Random encounters in JRPGs

Originally Posted by Elel
The difference is that with hand-placed encounters you kill everyone and you can explore. With random encounters, that depends. If the game does them right you can explore, if it does them wrong you won't be exploring for fear of running into a few random encounters that already annoy you with their repetitiveness by that point.

Hmm. Usually in RPGs, I kill the enemies as they appear while I'm exploring. For example, in Baldur's Gate, I explore the map whilst killing enemies. I don't kill all the enemies and then essentially backtrack to areas because I've already explored them.

In a game like The Dark Spire, fighting enemies while exploring is part of the deal. You have to see if you can survive heading deep into the dungeon, but also battle your way back out as well, all the while fighting random encounters and being challenged not only in most of the combats, but also challenged to carry enough supplies to see your party to the finish line. I love that (and is also a big reason why I love Wizardry-style dungeon crawlers!)


And such encounters are jarring overall, not only they kill the joy of exploration, but they often put you from one perspective into another encounter screen. It really feels like the game rudely interrupts exploring for repetitive bouts.

I'm kind of thinking combat in general in these games is not for you. Perhaps JRPGs should really just add a no-encounter Story Mode from now on, to suit people who feel this way. Or just do it like Last Dream does - gives you at least 4 options of how often you'd like random encounters, and you can change based on your mood/preference that particular day.

Sure, right now I'm playing Xenogears. In battle areas, which usually happen to be maze-like places (which would normally I'd love to explore), random encounters assault you like mad. You can be lucky enough to make 10 or so steps without one, but it's possible to have another encounter in 3 steps, as well. Another game that did it I played recently was Shadow Hearts. I'm trying to explore here, dammit, stop throwing battles at me! That one employed the equal number of seconds between encounters, as far as I could tell, but it was a lot smaller than I'd have preferred.

P.S. Xenogears is especially funny in that respect. You can have a random encounter in midair. Good luck jumping from one cliff to another.

I played Xenogears a few years back. The encounter rate in that game is probably the highest I've ever encountered in a game. It's especially rough considering later on the random battles get very difficult very quickly.

I think some people enjoy that, though, like I do. Part of the reason I personally play RPGs is to be challenged, have to employ strategic thinking, but also for resource management and party management. I find it interesting to ration supplies in a dungeon when encountering countless mobs, seeing if you can outlast the enemies and feeling a sense of satisfaction when you finally beat that area boss after going through hell.

We're all different, and I sense I'm in the minority when it comes to stuff like this, so no worries if you feel differently. I think all RPGs going forward should perhaps just consider those who don't like random encounters and even those who don't like combat encounters much to begin with, and have different options that balance it all, like Last Dream does. Story Mode is a good start, I think.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
In Final Fantasy 3, the end game sequence (in the darkness) takes over two and a half hours. There are five bosses and a ton of random encounters and there is only a quick save, so if you die you have to replay the whole thing. I found that pretty annoying. I ended up dying at the main (last) boss and decided it wasn't worth replaying 2 1/2 hours to watch the last cut scene.

This is what I expect certain end-game in RPGs to be like. I was the one asking the Ghostlight devs to add a "Hardcore" limited-saves option to Elminage Gothic. They didn't listen, though.

Not all RPGs should follow this route, of course, but I would expect nothing less from certain hardcore dungeon crawlers to absolutely try to kick your ass near the end. That's one of the reasons I'm really looking forward to Bard's Tale IV, to see how nasty and menacing they employ some of those old-school traps in a modern game.

@Fluent

Now I understand your mindset better and why you enjoy random encounters. I must say we have little in common. The only games I can name off the top of my hat in which I enjoyed combat were employing DnD. I liked all those various arrows, a multitude of spells and high difficulties. But normally my priority is storytelling. That doesn't mean that I want all combat gone, I like when storytelling and combat are present together in a game.

Another factor is the way I play. It's a bit eccentric and theatrical, I hope you don't find it weird but I create the world that I see on screen in my head and imagine the feelings of all party characters. It's not just me playing the party which is clearing up the dungeon, it's a few people whose emotions and sensations I imagine, like they're maybe tired or looking for a fight, how they feel victorious after the battle, maybe what they even say to each other, what they feel towards each other, etc. It's a habit, so it's automatic. In other words, for me games are half-game and half-fantasy of my own to make them feel more alive. Playing this way, in games with random encounters my characters feel very tense, they're always on guard. And that means I feel tense, and it's unpleasant for me. So I want my characters to feel safe while exploring, to know if they're going to be attacked or not.

This is the truth of the matter, I suppose, and exactly what prevents me from enjoying random encounters.

So Xenogears has a really high random encounter rate? Good to know. In that case I will now have some tolerance to random encounters whose rate is modest.

Originally Posted by Elel
@Fluent

Now I understand your mindset better and why you enjoy random encounters. I must say we have little in common. The only games I can name off the top of my hat in which I enjoyed combat were employing DnD. I liked all those various arrows, a multitude of spells and high difficulties. But normally my priority is storytelling. That doesn't mean that I want all combat gone, I like when storytelling and combat are present together in a game.

Another factor is the way I play. It's a bit eccentric and theatrical, I hope you don't find it weird but I create the world that I see on screen in my head and imagine the feelings of all party characters. It's not just me playing the party which is clearing up the dungeon, it's a few people whose emotions and sensations I imagine, like they're maybe tired or looking for a fight, how they feel victorious after the battle, maybe what they even say to each other, what they feel towards each other, etc. It's a habit, so it's automatic. In other words, for me games are half-game and half-fantasy of my own to make them feel more alive. Playing this way, in games with random encounters my characters feel very tense, they're always on guard. And that means I feel tense, and it's unpleasant for me. So I want my characters to feel safe while exploring, to know if they're going to be attacked or not.

This is the truth of the matter, I suppose, and exactly what prevents me from enjoying random encounters.

So Xenogears has a really high random encounter rate? Good to know. In that case I will now have some tolerance to random encounters whose rate is modest.

Like I said, I think going forward a lot of games could benefit from using an option system that either lets you choose how often you want encounters (if they are random - like Last Dream - you can actually turn them completely off in that game), or take a page out of Pillars of Eternity's book, and have harder difficulties = more enemies and encounters & also offer a Story Mode that is either super easy or has minimal combat.

I think if games employ different options everyone can find the option they like and go from there.

Haha, there was so much talk about Final Fantasy here that I had a dream about it. For some reason I was beating up Cloud. And I never even played FFVII. I don't even know what my subconscious wants to say by that.

Originally Posted by Elel
Haha, there was so much talk about Final Fantasy here that I had a dream about it. For some reason I was beating up Cloud. And I never even played FFVII. I don't even know what my subconscious wants to say by that.

I think a lot of people want to beat Cloud up. I don't think that's all that unusual.

Originally Posted by Aubrielle
I think a lot of people want to beat Cloud up. I don't think that's all that unusual.

I don't know anything about Cloud except that he carries a very big sword. It just goes to show that the collective unconsciousness influences me, and I too want to beat him up.

Originally Posted by Elel
I don't know anything about Cloud except that he carries a very big sword. It just goes to show that the collective unconsciousness influences me, and I too want to beat him up.

That's good, let your anger towards Cloud flow through you.

In all seriousness though, out of the FF games I've played, FF7 had one of the weakest main characters. FF8 also had a weak one. I guess FF7 is the game that we have to blame for the amount of teen angst we got in JRPGs following its release, as companies noticed that FF7 was a huge success and tried to emulate the things they thought made FF7 successful without understanding what they were doing (personally I'm lukewarm on FF7, it has its strong points, but Cloud is just such a boring main character that it just drags down the rest of the game into what I feel is mediocrity. FF8 also had a terrible main character, but the rest of the cast got more screen space. Then again, FF8 had the Draw system which was just time consuming and annoying).

Originally Posted by Fluent
This is what I expect certain end-game in RPGs to be like. I was the one asking the Ghostlight devs to add a "Hardcore" limited-saves option to Elminage Gothic. They didn't listen, though.

Not all RPGs should follow this route, of course, but I would expect nothing less from certain hardcore dungeon crawlers to absolutely try to kick your ass near the end. That's one of the reasons I'm really looking forward to Bard's Tale IV, to see how nasty and menacing they employ some of those old-school traps in a modern game.

I don't mind hard encounters. I replayed one boss battle in Elminage Gothic about 4 times. I just recently replay an encounter from Jagged Alliance about 10 times. I don't like having to repeat more than 5 minutes of gameplay multiple times, though. I find it boring, mostly because of the noninteresting battles you have repeat over and over before you get to the challenging ones.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Those aren't random encounters in the same context though. Those are more like spawns. The random encounters I think most of us are referring to are the kind in which the enemy is invisible and the encounters are unforeseeable.

I disagree to a certain extent, though I see your point. A lot of these encounters aren't easily avoidable, certainly not anymore so than the encounters in Wizardry 8 or Legends of Heroes, which are visible on the map.
In this context Sacred 2 encounters are spawns as well.
If we talk about purely non visible encounters, like in Wizardry 1-7, or Elminage Gothic, then I think there are certain things which are key to whether they are fun or annoying, like pacing, ability to escape encounters, how fun combat is, et. That of course is a thin line and different for different players. For example some people invest 1000s of hours in roguelikes, where every encounter is random.
I personally think random encounters work really well in Dungeon Crawler type games. In games which focus on story and such they work less well, but I'll still argue the quality of their implementation is more a problem than the random encounters themselves.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
I disagree to a certain extent, though I see your point. A lot of these encounters aren't easily avoidable, certainly not anymore so than the encounters in Wizardry 8 or Legends of Heroes, which are visible on the map.
In this context Sacred 2 encounters are spawns as well.
If we talk about purely non visible encounters, like in Wizardry 1-7, or Elminage Gothic, then I think there are certain things which are key to whether they are fun or annoying, like pacing, ability to escape encounters, how fun combat is, et. That of course is a thin line and different for different players. For example some people invest 1000s of hours in roguelikes, where every encounter is random.
I personally think random encounters work really well in Dungeon Crawler type games. In games which focus on story and such they work less well, but I'll still argue the quality of their implementation is more a problem than the random encounters themselves.

I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Encounters in TES are nothing like the (invisible) random encounters in JRPGs that we're discussing.

Roguelikes aren't really comparable either, as you can usually see your enemies well before you have to engage them.

That's not to say that invisible random encounters are inherently "bad", but I don't think it's the preferred mechanic for the majority of gamers nowadays. Certainly not for non-Japanese gamers anyways.

Originally Posted by Fluent
Can anyone give an example of an RPG that has random encounters every 3 steps? I can't recall playing any RPGs that had a really excessive amount of encounters. Usually they are fairly balanced, like the games I mentioned in my previous post.

Ugh, FF XIII, for one. Well, maybe three Giant steps, but damn did it overstay it's welcome.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Encounters in TES are nothing like the (invisible) random encounters in JRPGs that we're discussing.

Roguelikes aren't really comparable either, as you can usually see your enemies well before you have to engage them.

That's not to say that invisible random encounters are inherently "bad", but I don't think it's the preferred mechanic for the majority of gamers nowadays. Certainly not for non-Japanese gamers anyways.

I'd agree with you that western players prefer visible encounters, even ones that they can't avoid without difficulty. I think it has more to do with the sense of realism than anything else. For example, the wave encounters in Dragon's Age:Origins and Dragon's Age 2 have been criticized because monsters seem to fall from the ceiling or pop out of the floor.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
Ugh, FF XIII, for one. Well, maybe three Giant steps, but damn did it overstay it's welcome.

Those were not random, but I completely agree with you about them overstaying their welcome. So many areas were just long straight walks through highly repetitive areas consisting of very samey encounters. Some could be avoided, many could not. Padded is how I would describe that game.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
Ugh, FF XIII

This.

Trashmobs are not invisible in that one, but are so close to another or are running so fast it's impossible to avoid them. The horror doesn't stop there - once you kill a trashmob, another soon appears on it's same spot, like if it's no content variety MMO.

Okay, for sakes of "training", loot and levelup, there has to be some fight, sure, here and there… But in FF13 I had a feel that all I'm doing was an hour of grinding boring trashmobs before getting a break with a cutscene or a boss. What's even worse, these bosses were just a timedrag, no skill needed to kill, no strategy needed to think about, just clickyclicky.
FF13 is one of rare games I uninstalled halfway (when I hit the huge open area and where respawns became just unbearable), will never finish and can never recommend to any gamer - I would however suggest it to every developer with words "how your next game should NOT be made".

And although I said I'll never buy another FF game after FF13 garbage, I bought FF10 just because it has built-in option to disable trashmobs from appearing. On PC of course. Maybe Square Enix understands that on PC there are people who despise the crap.
Call me surprised positively with FF10. At least earlygame where the progress is linear.
Just like in FF13 you're tunnelcrawling, but in FF10 mobs are invisible and you get attacked randomly. The number of these attacks is 5-6 in an area, if you go from entrance to it's exit without lollygagging which is not much, plus bosses, easy but also challenging ones where you can't just click2win, are frequent unlike FF13.
What I'm saying is that so far I didn't have any need to disable respawns in FF10. The game would be so much better if all those encounters were visible on map and some avoidable, if weren't respawning at all (or till you progress a chapter or something), but this design where you have to beat just a few mobs instead of hundreds to progress is still okay.

Originally Posted by Fnord
I guess FF7 is the game that we have to blame for the amount of teen angst we got in JRPGs following its release, as companies noticed that FF7 was a huge success and tried to emulate the things they thought made FF7 successful without understanding what they were doing

If not the main character, then what made FF7 so popular among the fans? I'd like to know for future reference. And to keep my own expectations in check.

In fact, I don't know whether I should play the classic FF7 or wait for a remake. Any thoughts?

Then again, FF8 had the Draw system which was just time consuming and annoying).

That still keeps me from playing that game. I plan to, eventually, I want to play all famous classics, but the Draw system sounds so awful that I dread the moment I have to play it.

Originally Posted by Elel
If not the main character, then what made FF7 so popular among the fans? I'd like to know for future reference. And to keep my own expectations in check.

In fact, I don't know whether I should play the classic FF7 or wait for a remake. Any thoughts?


That still keeps me from playing that game. I plan to, eventually, I want to play all famous classics, but the Draw system sounds so awful that I dread the moment I have to play it.

As a kid, Final Fantasy 8 was a big disappoint in some ways. In some ways, it was great. The graphics were a bit improved, the beginning sequence was action-packed, there were some innovative new ideas in the game. But the Draw system, man. I say that's the worst magic system of any Final Fantasy game I can remember. Especially since we were coming from FF6 - Esper/Magicite system (very good), FF7 - Materia system (excellent), to FF8 - Draw system (terrible). Heh. Even as a kid I didn't like that system, which is pretty telling.

However, Final Fantasy 7 basically defined part of my childhood. It was a huge, 3D game at the time that looked amazing, with incredible cutscenes and gorgeous 3D graphics. The story was great, even if a bit strange and possibly convoluted, but as a kid I simply couldn't get enough of it!

There were a lot of fun side things to do, such as breed chocobos, race chocobos, fight in the arena, play a few little mini-games, and plenty of ways to explore the world - by sea, by air, even underwater and chocobos that could cross the water and go over mountains.

Also, there were a lot of secrets to find. Hidden characters such as Yuffie and Vincent. Special materia hidden deep in hard-to-find areas. Crazy summons that looked oh-so-cool. Lots of interesting things to find. You could even steal rare items from bosses and certain enemies, and I actually didn't figure most of the stealing thing out until I later got the strategy guide and re-played the game again.

As I said, the Materia system was awesome. It's pretty simple, but I just loved it. There was nothing quite like finding that shiny new marble of Materia, or experimenting with certain combinations to find new, strategic ways to win battles. Or trying to fill the entire Enemy Skill materia with every enemy skill in the game (which I did eventually, along with actually 100% completing the game in all ways.)

The combat was pretty fun and had that "active time battle" thing going for it, where it was turn-based but enemies still acted even if you sat there and did nothing. It had those great pre-rendered backgrounds that I think still look awesome today, and some of the most epic camera angles in certain areas make you just feel in awe of the scope and size of some of the areas.

It's a really good game. Of course, the remake is going to be way different, but it's still worth giving the original game a spin. It's pretty much *the* quintessential JRPG of its time, maybe of ALL-time, due to it being a title in 3D when that was just coming out with the PS1.

Originally Posted by Elel
If not the main character, then what made FF7 so popular among the fans? I'd like to know for future reference. And to keep my own expectations in check.

In fact, I don't know whether I should play the classic FF7 or wait for a remake. Any thoughts?

Depends if you prefer turn-based or button-smashy. The FF7 remake they will change the combat system to button smashing.

Originally Posted by Elel
If not the main character, then what made FF7 so popular among the fans? I'd like to know for future reference. And to keep my own expectations in check.

In fact, I don't know whether I should play the classic FF7 or wait for a remake. Any thoughts?

I don't know actually. FF7 is not a terrible game, it has a big world, a really good soundtrack, for its time the graphics was impressive in combat (backgrounds looked good outside of combat, but the blocky characters looked terrible even back then, and I remember passing up on the game simply because I found them so unappealing, then playing it years later) and the story was relatively complex, its main flaws were just the main character and the main antagonist. But if I were to make a guess, I would say that a large portion of FF7's popularity comes from when it was released. It ended up being a lot of peoples first RPG (J or otherwise). People tend to be really bad at actually judging the quality of a game from a genre that they have little experience with (that's why you so often hear people say "It was my first X, and I still think it's the best"), so as long as the game is at least kinda good, people have a tendency of thinking it was a lot better than it really was (also, just plain old nostalgia googles tend to be a problem when you talk about older games with people. Yes, there were of course good game being released 20-30 years ago, but there was also a lot of mediocre or bad games that people who played them as kids tend to bring up as "quality games").

If you like JRPGs in general, you'll probably not have a bad time playing FF7, just don't expect it to "WOW" you like it did to people who played it when it was first released. Also, I get the feeling that Cloud was a character written for teens, as a lot of his issues are of the type you would expect from a teenager, just exaggerated. As an adult, many of the typical teenage issues seems a bit, well, banal, but for a teenager going through them I could see why they would latch on to his teen angst-personality (I played through the game about 5 years ago, when I was ~25, and found Cloud to be about as appealing a character as a teenager who really tries to be alternative and who makes sure that you know that "the world does not understand him/her").

Originally Posted by Fnord
But if I were to make a guess, I would say that a large portion of FF7's popularity comes from when it was released. It ended up being a lot of peoples first RPG (J or otherwise). People tend to be really bad at actually judging the quality of a game from a genre that they have little experience with (that's why you so often hear people say "It was my first X, and I still think it's the best"), so as long as the game is at least kinda good, people have a tendency of thinking it was a lot better than it really was (also, just plain old nostalgia googles tend to be a problem when you talk about older games with people. Yes, there were of course good game being released 20-30 years ago, but there was also a lot of mediocre or bad games that people who played them as kids tend to bring up as "quality games").

Yeah.

1997-98 was kind of a strange turning point for video games, if you think about it. When I was reading what Fnord was saying, all I could think about was how big FFVII and Zelda: Ocarina of Time turned out to be. And they turned out so big because those were the first big games a lot of people in my age group played. If you ask a lot of Millennials, those are two games held up as the standard that everything else is compared to. Personally, I found them both a little disappointing - the hype was definitely bigger than the substance. While I enjoyed FFVII for the setting, the world, and the soundtrack, I was really disappointed by OOT…I was hoping for another Link to the Past and didn't get it.

There's no real reason that these two games should be considered some of the best of all time…better games had come out before and would come out after. But something about those two years…they struck the right note at the right time, I guess.

In the end, I think it was simply the moment.