Friday 19 March 2010

In Defence Of Random Battles

The thing that's really been grinding my gears recently is all the hatred for random battles

Now here's the thing, I'm not saying that random battles is the only way RPG battles should be done, nor am I saying it is inherently the best way. Overall it is my favourite way though I am willing to accept that games without them can have battles implemented in an interesting way that works.

I have been noticing that random battles in games arnt as prevelent as they used to be, and I hear so so many complaints about them that are completely unjustified.

So first of all I will address my own reasons for liking random battles. Then I will address the common complaints I hear and finally to be fair I will explain a something that I dislike about random battles (I'm trying to be subjective as I can, or is objective? I get those words mixed up sometimes).

What I Like About Random Battles
1. I like random battles because it is an effective method to make absoloutly sure that the skill required in order to defeat enemies is completely focused on the actual events during the fights. If I know that I can't "avoid" fights then it feels more of a challenge to me to be able to actually kill the enemies.

2. I find they enhance the exploration element as you do not have to worry about physically avoiding specific enemies on the field

3. It allows for more of a strategic approach, this is because finding enemies on the field and running toward or away from them involves twitch-based skill. I'm not saying twitch-based skill is bad, but I tend to find that it's not as interesting when it comes to running to/from enemies in RPGs. The game can still have twich-based mechanics inside the battles themselves (I like how Shadow Hearts did that)

Addressing Complaints About Random Battles
1. I can't choose who I fight

Well in most games you cant choose who to fight, in most cases you always know who the badguys are and you fight them.

2. They're too random

The law of large numbers, considering the amount of time spent playing these games the amount of randomisation will average towards the mean. But even so, the battles aren't so random that its like playing "heads or tails" (as some people make it out to be)

3. It takes no skill

True, but why is this a problem? Adding more events that require skill doesnt make a game better, as I said before it means that the skill is focused entirely during the battles. If for example Sonic The Hegdehog "added skill" to it (such as finding power-ups in order to level-up your jumps) then the other features would have to be lessened in importance in order to balance out the difficulty. Also games with random battles have skill in different areas

3. I get into one every 3 steps

That's really over-exagerating, even saying 10 steps is over exagerating

4. I was just one step before entering a town and I got into a damn battle

And what is it about that "one step away" feature that adds any sort of dissatisfaction to the entering of a battle? would the battle have been any different from a battle that heppened two or three steps away? If it takes (on average) 10 battles to get from point A to point B then what difference does it make "when" on that journey you entered the battle? (Provided that enemies are the same throughout the path, but a couple steps outside a town is barely going to make a difference)

5. (In response to above) If I had just gone one more step then I wouldn't have had to enter this battle, I was so close to avoiding that battle

True, but how is that relevant? If getting into a battle just before entering a town is a negative, then is it not feasible to say that reaching a town in just enough steps that the next step was going to trigger a battle is just as positive as that is negative? You could also use that logic to say that "one step before town" is a positive as it guarentees a 0% chance of any battles for the rest of that journey

6. We now have the technology so that we don't need random battles anymore

So? Just because technology can handle more doesnt mean that it directly translates into a fun experience. People still play Chess and they enjoy it, regardless of how much data the current consoles can handle

7. They slow the game down

This doesn't make any sense, a game feature can't slow a game down as it is a part of the gameplay. If you removed the random battles, you wouldnt be "speeding up" the game, you'd be changng it. You could also say that Super Mario Bros. would be faster if there were no pits or enemies, but then you'd just have a different game

8. The animations takes soooooo long

Seriously? Most of these complaints I hear talk as if an attack takes half a minute to complete, these complaints are really over-exagerated. Even so I think people are just being far too impatient for their own good. (This isn't directly linked to random battles but it kinda is)

9. It's not realistic

And why does that matter? I am well aware that people dont enter "random battles" in real life, games are supposed to be about overcoming challenges, whether they be presented in a way that reflects the real world or not

10. It's not immersive

I disagree, I find random battles to be very immersive. This is because of reasons stated in my "What I like about random battles" section

11. It's just about selecting "Attack" until the enemy dies over and over
That is usually an over-exageration, but even if it wasn't the point is still invalid. Even if that was the case, it doesn't link with the actual random battles themselves, there are many action games have this exact "problem". It may be true that a game with random-battles does this but its not the "random battle" feature that causes it

12. (In response to above) But it is, you said before that random battles allow for more strategy style gameplay and so it does link as the twich-based effect of avoiding/chasing enemies is not there

(Actually, nobody's asked me this before but I thought I'd fill it in just in case somebody does)

Well, that is a valid point. However if game has both random battles AND combat so easy that you can get through the whole game by button mashing, then thats probably just an overall poorly designed game.

All this really proves is that random battles can't do everything, nothing can.

13. I just want to get to the end of this frickin' dungeon but enemies keep popping out

Hey, it's a game, you're not always going to get what you want. You will have to overcome challenges on the way. All games do that. Things will always get in your way when you play games.

What I Dislike About Random Battles
The main thing I find annoying about random battles is when you're trying to grind. Having to run in circles I find is rather awkward. It sure is better than waiting for enemies to respawn but its a problem that could easilly be fixed. Cross Edge had it so you had random battles, but you could also manually enter a battle by the single press of a button. What I would like to see is an "enter another battle?" option at the end of every fight

Thursday 4 March 2010

A New "Lara Croft" Game

So I wasn't planning on making any entires, I didnt have any subjects in mind... but as I was looking at Kotaku I found this:

"Lara Croft And The Guardian Of Light" hm? Wait... what? Not "Tomb Raider"?

Well, according to Kotaku it's going to be a downloadable game, and "different"... Not too sure about this, will definetly check up but I don't have any large interests. Since Tomb Raider got onto the PS2 I was not all that interested anyway. We'll see.