Castle Paradox

FnrrfYgmSchnish · Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:05 am Post subject:

#1: Healers should do something else besides heal. Fighters shouldn't just have Attack and Item commands.
Having each character only good at one thing = bad.

#2: Just because everyone has a basic attack doesn't mean everyone needs to be good at attacking
Having every character good at everything = bad.

#3: Almost all good games are balanced between the two--FF3, FF4, FF5, Super Mario RPG, Chrono Trigger, and so on. Some are a little more to one side or the other, but they're all between the two extremes.
Having it somewhere *between* those two extremes = good.

EDIT: apparently going into detail doesn't work. so I simplified it. Hopefully 9 out of 10 middle-schoolers can understand what I'm saying now.

Moogle1 · Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject:

No, stop. Just stop. Your argument is so poorly constructed that I can't even tell if I agree with the point you're trying to get across.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong per se with allowing all characters to be the same. Final Fantasy III, V, and Tactics all did an excellent job of this. You can play through any of those games with an all-summoner party or whatever you want. Most people will not, because the classes are balanced such that it is disadvantageous to stick to just one class.

It is also a very good idea to make strongly-typed characters a lot of the time. Thanksgiving Quest has already been cited in this regard; see also FF 1, 4, and (to a lesser extent) 9, not to mention countless other RPGs, probably the majority of the genre. This is the simplest way to make balanced battles.

Final Fantasy VII is the game that marks the beginning of horrible gameplay characterization in the series. The only distinction between characters is their limit breaks -- the slight stat differences and equipment limitations are insignificant by endgame. If you decide halfway through the game that you actually like Barrett better than Red XIII, just switch all of Red's materia over and you've got a character who acts exactly the same. Awful.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

JSH357 · Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 1705

djfenix · Joined: 12 Mar 2003 Posts: 359

Well, the job system still provided a little more variety than latter systems. Sure, everyone could still be exactly the same, but it was clearly more benificial to assign everyone different abilities/jobs. Even if everyone mastered all jobs, you'd still be thinking to assign one character white magic, another black magic, another with fighting skills, etc. You COULD make everyone t he same, but then the party would probably be completely useless.

FFVI was on the brink of becoming a characterization copy-paste. Everyone had the exact same magic, and their unique abilities were way too unbalanced. Celes had Runic, but at the end of the game, you probably aren't using a weapon that can use it. Relm had sketch, but it seemed more like entertainment value to use more than anything else. And how many people actually used blue magic? slots? dance? The stats are the only thing that truely make a character stand out. But with this, it only divides the characters as a fighter, or a mage.

FnrrfYgmSchnish · Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject:

EDIT: nevermind. Going into a lot of detail doesn't work. Just read the edited version of my first post instead.

Me · Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:12 am Post subject:

Moogle1 · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:29 am Post subject:

Valigarmander · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:19 am Post subject:

A lot of people seemed to like the Thanksgiving Quest style of fighting. But in the end it doesn't really even out. I mean, you have three fighters: the offensive (Hitler), the defensive (Drew), and the indirect (Lana) fighters. If you lose Drew or Lana, you're fine. But if Hitler dies you're screwed, since there's no way to win the battle without actually fighting. I suppose if Drew had a revive spell that might work. But he didn't. So there. I think everyone should have at least some form of offensive attack, otherwise if you lose the fighter you are boned.

Rimudora · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject:

What. No. You shut the fuck up. The point of the game was that you're screwed if you lost even one character. How much of the game have you played, exactly?

FnrrfYgmSchnish · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject:

Moogle1 · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:39 pm Post subject:

...

Let's take a closer look at the difference, shall we?

Banon: Weak character, dying gives you an automatic game over because of plot contrivance (lol Phoenix Down)

Thanksgiving Quest: Delicate gameplay balance, dying does not give you an automatic game over, but probably screws you over, but not necessarily (e.g. Lana dies, or Hitler dies against a poisoned enemy)

Moreover, it was suggested that everyone have some offensive ability so that characters are not indispensible, which represents a fundamental change in TQ's gameplay. That's like suggesting that Ogre Battle's Clerics get an attack in case the front-row Knights die. That's like suggesting that chess pawns be able to attack backwards in case all of the rooks are gone. Excellent suggestion.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

Moogle1 · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject:

Also, what in the world?

Mr B · Joined: 20 Mar 2003 Posts: 382

Hmm...what if different schools of skills (abilities, magic, what-you-will) were each dependant on some, shall we call it, Power Base.

The power of a skill is in some way dependant on its power base. Using a skill temporarily reduces the power base (over the course of the battle, say, or requiring time to regenerate). KNOWING (or having access to) a skill reduces the maximum value of the power base. Ergo, the more characters with access to and using a specific skill school, the weaker it is.

For example, let's say there is a Rumble power base. Rumble is used for defence-piercing attacks. Let's further say that, at point X in the game, Rumble has a maximum value of 300. If Chuck Marvel knows Shatter (which ignores and damages armor), the maximum value of Rumble is reduced by 20. Every time Chuck uses Shatter in battle, Rumble is temporarily reduced by a further 5 points.

Shatter might be a very useful skill. So what if the other nine characters learn (or equip cyber nodes that grant access to) Shatter? The Rumble power base would be reduced by 9*20, or to 100. When Chuck alone knew it, the Rumble power base was only reduced to 280. Additionally, Rumble-based powers would weaken dramatically quicker when 9 characters are using them instead of one.

If some sort of bonus (or penalty reduction) were granted to characters such that they tend to focus on one power base (eg., Shatter gives its knower +20 Rumble damage while reducing the party Rumble-damage by 20), players would tend to generate differentiated characters even if one specific power base is somewhat more useful than others.

Rimudora · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

Ooh! A game where a character only has limited access to all of his abilities (but which therefore cannot have any random battles at all), since basically this means a player can't chain use any "super" attack. I think Dragon Quarter is an adequate example of this, since it becomes less likely for the player to reach the end of the game every time he uses his strongest attack.