Loot Backtracking

[Nirwanda]

I have a great affection for situations where you're taunted with an unreachable item that can only be gotten on a revisit to the dungeon after you have acquired a specific item/skill. There are many examples of this, like bombing walls in Zelda games, or the Mystic Key in the first Final Fantasy.

Personally, I feel that it makes exploration much more rewarding, but at the same time, I can understand that some people find it annoying.

So I was wondering what's everyone opinion on this.

 

[Andar]

You forgot one possible answer in your poll: It depends how it's executed.

Backtracking twenty maps for a simple healing item is a waste of time.

Backtracking three maps for a usefull equipment makes exploration more rewarding.

 

[Nirwanda]

You forgot one possible answer in your poll: It depends how it's executed.

Backtracking twenty maps for a simple healing item is a waste of time.

Backtracking three maps for a usefull equipment makes exploration more rewarding.

Well, the thing is that IMO everyone would choose that option, after all, obviously, the enjoyment of any feature in a game depends on wheter it's well executed or not.

I guess my pool assumes a situation where backtracking is not worthless. Should I clarify that? Or would you prefer it if I added that extra choice?

 

[bgillisp]

In my game, chapter 3 uses the same maps as chapter 1, but now you can reach the zones you couldn't before. So in my case I made it part of the plot (the party found a secret door that led them to the other side of a door you couldn't unlock before).

The biggest problem can be enemy encounters. If you have random fights and your party is now level 15 when you backtrack, having to fight 3 rats that were tough at level 1 can be a little annoying to some.

 

[hiromu656]

I think the annoying part of backtracking comes when the tedium of actually heading to the specific location outweighs any possible reward. In games like Zelda, traveling is usually not a struggle at all, there are ways to quickly teleport back to where you were, there are various ways of transportation as well (horse, boats). I think many RPGs have poor backtracking at times because in the back of your head you know you might run into a ton of battles that you just don't want to deal with, or your means of travel are slow. Story progression usually outweighs tedious travel (if the game is fun), but when you know you're only backtracking to find a hidden chest or a couple items, you have to make sure the actual trip isn't a deterrent.

 

[bgillisp]

 I think many RPGs have poor backtracking at times because in the back of your head you know you might run into a ton of battles that you just don't want to deal with,

That's actually why I rarely backtrack in most games I play. To counter this in the game I'm making I wrote a script that turns off the battles in a zone if the party is above a certain level (to simulate the enemies fearing you too much to attack anymore), and added an optional boss that if you defeat it, the zone is cleared as well (example: Defeat the giant rat in the sewers to cause the rats in the area to disband and scatter, so no more battles will occur).

This gives the player two ways to turn off the fights in the area. Defeat the optional boss, or get to a high enough level.

 

[whitesphere]

I think the backtracking really needs to be worth the effort, both story-wise and item-wise.  In the classic Metroid, backtracking usually nets you essential items you need to proceed (i.e. the Varia Suit or the Ice Beam), and the game is an action adventure so each individual combat, such as it is, is very brief. 

Imagine how backtracking would feel if the monsters were invisible and combat took, say, 30 seconds each time, even if Samus was ridiculously overpowered compared to the opponent.  It would feel a lot more tedious than it does in Metroid, or other action adventure games.  If you have the typical Random Encounters and no way to bypass them or turn them off, backtracking can be quite painful without some rapid means of travel.

It's not painful in terms of party danger but it is in terms of boredom.  Also, if backtracking is over-used, with "Ooooh, look at ALL of the things you can get if you have this item!", it's very easy to lose track of "I needed to go back to X when I have item Y"  I know I quickly got lost with Castlevania: Order of Ecclasia, and backtracking the 30th time through the same castle, hoping you have the item you need, is just painful.

An easy way to avoid the extra combat is to have each Troop have an inherent "level" based on how difficult the opponents are. This would be an arbitrary decision by the developer.  If that level is exceeded, the Abort Battle command, with some brief text saying "The XXX ran away" at least avoids non-rewarding combat by suicidal enemies (Yay!  I won a whole 3 XP!  But it takes me 10,000 XP for the next level.).  After all, in the wild, most creatures REALLY don't go after things which they perceive as an overwhelming threat. 

Even if you randomly stumble across a bear in the wild, it's NOT going to always, automatically attack you.  And, even if it did, maybe Morale is important --- a bear which is getting really hurt might turn tail and run, or it might go nuts and become even stronger with rage...

If you're talking humanoid creatures, I think the unprovoked attack even LESS likely.  Would a Goblin REALLY take on a party of uber-powerful heroes?  If so, why?  Even the dumbest Goblin would eventually see the dead bodies of its fellow and say "Maybe I WON'T attack that party who just turned Chuck into mincemeat within 3 seconds." 

It might make an interesting plot point when a Goblin DOES continue fighting...

I also like bgillisp's idea of having an Optional Boss who "controls" the creatures in the area, if such a thing makes sense.  Of course, you COULD reverse this --- if you kill the Thieve's Guild Head, his replacement puts a huge bounty on your head, causing a LOT more random encounters with Thieves and their ilk.   In fact, I really like that idea as a way to ADD challenge to an area, particularly if it's not too much of a challenge when the player first went through.

So, yes, you need to backtrack across the Badlands --- oh, but now you have Thieves after your head, so it's a bit more challenging than it was with just the Goblins.  This keeps the challenge at least constant for a higher leveled and better equipped party.

To the point, backtracking for loot can be really good if it's a great storyline reason and item reward, but it's NOT good to backtrack just to pad the game's length --- some modern AAA games pull this stunt to extend their playtime.

 

[Harmill]

Personally, I prefer it when a game records that X feature was present in an area so that when the time comes that you've finally obtained the Magic Key, you know where the Magic Chests or Magic Doors are. It's tedious if you don't remember where the magic doors or chests were when you originally visited the old locations, and without an in-game log of sorts (or you writing locations down as you play), you just blindly select old routes and hope you find a magic door.

One example done well is the Xenosaga games, where you find locked doors that are each numbered (Segment Addresses), and you need the corresponding key to open them. Sometimes you find the key before you find the door, but often you found the door first and you wouldn't find the key until later on. There is an in-game list of this system so you can see which doors you've discovered, which keys you've obtained, and the locations of each door. The reward for this treasure hunt is the strongest spell in the entire game so the game actually rewards you well for participating in this, too.

Spoiler

 

[bgillisp]

I also like bgillisp's idea of having an Optional Boss who "controls" the creatures in the area, if such a thing makes sense.  Of course, you COULD reverse this --- if you kill the Thieve's Guild Head, his replacement puts a huge bounty on your head, causing a LOT more random encounters with Thieves and their ilk.   In fact, I really like that idea as a way to ADD challenge to an area, particularly if it's not too much of a challenge when the player first went through.

It does depend on it making sense, sure. So far I've only used it in four zones (of 64 maps), one was the king of the rats, one was an undead guardian that was in charge of all the undead in that map, one was a powerful demon that if you defeated it, the darkness in the map was lifted, and the fourth is the head of the thieves, who has the others under a charm spell (defeating her breaks the charm spell, so they stop attacking you).

If you're talking humanoid creatures, I think the unprovoked attack even LESS likely.  Would a Goblin REALLY take on a party of uber-powerful heroes?  If so, why?  Even the dumbest Goblin would eventually see the dead bodies of its fellow and say "Maybe I WON'T attack that party who just turned Chuck into mincemeat within 3 seconds." 

I'm actually hoping to add on a feature that makes it so that once your level crosses x that monster will no longer attack you. Though it might have to be linked to the troop and not the monster due to the way RPGMaker handles things. So far I'm just doing it for the entire map and trying to not have rats and say beholders on the same map then.

 

[Wavelength]

I do like this kind of thing a lot; it's a cool moment when you earn a new skill/mechanic and think "hey!  I bet I can use this to reach that treasure chest I could never get to!" and then it works.

I'd add the caveat that it's nice when it's obvious that you can't reach the treasure chest on the original run through a dungeon (like it's WAY above you, the map shows there's no back way around, and you can't float yet), but not so obvious that the game outright tells you (e.g. the chest is trapped in ice and the game tells you "you can't get to it; you need to be able to burn through the ice").  When it's that obvious, you don't feel clever anymore when you get a ring whose purpose is burning through ice obstacles.  A better solution would be to have a breakable ice (or better yet, something else you can burn, like thick vines) wall in an earlier dungeon, and the player wonders what might be behind it.

 

[Eschaton]

It is on this principle that Metroidvanias operate and I love it.

 

[Jomarcenter]

In my game, chapter 3 uses the same maps as chapter 1, but now you can reach the zones you couldn't before. So in my case I made it part of the plot (the party found a secret door that led them to the other side of a door you couldn't unlock before).

The biggest problem can be enemy encounters. If you have random fights and your party is now level 15 when you backtrack, having to fight 3 rats that were tough at level 1 can be a little annoying to some.

I make multiple version of the game map with different encounters in case if a particular chapter will somehow force you to returned to a place. you just need to modify the Teleport events use Switches or Variables (depend on how you make the character backtrack.)

 

[bgillisp]

I make multiple version of the game map with different encounters in case if a particular chapter will somehow force you to returned to a place. you just need to modify the Teleport events use Switches or Variables (depend on how you make the character backtrack.)

I've been using regions myself, then in the raondom encounters set them to only show in that region. Then, the part you coud access in chpater 1 still has the easy fights, but the new zone has the hard fights.

Though, by chapter 3 you can also win the battle against the boss of the region, so if the fights annoy you too much just go kill it and make the rest of the monsters scatter.

I did think about doing it your way too, though since it is the sewers of a town that you backtrack to, it was hard to justify new monsters suddenly appearing.

 

[Nirwanda]

Thanks to all for the valuable input.

Personally, I prefer it when a game records that X feature was present in an area so that when the time comes that you've finally obtained the Magic Key, you know where the Magic Chests or Magic Doors are. It's tedious if you don't remember where the magic doors or chests were when you originally visited the old locations, and without an in-game log of sorts (or you writing locations down as you play), you just blindly select old routes and hope you find a magic door.

I can understand the reasoning behind this and kind of see why this would be a good idea. What bothers me about this approach is that I feel it would ruin the sense of exploration by telling you how many hidden treasures there are and how and where to find them. Thoughts anyone?

It's not painful in terms of party danger but it is in terms of boredom.  Also, if backtracking is over-used, with "Ooooh, look at ALL of the things you can get if you have this item!", it's very easy to lose track of "I needed to go back to X when I have item Y"  I know I quickly got lost with Castlevania: Order of Ecclasia, and backtracking the 30th time through the same castle, hoping you have the item you need, is just painful.

I hadn't considered that angle. I feel that if I underuse backtracking it will become a gimmick instead of a feature, but you're right, I also need to consider the opposite.

Though OOE is one of the least offending Metroidvanias in terms of backtracking...

An easy way to avoid the extra combat is to have each Troop have an inherent "level" based on how difficult the opponents are. This would be an arbitrary decision by the developer.  If that level is exceeded, the Abort Battle command, with some brief text saying "The XXX ran away" at least avoids non-rewarding combat by suicidal enemies (Yay!  I won a whole 3 XP!  But it takes me 10,000 XP for the next level.).  After all, in the wild, most creatures REALLY don't go after things which they perceive as an overwhelming threat.

Yeah I've been struggling a little with this wheter to make weak enemies run away from overleved characters like in Persona 3/4 or replace them with harder mobs depending on player level (for example, instead of a goblin grunt you face a goblin captain). The first approach seems like the best choice to stop player frustration, though the second one places a bigger importance on keeping the areas' gameplay intact....but it's more frustrating.

EDIT- I forgot to mention one other possibility I saw on a review of old game I didn't actually play and whose name I can't even remember (I blame my age): Auto battle! In that game, touching an underleveled enemy's sprite would automatically kill it granting you the experience/money/items as if you had fought it. That sounds great in paper, but I feel it might be more than a little abusable...

It is on this principle that Metroidvanias operate and I love it.

Well, Metroidvania IS one the threads' tags. Also: Highfive!

 

[Harmill]

I can understand the reasoning behind this and kind of see why this would be a good idea. What bothers me about this approach is that I feel it would ruin the sense of exploration by telling you how many hidden treasures there are and how and where to find them. Thoughts anyone?

I like exploring new locations. My problem is that I don't think it is very fun at all, to revisit every prior location, once I've obtained the Magic Key, and search for Magic Doors. That's not really exploration to me. Technically, I've already explored that region, and it comes down to whether I even remember there was a Magic Door there or not. If the game has other reasons why I might revisit that old location, and THEN I see there's a Magic Door there while going there for one of those other reasons, then perhaps that's fine and there wouldn't need to be an in-game Magic Door list.