Longer But Fewer Normal Encounters

[Soryuju]

How do you feel about the concept of making regular battles in games somewhat longer and more involved (with appropriately scaled rewards), but reducing the overall frequency of encounters in exchange?

I want to talk a bit about my own project for context, but then open it back up to a more conceptual discussion. I originally intended for my normal encounters to last roughly 2-3 rounds on average, but as my combat’s mechanics evolved and grew deeper, I started to feel as though this wouldn’t be long enough to bring out the most engaging parts of my system. Since I decided to fully heal players after each encounter, it also pushed me to design extremely dangerous enemies just to create any source of challenge.

Extending the average encounter duration to 4-5 rounds helps smooth out the discrepancies in the way the game plays between normal encounters and boss battles, but with 4 party members and up to 6 enemies in regular combat, the battles would definitely be more time consuming. Cutting the frequency and upping the rewards was the first solution that came to mind.

So, back to the general concept:

- As a player, how do you generally feel about this sort of design choice?

- Do you think it works better with a certain style of encounters (e.g. random, visual, etc.)?

- Does it potentially improve or worsen the experience of grinding?

- What other types of game mechanics might be impacted (and potentially have to change) as a result of a design choice like this?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

 

[TheoAllen]

- As a player, how do you generally feel about this sort of design choice?

I don't generally like long battle. First reason is, if you design a long battle with a long span between them, I can't feel the power progress right away. A short battle but frequent means I can see my level progress faster, and see how much I improved after each battle. Long battle means I see my progression much slower. On another note, it's long battle, means the system should be quite satisfying to play because you will be staying there for long.

- Do you think it works better with a certain style of encounters (e.g. random, visual, etc.)?

I'd vote visible encounter. Either it's 'randomly' spawn on the map that you could avoid, or scripted one that blocks your path. Random encounter suit better for quick battle in my opinion.

- Does it potentially improve or worsen the experience of grinding?

Already said on the point above.

Also, not sure about your last question.

but with 4 party members and up to 6 enemies in regular combat, the battles would definitely be more time consuming

I hope this time consumption not because of seeing the battle animation. My game that have similar approach of battle participant took time longer because of it. And it dpesn't even have as much as you do. The battle last longer because waiting for the animation to execute is not really long. It just frustrating. If it's long because of the mechanic, like, tactical battle system, it's fine.

 

[lianderson]

I think the perfect example of longer but fewer battles is Final Fantasy Tactics.

 

[Milennin]

That's the plan I go for with my game, because my battle system needs a minimum a number of turns in to be able to shine. Without those extra turns, it would just devolve into hitting attack, heal, into strongest spell to finish it, which is not what I want. My system is made to provide depth and decision making that has impact even on smaller encounters. So, instead, I go for fewer encounters (or well, it's up to the player to decide since it's visual encounters they can try to avoid), but when combat happens, it will take some turns to finish.
There are of course ways to finish combat faster, but they'll also cause you to burn through resources faster, or create higher risk scenarios.

 

[Soryuju]

@TheoAllen

I agree that it’s satisfying to see quick progress when leveling. However, if combat rewards, including EXP, were scaled up to match the longer duration of battles, I think that could be satisfying in its own way. The larger lump sums of EXP would make each battle feel like it made a significant contribution to your character’s next level, and there would be noticeably fewer battles between level ups.

I was also thinking visual encounters would be somewhat better suited to longer fights, since the player would have more control over which battles they wanted to invest their time into fighting. I wasn’t sure if there were some points in favor of random encounters which I was overlooking, though.

And yeah, my combat length concerns stem more from mechanics than animations. Encounters with 5+ enemies won’t be common, and they’ll generally be comprised of weak enemies with simple attacks. Barring a handful of flashier, expensive skills, I’ll aim to keep attack animations down in the 1-2 second range.

@lianderson

FFT and tactical games in general do seem to succeed well at this. There’s usually not much non-combat activity in these games either, besides obtaining new equipment and abilities for your characters and setting them up in the character menu. So maybe that’s also something I should take notes on - how longer encounters might interact with or disrupt non-combat activities. I wasn’t planning on having many non-combat activities in my game, but I can potentially see longer battles being disruptive if your game has lots of puzzle mechanics or side activities included in the exploration. By the time players finish a battle, they may have forgotten what they were doing before combat started.

@Milennin

I’m in a similar position - the meat of my combat will generally emerge on round 2, when the results of player choices and enemy actions on round 1 will kick in. But if I try to stick to my original plan, that round also needs to be the round where players start wrapping things up, if not wiping the enemy completely. It’s quick, sure, but not very satisfying. And as mentioned above, the design choice to fully heal players between fights then requires some very scary/cheesy enemies to make combat anything other than a spam-fest for players.

My combat isn’t quite a tactical system like FFT, but I’m trying to implement a dynamic row-changing mechanic that adds a positioning element to combat. Three rows, each combatant can move forward or backward one row at the start of each of their turns. The Midline is neutral ground, but the Frontline and Backline each play significantly differently, so players have to consider their own positioning against the enemy’s current formation when deciding the best move. If players only get to make a couple moves before the battle is over, though, it would take a lot of the excitement and strategy out of it.

 

[ShadowHawkDragon]

In the project I've been theory crafting, the idea is that battles are meant to be avoided. You could take on 2-3 foes to force a path and bypass part of this 'avoid the enemy puzzle', but taking on them all would be near impossible.

A part of this design has allowed me to get a bit more creative with the battle system to the point that it's looking closer to @Milennin's design, i.e. a battle system that shines best at 5+ turns. Of course to keep things flowing this would mean cutting out on some of that bumf which slows things down, such as all those waits and pauses in the default 'Action Sequences'.

 

[Grunwave]

Very interesting topic. Part of the reason I enjoy these boards.

 

[SOC]

Personally, I don't always want to be so hard pressed and challenged every single encounter. Having mental breaks and just spamming attack sometimes is exactly what we need even if we don't realize it. When every single encounter starts requiring more attention and engagement, it becomes even more of a chore over the course of a play session than the easier fights, even if they're less frequent. If you want someone to sit down and play your game for longer than 10-15 minute spurts, you need to keep this in mind.

 

[trouble time]

Personally, I don't always want to be so hard pressed and challenged every single encounter. Having mental breaks and just spamming attack sometimes is exactly what we need even if we don't realize it. When every single encounter starts requiring more attention and engagement, it becomes even more of a chore over the course of a play session than the easier fights, even if they're less frequent. If you want someone to sit down and play your game for longer than 10-15 minute spurts, you need to keep this in mind.

I disagree with this almost entirely. There are people who can play extremely involved games (like fighting games for example) in matches back to back for several hours without it feeling like a slog or a chore, some even if they're on the losing end. I remember when skullgirls came out my buddies and I sat down for over 14 hours playing matches, and have gone longer playing guilty gear. Perhaps spamming attack is something that YOU need, but if it happens even once outside a very simple tutorial then I think your battles need adjustment.

 

[Isabella Ava]

When i play game i just want something Fun, Simple. I don't like strategy-like Battle Systems.

 

[Soryuju]

I disagree with this almost entirely. There are people who can play extremely involved games (like fighting games for example) in matches back to back for several hours without it feeling like a slog or a chore, some even if they're on the losing end. I remember when skullgirls came out my buddies and I sat down for over 14 hours playing matches, and have gone longer playing guilty gear. Perhaps spamming attack is something that YOU need, but if it happens even once outside a very simple tutorial then I think your battles need adjustment.

Unless you’re talking specifically about fast-paced ARPGs, I’m not sure how well the comparison between genres works here. I get that the point you’re making is that deep combat systems can foster long-term involvement from players, but menu-driven, turn-based RPG combat engages the player in a completely different way from most fighting games (and the difference between the single player and multiplayer experience is a huge factor, too). The pacing of RPG encounters is going to be much slower, there’s often no mechanical skill factor to keep players pushing themselves, and unless you have some very complex AI working for you, players are going to “solve” your encounters after a little time in each new area. Once a player establishes a successful strategy for each encounter, most of the interest is going to fade unless you have secondary systems to complicate things (such as attrition between fights, ambushes, scoring systems, etc.). Even then, you’ll still get more significantly diminishing returns each time players run into the same group of monsters than you will each time a fighting game player faces the same character/human player.

It would be lovely if I could just say “I’ll invest time into making all of my encounters interesting every time,” but as even this thread shows, different players have different ideas about what makes combat interesting, so it’s probably a wash. But if someone’s got a manual for making perfect RPG combat systems, hit me up!

@SOC

I do agree that it’s important to have some variation in the length/complexity of encounters. I’ve been speaking in terms of average encounter length here for the sake of simplicity, but when planning the actual enemy troops, I would definitely intend to diverge from that average in both directions. Having occasional easy fights is nice because it breaks up the rhythm of gameplay, offers a quick shot of rewards, and makes players feel powerful for a little while. And even though the base encounter may not be a challenge, players will likely seek to challenge themselves to clear these battles while expending as few long-term resources as possible.

Conversely, having occasional fights with enemies which are more difficult than average will create unexpected tension and excitement for players, introduce opportunities for new/different tactics, and offer up a nice big chunk of loot to players who succeed. I think there’s great satisfaction in victory when you’ve been cruising for a while and the odds suddenly turn against you. These more difficult encounters can also prep players for the rising difficulty of future areas, making the transition easier as they progress.

I still personally enjoy the idea of random encounters generally having some amount of depth and danger to them, but I have to agree that there’s a fine line between engaging players and exhausting them. I’ll work to keep it in mind as I’m polishing my own systems.

 

[trouble time]

@Soryuju
It has to do with the depth of the combat system. People can cope with deep combat systems for a looong time. The genres dont have to be similar to engage with the original critism, that "we" would be exhausted by engaging with a complex system for a long time. The fact a fighting game is much more complex just reinforces my point. The fact that theyre different genres dosent matter in this case, if the complexity or difficulty is the problem. There are still people who play difficult turn based games without exhaustion. At this point you've effectively argued against your initial design. If your encounters cant defeat the party when they make mistakes and you restore their health after battle, then the combat doesnt matter. Also, If your combat is easily solveable, then you REALLY failed. Its not even that hard. If you cant do this then no, you shouldnt be trying to design combat the way you are.

There is no perfect rpg comabt system, which is exactly why i took issue with the post i replyed to using "we". You do have to know who you're designing for, and if your designing for people that want a challenge then ,on average, theyll have more endurance.

 

[kairi_key]

This probably won't contribute much in terms of ideas but...

I think....

It can get tiring to play easier than fewer turns but with more battles. I think one of the thing that make or break this is kinda how you ease in or get the player to be familiar with the slower combat rhythm. If you can get your player to know right away that this is what to be expected then, yeah, they can prepare themselves mentally to deal with this. On one end of the spectrum where these types of game really done best as I see it, is where battles or main mechanic of the game are dealt in stage. In FFT, each battle is a stage on its own in a tightly closed package. In between battles is a time of relax where players can really decide whether to go into this tightly closed package or not. I can probably do just a few of these stages of battle in one day and if the game is designed to be played this way, then I'm okay with that.

Another game that came to mind is... Xenoblade Chronicle series. The game's battles are based on the fact that you don't need to go fight every enemies you see on the field and each battles can take time since you basically need to charge up gauges to do things. It's different from the FFT in that the battles feel more like an encounter rather than stages. Players aren't encouraged to engage in every battle they can find (or at least right way until they have the levels for it.) In respond to that, the game also gives exp for doing quests so players have a choice to not sit through many grinding to still get the numbers up. However, the longer time battle doesn't feel that long because your chars are doing auto-attacks to fill up bars and as you leveled up, the battle actually take shorter time and can be one-shot/one-turn(the concept of turn doesn't even happen in this series so I'm not sure it's appropriate.)

Mobile Games can be examples... I played this game called Sdorica. Each party are comprised of 3 chars, each fulfilling exactly specific roles: Tank, DPS and Support. Each chars has no attack but 3 skills that activate by destroying color orbs in simple mini-games. It'll be better if you can find it on youtube to see its battle at work. Each battle are scripted and are visibly right there, waiting for you to jump in. Thus, it's on a more stages form. But it's a mobile game, which also relies on different factors in player's behavior.

Child of Light's battle can be long too. There's not much grinding to do since exp are given in abundance.


Actually, I just don't know what I'm trying to say anymore, lol.
All I'm trying to say is probably, how you present the system to the player so that they can kinda get the intended pace. So maybe try to change things up to make it into certain genre or maybe have it easier for player to read into the battle?
Since I think this problem kinda come from we as a designer think of it from a perspective of a vanilla menu-based rpg games.
Does that make sense? (for some reason I'm not sure my post is making much sense, lol.)

 

[Soryuju]

@trouble time

The part of your argument I disagree with is that you say you don’t think there’s room in combat systems for easy encounters, and that it’s a design mistake to deliberately make battles which give players a reprieve from the typical intensity of combat. Quoting you here, specifically:

Perhaps spamming attack is something that YOU need, but if it happens even once outside a very simple tutorial then I think your battles need adjustment.

As I mentioned in my last post, I think including occasional easy battles amongst the more challenging ones has a lot of benefits without being detrimental to a game’s overall combat depth. It switches up the rhythm of your gameplay and briefly makes players feel powerful. It gifts them some rewards every now and then while also offering a different type of challenge in resource conservation (wipe everything with the cheapest possible attacks while trying to avoid all damage). We can argue about just how easy those battles should be relative to your other encounters, but I’ll just say that I think it’s fine if every battle doesn’t push players to their tactical limits.

As for arguing against my own design, yes, I did, and deliberately. Part of my motivation to start this discussion was because I was looking for the strongest arguments against my system. That way I can account for those pitfalls in my future design. If I end up being the one to provide those arguments, that’s fine with me. I’m a contrary person. I’ll happily argue against myself if I feel my own position is getting too well-supported, because I don’t want to internalize my own opinions and preferences as “rules” of game design. I’ll get lazy and ultimately make a worse game if I don’t keep shaking myself up and questioning what’s true.

 

[trouble time]

@trouble time

The part of your argument I disagree with is that you say you don’t think there’s room in combat systems for easy encounters, and that it’s a design mistake to deliberately make battles which give players a reprieve from the typical intensity of combat. Quoting you here, specifically:



As I mentioned in my last post, I think including occasional easy battles amongst the more challenging ones has a lot of benefits without being detrimental to a game’s overall combat depth. It switches up the rhythm of your gameplay and briefly makes players feel powerful. It gifts them some rewards every now and then while also offering a different type of challenge in resource conservation (wipe everything with the cheapest possible attacks while trying to avoid all damage). We can argue about just how easy those battles should be relative to your other encounters, but I’ll just say that I think it’s fine if every battle doesn’t push players to their tactical limits.

As for arguing against my own design, yes, I did, and deliberately. Part of my motivation to start this discussion was because I was looking for the strongest arguments against my system. That way I can account for those pitfalls in my future design. If I end up being the one to provide those arguments, that’s fine with me. I’m a contrary person. I’ll happily argue against myself if I feel my own position is getting too well-supported, because I don’t want to internalize my own opinions and preferences as “rules” of game design. I’ll get lazy and ultimately make a worse game if I don’t keep shaking myself up and questioning what’s true.

My bad, i didnt actually mean to imply there was no place for easy battles. I meant to imply theres no place for solveable encounrers. Heres the thimg though, it doesnt make ME feel powerful. So it already doesnt make "the player" feel powerful since im part of that group. Ypu can never be sure of the audiences reaction, only what you intend for it to be. I can just as easily answer any "the player" argument with an easy "no they feel x". The other thing is that theres a d8fference between easy and busiwork. Thats what spamming attack is to me. Busy work. Though you do acknowledge the spectrum of how easy something is. My own game has some combats that are easier overall as well. Im on my phone so i cant go into full detail.

 

[Wavelength]

Great question! Like you've already alluded to, the answer will partially depend on the other mechanics you've chosen to include inside and outside your combat system - such as post-battle healing, ability to avoid encounters, random vs. deterministic enemy actions, presence of combo or lead-up skills that take multiple actions to execute, and so on.

There is definitely no one right answer here (only wrong answers that come from incompatibility with other mechanics). Short battles can be nice because they punctuate the larger exploration/narrative cycle without completely taking the player's mind out of that cycle. Longer battles can be nice because they provide an experience and (if really well designed) a sort of narrative in and of themselves.

We may also be looking at a false dichotomy between "easy, breezy, and frequent" battles vs. "a few tough, long, involved encounters". My personal favorite setup is for generally quick but difficult encounters, with a small number of "unavoidable" battles but a much larger number that the player can try to avoid or engage. I do think it's possible to design depth into quick battles - just a bit trickier. The Persona series, as well as Trails in the Sky, are pretty good examples of this in turn-based battle systems (Trails looks like a tactical RPG, but in practice it plays more like a standard one with added depth).

My own game timeblazer includes only boss encounters, with dungeon exploration replaced by series of five 60-second minigames to "simulate" the dungeon. I felt like removing the standard encounters and having only bosses allowed me to design every element of the combat system around relatively long fights (7-10 minutes, 10-15 turns), and "race to the bottom" strategies where neither side should be able to heal more damage than the other side deals in the long term; it also allowed me to really customize each encounter with a couple of unique mechanics or twists. In turn, a large part of the battle system's depth comes from being able to use your skills in ways that are effective against a particular boss, and do so efficiently enough that you can take down their HP bar before they whittle away yours. There are definitely players that miss the "popcorn" battles. But in general people seem to like the system.

 

[SOC]

@trouble time

You keep comparing competitive fighting games for single player RPG experiences. They're two completely different genres. Even action RPGs like Dark Souls is very different than fighting games. Also, when I think about fighting games, especially in the context you're giving, I'm specifically thinking about their multiplayer, never their single player. Yeah, in a multiplayer setting I'm often wanting those kinds of deep engagement and can play for long sessions: because I get dopamine when I beat other players and out skill them. That's not the kind of experience most players would ever seek or feel in a single player RPG. I would think most players would even choose to play a single player RPG instead of a competitive fighting game because they want to "wind down" and "relax" and not push them selves so hard every single encounter during a play session. In today's world, we have so many different things vying for our attention that we must choose what game we want to play and often have a particular goal in mind when we choose a certain game. I'm not saying all your encounters need to be mindless, I'm not even saying most, but I think you do need a few here and there for a wide variety of reasons. Mental breaks are important. Darkest Dungeon is great, but it's not great for everyone and even that game has "mental breaks" with easier encounters at times.

Let the player feel powerful. Let the player experience their growth. Let the player have tangible evidence of their progression in your game. Kind of like how you put a save point right before a boss: the mental break of knowing they won't have to repeat the whole dungeon all over again if they die on this boss is important. We as humans need this at times, even in gaming.

When you think of other great RPGs, most of them have the kinds of "mental break" battles in them and are considered some of the greatest games of all time: FF7, FF6, Chrono Trigger, Super Mario RPG, Seiken Densetsu 3, Paper Mario, Tales of Symphonia, they're all full of easy battles between hard battles.

 

[trouble time]

@trouble time

You keep comparing competitive fighting games for single player RPG experiences. They're two completely different genres. Even action RPGs like Dark Souls is very different than fighting games. Also, when I think about fighting games, especially in the context you're giving, I'm specifically thinking about their multiplayer, never their single player. Yeah, in a multiplayer setting I'm often wanting those kinds of deep engagement and can play for long sessions: because I get dopamine when I beat other players and out skill them. That's not the kind of experience most players would ever seek or feel in a single player RPG. I would think most players would even choose to play a single player RPG instead of a competitive fighting game because they want to "wind down" and "relax" and not push them selves so hard every single encounter during a play session. In today's world, we have so many different things vying for our attention that we must choose what game we want to play and often have a particular goal in mind when we choose a certain game. I'm not saying all your encounters need to be mindless, I'm not even saying most, but I think you do need a few here and there for a wide variety of reasons. Mental breaks are important. Darkest Dungeon is great, but it's not great for everyone and even that game has "mental breaks" with easier encounters at times.

Let the player feel powerful. Let the player experience their growth. Let the player have tangible evidence of their progression in your game. Kind of like how you put a save point right before a boss: the mental break of knowing they won't have to repeat the whole dungeon all over again if they die on this boss is important. We as humans need this at times, even in gaming.

When you think of other great RPGs, most of them have the kinds of "mental break" battles in them and are considered some of the greatest games of all time: FF7, FF6, Chrono Trigger, Super Mario RPG, Seiken Densetsu 3, Paper Mario, Tales of Symphonia, they're all full of easy battles between hard battles.

I don't KEEP comparing anything, I compared one thing once, and I even explained exactly why them being different genres doesn't actually matter to my point. What you're saying is basically that I can't call something on a movie the red because I saw the shade of red in a book.

Also wheres your data on what most people feel when looking for a single player RPG? Give me some hard numbers because my expirence is different. Also I explained there is a difference between an easy encounter and mashing attack. I'm saying it should never be mindless like that, because that's what I know "the player" feels. And another thing, Of all those games you mentioned the only great one is FF6. Wow its almost like "THE PLAYER" isn't some monolith. At the same time, feeling powerful doesn't have to be achieved by making mindless battles. As for tangible evidence of progression, that can also be provided without making any of your battles mindless. And don't tell me what I need in my gaming experiences.

 

[SOC]

I don't KEEP comparing anything, I compared one thing once, and I even explained exactly why them being different genres doesn't actually matter to my point. What you're saying is basically that I can't call something on a movie the red because I saw the shade of red in a book.

Also wheres your data on what most people feel when looking for a single player RPG? Give me some hard numbers because my expirence is different. Also I explained there is a difference between an easy encounter and mashing attack. I'm saying it should never be mindless like that, because that's what I know "the player" feels. And another thing, Of all those games you mentioned the only great one is FF6. Wow its almost like "THE PLAYER" isn't some monolith. At the same time, feeling powerful doesn't have to be achieved by making mindless battles. As for tangible evidence of progression, that can also be provided without making any of your battles mindless. And don't tell me what I need in my gaming experiences.

You compared them in at least two of you posts... and I explained why the reasons you provided weren't exactly that applicable to this, but it's okay if you disagree.

The data is looking at what sales, is successful, and continues to be successful. You can't argue with those numbers. Analyzing their success and improving flaws can help make us all better developers. You ask just about any JRPG fan what their favorite games of all time are, you'll find a significant portion all state the same three games: FF7, FF6 and Chrono Trigger. Why?

You specifically say FF6 is great out of that list but that's also the game that has you mashing attack the most, as well as arguably the easiest "normal encounters." If you have a core audience in mind, then great. If you want to develop and be "successful" for those in mind even if you aren't for the vast majority of other audiences, then great. I totally respect that. But the point of this thread was a wider, overall and more general approach: not "how should I handle this in my particular game I am only directing towards a very small niche audience." I just don't want to see you spend dozens or hundreds of hours creating something that doesn't reach the goals you want for it and then be unable to see why it isn't working for you, is all. Because I've done that my self, often believing the same things you are now, and had to learn this lesson the hard way.

I only want to see you succeed and feel satisfied with your work. And if that means you need to make every encounter drain your player for your particular game, then go for it. I'm just stating why it's not usually the best approach.

 

[trouble time]

You compared them in at least two of you posts... and I explained why the reasons you provided weren't exactly that applicable to this, but it's okay if you disagree.

The data is looking at what sales, is successful, and continues to be successful. You can't argue with those numbers. Analyzing their success and improving flaws can help make us all better developers. You ask just about any JRPG fan what their favorite games of all time are, you'll find a significant portion all state the same three games: FF7, FF6 and Chrono Trigger. Why?

You specifically say FF6 is great out of that list but that's also the game that has you mashing attack the most, as well as arguably the easiest "normal encounters." If you have a core audience in mind, then great. If you want to develop and be "successful" for those in mind even if you aren't for the vast majority of other audiences, then great. I totally respect that. But the point of this thread was a wider, overall and more general approach: not "how should I handle this in my particular game I am only directing towards a very small niche audience." I just don't want to see you spend dozens or hundreds of hours creating something that doesn't reach the goals you want for it and then be unable to see why it isn't working for you, is all. Because I've done that my self, often believing the same things you are now, and had to learn this lesson the hard way.

I only want to see you succeed and feel satisfied with your work. And if that means you need to make every encounter drain your player for your particular game, then go for it. I'm just stating why it's not usually the best approach.

1. You didnt explain why its not applicable you just explained why the genres are different. I also only compared them in one post and e plained why i dont think the compatison isnt applivable in another

2. FF6 was great be cause of its story, and those games sold well because of branding and brand recognition. Indie games actually tend to be more successful whrn they target a niche audience hence the success of games like darkest dungeon or kingdom come:deliverence. AAA games have levels of polish indie games cant really reach which is what most general audiences tend to go for. In this case i think comparing the AAA market to the indie market is less appropriate than any analogy i made. Indies operate at a lower budget for almost inevitably fewer players. Theres less risk so theres more freedom innovate and cater to a niche.

3 Even then i acknowledge that there is roon for easier fights, and that some of my own games fights will inevitably be easier. What i dont think therrs a place for is solvable fights, and busy work fights where you mash attack.

Also the fact that more complex battles are more draining is the entire poijt of having fewer of them.

Also cut the bullshut "i only want to see tou be successful" sthick. If you did you wouldnt be advocating "why not just make that **** you dont like." Chrono trigger, to me, was mediocre. FF7 had a strong beginning in midgar then kinda petered out. Earthbound (which you didnt mention, but i cant resist) flat out annoyed me with its attempts at being quirky. And super mario rpg was fine, not great, not bad. Seiken Densetsu is an action RPG though. You sure we can bring that up?