I try to hold to some standard of writing for most blog entries, but I allow myself to throw that out the window for blah blah blog entries. Mostly I just blather about things without worrying too much about it. Reader, be warned! Also, spoilers for the plot and some areas of Dark Souls 2
I dabbled a bit in the Atelier game last week (it's really good, and I'm excited to get back to it), but my weekend was pretty much consumed by Dark Souls 2. I'm finally nearing the endgame-- about five more areas, only three regular bosses left I think-- and the game really is just stellar. I can't believe how engrossing the game is, despite the challenge (or maybe because of it?), and I will say that it's one of the very few games where after putting it away for the night, I have not just a sense of pleasure, but a sense of accomplishment. Major spoilers ahead, read at your own risk!
Despite how excellent the game is, there are a couple of small missteps or regressions from the previous games. While the lore for the series continues strong-- each item description helps paint a vivid, "living" world (well, un-living I suppose, given that everything is about ancient history)-- compared to the previous game, things don't hang together quite as gracefully. For example, the questline in the first game had you moving towards concrete goals that made sense; you were trying to get to Anor Londo to escape your curse (though the player might not have realized that at first), which meant ringing the two bells to open the path. Once there, you get the Lordvessal, and are told to acquire Great Souls to offer to open the way to the Cinder Lord. The souls were held by factions who were figures in the history of the land, and the locations they were in were tied to their actions since the War of the Dragons (the witch's soul ended up in the hellish demon-world they accidentally created, the dragon betrayer's soul was under his fortress where he engaged in magical experiments, the undead lord was in the great catacombs). Everything fit together, and while the player may not have understood why everything was happening at the moment, it all made sense in the gameworld. Each location in the game flowed to the next, with only one odd jump (you fly from Sen's Fortress to Anor Londo).
Dark Souls 2, for all its strengths, lacks that cohesion, partly because it's a bigger world overall, and partly because it's incredibly difficult to come up with another clever reason for everything. There's a chance they might tie it all together in the end, but at the moment, it seemed like there were just four powerful souls "just because," with only one mention that the king previously had used/killed four souls to become king. You get the souls because a special NPC tells you to, you take them to the castle because she says to, you hunt down the king because the queen there tells you to, and after you find him the first NPC says you will become the next king. Your motivation is to escape the curse, but I'm nearly at the end of the game and it's completely unclear how any of this works, other than as a random "prove your worth" mcguffin (literally, there's a door that doesn't open until you have four souls, or is it lit four special bonfires? Oh, and there's apparently five of them actually, and double oh, some players hit a glitch where they seem to be stuck because they went there too soon with too few souls and the other door won't ever open). The first game, you were sort of reassembling the great soul that kicked off the whole shebang, this one you're just proving you're a bad enough dude to get an audience with the king.
Similarly, compared to the first game, the areas are a bit haphazardly strung together. The levels themselves are great, a decent amount of variety (only "decent" because there's a few too many crumbling fortress areas, though at least each has a theme), with nicely paced secrets and challenges. But, most of individual areas just don't fit together-- why does the "tower of flame" (which has no fire and isn't a tower as far as I can tell) lead to a pirate grotto? Why do you go through the poison fort to get to the Iron Keep? There's some good bits still-- the wharf area ships you to the huge prison area, because that was the path of the cast-off criminals; the poison fort comes after a mining area full of poison gas pumped around by windmills, and is all related to the area boss's desire for eternal beauty through poison alchemy. But in the previous game, from the first real area onward I can trace a path from memory because everything fits sensibly; you go down the gutter from the city to get to the muck swamp, and there you go down further to either the roots of the world or the lost demon ruins, etc.
The series also has generally had at least one area in each game that really screwed the player unfairly or unnecessarily frustratingly. Demon's Souls had the swamp level, Dark Soul had Blight Town (and possibly New Londo/the swamp), Dark Souls 2 has one in Amana's Shrine. It's a gorgeous, tension-filled level, reminiscent of Ash Lake from the last game in terms of pure spectacle. It also has just one too many tricky elements at once-- not only are there hard-to-see cliffs everywhere (you can do alright if you try to stay in the highest area), there's also near-invisible enemies everywhere, and most egregiously enemies that fire constant, hard-to-dodge homing magic attacks from very far away (outside of draw distance in one case!), and you can't dodge willy-nilly because 1) there's those hidden enemies everywhere 2) there's obstacles in your way you can't see 3) you can't see those cliff edges without light, but your torch goes out quickly if you dodge 4) there's up to three homing missiles fired at you at once, from multiple directions. You won't even have a decent shield to block magic with by this point-- the game helpfully gives you one in the next area, though right after it would have been most useful. The solution is to snipe the magic users from far, far away, which means you need to be able to use a decent bow, and you need to have found a pretty well-hidden item to snipe with (if you even realize using it with a bow lets you snipe). Remove even one of those elements and it would have been a challenging, but fair level you didn't have to "cheese" through.
Partly because everything else about the game was done so right, these annoyances stick out more than they would for other games. And, I still hope the plot will come together at the end-- I've read enough online now to see that you eventually go back in time or something and can get the souls the King had (to weaken him in the present). Maybe during all that, it will make sense, especially since the game has alluded to this war with the giants....
Monday, March 17, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
BLAH BLAH BLOGGING: Playing Dark Souls 2
A "blah blah" entry just means I don't have any pretense of presenting something intellectual or useful, and am just going to talk about playing a game. And right now, that's Dark Souls 2, which so far has held up quite well. I've gotten the first special soul, and am through 9 locations of about 30. I've been playing it semi-blind, only looking up walkthroughs for a suggestion of how to go through the areas (I needed this because I hit a tough boss and wasn't sure if I was supposed to be able to beat him yet, or if I was expected to go back later-- the answer was I was supposed to fight him later, but there's a trick to beating him that makes it moot), and to see what I missed in the area. Unlike the first game, I feel like I'm doing well getting through the regular stage areas and finding things, and only hitting brick walls when it comes to bosses-- even playing pretty aggressively (two-handed Fire sword).
Like the previous game, the "easy" way to get through the game isn't a min-max strategy where you're awesome at one thing and incompetent at the rest, but rather you buff every skill enough to be versatile enough to adapt to challenges. I've got a few wasted points in DEX right now, but I've mostly made sure to have enough strength to have a high-poise shield, enough weight capacity for heavy armor, enough intelligence to cast a high-powered ranged attack, and enough stamina and health to allow for a slip-up here and there without dying in one hit (usually). I've also been more aggressive with leveling, willing to go back to level up often, use all my random found soul items right away to gain levels, etc. So far, there's been lots of challenges, but the game feels more... if not easy, then "comfortable" than the previous two. And that's despite having two boss fights early one where you're fighting multiple enemies at once. A good shield is way easier, and safer, to use than trying to dodge your way through boss fights, at least for the last three I've fought.
The whole "finite respawns" is less of an issue so far than I thought it would be-- there's been a couple of boss runs where I was glad I didn't have to rekill certain enemies to make it to a fight, but usually in a boss run I'm literally running past everything to get there anyway, so it's a bit moot. I'm also slightly cautious about "wasting" respawns, since souls are (more) finite in this game if there really is a limit on respawns. Also, it looks like several items are New Game+ only (there's some wiggle room there with certain techniques), and I could see myself replaying this one a bit after the first go-through... depending on how hard it gets.
Oh, and there's lots of secrets-- some are basic tricky secret doors, others are major boss-changers (there's at least one boss I accidentally fought in "hard mode," fortunately it was still one of the easier fight bosses for me, but still...). There's also been at least one item I missed because you have to do something tricky and get the item the first try, without dying... oh well.
The big question is-- will I be playing more of this tonight, or will Atelier Escha and Logy be too tempting? Both are very much the sort I get in to pretty deep-- as in, hard to get to bed before midnight because of a "just one more thing" element. I'll prolly keep with Dark Souls until I get frustrated with whatever its version of Blighttown or New Londro will be.
Like the previous game, the "easy" way to get through the game isn't a min-max strategy where you're awesome at one thing and incompetent at the rest, but rather you buff every skill enough to be versatile enough to adapt to challenges. I've got a few wasted points in DEX right now, but I've mostly made sure to have enough strength to have a high-poise shield, enough weight capacity for heavy armor, enough intelligence to cast a high-powered ranged attack, and enough stamina and health to allow for a slip-up here and there without dying in one hit (usually). I've also been more aggressive with leveling, willing to go back to level up often, use all my random found soul items right away to gain levels, etc. So far, there's been lots of challenges, but the game feels more... if not easy, then "comfortable" than the previous two. And that's despite having two boss fights early one where you're fighting multiple enemies at once. A good shield is way easier, and safer, to use than trying to dodge your way through boss fights, at least for the last three I've fought.
The whole "finite respawns" is less of an issue so far than I thought it would be-- there's been a couple of boss runs where I was glad I didn't have to rekill certain enemies to make it to a fight, but usually in a boss run I'm literally running past everything to get there anyway, so it's a bit moot. I'm also slightly cautious about "wasting" respawns, since souls are (more) finite in this game if there really is a limit on respawns. Also, it looks like several items are New Game+ only (there's some wiggle room there with certain techniques), and I could see myself replaying this one a bit after the first go-through... depending on how hard it gets.
Oh, and there's lots of secrets-- some are basic tricky secret doors, others are major boss-changers (there's at least one boss I accidentally fought in "hard mode," fortunately it was still one of the easier fight bosses for me, but still...). There's also been at least one item I missed because you have to do something tricky and get the item the first try, without dying... oh well.
The big question is-- will I be playing more of this tonight, or will Atelier Escha and Logy be too tempting? Both are very much the sort I get in to pretty deep-- as in, hard to get to bed before midnight because of a "just one more thing" element. I'll prolly keep with Dark Souls until I get frustrated with whatever its version of Blighttown or New Londro will be.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
WHAT I'M PLAYING THIS WEEK: Dark Souls 2 and Atelier Escha and Logy
Each week I'll try to post the new games (or old ones!) I'm going to be playing, along with some reasons why I'm excited to be playing them. There's two great games coming out this week that I'll be diving into: Dark Souls 2 and Atelier Escha and Logy. Except in the increasingly-rare case that a game is an original IP, I'll often refer to improvements or changes from past games under the assumption that the reader is familiar with them.
Dark Souls 2- After the huge leap forward of Dark Souls over Demon's Souls, I was unsure that the third game in this trilogy would be able to keep things up. Reviews so far suggest that it's just as good, with only tiny missteps or regressions. The map overall isn't as intricately wound together as in Dark Souls, but the world is larger overall and you get to teleport among bonfires immediately. The barrier to entry (as in, dying over and over immediately and not making any progress) is lower for this one, so more people who quickly gave up on the prequels without getting to the good bits will hopefully be able to become engrossed in this one. Finally, I like the idea of having many of the grunts respawn only a limited number of times-- it wears down the roguelike elements a little bit more (in a way I prefer), and (minor spoiler) it's something later on that you can tweak, apparently. Related and also a minor spoiler, there's a way to reallocate your level bonuses somewhere in the game. This will also be the first of the games I'll be mostly online to play, so I'm looking forward to the community aspects, and willing to go offline if the PvP elements annoy me too much. (EDIT- forgot I need XBox Live account to get online-- oh well, so much for that).
Atelier Escha and Logy- We're now on the fifth PS3 Atelier game, and this is the second one since the shift in developers. Reviews have been great, basically saying it takes what worked best from Meruru and dropped what didn't work from Ayesha. Plus, there's new conveniences-- once a party member joins, they are always part of the party (even if not in the active party), so you don't have to juggle allies to access the friendship events. The alchemy system is streamlined a bit, but not oversimplified-- we'll see how this works in practice. Battle items are made, then re-stocked automatically when you return to base, which eliminates one of the things that kept me from using them as much as I should have in previous games (scarcity and having to use your limited time allotment to replace them). Finally, there's a cute cowboy ally (and a cute scholar of some sort too), which never hurts!
Hopefully next week I'll have interesting things to say on these-- as always, what cool things did the reviewers leave out and "what the games got right."
Dark Souls 2- After the huge leap forward of Dark Souls over Demon's Souls, I was unsure that the third game in this trilogy would be able to keep things up. Reviews so far suggest that it's just as good, with only tiny missteps or regressions. The map overall isn't as intricately wound together as in Dark Souls, but the world is larger overall and you get to teleport among bonfires immediately. The barrier to entry (as in, dying over and over immediately and not making any progress) is lower for this one, so more people who quickly gave up on the prequels without getting to the good bits will hopefully be able to become engrossed in this one. Finally, I like the idea of having many of the grunts respawn only a limited number of times-- it wears down the roguelike elements a little bit more (in a way I prefer), and (minor spoiler) it's something later on that you can tweak, apparently. Related and also a minor spoiler, there's a way to reallocate your level bonuses somewhere in the game. This will also be the first of the games I'll be mostly online to play, so I'm looking forward to the community aspects, and willing to go offline if the PvP elements annoy me too much. (EDIT- forgot I need XBox Live account to get online-- oh well, so much for that).
Atelier Escha and Logy- We're now on the fifth PS3 Atelier game, and this is the second one since the shift in developers. Reviews have been great, basically saying it takes what worked best from Meruru and dropped what didn't work from Ayesha. Plus, there's new conveniences-- once a party member joins, they are always part of the party (even if not in the active party), so you don't have to juggle allies to access the friendship events. The alchemy system is streamlined a bit, but not oversimplified-- we'll see how this works in practice. Battle items are made, then re-stocked automatically when you return to base, which eliminates one of the things that kept me from using them as much as I should have in previous games (scarcity and having to use your limited time allotment to replace them). Finally, there's a cute cowboy ally (and a cute scholar of some sort too), which never hurts!
Hopefully next week I'll have interesting things to say on these-- as always, what cool things did the reviewers leave out and "what the games got right."
Saturday, March 8, 2014
VIDEO GAME HISTORY: What games are the precursors to the "endless runner" genre?
One thing I enjoy about the various chronological system playthroughs (CRPG Addict, Chrontendo, etc.) is that they provide a bit of a history of video game ideas, letting you see the discovery and evolution of some tropes and gameplay styles that are still around today. While mainstream console and PC gaming has fewer "oh, what a cool new idea" innovations (Katamari Damacy is the last US release to my memory which really did something very "new"), the flash game, iOS, and other assorted mobile game markets have really taken off in terms of innovations, if not always "fun" ones. One of the early big hits in terms of genre-defining mobile game experiences is the "endless runner" genre (and the related finite-runner ones). Canabalt is a great example of a "pure" endless runner, Temple Run is a good example of a slightly more complex one that also made it big.
Playing the latest Donkey Kong Country, I wondered if the series was the original precursor to the endless runner, with it's minecart levels. I suppose Battletoads or some other fixed-speed racers qualify a bit, but to me DKC is the first one that has that pure, one-button gameplay feel that Canabalt especially provides. So, it's an open question: which games helped define the endless runner genre, either as the earliest example of them or as the ones who did it good enough? I'm sure there's an old arcade game or PC game that beats either of the two games I've mentioned. I'll add more as I get suggestions.
Battletoad's horrible racer level
Donkey Kong Country series' mine cart levels
Playing the latest Donkey Kong Country, I wondered if the series was the original precursor to the endless runner, with it's minecart levels. I suppose Battletoads or some other fixed-speed racers qualify a bit, but to me DKC is the first one that has that pure, one-button gameplay feel that Canabalt especially provides. So, it's an open question: which games helped define the endless runner genre, either as the earliest example of them or as the ones who did it good enough? I'm sure there's an old arcade game or PC game that beats either of the two games I've mentioned. I'll add more as I get suggestions.
Battletoad's horrible racer level
Donkey Kong Country series' mine cart levels
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
GAME IDEAS-- ECONOMICS: Fantasy Economics, or "I don't care if you're saving my village, you gotta pay for potions like everybody else"
At the CRPG Addict's blog, one of the qualities on which he rates the games he plays (against an imaginary "ideal" CRPG-- Baldur's Gate would be pretty close to it, for reference) is the game's economy: are there lots of things to buy, is there just enough money where you have to pick and choose among good things to buy, at the endgame are you just drowning in gold with nothing to do with it or is there still good things to buy, etc. Few games, especially JRPGs, get this right, with most of the games I've played lately ending up definitely on the side of "you can buy everything worthwhile as soon as you hit the place that sells it." Bravely Default is pretty good about making you choose what to buy (so far), and the Etrian Odyssey games also have an economy where you won't be able to get everything you want right away. The Etrian Odyssey games also share the Monster Hunter/MH-like games' associating stock with bringing parts from the monsters you kill and stuff you scavenge, which is a pretty sound system.
For most games, however, there's a certain absurdity to the proceedings beyond the failures or successes of the in-world markets-- part of it is the fact that new towns just happen to have the best weapons so far, and part of it is that you're often dealing with entire kingdoms who you save but who only provide modest monetary compensation and whatever few goodies you loot from the treasury. It's an old joke/tvtrope, but there's definitely something funky when the king of I-own-it-allistan asks you to save the world and sets you off with a few coins and an iron sword. And why does a small hamlet in the middle of nowhere have better weapons that a great military kingdom?
My radical idea would be to fix this by having everything be free, at least once you're recognized as the grand hero or whatever. Limit consumables by limiting how many of the weak ones you can carry, make them heal a set percent, and have more powerful ones require rare(ish) materials to make. Lock high armor and weapon tiers as things you find realistically (kill a great big baddie with an awesome sword and armor, actually get those goodies) or have to get materials for craftsman to make them ("I can make you a great amulet that drains your enemy's life if you get me a vampire's fang). "Realism" could still be sacrificed for balance and fun, but at least it wouldn't be glaringly obvious that the world makes no sense.
Meanwhile, here are some games that either had "just right" economics or did cool things with the game's economies. I'll eventually update this list as new games come out and do things right, or I remember old ones that had really innovative ideas. I'll mostly focus on RPGs, but any genre is fair game. Comments with suggestions or reactions are welcome!
"JUST RIGHT" Economies:
Secret of Mana- SNES
Bravely Default- 3DS
Monster Hunter and mimics, to varying degrees
Etrian Odyssey and mimics, to varying degrees
INNOVATIONS
Shadow Madness, PS1- halfway through the game, when you go to the "other world," they don't take your money anymore, you have an entirely new economy.
Chrono Trigger-- small thing, but trading rocks, vines, etc. for items in the caveman era
Fallout series-- old cash is a souvinier, soda caps are money.
For most games, however, there's a certain absurdity to the proceedings beyond the failures or successes of the in-world markets-- part of it is the fact that new towns just happen to have the best weapons so far, and part of it is that you're often dealing with entire kingdoms who you save but who only provide modest monetary compensation and whatever few goodies you loot from the treasury. It's an old joke/tvtrope, but there's definitely something funky when the king of I-own-it-allistan asks you to save the world and sets you off with a few coins and an iron sword. And why does a small hamlet in the middle of nowhere have better weapons that a great military kingdom?
My radical idea would be to fix this by having everything be free, at least once you're recognized as the grand hero or whatever. Limit consumables by limiting how many of the weak ones you can carry, make them heal a set percent, and have more powerful ones require rare(ish) materials to make. Lock high armor and weapon tiers as things you find realistically (kill a great big baddie with an awesome sword and armor, actually get those goodies) or have to get materials for craftsman to make them ("I can make you a great amulet that drains your enemy's life if you get me a vampire's fang). "Realism" could still be sacrificed for balance and fun, but at least it wouldn't be glaringly obvious that the world makes no sense.
Meanwhile, here are some games that either had "just right" economics or did cool things with the game's economies. I'll eventually update this list as new games come out and do things right, or I remember old ones that had really innovative ideas. I'll mostly focus on RPGs, but any genre is fair game. Comments with suggestions or reactions are welcome!
"JUST RIGHT" Economies:
Secret of Mana- SNES
Bravely Default- 3DS
Monster Hunter and mimics, to varying degrees
Etrian Odyssey and mimics, to varying degrees
INNOVATIONS
Shadow Madness, PS1- halfway through the game, when you go to the "other world," they don't take your money anymore, you have an entirely new economy.
Chrono Trigger-- small thing, but trading rocks, vines, etc. for items in the caveman era
Fallout series-- old cash is a souvinier, soda caps are money.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
SURPRISINGLY GOOD: Bug Heroes 2; One-Way Heroics
Again, this blog isn't supposed to be reviews per se, but sometimes I come across a game that, while not having any particular qualities that deserves a post of "things done right," I still want to give a shot-out to just for capturing my attention or just being enjoyable. Bug Heroes 2 on iOS definitely falls into that category for me, though I'm still pretty early in it. It's a mashup of MOBA, tower-defense, first-person shooter, and arena two-stick game that has a massive cast of characters and no real plot or level structure to speak of. You start with two (random?) bug heroes, and unlock others randomly for free after achieving certain milestones, or by paying in a premium currency that you get a decent amount of after each mission. I think part of what works so well is that each character (so far; I've only got 4) plays so distinctly, yet is quite effective-- the bee general summons increasingly-powerful friendly creeps, the ladybug fencer is a tank with great armor-piercing and burst-damage skills, and the earthworm demolitionist just blows everything to bits. For only a dollar, it's a great bargain, and most characters average a dollar per unlock if you were to but the premium currency (I look at doing that as a way to "tip" the developers for a great game sometimes).
Another cheap-but-good game I got into recently is One-Way Heroics, just released on Steam but probably out for a while on Desura or other PC sites. It's basically a roguelike with less punishment and a nice persistent power-up system; even when you die, you get some goodies to help another push. The concept is pretty cool too-- you have to keep moving right, dealing with enemies and RPG towns, trying to get strong enough to defeat the Dark Overlord when he finally arrives. It's very similar to the mall level of "The Guided Fate Paradox" on PS3, only you die immediately if you get caught up in encroaching darkness. The best thing is probably that there's a definite "easy" mode, then the normal mode (and I bet a hidden hard mode), so you can play the game to just have fun as much as to challenge yourself. Very well put-together, and under five bucks to boot.
EDIT:
I played more of Bug Heroes, and while I'm still enjoying things, the difficulty curve feels way off, and not in a "pay real money to win" sense. I have a decent selection of heroes, but several of the stages-- and you can only ever pick from three at a time, and must beat one for a new one to emerge-- seem ridiculously impossible. Lose a stage enough times and the difficulty (and rewards) drop, so you get through it eventually, but it's not much fun to play a "this feels impossible" stage four times to get to one that's challenging, but fair (or often a complete pushover). Hopefully this will get addressed a bit in a patch eventually. I still like the game, but it's flaws are pretty bad.
Another cheap-but-good game I got into recently is One-Way Heroics, just released on Steam but probably out for a while on Desura or other PC sites. It's basically a roguelike with less punishment and a nice persistent power-up system; even when you die, you get some goodies to help another push. The concept is pretty cool too-- you have to keep moving right, dealing with enemies and RPG towns, trying to get strong enough to defeat the Dark Overlord when he finally arrives. It's very similar to the mall level of "The Guided Fate Paradox" on PS3, only you die immediately if you get caught up in encroaching darkness. The best thing is probably that there's a definite "easy" mode, then the normal mode (and I bet a hidden hard mode), so you can play the game to just have fun as much as to challenge yourself. Very well put-together, and under five bucks to boot.
EDIT:
I played more of Bug Heroes, and while I'm still enjoying things, the difficulty curve feels way off, and not in a "pay real money to win" sense. I have a decent selection of heroes, but several of the stages-- and you can only ever pick from three at a time, and must beat one for a new one to emerge-- seem ridiculously impossible. Lose a stage enough times and the difficulty (and rewards) drop, so you get through it eventually, but it's not much fun to play a "this feels impossible" stage four times to get to one that's challenging, but fair (or often a complete pushover). Hopefully this will get addressed a bit in a patch eventually. I still like the game, but it's flaws are pretty bad.
Bravely Default is the whatever game you want it to be
There's a subset of gamers who enjoy setting arbitrary challenges for themselves to make some games more like a puzzle-- how, through meta-gaming, can you beat a specific RPG without ever gaining a level, for example. Most of these playthroughs rely on toughing out the early game before getting to whatever exploitable resource makes the rest of the game a breeze; they're often tests of patience as much as ingenuity. They also tend to require making sure you run from every fight you can, and keeping most of the party dead at the end of mandatory fights so they don't get XP (until you can get an "XP Sponge" character that goes in, survives the fight, and is never used). I don't think it would have ever occurred to me to try something like this, much less have the patience to go through with it, and overall it's a pretty rarified gaming style.
Bravely Default, however, offers several in-game options for players who want to try this sort of thing. Programming-wise, it's easy enough-- just set a few toggles to zero, and put in an interface for the player to manipulate it, so it's not difficult to implement. But, it takes a company that's actually paying attention to its players to even think that someone might want the option to stop all XP (or gold, or whatever) gains from fights, to give themselves a special challenge, and especially to allow it to all be custom-manipulated instead of wrapped into a "hard, easy, normal" setup.
Similarly, though to me a more obvious design choice, in Bravely Default, you can raise or lower random enemy encounters, doubling them, quartering them, even eliminating them entirely, any time. There's often in-game items with these effects, but most games with them give them to you late in the game, and then you're trading an item slot for it. I appreciate that the game isn't patronizing about it-- it basically says, "You want this? Ok, here you go," rather than being more of "you must endure the game the way we made it originally until we decide to allow you a small amount of manipulation, whether you are enjoying this part or not!" I wish they'd gone a little further with the ability to increase XP, AP, and GP gains, but since those abilities are tied to classes I understand why they didn't (still, it's a bit paternalistic).
On a side note, one reviewer (I don't care enough to hunt the review down, other than vaguely remembering it as a review on an RPG-dedicated site) complained about the main story of the game, saying it was uninspired and required too much back-and-forth for little reason among towns (absolutely true). But, he then seemed miffed that the side quests were where all the interesting stuff was-- story-wise, character-wise, and especially gameplay-wise. So, he was essentially docking the game for not forcing him to play through the side areas. Even more ridiculous, though, was that he complained also that the game was grind-y in parts; well yes, if you skip all the sidequests and optional content and try to zoom straight through the main quest line, you would be underpowered. Hey, instead of grinding pointlessly, why not do some of those well-written, rewarding side events that flesh out the main story and give context to everything? It was a baffling review, especially for being on an RPG specialty site, and was one of the very, very few negative reviews the game got.
Bravely Default, however, offers several in-game options for players who want to try this sort of thing. Programming-wise, it's easy enough-- just set a few toggles to zero, and put in an interface for the player to manipulate it, so it's not difficult to implement. But, it takes a company that's actually paying attention to its players to even think that someone might want the option to stop all XP (or gold, or whatever) gains from fights, to give themselves a special challenge, and especially to allow it to all be custom-manipulated instead of wrapped into a "hard, easy, normal" setup.
Similarly, though to me a more obvious design choice, in Bravely Default, you can raise or lower random enemy encounters, doubling them, quartering them, even eliminating them entirely, any time. There's often in-game items with these effects, but most games with them give them to you late in the game, and then you're trading an item slot for it. I appreciate that the game isn't patronizing about it-- it basically says, "You want this? Ok, here you go," rather than being more of "you must endure the game the way we made it originally until we decide to allow you a small amount of manipulation, whether you are enjoying this part or not!" I wish they'd gone a little further with the ability to increase XP, AP, and GP gains, but since those abilities are tied to classes I understand why they didn't (still, it's a bit paternalistic).
On a side note, one reviewer (I don't care enough to hunt the review down, other than vaguely remembering it as a review on an RPG-dedicated site) complained about the main story of the game, saying it was uninspired and required too much back-and-forth for little reason among towns (absolutely true). But, he then seemed miffed that the side quests were where all the interesting stuff was-- story-wise, character-wise, and especially gameplay-wise. So, he was essentially docking the game for not forcing him to play through the side areas. Even more ridiculous, though, was that he complained also that the game was grind-y in parts; well yes, if you skip all the sidequests and optional content and try to zoom straight through the main quest line, you would be underpowered. Hey, instead of grinding pointlessly, why not do some of those well-written, rewarding side events that flesh out the main story and give context to everything? It was a baffling review, especially for being on an RPG specialty site, and was one of the very, very few negative reviews the game got.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)