousand Year Door had very good out of combat interactions and puzzle dungeons that never boiled down to grinding, and is totally possible to play through while staying on curve with little to no farming or segments where you felt like reaching the 'end of the tunnel' was a job for another day. I can wish for a RPG style 'Paper Zelda' with MC style art    

[Mani Kanina]

The paper mario series also does the thing where you see all enemies on the field though, and once killed they don't respawn unless you leave the area completely. So those games kinda steps around the entire aspect of grinding in general. They also do, for the most part, have fairly interesting dungeon ideas though.

[Koh]

Final Fantasy Mystic  Quest did this better.  You see all monster encounters, and you have field abilities that need be used for puzzle solving and traversal to get through the dungeons.

[Mani Kanina]

Better than than the paper mario games? I'm gonna have to disagree on that, you got way more interesting stuff going on in the overworld in paper mario than in FF:MQ, not to mention FF:MQ was basically designed from a ground up as a game with no stakes because "westerners" are too stupid to play JRPGs.

[Koh]

I was talking about better than the actual FF games and most old RPGs in that regard.  You actually did things on the overworld besides walk from point A to point B in a maze-like fashion, and you could see the monster encounters.  There was room for more depth, but it was already deeper than the things it intended to be easier against, with regards to the dungeons.

[Spacepoet]

The paper mario series also does the thing where you see all enemies on the field though, and once killed they don't respawn unless you leave the area completely. So those games kinda steps around the entire aspect of grinding in general. They also do, for the most part, have fairly interesting dungeon ideas though.

 

Being able to see the enemies brings up a pretty interesting dynamic to grinding tho, since most of the combat interactions outside of boss fights were based on a) your ability to dodge the overworld enemies, b) your desire to skip enemies (and consequently exp), and c) your current power curve (killing enemies in one hit to avoid tedious combat moments for pushover enemies). You could totally bypass enemies in a lot of scenarios, similar to lowering the encounter rate, except that it wasn't mathematical, it was mechanical. On a similar note, the timing based empowered hits that essentially replaced 'crits' worked also in the same way: not math, skill. So your ability to deal with enemies that were stronger than you (due to exp starving from intentional dodges) is directly tied to your ability to land consistent timed hits correctly. A pretty cool trade off in terms of design, and definitely a way to take a genre of combat that was essentially 'press button -> watch animation -> end turn' at the time, into something a little more engaging, even in the most (subjectively) boring part of the way rpgs work. just cool stuff to think about lol