Slashdot Mirror


Why Random Encounters In RPGs Aren't That Bad

Thanks to GameSpot for their guest editorial discussing why randomized enemy encounters in videogame RPGs aren't as bad as they're made out to be. The author argues: "The most common charge is that random battles are 'unrealistic.' To this I counter that the RPG experience is inherently unrealistic." He goes on to comment: "A more valid argument is that random battles 'pad' gameplay. I'm not going to argue with this, but I am going to say that RPGs need that padding... With battles cut out, there isn't really anything to fill the gameplay void." He ends by floating compromise solutions for when "it's simply annoying to be assaulted by all manner of enemies when you simply want to make it to the next town", suggesting: "Adjustable [encounter] rates or ways to abbreviate battles, especially with radically weaker adversaries, would be one way to speed things up."

5 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong, in my opinion by Khyl'Dran · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Random encounters are not bad because they are Unrealistic. They are bad because they are just that: Random time fillers. They are there so the game will last longer, but most of the times you as a player just want to get on with the story. I'd much rather have a more intelligent game design where I can see the monsters moving around the "map" or the "town", and if you touch one, the battle starts (like some RPGs).
    That way, its not only an added fun gameplay element, but the battles can be better integrated to the story, which is really what counts in a console RPG...

  2. "But I only want to get to a damn save point..." by TiggsPanther · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Personally I'm not too against random battles, but the writer raises a damn good point.
    The final point is the one that I'm most likely to concede, that it's simply annoying to be assaulted by all manner of enemies when you simply want to make it to the next town, save the game, and turn it off.

    Many's the time in an FF-Game when I've just wanted to save the game and power down the system. Maybe I was about to go out. Maybe I was tired and wanted to sleep. Occasionally it's 'cos i'm using the main TV downstairs and my parents want to watch whatever lame Soap is about to come on.
    But so often I've tried to either reach a known save point, or explore and tried to find one of the damn things. Just so I can actually finish playing for a bit.

    There have been a few times when I've just powered it off, and decided to try again later.

    A similar point is when you hit what I call "Story Mode".
    Or course you're gonna get long story segments in a story-driven game. But so often you finally off a huge Boss character, and then it takes you into story-mode for about 5 or 10 minutes until you're given the option to save.

    --
    Tiggs
    "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
  3. Pretty much summed up right here by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "it's simply annoying to be assaulted by all manner of enemies when you simply want to make it to the next town"

    As much as I loved FF3, that statement right there is what held me back from going through it again. The encounters themselves wasn't so bad, it was the rigid structure of the game you had to go through. First, let's zip zip zip down to the battle. Second, let's have the screen fade in and the characters leap onto the screen, cue music. Third, let's go through the "a button a button a button, yes yes, fire magic at him. Okay, let's way for them to go through their series of hit hit jab jab magic magic. Okay, turn 2..", Fourth there's the victory. Yay you won! Deeeee dedededeee! Okay, let's all dance as the game announces quite patiently what all experience you've one. Fifth, let's do a nice little fade out, and fade in back to the screen. And start up again. Sixth, let's move two spaces, rinse, and repeat!

    Though technically not an RPG, I was quite relieved that Zelda/Wind Waker didn't force you through as much of that. Not only could you dodge monsters, but the game was made so that scouring the map was MUCH much easier to do. It's an adventure game, it's an entirely different animal from an RPG, but that's not to say something couldn't have been learned from it.

    I hope Final Fantasy 3 is ported to the GameBoy Advance. They can call it Final Fantasy 3 AD. (Attention Deficit.) I'm bored writing this now so you can figure out what I meant by that.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  4. It all depends on how 'random' the encounters are by *weasel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Games that feature overland movement through 'enemy' territories -should-, for story consistancy, include possible encounters with enemies.

    Games that feature only scripted encounters, for a tighter, more limited story experience - should not even have random character wandering, let alone random encounters.

    it's as simple as that.

    If there's only one way a player can go, only one path from A to B, and it's filled with random enemies, all it's going to do is cause someone to go the wrong way, have 3x more fights than the designers figure he 'should have had' and get pissed. It ends up making the 'real' fights more difficult for the people who are already frustrated by having gone the wrong way, or bothered to explore and are angry that their 'options' are only illusory. and that's bad design.

    And if you're going to have random enemy encounters, you're going to wind up with 'pest' fights. that is, fights where your party is in absolutely no danger, and the fight itself is not fun, not tense, not important.

    This is where functionality akin to Lord of the Realms II's 'mop up' button comes in. Sure, the mop-up ai won't be as effective as you are, and it may cause you to get hit once or twice. but the fight is over at the click of the button. the inevitable outcome occurs without wasting the player's time. Better still, for people who love random fights and micromanaging, it's all optional.

    Again, the only time random fights, or even character wandering itself makes sense, is when there is a branching storyline that allows multiple routes from A to B.

    The random fights though, should always be tied to the gamestate. If i destroy the main kobold nest outside 'whateversville' - when i travel through those woods i shouldn't have to fight more kobolds, unless in the story they're regrouping or making their last ditch offensive or some such.

    But it all depends on the game. I couldn't imagine something as open-ended as Baldur's Gate without random fights. yet I wonder why in the heck the Final Fantasy series even bothers letting me steer my guy from A to B half the time.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  5. Amusingly enough by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Xenosaga had no purely random battles, and if you had the skills, you could dodge most of the normal battles (there was a training thing on this early in the game) and the result?

    It became known as "the movie you sometimes play". (I thought it was a good game, hopefully xenosaga 2 will get a US release, the trailers I've seen give me goosebumps in a good way)

    Whats needed isn't so much "no random battles" as maybe options for 1) automatic battles with AIs that don't suck and kill your characters 2) an option to turn off all special effects to speed up fighting (not just short versions of whatever animations, but pick an option and the numbers just pop up immediately, next turn) and 3) the idea that monsters that are far too low a level to even bother the characters would be afraid enough to not even approach and bother them.

    The problem with the idea of "clearing out" an area and leaving it empty is that there will always be power-levellers who would get pissy when their monsters run out.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.