Summoned by candle, by book, and by bell.
- Sep 2, 2012
- Reaction score
- First Language
- Primarily Uses
I'll allow for the theoretical existence of a game that does this--probably one indie game or abandoned RPG Maker project or two? Anything's possible, I suppose. This hypothetical game may very well be out there, but I have yet to play, see, or even hear about it.So given that a very small number of games do this, (and I have to conclude that none of them are mainstream) how are dodging or avoiding encounters "absolutely part of a random encounter system?"So imo it's absolutely part of a random encounter system to have something that let's you dodge or avoid encounters.
I'm all for hearing the good points of both. But try to understand: for those of us who don't like random encounters, their "cons" speak (rather loudly) for themselves and the "pros" seem to be cleverly hidden behind the argument that "it could be worse, ya know."This thread is about opinion vs opinion, often without proper thought behind it.
The longevity just comes from constant arguing about how one is definitely! superior to the other, no matter which forum you read btw.
Why is that a problem? If someone wants to suggest improvements to random encounters, then by all means do so. But why are you surprised that people who prefer visible encounters aren't jumping out of their way to pre-empt them?Most arguments how rnd encounters are bad are without thinking about any improvements that could be done
No matter how good a battle system, or anything else in this world is, too much repetition will always suck the fun out of it. Even sex becomes tedious if it crosses the line from diversion to obligation.Historically (based on games that have actually been made) random encounters are more prone to this than touch encounters because of a) encounter rate and the potentially infinite number of encounters (i.e. even if you don't want to fight, you're not done until you get to a safe place.)or how an actual bad battlesystem might also be at fault for getting players burned out or bored.
But people have been discussing "a bit (more) than just meh rnd sucks!" I understand if you haven't taken the time to read the rather salient points made in this thread. That's okay. There's more to life than forums, after all. But I get the impression that you feel this thread has failed to live up to some standard of forum-integrity when it's actually done its job rather admirably so far.If you want to discuss different encounter types you need a bit than just meh rnd sucks! -That's not aimed at you btw, just something in general-
It totally is a discussion. But it keeps getting de-railed by people trying to include every facet of game design as some bizarre form of apologetics. Yes, that's important for weighing the overall game experience, but that's not the point of this thread, nor should it be.So, let's try this: How could a good game with a good touch-encounter system be improved with random encounters? How is it better for the player to not be able to see a monster before being attacked? In the year 2013, when we don't have to struggle with the hardware limitations of older PC's and consoles, how does it benefit the player to not see a battle coming?Tbh, I don't think there is much of a discussion at all, without thinking about the bigger sheme of things because both (or rather all, if someone comes up with something different) types of encounters suffer from specific problems.