How strategic do like your battles?

[Jacket]

A lot of people, including me, like strategic battles in games. When you're not just spamming either the attack command or the same cheap but effective spell, over and over and over and over again. But there's gotta be a level between strategic and fun, and just plain menacingly cruel.

Me and my game friends, for the most part, prefer higher difficulty and planning. We're all from the Nintendo Hard era, and purposely search out games that bring out the frustration of Nintendo Hard (though, preferably with a good excuse). RPGs that make you think 5 moves ahead or get killed by a random hamster are fun. I find many RM games are simply too luck based, it either goes your way or doesn't, with nothing you can offer but hope the coin toss comes out in your favor. And quite honestly, a lot of games come of as too easy to be challenging or fun, and unless the story is good, and the characters pop, I'm gonna feel less likely to play. So, tell me where you stand. I wanna know how much strategy and hair pulling is too much.

Do you want to think 8 moves ahead. Do you want to combine chains of actions, this guy using a debuff, that one exploiting it, and a third finishing it off - all not to kill, but simply to do considerably more damage. Or do you prefer it if planning ahead and combining chains is simply casting Invisible than Doom to easily kill off most anything?

Is it more fun being under powered, or over powered?

[RosyPosy]

A lot of people, including me, like strategic battles in games. When you're not just spamming either the attack command or the same cheap but effective spell, over and over and over and over again. But there's gotta be a level between strategic and fun, and just plain menacingly cruel.

Me and my game friends, for the most part, prefer higher difficulty and planning. We're all from the Nintendo Hard era, and purposely search out games that bring out the frustration of Nintendo Hard (though, preferably with a good excuse). RPGs that make you think 5 moves ahead or get killed by a random hamster are fun. I find many RM games are simply too luck based, it either goes your way or doesn't, with nothing you can offer but hope the coin toss comes out in your favor. And quite honestly, a lot of games come of as too easy to be challenging or fun, and unless the story is good, and the characters pop, I'm gonna feel less likely to play. So, tell me where you stand. I wanna know how much strategy and hair pulling is too much.

Do you want to think 8 moves ahead. Do you want to combine chains of actions, this guy using a debuff, that one exploiting it, and a third finishing it off - all not to kill, but simply to do considerably more damage. Or do you prefer it if planning ahead and combining chains is simply casting Invisible than Doom to easily kill off most anything?

Is it more fun being under powered, or over powered?

No no no.
Its about balance man.I think the shin megami tensei games show full well how strategy should play a good role in games.It should be hard and make you think. but it shouldnt be something that will own you if you dont find its ultimate weakness. Like Fire is the only way to kill it.
Nah it should be tough and strategic but have many options to make your personal strategy avialable.

[MetalRenard]

Good debate but one that will never be solved because of the multitude of tastes.
I'll say my part though!

I am not a hardcore gamer. I don't like games that are hard for the sake of it either and often don't keep playing if I die a lot (in free games. If I paid for it then I'd try harder... ) I like games that have a neat learning curve, not ones that throw you in the deep end (unless it's an FPS or a horror game or something of the like).

In an RPG, I like ones that don't involve hours of grinding and when you don't grind they're impossible (cause lets face it, in today's industry people want immediate results and I'm one of those people) like in the original Final Fantasy on NES. That game was pure grinding all the way. Booring. (I think I just upset a few thousand people...)

Basically, keep it interesting and as long as the difficulty is not just a way to extend the game then ok, I'll give it a try.

[RosyPosy]

That kinda assumes that we care a bout casual gamers.
Casual gamers wouldnt like RPgs. Rp and strategy is not their cup of tea.

Rpgs should have strategy as main stay, to allow you to enjoy the battles.
Its not about how easy it is.Its about whether or not it captures your interest.
I think youll find that if the system is fun enough whether or not you keep dying doesnt distrub you or get as frustrated.
I enjoyed Personas battle system so much that I played it despite dying on a near hourly basis.
The bosses and enemies made it so you had to think.But gave you enough room so you could make a unique strategy.And turning the tide was as easy as switching your Persona.

Options + difficulty= fun.
That is the basics.
If you have options but no difficulty, then your not fun.
If your too hard with little opions your not fun.
Finding your balance is how it works.

The reason something is fun depends on balancing your ability to make a game that has interesting story,Plenty of options and a difficulty that will keep their focus.

[Jacket]

Many casual gamers play RPGs.
The Fable series is an action RPG, and is built for casual gamers. A big trend in modern RPGs, like all genres, is "catering" to the casual gamer. Some will point out, like I said the Fable series, Fallout 3's map system, a slew of strategy games on the Wii, and some of the RPGs on the DS (although, like Fable if you're a hardass purist, sure, they're 'something else' with RPG elements). Pokemon is very popular with casual gamers as well.

[RosyPosy]

Many casual gamers play RPGs.
The Fable series is an action RPG, and is built for casual gamers. A big trend in modern RPGs, like all genres, is "catering" to the casual gamer. Some will point out, like I said the Fable series, Fallout 3's map system, a slew of strategy games on the Wii, and some of the RPGs on the DS (although, like Fable if you're a hardass purist, sure, they're 'something else' with RPG elements). Pokemon is very popular with casual gamers as well.

Pokemon is a better example then fable.Fable treats its players like children pokemon is just simple.
I am a core gamer so I naturaly dislike people who make games with to much ease with no draw.
The draw of pokemon is basicaly collection.
The battles are near mindless but still involve strategy.
Pokemon realies on how hard it is to catch pokemon to collect them.
That difficulty isnt high, but niether are your options.Your limited to just 6 pokemon all with a max of 4 moves.

Its balanced itself.
That is why it is successful.
Fable on the other hand just sucks.
It treats you like a child, and is so unbalanced.
which is what happens when you target casual gamers.
Target core gamers, its better for both casual gamers and core gamers if you have high standards.

[Agckuu Coceg]

Well, I'm a fan of brain-thinking in the battle.
I will cite for example the latest RPG, I played and the memories of her is fresh - Okamiden (NDS). (Even though the form, it is still an RPG - without levels, custom abilities, but still!)

There's every type of enemy in battle is different - some or other skills will not act on them, unless you solve the precise combination as it is necessary to win. Given the ranking for each battle, which takes into account not only the time and caused damage to your opponent, but your actions - it becomes a puzzle where you have to develop tactics against every enemy. And given that the actions occur in real time - that should act quickly. The game does not seem complicated to some extent. All of the enemies are predictable, the main thing - it's speed of action of the player and his tactics. Yet such battles - it is the most gusto - they do not quickly get bored, while they're quite long and occupy a relatively large part of playing time.

In such a pretty interesting play. But the problem is that the AI ​​of this on the maker is rather difficult to implement. It's realistic, but difficult.