Unpopular Opinions: The Thread

[Kanori24]

My apologies. Done.

 

[kirbwarrior]

Nothing makes a person feel more exploited, objectified, or enslaved like being a part of that.

This is a big part of my point. Jobs shouldn't be 'forced upon' people and jobs shouldn't be able to take advantage of people (something something wage slavery). And the reason I thought it was unpopular was how many people seem to either not get the idea of or seem against the idea of supporting people in getting a job that doesn't tear apart their body and mind. Then again, these are the people who think that anything that costs money without making money makes it impossible, so maybe I need to find better people to be around.

(I think it's not prudent to continue this discussion since it'll lean into politics, but I think I agree with most of what you said)

---

EDIT: For a lighter opinion, has SquareEnix made a good AAA in the last two decades? I feel like all their 'lesser' games are far better; DQXI, Dragon Quest Builders, Octopath, Bravely Default, etc. I feel like people focus too much on Final Fantasy and don't see all the great other games the company makes.

 

[Ms Littlefish]

Hey, yeah…ixnay on that topic. Spoiler or not, I may need to remove the content. Please know that I do support the voices that need to be heard, but I feel it’s potentially too difficult to make age-appropriate for the younger teens that visit our forums.

 

[Kanori24]

@kirbwarrior You know, I wouldn't be surprised if the next Final Fantasy we hear about is simply titled 'Final Fantasy' (with no Roman numeral) XD

 

[kirbwarrior]

I wouldn't be surprised if the next Final Fantasy we hear about is simply titled 'Final Fantasy'

Considering that it sounds like from interviews and such that no one at SE actually likes "Final Fantasy" and wants to make their own creative AAA ideas, I wouldn't be surprised either. On the other hand, the whole reason this doesn't happen is because some people still think reputation is somehow a good thing and thus SE is too afraid to let go of the brand. I'm actually looking forward* to XVI specifically because it seems to basically be FF in name only and be a new experience by people who actually want the product they are making.

*Not holding my breath, though. I learned not to get hype over games a long time ago because every single time I did the game didn't hold up.

 

[HankB]

I think the last season of The Office was one of the best seasons ever. I know that's hard to swallow, but now that you've had some time and distance, go back and rewatch S09. I swear, it's got some of the best writing. I think they did an amazing job with what they had to work with.

 

[Kes]

Many RM games go to a lot of trouble to find appropriate music.
But - ultra epic battle tracks, full of bombast and emotion. With chibi battlers!! Really??

 

[TheoAllen]

Many mobile games do be like that.
I'm looking at you, Blue Archive.
Also, probably Arknight as well, idk, I didn't play that one.

 

[kirbwarrior]

But - ultra epic battle tracks, full of bombast and emotion. With chibi battlers!! Really??

Unironically the best part of Final Fantasy Mystic Quest.

---

There aren't enough turn-based rpgs out there with 5+ party sizes. 3-4 are super common, 2 crops up from time to time, but there needs to be more large party games.

 

[TheoAllen]

My opinion is that 5+ party members need to be a tactical game rather than fixed turn-based. Simply because the damage range can vary when all 5 attack together. Being a tactical game, means they can split focus on other places and enemies.

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

My favorite game of all time was designed for an active party of up to 8. And you could also complete the game with a solo character. That is what I like.

 

[kirbwarrior]

Simply because the damage range can vary when all 5 attack together.

I'm not quite sure what this means or how it differs from, say, 4 party members. But I heartily suggest Suikoden 2 with its 6 party.

 

[TheoAllen]

I'm not quite sure what this means or how it differs from, say, 4 party members. But I heartily suggest Suikoden 2 with its 6 party.

I don't play suiko 2, or turn-based JRPG, except BoF4, or Child of Light if you consider it JRPG. But I've heard that it has something like a "row system", front and back rows with each row having 3 party members. Not sure if it affects anything or if it is just a display only. So, I'm gonna ask, does it affect the gameplay?

Also what I mean by the damage range can vary means If you have 10 ~ 20 damage variance per member, and you have 5 members, it can go up to 50 ~ 100. So, I find smaller party sizes easier to balance.

 

[Ms Littlefish]

Many RM games go to a lot of trouble to find appropriate music.
But - ultra epic battle tracks, full of bombast and emotion. With chibi battlers!! Really??

@Kes Holy cow, this is something I could talk about for a very, very long time. And, I know some people really will disagree but there really are a lot of games that do not consider if the style of music goes with the style of graphics.

Cinematic styles do not go with everything.

 

[Finnuval]

I don't play suiko 2, or turn-based JRPG, except BoF4, or Child of Light if you consider it JRPG. But I've heard that it has something like a "row system", front and back rows with each row having 3 party members. Not sure if it affects anything or if it is just a display only. So, I'm gonna ask, does it affect the gameplay?

Also what I mean by the damage range can vary means If you have 10 ~ 20 damage variance per member, and you have 5 members, it can go up to 50 ~ 100. So, I find smaller party sizes easier to balance.

To a degree the row system in suikoden does indeed effect gameplay.
For starters characters have a short or long range dictating from which row they are effective.
Secondly the back row get a buff to magic and range defence.
(There was more to it even I think but it's been a while since I played it so I'm just gonna stick to what I know for sure here).

Edit : characters on the front row are quicker to be targeted by melee attacks and back row characters more likely to get hit by ranged and magic.
Also is a character on the front row dies the character behind it gets automatically pushed to the front row exposing exposing them for melee attack and since you usually have your glass canons/magic users there it can be a very bad thing to happen xD

Then there is the fact that due to the insane large amount of characters you can recruit and the fact that a lot of combinations (in some cases up to 4 characters together) have unite attacks there is a lot of experimentation to be found in that too.

Plus monsters (there are a few you can recruit) usually take up 2 slots of the 6.

Are these reasons enough to make it worth it? That's a personal preference thing. I've always liked it myself in suikoden (and hated it when they changed that for 4) but it definitely isn't good for every game either.

 

[kirbwarrior]

But I've heard that it has something like a "row system", front and back rows with each row having 3 party members. Not sure if it affects anything or if it is just a display only. So, I'm gonna ask, does it affect the gameplay?

It affects things some, maybe as much as, say, Final Fantasy games (Finnuval explains it better).

Also what I mean by the damage range can vary means If you have 10 ~ 20 damage variance per member, and you have 5 members, it can go up to 50 ~ 100. So, I find smaller party sizes easier to balance.

Oh, literal damage variance, gotcha. Yes, the higher number of party members does naturally make things harder to balance and damage variance is low on that list for me of how hard it is.

On that note, I'm not sure how much I care for damage variance. I'm used to low number games and any amount of variance in those can undermine how the game works. Same as trpgs, having variable damage takes away a lot of strategy. Any game with high numbers are fine with a variance of 1% just so you aren't seeing the exact same numbers each attack, but then that might only be because every game I've played with giant numbers do it for the extremeness of it, not because the combat is particularly deep or hard.

Damage variance likely can be used well, but most of the time it seems to be there just to randomly make some easy battles take another turn.

 

[RCXGaming]

@Kes Holy cow, this is something I could talk about for a very, very long time. And, I know some people really will disagree but there really are a lot of games that do not consider if the style of music goes with the style of graphics.

Cinematic styles do not go with everything.

Gonna double down on this because it's honestly kind of shocking how many RPG Maker games I've seen that use giant orchestral scores for fights with teeny tiny battlers - worse still if the enemies are also chibi.

Not a fan of most of the music chosen regardless if I have to be honest. Lot of the more conventional RPG Maker games I played had generic "adventure!" music that just sounds like orchestral white noise, or ill-fitting prog rock (cue sick-nasty guitar solo as you fight a bandit).

I think, more than anything else, what tells me someone really cares about their world is if they go out of their way to ensure a specific feeling for whatever situation/location the player is in, even if it means having to forego things like "cinematic style".

Oh, literal damage variance, gotcha. Yes, the higher number of party members does naturally make things harder to balance and damage variance is low on that list for me of how hard it is.

On that note, I'm not sure how much I care for damage variance. I'm used to low number games and any amount of variance in those can undermine how the game works. Same as trpgs, having variable damage takes away a lot of strategy. Any game with high numbers are fine with a variance of 1% just so you aren't seeing the exact same numbers each attack, but then that might only be because every game I've played with giant numbers do it for the extremeness of it, not because the combat is particularly deep or hard.

Damage variance likely can be used well, but most of the time it seems to be there just to randomly make some easy battles take another turn.

Damage variance is one of the kinds of RNG that I despise. (Especially if we're playing Pokemon lmaoooooooooooo)

It's why I keep damage variance on every attack to 0% - 1%, unless it's deliberately janky like a gambler spell that has 50% variance but has ridiculous damage. Only other exception I can think of is for enemy-only attacks, to give them a little bit of variance (10% at most) so the player doesn't take full damage every time they're slapped with that skill.

Otherwise I am the captain of the SS. Expected Value, because consistency in turn-based RPGs is a gift that more people need to value. It definitely helps allow a 5 person party during combat to be feasible (on top of the other tricks I have in mind).

 

[kirbwarrior]

Especially if we're playing Pokemon

Okay, hot take; The mainline pokemon games are bad. It's the critters we like and the idea of being on an adventure with them.

even if it means having to forego things like "cinematic style"

Let's leave being overly cinematic to the companies paying literally millions of dollars on being cinematic XD

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

There are so many pages now that I forget what I already said. Part of this might be repeated, but I wanted to rationalize something too.

I don’t like high numbers, which is probably a repeat opinion.

I like random/variance for to hit, damage, etc. For the love of everything you hold holy, WHY?

Simple. I think it is more realistic. I think that the early book and paper versions of RPGs, pre-computer, wanted to streamline combat. Players wouldn’t want to have 5 rolls to adjudicate/determine the results of an attack. But with computers, all those checks can be done in a second.

So to me, early D20 to hit and damage ranges where taking into account that an attack might be blocked, or evaded/dodged, or parried, or absorbed, or deflected.

Damage might vary because of the above, or it was a glancing blow, or armor took some of the damage instead.

And just from a logical perspective, if you hit something that is trying not to be hit, 10 times, the chances that every single hit will land precisely in the same spot, with the same force, at the same angle, with the same penetration, etc. if not likely. This will inherently cause more or less damage.

All of this is accounted for, without being acknowledged, by using variance.

Now, if your game implements a bunch of these things separately, then having additional variance seems like it might be duplicative.

Anyway, just some thoughts on why variance may exist and what it might be doing/taking into consideration.

I wonder…for those who don’t like variance in damage, how do you feel about not seeing the damage numbers and actual HP values?

Do you just play? Or are you a number cruncher who will do whatever they can to try to figure out the DPS (Damage Per Second) and such?

And I will end on that thought with another unpopular opinion.

If I get the impression that combat just boils down to math…I stop enjoying playing. I want to remain blissfully ignorant of the math. Because…MATH!

 

[RCXGaming]

Okay, hot take; The mainline pokemon games are bad. It's the critters we like and the idea of being on an adventure with them.

I'm curious. I haven't played a mainline Pokemon game the normal way for quite some time now, and I also don't have any interest in any future title that comes up aside from what the competitive metagame looks like on Pokemon Showdown, so I'd like to hear how you think they're bad.

Because I've always been of the mindset that the mechanics in them could improve other RPGs more than not, but when every enemy is just You (same health and weaknesses and all) it's very hard to implement any of the mechanics in a meaningful way.

Mystery Dungeon helps mitigate this by giving bosses way more HP, but that game also... has its share of issues.

Let's leave being overly cinematic to the companies paying literally millions of dollars on being cinematic XD

I always forget about the money angle when it comes to this BS.

There are so many pages now that I forget what I already said. Part of this might be repeated, but I wanted to rationalize something too.

I don’t like high numbers, which is probably a repeat opinion.

I like random/variance for to hit, damage, etc. For the love of everything you hold holy, WHY?

Simple. I think it is more realistic. I think that the early book and paper versions of RPGs, pre-computer, wanted to streamline combat. Players wouldn’t want to have 5 rolls to adjudicate/determine the results of an attack. But with computers, all those checks can be done in a second.

So to me, early D20 to hit and damage ranges where taking into account that an attack might be blocked, or evaded/dodged, or parried, or absorbed, or deflected.

Damage might vary because of the above, or it was a glancing blow, or armor took some of the damage instead.

And just from a logical perspective, if you hit something that is trying not to be hit, 10 times, the chances that every single hit will land precisely in the same spot, with the same force, at the same angle, with the same penetration, etc. if not likely. This will inherently cause more or less damage.

All of this is accounted for, without being acknowledged, by using variance.

Now, if your game implements a bunch of these things separately, then having additional variance seems like it might be duplicative.

Anyway, just some thoughts on why variance may exist and what it might be doing/taking into consideration.

I've wanted to ignore the whole "I don't like larger numbers" thing from you for a while now because it's very clearly a personal opinion on your behalf, but now I have a few objections.

Realism can go awry when designing video games, especially if you don't know what you're doing. Because keep in mind (and it feels silly to say this out loud, but), video games are not real life!

The small little inconveniences that come with missing accuracy checks or doing "not enough" damage with glancing blows to kill something just... don't have to be part of the design if you don't want them to be.

It's a well-repeated phrase that you shouldn't put things that compromise the feel of the game for the sake of "realism" not only here but also in other types of games. If that's what you're going for, then all power to you. But to expect the same thing out of other people is honestly getting a bit aggravating.

Let me put this in perspective for you: If I want to play a tabletop pen-and-paper RPG, I will do so.

But keep in mind what these things do to the engagement of people who don't enjoy that kind of thing, who are more used to the modern type of RPG - if my attacks are nullified by randomly missing (especially during a critical moment where I need to win) or weakened by a glancing blow that's out of my control, then that can sour the experience for me.

In fact, that's why I've designed that out of my games, since it's something I don't find fun.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind what missing means in the context of a tabletop RPG and a video game. Theo made a brilliant point in the post after this one - missing in a tabletop game can potentially change the narrative, which can be exciting because you can play around that!

... Whereas missing in a video game means literally nothing.

At best, it's just an inconvenience. At worse it can cause you to repeat content because you lost the fight because you missed, which is a huge no-no especially for turn-based RPGs!

I wonder…for those who don’t like variance in damage, how do you feel about not seeing the damage numbers and actual HP values?

Do you just play? Or are you a number cruncher who will do whatever they can to try to figure out the DPS (Damage Per Second) and such?

And I will end on that thought with another unpopular opinion.

If I get the impression that combat just boils down to math…I stop enjoying playing. I want to remain blissfully ignorant of the math. Because…MATH!

Don't care about the damage numbers, actual HP values or even the math. All that matters to me is if my actions can take down the enemy quickly.

It's unfortunately a common occurrence in RPG Maker games due to bad tuning that your attacks will take 3-4 actions just to kill one guy in a mob of three, something that would aggravate me regardless of what information the UI is feeding me or how big/small the numbers are.

It's why I take a "enemies only take long to kill until you know their weaknesses" path.

EX. A random encounter jelly in my game has 2100 HP. A boss earlier has 4000. The difference is that the jelly can get chopped to pieces by physical attacks, so just hitting it would remove 80% of its HP (or all of it) if you want it dead.

The boss, by comparison, takes more actions to kill because I want the player to see their unique mechanics play out.

Damage variance here would be abominable due to the higher scaling! A variance of 20% (default RPG Maker) would make 5 damage turn into 4 damage, but would turn 500 damage into 400 which is a huge decrease! It's why I've stripped out variance other than the convenience angle.

The high values are honestly just window dressing, because there is no real functional difference (other than the variance) if the numbers were divided by 100. But it can be very compelling to a player that doesn't have your hang up when they see the enemy take 1600 of their 2100 HP since it sells the impression that they just did a lot of damage.

I'm also not alien to playing around with smaller values either - low HP, high defense enemies can be fun to play with because then it becomes a game of "how do I combo you to death efficiently", since their damage intake isn't the same.

tldr; Do what is good for your game.