Should I just use Random Encounters?

[bgillisp]

Sorry, that's my link, to edit it or post it. Try this: http://pastebin.com/CDMuvkNM

The entropy idea sounds good, I may look into that. Right now the map is small enough you would have to be intentionally standing still to be on it for 3 hours though.

 

[Kes]

@bgillisp: Eh? Why do I have to log in to view the script?

I think the link might be his own that he uses to upload, rather than a 'public' link, but I'm not sure.

 

[Seriel]

Woah! Nice script!

One question:

Does the Global Fear Level stop encounters altogether, or make them happen less?

 

[bgillisp]

@Jackus: It stops them completely for that map. I would like to make it slow them down when you get close to it (maybe have encounter half kick in when you are within 2 levels of it or so), but that's on the to do later list.

@ksjp17: That was exactly it, I pasted the wrong link. Fixed.

 

[Seriel]

Heh, with Touch Encounters, you can do fun stuff like this:

Spoiler

Try and get that food. I dare you.

 

[Vox Novus]

Random encounters and event encounters can both work given under the context. It's important to design the game with each type of system in mind though.

As some of the others said you want to avoid the pure frustration random encounters cause by occurring too frequently. However they do add an element of surprise to the game and makes sure that the player keeps their characters healed up and ready for battle. It also just works in the settings of some games like Poke'mon. Speaking of Poke'mon that series limits encounters to specific areas so the player knows what areas they will get into battle. Also with random battles you want to keep in mind the type of save system you are using, making save points means that random encounters should probably not be extremely challenging and rather be something that gradually takes its toll on the party.

Event encounters offer more freedom in that the player can see the enemy and avoid fighting unnecessary encounters, it still allows you to design a dungeon where they are forced into fighting specific encounters such as placing a stronger encounter on an area they must pass like a narrow bridge. This will sort of "force" the player to have to fight a certain number of enemies to be strong enough to pass. There is a lot of ways to adjust the movement settings for event encounters to, they can follow the player, move along a route, set still. On top of that there is the movement speeds to...You can even use invisible touch events to alter move routes of enemies. If you are using a save point system touch encounters can be a bit more difficult due to the gap between battles. They also allow for puzzles to be done in a dungeon with enemies actively around but not interfering with the puzzle completion.

Since escaping was brought up and it related to encounters this is my take on it: You may as well just let the player escape 100% (assuming this isn't a small rpg with very finite encounters). Chances are the player is going to want to escape at some point, either they get into a jam and want to bail from the battle or they are too strong/exploring a previously explored area and don't need or want to fight the enemies anymore. I normally don't escape from battles in rpgs unless I become over-powered but the rare chance I do get into a jam and I want to escape and it doesn't let me I get ticked off; this is especially true if there are save points being used in the game! With event encounters you can even make a penalty for them escaping such as decreasing their gold to off-set the fact that it is a 100% rate.

This may bring up concerns about people running too much or something but even with a rate below 100% there will be some people who will still try to run and end up under leveled. I once watched someone play Final fantasy 7 and he basically tried to run from almost every encounter in a new area to advance the story but then couldn't figure out why the boss fight was so difficult for him to win. For those people not like this they do realize they have to get in an encounter here in there to be strong enough to advance since it is an rpg standard.

 

[hian]

I generally have no issues with random encounters what so ever -


if anything, in terms of JRPGs with a stat-based character progression system,


I prefer random encounters to other systems as long as the encounter-rate isn't absurdly high.


My own main project at the moment features a combination - random encounters that can be turned on


and off at will on the menu, and some visible enemy encounters for specific quest/story purposes.


Anyway, clearly somebody's forgot their "game design 101" and instead been drinking their own coolaid...

NO. Do not under any circumstances use random encounters.


You can see my arguments why here:

Somebody forgot to send that memo to some of the best selling JRPGs ever made lol.


Since pretty much all your arguments are based on a failed understanding of game design,


and ignorantly projecting your own preferences unto everyone else, I really can't be bothered to reply


to everything you wrote, but hey, let's have a look at your snippets -

"If your battle system is fun people aren't going to mind a few more battles"


We're not talking about a few more, we're talking infinite. (To look at it another way,


reducing the encounter rate by half does not necessarily translate into half as many encounters.)


Also, the issue is not just the amount of battles but also the way they are delivered:


disruptively and assaultively.


If you think random encounters are a good idea why not random cutscenes as well.


After all, most cutscenes can't be dodged anyway.

We're not talking infinite, as that would require the player to play the game for an infinite amount of time.


We're talking the potential for an infinite amount of encounters, distributed (by what degree


depends on the code) through a limited amount of play-time.


This is a good thing in games that revolve largely around strategy and state-based character-progression,


rather than reaction and twitch-mechanics, because not all people are as "smart"


(for the lack of a better term), and as such, as capable of dealing with strategy - and will therefore be


relying on over-leveling as means of progression throughout the game.


With a limited amount of encounters, you're either forced to ensure that all players will be over-leveled


for future encounters, which lampoons difficulty, or that nobody are, which makes the game difficult


and inaccessible to "dumber" players.


This is usually avoided with respawns, but respawns are no less "immersion breaking" than random encounters


for the most part, and they're also often more time-consuming because they usually require the player


to either wait around for the spawn, or move in and out of maps.


Your last question is loaded and patently absurd. Cut-scenes are there to progress narrative -


battles are there as a game-play abstractions meant to provide distraction and emotional gratification


outside of the unfolding of the narrative. 


Since the two exists for two completely different reasons, they're not analogous.

If the purpose was to control the # of encounters that occur during a map,


then the # of encounters logically should be fixed. If you have a completely linear area and


the player will fight about 12 or 13 encounters on average, you might as well lock it down at that amount,


even as far as deciding whether it will be 12 or 13.


Random battles don't achieve a minimal level since the player could run from battles,


and if a minimal level was really the point then you would simply have the encounters


required to reach this level as being absolutely mandatory, and disappear permanently once defeated.

That's not why random encounters exist though. They exist for many reasons. They came into


being, most likely due to technical limitations. But, like with most creative endeavors, they've evolved


into their own thing, and now exists because :


1.) Believe it or not - a lot of people like them


2.) Random encounters are flexible - allowing players to choose whether or not grind,


do the minimum amount of battles, or go under-leveled, allowing for a wide-range of play-styles


in a very simple and straight-forward manner - without having to wait for respawns, change maps, etc.


3.) Streamlines development process because the developers now don't have to spend lots of time and


resources on customizing their enviroments to fit the encounter system, which you would have to


do if you were to use a visible encounter system that isn't entirely ****.


Every map you make, now has to be made with the consideration of possible enemies on the map,


perhaps at the expense of artistic vision, or what actually looks and feels good from a world-building


perspective.

No such thing as "too many" random emcounters.


If you have them at all you're empirically wrong, and simply adjusting a dial to make


it less annoying or more annoying, doesn't change the fact that the game is still terrible.

If you can't use terms correctly, don't use them. "Empirically wrong" suggests that there is either


A.) no people who enjoy random encounters or B.) that game design is based, not on creating functional


mechanism in a game reflecting the intent of developers for a game to be enjoyable


to a specific target demographic in a specific way, but for the purpose some other arbitrary standard


you have yet to specify.


In either case, you're the one who is demonstrably wrong - because


A.) by sales numbers and feed-back (even in this very thread)


it's obvious that many people not only have no problem with random encounters, but actually enjoy them,


and


B.) if you happen to enjoy random encounters and know that many others do too,


adding them in no way compromises the ground principle of game-design.


Your argument essentially boils down to "I hate random encounters, therefore games with them are terrible".


Well, I hate resource collection games like Monster Hunter, Harvest Moon and Minecraft - I think


collecting/grinding for resources is tedious BS.


By your logic, these games are, factually, terrible.

Also, visible enemies doesn't ruin immersion any more than random encounters do.


If you wanted to uphold a particular environment's atmosphere


then you could choose to have no battles at all or to have battle occurrences be completely scripted.


There are plenty of ways of forcing the player to fight,


you could even make them willingly fight in order to build an enemies-defeated counter,


to collect keys to open new areas, or to level up in order to be able to defeat a boss.


Replying to thread:


"Also, yes.


Disable them in areas like puzzles, where battles will literally distract you from the main goal


(completing that puzzle)."


Good call. But better yet, have visible enemies and don't put them in puzzle rooms


and at least that way the player knows there are no enemies in that room without having


to walk around a lot in order to realize this.


Although by using visible enemies you could put enemies in the puzzle rooms anyway,


since the player will be able to permanently diminish their numbers,


something that does not normally occur with random encounters.

Fortunately, random encounters are not about forcing players to fight (if it were, then escape


wouldn't be an option in most games with random encounters now would it?).


It's a convenient battle transition system that :


A.) allows the developer to free up time and


resources to dedicate on arguably more important development aspects, and


B.) a simple system that allows for diverse play-styles with minimum effort to both developer and player.


As for the OP,


he could just give the player a menu switch to turn random encounters on/off. This way the OP


doesn't have to tediously design every map where encounters will happen to be tailor


made for enemy chase/escape dynamics, and the player won't have to run around


on egg-shells tediously avoiding enemies on the map when they don't want to fight


(even more annoying when back-tracking).

At least with visible enemies you have visual warning.


Another way of accomplishing this is with a random encounter gauge.


But a reason why this still sucks is because it breaks immersion.


The monsters are still coming out of thin air.

"Breaks immersion"... Tsk, do you even know what this means?


Firstly, there are many different kinds of immersion (chess is a completely abstract game, yet it's


highly immersive in its own way to people who're a fan of it).


Secondly, video-games very rarely (perhaps really only in the simulation genre) actual aspire to


be immersive in the sense that you seem to be implying here.


Take fighting games - huge glowing life-bars, wierd announcer voice going "Triumph or Die!", people


beating each-other repeatedly in the most unrealistically brutal ways possible, and still standing


after what should have killed them 5 minutes ago.


Yet fighting games are undoubtedly immersive.


Random encounters don't break immersion except if you're expecting a kind of immersion from JRPG's


(let's face it, that's really what we're talking about here)which they were never intended


to have to begin with.


The entire game-play system if these games are abstractions - just like chess - which is why


most of the time, you'll have stats (HP, MP etc.), gauges, non-action based combat systems and so


forth.


These games are not designed with the idea of game-play mimicking real-life in order to draw the


player into the narrative - these mechanics, like the mechanics of chess, exist because it's


assumed that people enjoy these mechanics for their own sake.


Random encounters exist because they function well with the rest of the design elements of the


average JRPG, and because it's convenient for both players and developers.

In an RPG you have an overhead view of the area, including behind the player.


How is the player supposed to be really surprised at this point? That's asking a bit too much.

Are you seriously asking this question? Somebody didn't play the original Metal Gear games then.

We should also mind the fact that, as I pointed out earlier, something is not surprising if


it happens too often.

That's not a fact though.


Also, the entire point of the word "random" is to indicate repition without structure or pattern,


and so by definition it's never really the same thing happening over and over again, because


it's always happening in a different manner by a factor of time.


Point in case - despite having poured somewhere around 200 hours into FF7, the random encounters in


that game still make my heart feel like it's about to explode at times.


Of course, you're right that, nominally speaking, people get accustomed to things through repetion.


I also agree that suprise is not the reason why random encounters exist.


I am simply pointing out that they can be suprising, and often is.

Personally I think the no-no is grabbing the controls away from the player.


That's why I try to resist the temptation to have trip-wire encounters and events.


Such a method creates a span of time before the event starts and the actual encounter,


which is a good thing. It also means it's a depletable encounter (you have to fight it only once)


which is another good thing.

And here the crux of the issue is.


At least now, you have the good decency to acknowledge that it is a matter of personal perspective -


not of fact.


In either case - people play games for different reasons. I play JRPGs, mostly for the narratives


and the art-direction/music (the game-play aspects I enjoy about them though,


is usually the combat and character progression systems).


I don't mind long, drawn-out　dialogue sequences between game-play - which is also


why I can comfortably say that one of my favorite game series is the Metal Gear Solid series.


"Having the controller taken away from me" is inconsequential because I don't expect to be in control


at all times, nor do I desire to be, especially in the context of RPGs. RPGs don't set out to provide


the same kind of experience as a competitive fighting game, or something to that effect.


RPGs, are largely more passive affairs.

But the loss of control over your character happens instantaneously, which is a bad thing.


But if anything this just goes to show how bad random encounters really are,


because it's a laundry list of things a game shouldn't do conveniently wrapped into one.

You're not really losing control of your character though in


any substantial meaning of that statement - anymore than you lose control of your character


in any game with an unavoidable boss-encounter at the end of a level.


The only thing you've "lost control" of, is whether or not to transition into battle.


This is a minute and inconsequential point to make though, since unless you think games should


be entirely open ended and 100% at the whims of the player at all times,


these kind of "losses of control" happen all the time, in all games.


Can't avoid the bosses at the end of a Megaman level? Loss of control.


Can't go past a certain point in the game-evironment yet? Loss of control.


Some guy talks to you? Loss of control.


Given a quest you need to complete in order to advance the main story-line? Loss of control.


And the list goes on.


No mate. You should revise your position, and learn to be a bit more humble about your opinion.


I am not saying random encounters are fantastic, or that they should be in any and all RPGs -


I am simply saying that to make it out as some sort of game-design sin, is patently absurd.


It just goes to show that you're incapable of separating personal feelings from fact,


and your own preferences from that of other people.


And finally, that you don't know the primary principle of game design - which would be asking yourself


"what do I want to make, and whom am I making it for?" and creating a design-philosophy


that is congruent with those answers.


With the sales numbers of series like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, and now, Bravely Default/Bravely Second,


your argument is an exercise in futility.

 

[jonthefox]

holy heck, now that's a treatise "in defense of random encounters"   I'd feel a lot more confident in the future about choosing random encounters as a design choice after reading that, so thank you! a lot of people seem to hate on them, and I do think they're poorly used oftentimes, but I think they have their place.

I especially like the point you made about them being flexible and letting the developer focus time and resources on other things.  I'm finding in the project I'm working on now, I made the decision to go with visible encounters, and it's a lot more tedious getting work done, and I'm also worrying a lot when making maps like "how are the encounters going to fit in here" etc., AND I'm also sometimes second-guessing myself as to whether people are even going to enjoy this visible-encounter system I'm putting so much work into, or at least if their enjoyment of it is really going to be much different from random-encounter system that is well-planned (and I think a well-planned random encounter system is still a lot simpler and easier than a visible encounter system).

something to think about for future projects.  I guess ultimately, it comes down to the individual game, and making the choice that is best for that specific project.

 

[hian]

holy heck, now that's a treatise "in defense of random encounters"   I'd feel a lot more confident in the future about choosing random encounters as a design choice after reading that, so thank you! a lot of people seem to hate on them, and I do think they're poorly used oftentimes, but I think they have their place.


I especially like the point you made about them being flexible and letting the developer focus time and resources on other things.  I'm finding in the project I'm working on now, I made the decision to go with visible encounters, and it's a lot more tedious getting work done, and I'm also worrying a lot when making maps like "how are the encounters going to fit in here" etc., AND I'm also sometimes second-guessing myself as to whether people are even going to enjoy this visible-encounter system I'm putting so much work into, or at least if their enjoyment of it is really going to be much different from random-encounter system that is well-planned (and I think a well-planned random encounter system is still a lot simpler and easier than a visible encounter system).


something to think about for future projects.  I guess ultimately, it comes down to the individual game, and making the choice that is best for that specific project.

Visual encounter systems can be great if done correctly. It is difficult and time-consuming to make them work well though -


Often, they can be extremely annoying to the player (much the same as a bad random encounter systems) -


like when the map doesn't play ball with the player,


and as a result, he/she gets trapped by an enemy because the path is too narrow to allow them


to run past it efficiently,


or when you feel like/need to grind, and you've run out of monsters on the map


and then have to back-track to a transition point to get the monsters to respawn.


EDIT :


There's another issue from a dev point of view -


namely that good visual encounter systems will usually deploy some sort of detection system -


as far as I know, detection systems in RPGmaker VX/VX ace invariably rely on the use of parallel processing,


which means that even with as few as 3 or so enemies moving around the map at once, you're going to start


experiencing lag, or make the game run poorly on a lot of systems despite the rather underwhelming general


specs of the game (I mean, how many will bother playing a 2d RPGmaker-game that lags on a relatively modern lap-top?)


So, despite what people think, making a good, stable and productive visual encounter system, is no easy task.


You can solve all those problems with time and effort - but at the end of the day, it's easier to just make


a random encounter system with a reasonable encounter rate, and add a on/off switch to the menu/save-point/whatever.


And seeing as how many people either like, or are fine with random encounters,


I see no reason to avoid it simply to appease the occasional extremist like the person I was replying to


in my previous post -


especially considering the work-load you've cut out for yourself if you go with another encounter system.


The sad fact of the matter is that 99% of the people making RPG-maker games are working alone, and


are not going to complete even a single game before they run out of time, energy and/or resources and either


move unto something else, or give up entirely.


Knowing this, every RPG-maker user out there should aspire to stream-line their work-flow and reduce/remove


elements from their projects that might end up being the crucible that breaks their entire


progression, and by extension, project.


Going into RPG-maker thinking "I am going to break all the old conventions and make this epic adventure" is not


productive at all.


It's failing to appreciate the fact that most of the RPG conventions in terms of game-design


we have today, are the results of creative solutions to difficult problems dealing with technical constraints,


and limitations of time and resources throughout the history of game development on older platforms.


Many of the same constraints and limitations are just as present (if not more so) in the development process of


one-man/small-team indie endeavors.

 

[headdie]

For the visual encounters I'm working on the trigger is player touch, not sure how that relates to processor usage but I have yet to encounter any real system response lag during testing.

Ultimately it comes down to how you want to approach the game design.  Personally I dislike Random Encounters for the reasons I stated earlier in the thread so not looking to use them, but like you say it is only one consideration when choosing a game to spend your time onto  play.

 

[hian]

For the visual encounters I'm working on the trigger is player touch, not sure how that relates to processor usage but I have yet to encounter any real system response lag during testing.


Ultimately it comes down to how you want to approach the game design.  Personally I dislike Random Encounters for the reasons I stated earlier in the thread so not looking to use them, but like you say it is only one consideration when choosing a game to spend your time onto  play.

Not trying to convince you to use them. Simply saying that they're not necessarily any worse as a game-play element


than any other one you might choose. It depends on your vision and your target audience. That's literally it.


As for using "on player touch" -


This, as far as I can imagine,


means that either your enemies don't respond to the player until the player actually bumps into them, and are moving on preset paths,


or that they're constantly set to move towards player, in which case they'll chase you across the entire map, am I right?


If you opt for a simplistic touch based encounter system, where enemies just walk around on a set path, and bumping


into them triggers combat, then yes, you can avoid all the lag issues. That does kill a lot of the dynamics that


people usually expect from touch-based visual encounter set-ups though.


Usually, people think of the enemy NPC is having a line of sight, or reaction perimeter, and once the player get's too


close the NPC will pounce and run after the player. There are scripts for line of sight and reaction/chase dynamics -


unfortunately they all, as far as I know, demand that you set the event to parallel process, which causes a lot


of lag if you're going to have several of them in a single map.

 

[bgillisp]

@jonthefox: Personally, I'd suggest either doing one of two things myself:

1: Do what was suggested earlier and put an on/off switch for random encounters like Bravely Default did. I set my game up that way with the help of Yanfly's System Engine + my script to link all random encounters to a switch, if it is off, the code to call a random encounter does nothing and game continues as normal.

2: Do what ksjp17 suggested and let the player choose visual vs random.

Both require some side work to pull off, but are doable.

 

[dungeon diver]

My dislike of touch encounters is pretty much just my dislike of shoehorned stealth mechanics, especially combined with grid-based movement which often makes it a matter of waiting in place bored until a sprite turns away.

 

[hian]

1: Do what was suggested earlier and put an on/off switch for random encounters like Bravely Default did. I set my game up that way with the help of Yanfly's System Engine + my script to link all random encounters to a switch, if it is off, the code to call a random encounter does nothing and game continues as normal.

I've seen several people advocate using this method, but it seems overly complicated.


Personally, I just used Yanfly's buttons to common events, and set up a menu where one of the options


turns on/off random encounters using the event command "change encounter".

My dislike of touch encounters is pretty much just my dislike of shoehorned stealth mechanics, especially combined with grid-based movement which often makes it a matter of waiting in place bored until a sprite turns away.

And this would be a good example of why many people prefer random encounters.


Again, touch encounters can be done right, but it requires much more work than just setting up the


enable/disable random encounters method I outlined above, so unless you have a very big dislike


for random encounters, or a very specific reason why it has to be touch encounters, then why bother?

 

[Schlangan]

Using a little scripting in RMXP, I made new behaviors for the events; they have either fixed or random movement until the player is in a given range. At that point, they start chasing the player, or on the contrary, fleeing from him (this is defined by an autorun event once at the loading of the map). Since the conditions are done within a script and not event conditions, there is no perceptible lag. In that case, touch event are sufficient.


By putting some thoughts into it, it would be possible to adjust that to the predefined paths, but I don't need that for now.

 

[Eschaton]

My personal gripe with random encounters is thus:

It keeps the developer from really balancing the game because the player can exploit the source of infinite EXP and just grind their way to victory rather than learn the game's intricacies and defeat its challenges with strategy.

I know hian said that this should be an option available to players who cannot grasp the game's intricacies, but I respectfully disagree.  That's blaming the player.  If the player cannot intuitively learn how to defeat the game's challenges with strategy then the developer has failed to design a fun and intuitive game.

Now, I'm not saying random encounters don't have a place in games.  I'm just saying they need to be finite, and methods of doing so have been discussed.

They are even better when done right; integrating them into the narrative is always a good idea.  Maybe you're in thick fog, or pitch blackness, or a desert sandstorm and you can't see the enemies there who are ambushing you.  THAT's a great time and place for randoms.  Otherwise, if the characters can reasonably see the enemy, they should be represented by events.

EDIT:

BUT, I also understand the argument that "battle is only an abstraction" and not a part of the narrative.  I also respectfully disagree with the notion that combat should be separated from the narrative.  That's just me.

 

[hian]

It keeps the developer from really balancing the game because the player can exploit the source


of infinite EXP and just grind their way to victory rather than learn the game's


intricacies and defeat its challenges with strategy.


I know hian said that this should be an option available to players who cannot grasp the game's


intricacies, but I respectfully disagree.  {b}That's blaming the player.

Blaming the player? I don't even....


You disagreeing with it doesn't change the fact that people are different, and that you cannot


actually adjust game-balance to fit all people that might potentially play your game -


the only thing you can hope to do, is to adjust it to the reasonable standard of your target audience,


and if preferred, to create a system that is open ended enough to allow "all" (still probably


not possible) people to play the game on their own terms.


I am not "blaming the gamer" for anything - If anything, I am giving gamers who're faced with a


natural handicap, or people who're just lazy (which many are), another way of achieving victory.

If the player cannot intuitively learn how to defeat the game's challenges with strategy then


the developer has failed to design a fun and intuitive game.

This is, sorry to say, complete and utter BS.


It assumes that


A.) there is some sort of uniform standard of fun and intuitive game-design,


which all potential players will agree upon - which is just patently wrong, and


B.) that balancing a game down to the point that it's easily graspable to "everyone" won't make


the game feel facile, infantile, and overly simplistic to someone else.


The idea that allowing players to grind past technical difficulty is bad game-design


because the game should just have been made in such a way that it would be naturally easy


for "everyone" (again, pointless because people are different), is the equivalent of


saying that games shouldn't have difficulty settings.


After all, why design a game with a hard setting that most people can't cope with, hence "forcing


them to play on easy and blaming them for their own lack of skill", you could just force


everyone to play on easy instead?


If you want to make the argument that you can make a challenging and interesting game


that will non-the-less be intuitively accessible and overcome-able to everyone, then be


my guest - but surely you recognize how naive that notion is?

Now, I'm not saying random encounters don't have a place in games. 


I'm just saying they need to be finite, and methods of doing so have been discussed.

No they don't.


The idea that they do, is frankly speaking, stupid.


You saying so amounts to saying "I don't like the idea that players can grind


past difficulty, so they shouldn't be allowed to".


That's not an argument in favor of the player - if anything, that sentiment is "blaming the player"


because you're saying that if the player can't hack it then so be it -


because you suffer from the delusion that it's actually possible to make a game balanced in


such a way that no-one will actually get stuck due to technical difficulty without that


making your game into a no brainer cookie-cutter.


There is absolutely no reason what so ever to artificially limit players freedom to enjoy the


game in their own way at their own pace in the way that you're advocating here.


The ability to over-level does nothing to hurt the game-play or the experience of anyone -


since those who don't want to grind, don't have to, and those who do, get to.


Besides, you could easily get past all of this by simply having enemies level up with the player -


however, guess what? Most players hate that, because the vast majority of RPG players actually


enjoy leveling up and becoming more and more powerful.

BUT, I also understand the argument that "battle is only an abstraction" and not a part of the narrative.


I also respectfully disagree with the notion that combat should be separated from the narrative. 


That's just me.

Firstly, I didn't say that the battles aren't a part of the narrative - they almost always are.


After all, you kill a bad guy in battle, he usually also dies in the story, doesn't he?


I was talking about the battle system, and how they do not reflect the narrative, which is patently


obvious in every RPG ever made.


Point in case - where's the floating hit-points and repeated attacks hitting home without killing


the victim outside battles or in cut-scenes?


Where's the Phoenix Downs, or the standing in place waiting for the ATB gauge to fill up?


The point I was trying to make is that the battles in RPGs are inherently abstract to one


degree or another, so to argue that the random battle transition somehow is more damaging


to the overall feel of the game is silly and extremely selective to say the least.


It's fine for people to prefer different battle-systems and different battle-transitions.


I don't think anyone (except one) here thinks otherwise.


You're perfectly entitled to not like random encounters, or want to make contrived limitations


to player freedom -


However people need to stop making the argument as if there are some sort of deep


underlying problems with the random transition


system that needs to be addressed though -


because there really isn't from the perspective of game-design. It really just falls down to preference.


Why can't just people leave it at that?

 

[headdie]

hian has a point that all this comes down to subjective choice,

Some people like random encounter for many reasons, others like me dont.  The differences come down to ideas of things like player choice / agency, how the dev and / or player want the game to flow and how the different components of gameplay and story fit together.

These are all personal subjective criteria, Myself and hian will probably never agree on which side is better because of the subjective nature of the discussion while you can put your points across there is no definitive proof that either is correct because the difference is personal preference which can never be taken as proof of anything.

 

[hian]

hian has a point that all this comes down to subjective choice,


Some people like random encounter for many reasons, others like me dont.  The differences come down to ideas of things like player choice / agency, how the dev and / or player want the game to flow and how the different components of gameplay and story fit together.


These are all personal subjective criteria, Myself and hian will probably never agree on which side is better because of the subjective nature of the discussion while you can put your points across there is no definitive proof that either is correct because the difference is personal preference which can never be taken as proof of anything.

Exactly.


To be fair though - we don't really disagree on anything - we simply have different tastes, which is fine.


I don't expect everyone to make games I will find fun - and with that said, I do enjoy games with visual enemies as well,


one such example being Chrono Cross.


I don't think random encounters are better than the alternatives - I just happen to think that visual enemies demand


much more work from a development perspective in order work, which is why, if someone asks me :


"should I use random encounters or visual enemies?", then I'll usually lean towards the former because I want


the people here to be able to do a good job on their projects and succeed.


If you have the vision, the time, the resources, and the energy to make a good visual enemy encounter system -


then by all means - I won't say that's a bad thing, or that this will somehow hamper my enjoyment of your game,


because it won't.


If it's well-designed, I'll enjoy it regardless.


Again, my position in all of this is summarized simply as the following -


A.) there is no inherent qualitative difference between random encounters and non-random encounters, and


B.) systematic visual encounter systems demand more work and polish than random encounters, which means that


it's often going to be beyond the scope of one-man RPG-maker development teams when you consider all the other


stuff you also need to clear in order to finish your product.


That's it.


I am not opposed to using visual enemies, or limited, scripted encounters.

 

[jonthefox]

Hian - I'm curious, what's your opinion on RNG in games?  i.e. hit / evade / crit chance