RPG question

[Paul Slocum]

Okay, I'm trying to make a decision on my RPG design. The question is: can you see monsters on the map?

 

Some RPGs have monsters on the map so you can see what's coming, and possibly avoid them. Others have it where you occasionally will have an encounter when you move, but you don't see them coming (the Ultima I played was like this).

 

If I don't show the monsters on the map, I save RAM space (saved RAM is a very good thing), I don't have to reserve tiles for monsters which means more a more scenic landscape, plus I can have more kinds of monsters (currently limited to 4 types of monsters per area since I only have 4 free tiles).

 

I'm going to at least try coding a little monster display code to see how much RAM it's really going to require, but I want to see what peoples' opinions are on this.

 

-paul

[dougy76]

Okay, I'm trying to make a decision on my RPG design.  The question is: can you see monsters on the map?

 

Some RPGs have monsters on the map so you can see what's coming, and possibly avoid them.  Others have it where you occasionally will have an encounter when you move, but you don't see them coming (the Ultima I played was like this).

 

If I don't show the monsters on the map, I save RAM space (saved RAM is a very good thing), I don't have to reserve tiles for monsters which means more a more scenic landscape, plus I can have more kinds of monsters (currently limited to 4 types of monsters per area since I only have 4 free tiles).

 

I'm going to at least try coding a little monster display code to see how much RAM it's really going to require, but I want to see what peoples' opinions are on this.

 

-paul

 

I've always preferred RPG's that don't show the monsters. I liked the idea of wondering around and every step you take you may or may not encounter one. If the monsters are shown, it's usually pretty easy to avoid them.

[MegaManFan]

If this were a 16 or 32 bit generation game, I'd say having monsters on the map would be great. That was one thing I always liked about Chrono Cross, the ability to avoid a fight if you didn't feel like it. That's one thing that drives people nuts about most FF games, you +can't+ avoid a fight unless you have "no encounters" equipped and you typically don't get that until late in the game. However to be honest, I don't think anybody has any expectation of being able to avoid encounters on an RPG for a 20 year old system, since we're all used to the "YOU ARE ATTACKED!" type gameplay, and it's actually more in keeping with the nostalgic feel of those times. If it saves space and memory, don't use map monsters. It would seem too unnatural anyway.

[maibock]

I'd go along with no monsters and save the resources for cooler stuff

[Nateo]

Yeah, no on map monsters, the extra RAM could be used to expound on all that other cool stuff you're doing for the project.

[Mr.FoodMonster]

The reason I hate most RPG's is that they have those DAMNED random battles They piss me off to no end! This is also why I like Action RPG's (Threads of Fate) and RPG's that show charaters on screen (Superstar Saga) I'd say go with them on screen =D

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

I've seen good and bad versions of both ways. I think I generally tend a little more to visible monsters. It gives a better feel of really being a part in the simulated environment. Also I tend to not like games with ultra high RE rates. And especially in later stages of a game when you're already the almost unbeatable warrior, I hate it when being attacked by a "Slimy Ooze" or some other lesser being like that...

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[desiv]

OK, personally, I prefer a little realism to my fantasy.. :-)

 

So, I prefer no monsters on the map..

 

It's more fun (IMHO) if it's not totally random, but you don't know for sure. Then, if you've played it a bit, you have a feeling of what to expect in a certain area, but it's not like you've got an on-screen hint-book telling you what's around the corner..

 

You should be able to see what's in your field of vision..

 

desiv

[Cootster]

Definitely no monsters on the map . . . It'd be . . . un-classic . . .

 

I hate overabundant random encounters, too, but, well, they're tradition.

Personally, I love the extremely goofy way it's done in Dragonstomper . . .

[Paul Slocum]

Manuel: Maybe I could make it so that when you're a certain number of levels above the monsters, you don't have to fight them. Like say you're level 10 and you encounter a slime, it'll just give you a message below the map "You just encountered a slime and totally thrashed it" and you can keep going.

 

desiv: Either way, I will definitely designate the frequency and difficulty of monsters that appear in certain areas. For example, a wooded area or area near an enemy fortress will have more enemies.

 

-paul

[Albert]

I'm a big fan of the older Ultimas, which displayed monsters on the map as you moved around (at least after Ultima 1). You would only see one monster, and then you'd go into "battle mode" which zoomed in on your party and the monster party (as usually there would be more than one monster). This gives you a chance to out run the monsters if you want to avoid combat, such as perhaps if you are running low on hit points.

 

I am *not* a fan of random encounters that you have no chance whatsoever to avoid. At least if you can SEE the monster(s) coming, you can perhaps evade them (run into a town or dungeon) or spend some time "getting ready" (healing yourself, equipping weapons/armour, etc.).

 

..Al

[Xot]

Do not allow for monster sprites on the map, but make it relatively easy to "run" from random encounters. That seems to be a decent compromise. And it's not like we've got to worry about load times for battle sequences. :wink:

[Paul Slocum]

Another option might be to notify you that you hear monsters nearby, but not actually show them.

 

This would avoid using up tiles, use less memory than actually showing them, give you the option of turning around or changing direction to lessen your chance of an encounter, and still have an element of surprise as you don't know exactly where they are. You may occasionally turn around and run right into them.

 

-paul

[sigma]

In general, monsters on the map can be good, if it's done right. You can get a bit of strategy, like getting in an extra turn (like Lufia2) and use traps to weaken and/or poisin your enemies (BoF: DQ).

With random encounters, you need a good balance. If there's too much, it can get frustrating. If there's too little, it will take to much time to level up.

[chrisbid]

Another option might be to notify you that you hear monsters nearby, but not actually show them.  

 

This would avoid using up tiles, use less memory than actually showing them, give you the option of turning around or changing direction to lessen your chance of an encounter, and still have an element of surprise as you don't know exactly where they are.  You may occasionally turn around and run right into them.

 

-paul

 

 

if youve ever played Panzer Dragoon Saga, there is a color coded radar in the corner of the screen. if it is blue, then you will not encounter any monsters, green and yellow - the encounter rate is higher, red means that combat is inevitable.

 

im an old school fan as well, Random encounters can be annoying, but since this is a HSR game, you can use this fact to your advantage. i would purposely put one rare enemy in the game, that takes its time fighting you. as long as you didnt constantly encounter it, it could be quite funny.

 

as for visible monsters, id say leave them out, but please do include boss characters as visible in maps or dungeons. talking to bosses is a fun time, i can see the potential conversations with the dragons from Adventure. Rhindle can have a degree in Philosophy or something wacky like that.