The most annoying RPG concept.....

[BigEd781]

I 200% agree with this, because I remember as a kid playing this game and my only save point was with sten before you fight that other monkey on the bridge and it was impossible, thus I quit playing the game frustrated after all those hours wasted. (Dont insult me, remember this was as a young kid)

Yeah, as a kid I just kept grinding in the basement until I gained 30 levels or something ridiculous... now I just level him beforehand.

On a side note its good to see u again Biged, still rockin the badass cecil!

Always.

 

[Espon]

Definitely hate the missable items or content that was mentioned, especially when it gives you no indication at all towards something further into the story. Definitely had no Zodiac Spear when I played through FF12 the first time (who the hell doesn't open every chest in sight?) since I'm not one to turn to guides until after I've beaten the final boss.

Speaking of getting game over when a character is killed, I can think of better examples:

• Losing almost an hour on the final boss in Persona 4 because I didn't defend with the MC.
  
• Accidentally getting myself blasted in FF13 because my character decided to move in front of the enemy instead of behind it.
  
• Stupid Rafa getting killed on the roof before any of my characters even get a turn in FFT (and after setting up someone to actually be fast enough to go first, they're promptly killed by Stop Bracelet).
  

And another I dislike: Poorly controlled AI party members. They're hardly ever intelligent and usually take the more suicidal route by getting blasted by avoidable AoE or choosing to blindly attack instead of healing when low on HP. Watching some NPC I gotta protect run off with nothing more than a handgun or a knife and pull the entire dungeon in a game like Fallout or Oblivion is definitely an enjoyable experience as well.

 

[Helladen]

On topic: I agree with you in principal. A better example (IMO) is BOF II when you get to Highfort and are forced to use God-Awful Sten as your only party member!. So what do you end up doing the first time you play this game? Sitting in that damn basement leveling forever because you can't leave the town or get your party back. Then you have to fight a semi-boss with Sten alone... and then run through the basement to get your party back as fast as possible hoping you don't die. It can take a long time to get strong enough to beat him. Pain in the ass....

I honestly had no trouble breezing through BoF II (don't remember Sten or a majority of the characters though). I just remember the game being completely easy and not a challenge whatsoever. As much as I love the Breath of Fire series, I and II just aren't that memorable. I do admit the introduction was unique and a few other things like the ending, but everything in the middle is a blur. I did love Kate though, the whole transformation of characters was the only thing that stood out in the game in my opinion.

BoF IV/V both sucked beyond belief. Especially V, the whole dragon powers being limited. I will never play another BoF if they ever decide to make another, because they completely destroyed the series with that game. I remember being at the end of the game and had to restart, because I was using my dash too much. That really pissed me off, and they gave you no way to lower it. You did not know how long the game was, how much was consumed unless you played around with your spells, and so many factors that they did not take into consideration.

 

[Andynator]

An other remarkable bad concept in RPG-Design is - in my opinion - the story-forced death of a main-party-member.

Like the one of

Spoiler

Aerith in Final-Fantasy 7.

It's only idiotic and terrible to work at gold saucer for her weapon, only to see her die, three hours of game time later. Without any chance of rescuing her. I never really liked her, and i never used her so much. But if a player used her much, and grants her hours after hours of monster-Killing, until she dies without a warning and all of her earned EXP are irrevocable gone ... well ... that's not that funny.

 

[Necromus]

She dies?!!?!?!?!?

Spoiler! lol

That was one of the most touching moments of my earlier gaming days, hardly somehing i would call bad.

Of course it sucks from a gameplay point of view, but story wise, it was a major point with heavy impact.

 

[Andynator]

She dies?!!?!?!?!?

Spoiler! lol

The game is fifteen years old. Sometimes, spoiler tags aren't really useful ... but, for the peace in the world ...

Uhm ... did you set every

Spoiler

"I'm your father, Luke!"

in spoiler-tags, too? I don't think, it's a profit for the legibility.

Besides:

To make a characters death sad, it's not necessary, to make the character be a part of the main-party. The tragedy of her death is based on the worth, she had for her friends,

Spoiler

especially cloud

, not on the time, the player plays with her. If you want a character in the party, without the loss of anything, you could add the character to the party, as an additional party member. Like it's doe with the "guest-characters" in Final-Fantasy 12. There are guest characters always an additional, fourth party-member.

 

[Emoonia]

For me the most annoying thing in new RPGs is the difficult with obtaining ultimate weapons. It should be challenging and not easy, I agree. But it's very frustrating when you try to get very important component which comes only from the battle with most difficult enemy in the whole game... and it have only 1% chance of dropping it. Very, very frustrating. In older Final Fantasy games you get your ultimate weapon because you've earned it (as, for example, Ultimate Weapon in FFVII... although maybe Lionheart was to easy to obtain). It not comes in the main quest, you have to search it and fulfill some conditions. But you have a guarantee that you obtain it when you complete this quest. And in FFXIII you have no guarantee that you obtain Trapezohedron, and you have to battle this giant turtle over and over and over... and it isn't exciting at all.

 

[RATED-RKOFRANKLIN]

An other remarkable bad concept in RPG-Design is - in my opinion - the story-forced death of a main-party-member.

Like the one of

Spoiler

Aerith in Final-Fantasy 7.

It's only idiotic and terrible to work at gold saucer for her weapon, only to see her die, three hours of game time later. Without any chance of rescuing her. I never really liked her, and i never used her so much. But if a player used her much, and grants her hours after hours of monster-Killing, until she dies without a warning and all of her earned EXP are irrevocable gone ... well ... that's not that funny.
I don't see this as a problem. This is more plot based than anything else. Some people act so hurt when a main playable character is killed. The story is progressing and took a shocking angel. Personally I like it.

 

[Sailerius]

When I have to do a forced sidequest (something that is completely unrelated to the story or plot except to serve as a distraction to pad out playtime length) to progress the plot, or when I have to grind to beat a boss because you need to use this one skill that you get at a higher level to win.

 

[Necromus]

The game is fifteen years old. Sometimes, spoiler tags aren't really useful ... but, for the peace in the world ...

Uhm ... did you set every

Spoiler

"I'm your father, Luke!"

in spoiler-tags, too? I don't think, it's a profit for the legibility.

Besides:

To make a characters death sad, it's not necessary, to make the character be a part of the main-party. The tragedy of her death is based on the worth, she had for her friends,

Spoiler

especially cloud

, not on the time, the player plays with her. If you want a character in the party, without the loss of anything, you could add the character to the party, as an additional party member. Like it's doe with the "guest-characters" in Final-Fantasy 12. There are guest characters always an additional, fourth party-member.
I swear the internet is in severe need of a sarcasm font...but now really, come on -.-

 

[Andynator]

I don't see this as a problem. This is more plot based than anything else. Some people act so hurt when a main playable character is killed. The story is progressing and took a shocking angel. Personally I like it.

I do NOT talk about a Story-problem. I talk about a GAMEPLAY problem. I Swear - if i play a game, and use only the same 3 characters all the time ... an then one of this 3 characters is killed through an unavoidable story-Event, and i have to replace him/her with an untrained Level 5 greenhorn which falls to the mud, every time a Squirrel is sneezing, i will touch this game never again!

If i get a character in my party, which is planned to stay only a limited time there, the player should KNOW that, so he could place this character on the bench. Or the character should get his own, extra party-slot, without stealing any Experience from the permanent party-members.

I swear the internet is in severe need of a sarcasm font...but now really, come on -.-

I know sarcasm ... but obviously you did not.

You really think, the StarWars-Qoute in Spoiler-Tags where seriously?

 

[Necromus]

I do NOT talk about a Story-problem. I talk about a GAMEPLAY problem. I Swear - if i play a game, and use only the same 3 characters all the time ... an then one of this 3 characters is killed through an unavoidable story-Event, and i have to replace him/her with an untrained Level 5 greenhorn which falls to the mud, every time a Squirrel is sneezing, i will touch this game never again!

If i get a character in my party, which is planned to stay only a limited time there, the player should KNOW that, so he could place this character on the bench. Or the character should get his own, extra party-slot, without stealing any Experience from the permanent party-members.

I know sarcasm ... but obviously you did not.

You really think, the StarWars-Qoute in Spoiler-Tags where seriously?

A game is not only about gameplay, just because it doesn't make sense from a gameplay point of view, its a major tool for storytelling.

You can't let a player know that character is only temporary, if the way the departing is going to happen differs from your usual, "oh well it was fun, im off then!", kind of thing.

Telling people, oh btw, shes gonna die beforehand would make no sense whatsoever.

And i think you need to work your way of putting things if you wan't to do the sarcasm thing online, alas your post wasn't sarcastic at all i'm afraid .__.

 

[SOC]

Aside from pay to win concepts and just typical balance nonsense in general, I hate it when games make me feel pressured about something. Like if it's based on a real world clock, that I need to plan my real life schedule around something that happens in game at a certain time. Older games like Animal Crossing would let you cheat the system by changing your console's time, but in online games when you can't, that's really frustrating to me.

Another thing that makes me feel pressured are games that don't have random encounters. I feel pressured like I need to find every single mob in every single room in every single area in the entire game all the time or I'll be under leveled or just bad. I'm a completionist and I like to finish everything. I feel annoyed that I have to spend that much time and effort into doing that. I don't think it's fun hunting down every enemy, and I don't think it's fun leaving any enemies behind either.

Skills/stats that level up based on how much you use them. FF2, for example. I hate that. I have to waste MP to gain more MP. If I don't spam magic regularly, I'll fall behind. I never have a clear indicator on what my power level is, so I don't know how strong/weak I am for the upcoming areas.

I'm sure there's more, but these come to mind quick.

 

[Andynator]

A game is not only about gameplay, just because it doesn't make sense from a gameplay point of view, its a major tool for storytelling.

You can't let a player know that character is only temporary, if the way the departing is going to happen differs from your usual, "oh well it was fun, im off then!", kind of thing.

Telling people, oh btw, shes gonna die beforehand would make no sense whatsoever.

Contradiction!

There is NO necessity to make a important person a permanent party-member. I point you to Final-Fantasy 12 for example. In this game are a a lot of story-related persons member of your party for a limited time. And the fact, that they are "guest characters" makes not clear, which destiny awaits them, after leaving your party. Some of them meet you the first time as "guest characters", but became regular party-members, a short time, after they leave you. Some of them were twice or thrice guest characters...They could betray you, or they could die. The ONLY difference is, that you know, this character is NOT permanent, and every experience-point an all your money, you invest in these characters, is probably lost, after he/she leave the party.

 

[Necromus]

Aside from pay to win concepts and just typical balance nonsense in general, I hate it when games make me feel pressured about something. Like if it's based on a real world clock, that I need to plan my real life schedule around something that happens in game at a certain time. Older games like Animal Crossing would let you cheat the system by changing your console's time, but in online games when you can't, that's really frustrating to me.

Another thing that makes me feel pressured are games that don't have random encounters. I feel pressured like I need to find every single mob in every single room in every single area in the entire game all the time or I'll be under leveled or just bad. I'm a completionist and I like to finish everything. I feel annoyed that I have to spend that much time and effort into doing that. I don't think it's fun hunting down every enemy, and I don't think it's fun leaving any enemies behind either.

Skills/stats that level up based on how much you use them. FF2, for example. I hate that. I have to waste MP to gain more MP. If I don't spam magic regularly, I'll fall behind. I never have a clear indicator on what my power level is, so I don't know how strong/weak I am for the upcoming areas.

I'm sure there's more, but these come to mind quick.

Where are events actually based on realtime? Would know any right of the bat. However that really sounds aweful, ingame time sure, there are a lot of games that do that, but realtime...eew.

I think learning by doing is not a bad system at all tho, just FF2 way of doing that is just really bad. TES are a better example for that or Grandia for example.

Contradiction!

There is NO necessity to make a important person a permanent party-member. I point you to Final-Fantasy 12 for example. In this game are a a lot of story-related persons member of your party for a limited time. And the fact, that they are "guest characters" makes not clear, which destiny awaits them, after leaving your party. Some of them meet you the first time as "guest characters", but became regular party-members, a short time, after they leave you. Some of them were twice or thrice guest characters...They could betray you, or they could die. The ONLY difference is, that you know, this character is NOT permanent, and every experience-point an all your money, you invest in these characters, is probably lost, after he/she leave the party.

That's kinda what i said before, FFXII is using the "usual" way for temporary chars, you know that they aren't permanent, what happens after they leave doesn't really have anything to do with that fact imo.

FF VII doesn't have that kind of feature, it's purely a story element, big difference here imo.

I absolutely understand why you don't like it, wether you liked Aerith or not, losing a char sucks, but it is (was) just so incredible powerful storywise, that it doesn't turn that event into a bad feature, it simply stirred up the player, making him wanna take revenge.

Where the -character dies- "feature" is taken to an extreme would be FF IV, where half your cast dies, albeit temporarly, to something and you gain a new member. That really even got on my nerves somehow, but it was also a really good (well maybe a tad over the top) story element and prevented having to chose between a lot of awesome characters in the end.

Because, and that might be another addition for this topic, i can't stand having a huge cast, while the main gameplay aspect of the game -the battlesystem- doesn't even promoted more than 3-4-5 characters, you always have to choose.

Why have more characters (playable mind you) than you can have in battle? Those characters miss out the majority of the game, and are better used as a NPC, beeing dead (story effect), or useful if the game promotes multiple party dungeons or similar features.

 

[RATED-RKOFRANKLIN]

I do NOT talk about a Story-problem. I talk about a GAMEPLAY problem. I Swear - if i play a game, and use only the same 3 characters all the time ... an then one of this 3 characters is killed through an unavoidable story-Event, and i have to replace him/her with an untrained Level 5 greenhorn which falls to the mud, every time a Squirrel is sneezing, i will touch this game never again!

If i get a character in my party, which is planned to stay only a limited time there, the player should KNOW that, so he could place this character on the bench. Or the character should get his own, extra party-slot, without stealing any Experience from the permanent party-members.

You're not suppose to use the same 3 characters all of the time. Very few RPGs are designed that way. Most RPGs will have boss battles that are more suited for certain characters. In some games a character must be active to get exp points while in other games they must simply be in the party.

A player should not know about this. What happen to the element of surprise? Do you want another cliche RPG storyline or do you want excitement and drama? This moment is very famous in the industry and is highly praised.

 

[Andynator]

That's kinda what i said before, FFXII is using the "usual" way for temporary chars, you know that they aren't permanent, what happens after they leave doesn't really have anything to do with that fact imo.

Sorry, but somehow i 'don't got your point. Did you really mean, if in a TV Series there is a "Guest Star", with a limited amount of episodes in a Season, that his Story is not as interesting for you, because you did know, he is not there for ever?That is really not my opinion. In the theory, a guest character could be exactly as interesting, as a permanent character. Sometimes he could much more interesting.

FF VII doesn't have that kind of feature, it's purely a story element, big difference here imo. I absolutely understand why you don't like it, wether you liked Aerith or not, losing a char sucks, but it is (was) just so incredible powerful storywise, that it doesn't turn that event into a bad feature, it simply stirred up the player, making him wanna take revenge.

The problem is: It is a good story element. But because of the loss of a main-Charakter it is a bad gameplay element. And if i had to decide, i think Gameplay > Story.

It is true, if you say, the story was great. But FF7 is FF7, and that mean's it is not the only game, in which a main-Charakter dies. This is at first, a forum for selfmade-RPG's. And if i don't want to play ever again an RPG in which a Main-Charakter dies, i think, it is ok, to say that. The Final-Fantasy7 story may be really strong. But it is not a "law", that dying main-Charakters every time leads to a strong story.

 

[SOC]

You're not suppose to use the same 3 characters all of the time. Very few RPGs are designed that way. Most RPGs will have boss battles that are more suited for certain characters. In some games a character must be active to get exp points while in other games they must simply be in the party.

A player should not know about this. What happen to the element of surprise? Do you want another cliche RPG storyline or do you want excitement and drama? This moment is very famous in the industry and is highly praised.

That's another thing that bugs me. I like games where every party member gains full EXP./whatever even when they're not in the active party. As much as I love and adore FF6, it does feel tedious having to level up every character individually because you will be using at least 12 of them by the end. I LOVE the concept of needing multiple party members/parties for various bosses, I love how every party member is very unique and great in their own ways. But I don't love in FF9 using Zidane Garnet Vivi and Steiner for most of the game because I love them so much, then coming across a dungeon where I'm stuck using Eiko, Freya and Amarant or something and they're all level 25 in a 40 dungeon because of story. I think that would be fine if they all leveled up/gained ability points/the full deal when out of active party.

If the game is going to use multiple party members at different points in the story due to the story, then they should compensate by leveling them all up fully alongside your active party. If the game is going to use multiple party members as optional means, such as side quests and dungeons and stuff that the player will choose to do and opt out/in other party members based on what they want when they want, then I'm more okay with having to level them individually. Not completely okay because it's still annoying, but not as annoyed. Tales of games do this very well.

 

[Necromus]

Sorry, but somehow i 'don't got your point. Did you really mean, if in a TV Series there is a "Guest Star", with a limited amount of episodes in a Season, that his Story is not as interesting for you, because you did know, he is not there for ever?

That is really not my opinion. In the theory, a guest character could be exactly as interesting, as a permanent character. Sometimes he could much more interesting.

The problem is: It is a good story element. But because of the loss of a main-Charakter it is a bad gameplay element. And if i had to decide, i think Gameplay > Story.

It is true, if you say, the story was great. But FF7 is FF7, and that mean's it is not the only game, in which a main-Charakter dies. This is at first, a forum for selfmade-RPG's. And if i don't want to play ever again an RPG in which a Main-Charakter dies, i think, it is ok, to say that. The Final-Fantasy7 story may be really strong. But it is not a "law", that dying main-Charakters every time leads to a strong story.

My point is that the way Aerith's death was used has nothing to with the way FF XII handles temporary characters, you can't really compare that.

I ment if a temporary character leaves your party and dies, it doesn't matter from a gameplay point of view, it still matters to the story ofc.

However that's different from telling people something about Aerith's death beforehand, simply there is no "temporary character" feature.

It's simply a story only feature, and thus can't exactly be labled as a bad gameplay feature and in FF VII it definitely also outweights the gameplay aspect, since it just has so much impact on the story.

I wouldn't say that that makes for a good story all the time either, just when done well, it's not a bad thing per se, atleast in my opinion.

If that turns you off from a game, sure that's your way, i can understand that too.

 

[BigEd781]

If Aeris were some straggler type companion the emotional attachment to her may have been less and, as a result, her death may not have been as palpable. I *always* use Aeris in my main party, knowing that she will die. Why? Because it makes the story better. You become attached to the characters that you use more often, the characters that appear in every battle and in mini-conversations. I think her death was one of the best plot devices ever to appear in an RPG.