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

[Zoltor]

To mlogan: Things happens some times, developers shouldn't be designing things around, what if the world ends theories or what if the player has to leave in a hurry, and accidently hits the wrong button.

Allowing someone to save anywhere is more then a convenience, it is inharantly damaging to gameplay for a RPG to allow such. What your example is suggesting is, developers should make atrocious game design decisions, just because a once in a blue moon scenario might occur. 

I have to completely disagree with that Philosophy.

Here's a odd thought, sometimes life just Isn't fair, sometimes It's just one of those days.

 

[Alexander Amnell]

To mlogan: Things happens some times, developers shouldn't be designing things around, what if the world ends theories or what if the player has to leave in a hurry, and accidently hits the wrong button.

Allowing someone to save anywhere is more then a convenience, it is inharantly damaging to gameplay for a RPG to allow such. What your example is suggesting is, developers should make atrocious game design decisions, just because a once in a blue moon scenario might occur. 

Here's a odd thought, sometimes life just Isn't fair, sometimes It's just one of those days.

When you are responsible for small children that is EVERY DAY! It isn't "atrocious" to create a game around the idea that anyone who wants to can play and enjoy it. If your gameplay is so easy that you need to prevent saving and hold the threat of having to do the same sections over again over the player's head to accomplish any sense of danger than your game is likely already broken to begin with.

 

[Sharm]

Save anywhere is not bad game design. All of your arguments to say that it is have been to say that you need risk and danger for it to be meaningful and fun. To that there have been many other people who've said that there are better ways to have that risk and danger and that you don't have to use save points to do that. So, do you have any other reason why limited saving is essential or do you really think it's the only way to have risk and danger in a game?

 

[Zoltor]

When you are responsible for small children that is EVERY DAY!

You missed the key event of the problem, the player/she hit the wrong button.

Are you trying to suggest every time someone needs to leave the PC in a hurry, they'll close the game or something by accident, because that's reaching to say the least(that's if you even have to pause it at all to begin with, because unless a ATB system is being used, there's no need to hit any button to pause the game in the first place).

To Sham: There literally are no ways to make up for a flaw as big as allowing people to save anywhere.

What's the point of even having difficult bosses, if you basically have the nooby retry button, it defeats the purpose of something being challenging altogether, because you can retry all you want, with no penalty.

Although you can go another route, allow people to save anywhere, but make it so they can only save a certain amount of times during the entire game, but then that would make side questing, and post game activities pretty pointless.

 

[Dalph]

@Zoltor:

I don't get all this total mess, don't you like it? Fine, don't use it in your games.

But don't pretend to label your own opinion as "atrocious game design decisions", because you can't even imagine how much you're wrong about this man...

-

Anyway, I don't like where this is going, so I'm off from here.

 

[Makio-Kuta]

Wait---Developers shouldn't design things around their players? That...doesn't seem right at all.


'blue moon scenario?' 'just one of those days?' These are not one time things they are describing. This is their lives. They (and countless other people) do not have time to sit at a game and play it for up to 30minutes straight. If a game cannot offer them the security of saving often then they simple cannot play the game.


I fail to see how saving anywhere can even begin to be an 'atrocious game design decision.' Are you defending this sort of logic because its a thing older games used to do a lot? Well, the gaming market has expanded since those days and not only that--those kids that grew up playing those games with their specific save points and had the time to function in that sort of system have grown up and are adults now! Games have to grow up with their audience and if that means, heaven forbid, allowing for more chances to save in order to keep that section of their fanbase, then isn't it a SMART design decision? Expanding your fanbase, making the game more accessible to people and ultimately opening up a chance to sell, distribute, whatever more games is a GOOD thing. Isn't it?


Or is it best to alienate the people that helped bring the video game community where it is now because they have grown up and gained lives?

 

[Alexander Amnell]

You missed the key event of the problem, the player/she hit the wrong button.

And you missed her point as well as mine on the previous page then. These types of interruptions keep people from being able to play games consistently and generally stop them from being able to play a game like you propose. If you truly believe that a player will find less enjoyment out of a game that limits them in a way as to prevent them from playing it and that no one will play a game that allows saving anywhere without save-scumming the hell out of it then go ahead. But claiming that making it to where I am even capable of playing a game and getting past the first session without that danger hanging over my head that I have to make sure I always have enough time to play the game is somehow inherently bad design is utter foolishness. People without a lot of free time deserve to play games to if they want, and designing games in order to alienate them is not really smart if you want people to play your games. This isn't the hay-day where everyone playing games is a kid anymore.

 

[mlogan]

You missed the key event of the problem, the player/she hit the wrong button.

 No Zoltor, YOU missed the key of my point - my point was NOT about hitting the right or wrong key, it was IN FACT about these EVERY DAY scenarios of life with small children. The point is that there are many, many people out there who were the first generation of gamers and are all now grown up, with MORE MONEY to spend on games and still enjoy playing but most do so in a DIFFERENT way.

My POINT was that you are being ridiculous to assume that because someone does not want to play the way YOU ENJOY they are babyish, whiney, inattentive and not worth your time. It is absurd and just down-right rude. Also, by stating over and over again this viewpoint and insulting anyone who disagrees with you, you are turning a lot of people from EVER giving your games a chance.

Make your games how you want but leave those of us in reality alone.

 

[Milennin]

There needs to be a penalty for faiure, for something to be dangerous.

The penalty is having to re-do the battle you just lost. Even if you were able to save right in front of it, if you fail, you'll have to re-do it and succeed in order to progress.

 

[Zoltor]

Wait---Developers shouldn't design things around their players? That...doesn't seem right at all.

'blue moon scenario?' 'just one of those days?' These are not one time things they are describing. This is their lives. They (and countless other people) do not have time to sit at a game and play it for up to 30minutes straight. If a game cannot offer them the security of saving often then they simple cannot play the game.

I fail to see how saving anywhere can even begin to be an 'atrocious game design decision.' Are you defending this sort of logic because its a thing older games used to do a lot? Well, the gaming market has expanded since those days and not only that--those kids that grew up playing those games with their specific save points and had the time to function in that sort of system have grown up and are adults now! Games have to grow up with their audience and if that means, heaven forbid, allowing for more chances to save in order to keep that section of their fanbase, then isn't it a SMART design decision? Expanding your fanbase, making the game more accessible to people and ultimately opening up a chance to sell, distribute, whatever more games is a GOOD thing. Isn't it?

Or is it best to alienate the people that helped bring the video game community where it is now because they have grown up and gained lives?

You split the statement in half, don't do that, and no, not based on what if a emergancy happens, and they push the wrong button, no they shouldn't base their game design decisions on such.

Oh It's every day they "accidently" hit the wrong button lol, yea that's believable.

Also in most RPGs, you don't even need to pause the game, so in 99% of RPGs, It's a moot scenario in general

To Milen: Retrying a boss(or continuing the dungeon from where you pretty much died in general) right after relaod, is not enough of a penalty at all, for the player to give a crap if they lose or not.

 

[Makio-Kuta]

You split the statement in half, don't do that, and no, not based on what if a emergancy happens, and they push the wrong button, no they shouldn't base their game design decisions on such.


Oh It's every day they "accidently" hit the wrong button lol, yea that's believable.


Also in most RPGs, you don't even need to pause the game, so in 99% of RPGs, It's a moot scenario in general

Are you even talking about the same thing? No one is discussing pressing the wrong button? They're talking about not being able to play for x amount of time to reach the next save point because they have lives.

 

[mlogan]

You split the statement in half, don't do that, and no, not based on what if a emergancy happens, and they push the wrong button, no they shouldn't base their game design decisions on such.

Oh It's every day they "accidently" hit the wrong button lol, yea that's believable.

Also in most RPGs, you don't even need to pause the game, so in 99% of RPGs, It's a moot scenario in general

Oh my gosh, seriously?!?!? My post was NOT ABOUT the bleeping button - that part was just thrown in as an attempt at adding some humor. Besides, in most games I play hitting the button DOES NOT SAVE THE GAME!!!!!!!

 

[Sharm]

Zoltor, why are you ignoring my question? Was I unclear?

 

[Kes]

I have the distinct impression that this is one of the classic examples of hitting your head against a brick wall.  Questions are posed which Zoltor chooses not to answer, for example Sharm's question " So, do you have any other reason why limited saving is essential or do you really think it's the only way to have risk and danger in a game? ", other points are completely misread, so I question whether there is in fact a real discussion possible here.

EDIT

Ninja'd by Sharm herself.

 

[Zoltor]

Oh my gosh, seriously?!?!? My post was NOT ABOUT the bleeping button - that part was just thrown in as an attempt at adding some humor. Besides, in most games I play hitting the button DOES NOT SAVE THE GAME!!!!!!!

You're not the only one with kids in the world, who has a hard time, funding um time.

I didn't say it did, I implied a pausing feature(which most RPG don't even need a pause button), otherwise why else are you touching a button at all, just go off, help your kids or whatnot, then continue the game that is still running on your PC.

To ksjp: I answered that question hours before Sham even made it(dozens of times by now probally).

There is no danger if you can restart where you failed at. What's the point of having difficult challenges, if they can just be retried with no penalty for failing?

It's like if you had infinite lives in a platformer, and when you died, you continued a few steps before where you dies at. Lol what's the point of even trying to make the game challenging, if you have infinite lives?

The ability to Save is a very powerful thing, it shouldn't be allowed anywhere you damn well please.

 

[Milennin]

To Milen: Retrying a boss(or continuing the dungeon from where you pretty much died in general) right after relaod, is not enough of a penalty at all, for the player to give a crap if they lose or not.

"Not enough of a penalty" is simply an opinion, not a fact in any way or shape.

For most people, having to re-do a battle is enough of a penalty in and of itself.

Here, I'll give you an example:

In my first game I had a boss fight. If you lost, you were instantly set back to the start of the battle with full HP. Yet, it's funny how in several playthroughs that I watched of other people playing my game, they actually GAVE UP on that boss fight because it was too difficult for them. DESPITE being able to retry it from the start immediately after failing. That's real difficulty, not a fake illusion like your design around wasting player time.

 

[AngelGrace]

I've put in my two cents about this in a couple threads, but I'll try and summarize my stance on saving in this thread.

There have been times I have skipped content in a game because I had to save, so I rushed through rooms trying to find a save spot. Maybe saving anywhere isn't the answer, but purposely withhold saving from the player because it's 'too easy' to have it available certainly isn't the answer.

You say that if there's no risk, there's no investment, and as a writer, I find that to be insulting. If you have to resort to keeping people from saving to care, then you're doing something wrong. As a writer, and that includes game design, the player should care about his characters, about wanting to see them succeed. While save scumming is a very real thing, the standard gamer just wants to have a good time and enjoy their time in the game; most people do not enjoy playing the same stretch 20 times over and over because of one fight they're having trouble with. It becomes a frustration then, and when a game frustrates me, I put it away, because I'm not having fun.

 

[TheRiotInside]

Zoltor, you're doing that thing again where you are discussing opinions with people and trying to "win" the discussion. That is. The wrong approach, and frankly just makes you look like a arrogant dick. Yeah, yeah, that's harsh I know, but I've seen you do this so many times in so many topics that it needs to be said.

Don't be a dick.

 

[Makio-Kuta]

You're not the only one with kids in the world, who has a hard time, funding um time.


I didn't say it did, I implied a pausing feature(which most RPG don't even need a pause button), otherwise why else are you touching a button at all, just go off, help your kids or whatnot, then continue the game that is still running on your PC.

You are completely missing the point.


Okay, let's say it takes 1 hour of game play to get from the save point A to save point B. Okay, that means that in order to play this game you NEED to have that one hour of time available or you're not going to get from save point A to save point B. You're going to be left off somewhere in the middle.


Let's say the player thinks oh I have an hour to play a game. I'll play this one. They boot it up but within that hour they have to see what the dog knocked down, find out why their kid is crying, answer the doorbell, the phone rings and it's some boring survey - suddenly their hour of game time is reduced to a half an hour. They can no longer get from save point A to save point B. They only have one computer and their older child is home from school and needs it to do their homework, so they have to shut down their game without saving. Ultimately losing a half an hour of game time knowing they will have to repeat that the next time. If it was me, I wouldn't be repeating that play session; I'd be playing something else because I know it's just going to go the same way next time.


This has nothing to do with pausing the game. Nothing to do with hitting the wrong button. They can't leave the game running and come back to it. This game has simply been put off limits to them completely.


It's a designer's choice whether they want unlimited saves. But neither is a BAD or GOOD choice to make. It's simply a choice that is going to determine what your consumer base is. And, limited places to save is going to make a smaller consumer base. So you'll be a bit more of a niche game. Hey, that's not bad - but neither is being an accessible game.

 

[Zoltor]

I've put in my two cents about this in a couple threads, but I'll try and summarize my stance on saving in this thread.

There have been times I have skipped content in a game because I had to save, so I rushed through rooms trying to find a save spot. Maybe saving anywhere isn't the answer, but purposely withhold saving from the player because it's 'too easy' to have it available certainly isn't the answer.

You say that if there's no risk, there's no investment, and as a writer, I find that to be insulting. If you have to resort to keeping people from saving to care, then you're doing something wrong. As a writer, and that includes game design, the player should care about his characters, about wanting to see them succeed. While save scumming is a very real thing, the standard gamer just wants to have a good time and enjoy their time in the game; most people do not enjoy playing the same stretch 20 times over and over because of one fight they're having trouble with. It becomes a frustration then, and when a game frustrates me, I put it away, because I'm not having fun.

Writing, and game mechanic design are very different things.

The fact is, if all you care about is the story, and not overall gameplay, you shouldn't be playing a game in the first place, read a book instead or watch a anime series.

To Theriot: No there is no opinion whatso ever, It's god damn bloody fact, that being able to save "anywhere" is not only bad game deign, but it ruins some exceedingly important aspects of a RPG/Gameplay in general.

To Makio: If you're so bad at managing your time, then a RPG just Isn't the genre for you, you're more into faster games.

RPG are meant to be time consuming, the benchmark min for playing the main story(for a really good game), is 30-40 hours worth of gameplay(60+ for the best games out there)

Also did you not hear, if you need to stop or whatnot(can't leave PC on), use a return spell/walk to the nearest save, such usually will only take 2m for crying out loud.

If that's not workable, and your time management abilities are so bad, play a game in a genre, that doesn't even require a save feature at all to beat it(aka is beatable in a single sitting= no real loss or time invested)