What are the #1 mistakes that RPG Maker games make?

[T.Bit]

Stairs Argument:

Stylistic choices are yours to make. I don't know how stairs work other than how we defined work in physics: ramps are less work than stairs. Elevators are awesome because they do the work for you. Work equals force applied over a certain distance.

Save anywhere Argument:

I like saving anywhere. I also like save points because they remind me to save. However, if I'm playing a game like Etrian Odyssey, I'm looking for a challenge and a big old FU in the face for failing to be cautious enough and now my short-cut doesn't work GAH!

What I dislike in RPG Maker games is when someone argues that their game doesn't have to be aesthetically pretty because it's about the story. Or they don't have to worry about bad plot because it's about the gameplay. Video games are a mixed medium that balances a variety of factors to create an entire experience that honestly transcends other artistic mediums (in my opinion). You can use the RTP to make a pretty game WHILE making gameplay fun WHILE developing a strong story with deep characters (not that a game has to have story to be fun, see Etrian Odyssey above).

 

[Indrah]

Many developers go for pretty over functional and readable (I'm sure Indrah will agree with me on this one)

SHE DOES. SHE DOES SO. MUCH.

@Zoltor I was gonna say soemthig nasty but you know what? Pass. Sure go be a big egocentric dork soemwhere, I'll ignore you. Seems healthier. Enjoy yourself making your reflection agreeing with you. I'm too old to deal with this teenager holier than thou crap.

@Irili: AGREEEED. One focus aspect does not jsutify the other totally SUCKING BALLS. Medium mediocrity, maybe. RAGING SUCKNESS NO.

 

[Chaos Avian]

Again, I don't feel players give much of a Frick. maybe if an architect (i guess) were to look at them hed get offended?

^ Hi~ I don't feel offended :3

But yeah back on topic saving is definitely a must. I quite like my grinders (Atlus RPGs for example) but even they provide quick save at the very least because they are time consuming and it's as Zoltor says. And isn't one of the main rules of RPGS; save and save often?

Save anywhere Argument:

I like saving anywhere. I also like save points because they remind me to save. However, if I'm playing a game like Etrian Odyssey, I'm looking for a challenge and a big old FU in the face for failing to be cautious enough and now my short-cut doesn't work GAH!

^ Took the words right out of my mouth xD

 

[Milennin]

To Milen: Every minute people become even more ignorant. Look not allowing save anywhere alone, just makes it not a baby's 1st RPG, there will be ofcourse more things to make the game actually difficult.

Tell me, how is a game more difficult for not letting you save anywhere?

 

[Zoltor]

SHE DOES. SHE DOES SO. MUCH.

@Zoltor I was gonna say soemthig nasty but you know what? Pass. Sure go be a big egocentric dork soemwhere, I'll ignore you. Seems healthier. Enjoy yourself making your reflection agreeing with you. I'm too old to deal with this teenager holier than thou crap.

@Irili: AGREEEED. One focus aspect does not jsutify the other totally SUCKING BALLS. Medium mediocrity, maybe. RAGING SUCKNESS NO.

I'm much older then you think, I'm just sick of seeing POS games, and  the people with no attention span whatso ever, praising the developers for it(then expecting games made after it, to follow the bad game design example).

To milen: The more accurate result to not being allowed to save everywhere, is not that it makes it more difficult perse, It's that it makes the game not a complete joke. No risk= the rewards wont be so rewarding.

To Chaos Avian: Exactly, the #1 rule to playing a RPG has always been save, and save often. People seem to have forgot what that means on this site(because by default you're allowed to save anywhere anyway, so the true meaning is lost on them).

My friends, and I were having a party, and it came to our attention that one of our friends never played DW 3, which was a shock, because most of us are legends in that game(we have done stuff, most people think is impossible), and so we're like man, you should play it, It's one of the best RPGs ever. Well he decides to play it then, and there, so we're watching, and he's doing damn good too(hard to imagine he never played it before). We look at the clock, and we're like man, you should save. Hours go by, and we repeat many times, dude you should really save some time, if you don't, bad thinks will happ. Well he played for like 8 hours without saving, no joke, and then it happened, all his work was lost.

We all say, dude we kept telling you to save, but you just kept saying, nah it will be alright., well see what happens when you don't save.

Save in town, and at save points when you can, and you wont lose all that much effort(if you get a rare drop, backtrack to a save point or return to town to be on the safe side, don't continue into the unknown before resaving., rare drops are very much worth taking the extra effort to go to the nearest save point to save)

 

[T.Bit]

Tell me, how is a game more difficult for not letting you save anywhere?

As to this argument it can add a sense of urgency when you have no TP, no Warp Wires, there is an FOE chasing you and you realize you forgot to save before leaving town. You know in your heart that you are screwed. Poor planning on your part will get your party wiped out in Etrian Odyssey.

 

[Chaos Avian]

As to this argument it can add a sense of urgency when you have no TP, no Warp Wires, there is an FOE chasing you and you realize you forgot to save before leaving town. You know in your heart that you are screwed. Poor planning on your part will get your party wiped out in Etrian Odyssey.

That or you could get wiped out in a single turn by enemies if you're running from enemies (even at full HP and TP... More so in EO1-2 than EO3-4).

And on that, I hate seeing basic generic skills/ strategies in RPGs. Like Fire 1, 2 and 3 or even just spam this element and heal until it dies. Most enemies/ bosses don't even TRY to circumvent or try to counter their weaknesses. Seymour/ Boiling Lizard/ Cradle Guardian (latter 2 from Etrian Odyssey 4) are good examples of this. Makes you rethink your strategy as well. Plus a good designer will have more than one method to take down a tough foe.

 

[Arkecia]

I will never get why some people think a fear of losing progress is a fear we should be giving to our players. A good battle system will still keep a player on their toes much like the same way save points only can.

SRPGs are all about giving players that sense of danger and urgency, yet you can save the game in the middle of battles, and come back to them later. (because many SRPG battles take forever anyway) But, that translates perfectly with a dungeon in a normal RPG; both take about the same length and both have the means to convey the same sense of urgency. All this without wasting a player's time if they lose. I'm one of those people who won't be turned away if I can't save anywhere, but I myself prefer being able to save at any time. It doesn't diminish the game's difficulty for me in the slightest because I've never had a problem going through the dungeon grind before. It's always one battle that decided my fate, not the dungeon as a whole.

Dungeon crawlers that only let you save outside of the dungeons were no different, the only time I ever felt in danger were single battles, not the whole dungeon experience. (I ration things well and know my limits) To make me unable to save my game before said battle kills does nothing for urgency (I get absorbed and don't think about saving 100% of the time), but it does everything to waste my time and make me redo parts that are no longer fun because I already did them before! I'll tolerate it for the most part, but do you see why that's a messed up way of thinking? It has nothing to do with difficulty, because restricting me the ability to save does nothing to me difficulty wise.

Bottom Line: Focus on your battles and your bosses; saving should have nothing to do with their difficulty. If I saved and lost a fight, and couldn't save and lost the fight, the only difference is lost time. Make your battles convey the danger, not your inability to record data. This is coming from someone who will spend an entire day on a RM game if I like it.

PS: I played Guardian's Crusade where saving could be spread apart for hours, but it didn't make that game any less easy.

 

[Zoltor]

"I will never get why some people think a fear of losing progress is a fear we should be giving to our players"

It's essential for bringing enjoyment to your players, not the other way around(my 2nd quote I created in my sig, sums it up nicely).

 

[TheRiotInside]

No, but the stairs are. If you look at the tiles they are the same height as they are wide, thus, they are at a 45 degree angle. This makes each one-tile step as tall as the wall tile with it. Thus, one-per-one. Thus, same height is fine. It really is the angle they're created in (there are so many issues with that top-down angle, if you look at it all from a realistic style. For example Barrels vs people's heads vs holes vs doors vs... yeah...)

I must be missing something big here, because this is baffling. If the stairs are at a 45 degree angle, then how is it physically possible that they don't extend from the base of the cliff at all? The cliffs are straight up and down, 90 degrees. In your mind, the top of the stairs are flush with the top of the cliff, and the bottom of the stairs flush with the bottom of the cliff. So tell me how is that possible if the stairs are at a 45 degree angle (ie: diagonal) while the cliffs are 90 degrees vertical? It is physically impossible.

People are mentioning visual ratios and all of that to do with the viewing angle of the RTP, but no matter what conditions the tiles are displayed under (isometric, top-down, etc.) they are all displayed under the same conditions. This means that a pixel on a vertical portion of a cliff tile is the same height as a pixel on a vertical portion of a stair tile (ie: the dark, vertical part of each step). If the stairs are like every other normal stair on the planet, the walking surface is parallel to the ground and the vertical surface is perpendicular, like an L for example. What I'm saying is the vertical part of the stairs are at the same angle as the vertical part of the cliffs, meaning that there has to be EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF THEM to actually be the same height. The cliffs and stairs are viewed from the same angle (again, top down, 3/4, isometric, etc.) so the vertical pixels must match. Look at the RTP stairs. Only half of the pixels are vertical, meaning 16 pixels represent horizontal step surface, and 16 pixels represent vertical height. A cliff tile has 32 pixels representing vertical height. Two stair tiles cover the vertical height of one cliff tile. They are both viewed from the same angle, there is no way around this.

Is this making any sense? I'm having trouble explaining this.

Also to the people saying that it is a stylistic choice, I can put a barrel on top of a wall tile and call it a stylistic choice. It is, but it's still just as wrong.

 

[Sharm]

On saving, pausing, cheating, glitch exploits, ect. my opinion is: Don't punish a player for enjoying a game the way they want to play it. I am more likely to play and enjoy a game that lets me save whenever I want and doesn't force saves or restrict them. Restricting how players play restricts the number of players! Don't you want more players and not less? If the players aren't playing the game you want them to play it, so what?

Leave the game on, the same thing people have been doing with console games for over 30 years now.

Thinking that's always an option is an awfully big assumption. Designing a game around a big assumption is bad design.

 

[Zoltor]

On saving, pausing, cheating, glitch exploits, ect. my opinion is: Don't punish a player for enjoying a game the way they want to play it. I am more likely to play and enjoy a game that lets me save whenever I want and doesn't force saves or restrict them. Restricting how players play restricts the number of players! Don't you want more players and not less? If the players aren't playing the game you want them to play it, so what?

Thinking that's always an option is an awfully big assumption. Designing a game around a big assumption is bad design.

Well in the worst case scenario, where for some reason you can't leave the PC on, and must leave in a hurry, so much so, that spending 2m to warp/save is not a option, then I would go as far to say, is losing the last 30-1h tops in 99% of situations, the end of the world?

Making bad game design decisions just because a natural disaster might happen, is not a good design philosophy. 

 

[Sharm]

It may not be the end of the world but it certainly will be the last time I ever play your game.


I can think of loads of reasons why a person may not be able to save right away and lose power on their machine. I mean, how often do you hear cries of "Oh no I lost all my progress!" when not in a game playing situation, but in one where a person can save whenever they want?

 

[Arkecia]

"I will never get why some people think a fear of losing progress is a fear we should be giving to our players"

It's essential for bringing enjoyment to your players, not the other way around(my 2nd quote I created in my sig, sums it up nicely).

Losing progress doesn't bring enjoyment to players, listen to your own quote before you throw it out there.

Okay, how about this; it's the simplest way I can explain it:

I traverse through a long dungeon.

What's more likely to give me difficulty? Not being able to save, or the dangers within?

Dangers can be substituted with what makes your game difficult. (ie battles, puzzles, dungeon traps)

If you're expecting saving to be your risk, then you're doing battles wrong, at the very least.

Now I know we're not teenagers, so I already understand you'll fight to the death to keep your opinion. (I'll still like to play your game) Which means this is my last post on the subject unless someone wants clarification. (But what's there to clarify?)

 

[Zoltor]

Losing progress doesn't bring enjoyment to players, listen to your own quote before you throw it out there.

Okay, how about this; it's the simplest way I can explain it:

I traverse through a long dungeon.

What's more likely to give me difficulty? Not being able to save, or the dangers within?

Dangers can be substituted with what makes your game difficult. (ie battles, puzzles, dungeon traps)

If you're expecting saving to be your risk, then you're doing battles wrong, at the very least.

Now I know we're not teenagers, so I already understand you'll fight to the death to keep your opinion. (I'll still like to play your game) Which means this is my last post on the subject unless someone wants clarification. (But what's there to clarify?)

Both at the same time, because "if you can save anywhere, any danger there is, is superficial/meaningless" There needs to be a penalty for faiure, for something to be dangerous.

 

[mlogan]

Let me give you a scenario Zoltor: I am married, my husband and I both work. Being a two-income family it means I've got a bit of cash that I can spend on games, and to be honest. do so fairly regularly.  Being married, I also have two children, aged 5 & 7. They are watching their favorite cartoon so I think, "Yay, I've got a few minutes to play a game." I sit down to play and 3 minutes in, despite my leaving them sitting on the couch, one of them is screaming at the top of their lungs with some disastrous boo-boo that urgently requires a band-aid and a kiss from me. So I dash from the computer, hoping I hit the escape button or pause or whatever is going to temporarily suspend my game.

Two minutes later, I am back to the computer and settling in to play yet again. Four minutes in the other precious angel had needed to go to the restroom and has now managed to smear poop all over the toilet, her clothes and down her leg. "Don't move!!" I scream as I once again attempt to pause my game in my mad dash to the bathroom before the poop is made into a bigger mess by a child trying vainly to clean herself up.

15 minutes later, the cartoon is almost over. I sit back down for the last few minutes I have of "peace and quiet" (HA!) and attempt to play. This time I am fortunate to get in another 10 minutes of play before it is time to make lunch for my children, help them with school work, take them to the park, do my own work for my job, and maybe, just maybe somewhere in there get in a few minutes to work on my own project.  But oh wait, I can't save right now, so that means the next time I spend an hour trying to eek 15 - 20 minutes of game time, I will have to repeat the same section, only to NOT MAKE IT TO A SAVE POINT AGAIN.

Oh yes, you know, I could play after they go to bed right? Yes, I sure can after I put away dinner, empty the dishwasher, load the dishwasher, do a load of laundry, make lunches for school the next day, make sure backpacks are ready to go, finish my lesson plans and gathering materials to teach my own class, spend some time with my husband and hmmm.... now I'm really tired and needing to go to bed so I can get up and start getting ready to go to work at 5:30 the next morning. Darn it.

What a silly baby with no attention span I am for needing so much handholding...

edit: Oh wait! I forgot! I can simply leave the game open on my computer. Yes, yes, that will work. My children would never, never, ever touch the computer without my permission and end up deleting the save files I've managed (with so few save points) or selling the Most Amazing Super Zelda Fantasy Excalibur Sword Ever that I had finally, finally, finally managed to win. Nope, it wouldn't be appealing to them at all.

 

[Diretooth]

I would like to say something about saving.

I played Headhunter for the PS2 and saved only once near the beginning of the game. The game autosaves, but doesn't really. You have to save to keep that autosave, otherwise you go back to where you last saved.

I got near the end of the game and died, then went back to the beginning of the game.

Similar happened to me with the Doom games, as well as the Heretic games. Saving anywhere was possible, but it was easy to forget to do so.

Saving anywhere, while convenient, is often easily ignored due to the convenience, whereas limited saving can be frustrating, but reminds you that you must save every now and then.

There are various reasons to opt for limitation, an example of being if you have a casino-area where save-scumming would be game-breaking, or real life sneaking up to distract you from your game.

However, having a functional autosave function (For those who have a lot of time on their hands) and a save-state system (Such as found in GBA games, or famously in the American release of Majora's Mask with the Owl Statues) can bridge the gap, allowing players who have real life to temporarily save or revert to a save that was made for them. (Either of these, however, in a game that you can save whenever would be pointless.)

 

[Sharm]

"if you can save anywhere, any danger there is, is superficial/meaningless"

I don't think that's true at all. You're confusing player danger with character danger in a way that doesn't quite work the way you think it does. When you've got a good game with engaging play and characters the controller disappears and you don't think "I make the character do this" you think "I do this." When that happens any danger to the character is plenty engaging to the player, because in a good game they are the character. They don't think about save scumming because they're invested and enjoying playing the game as it's presented. Save scumming really only happens when a game play element is set up so that it's un-fun so the player tries to find ways to make it fun again. If you are looking for ways to put the player in danger and not the character then you are adding an element to your design that purposefully separates the player from game immersion.

 

[Alexander Amnell]

@Zoltar: Not everyone who wants to be allowed to save anywhere is going to be using it for cheating/abuse. I generally do not save a game unless I am ceasing to play it any longer or when the game goes out of it's way to warn me that I might want to save. That said I have a life far removed from my hobbies and said hobbies must conform to that life, I haven't the free time necessary to have my life conform to my hobbies. The problem is that even with your example of 30 minutes to an hour I'd quickly lose patience with the game and give up.

   My average record for uninterrupted playtime these days is probably from between 5-15 minutes (seriously, it's a happy moment for me to realize I've broken 30 minutes in a single play session) because I have many other responsibilities in my life that keep me from playing games for hours at a time and if I come across a game that requires me to play for a specified amount of time before I am allowed to quit unless I happen to have a string of lucky breaks every time I play said game chances are in a few attempts where I have to lose my progress (not because I died, but because real life forced me to stop) then I'll just stop playing it. 

   Like I said though, I do not abuse saving and generally only save when I am actually stopping the game and if I were to lose a session because I died without saving that would not bother me in the slightest. The thing to bear in mind I think is that the people that are of like mind with you are not going to be using saves as a safety-net/way to abuse and break the game anyway, so all you are really doing by limiting saves is saying to people like me who might would otherwise enjoy your game "screw you, if you can't find the time to play uninterrupted until I allow you to save then don't play the game." We wont. You seem to think that limiting saves will actually stop people who would abuse these saves from doing so while they still play the game, and it won't do that either. All you do is alienate the more 'casual gamer' from trying your game while doing nothing for those that are perfectly okay with it for the most part. If you want to do that then that's fine, but saying that it is a mistake on the designer's part is a little foolish considering all you are doing in the end is closing off your game to a demographic of people who might otherwise really enjoy it.

 

[T.Bit]

Temporary save is a good solution to not being able to save anywhere permanently.