Only way I can see that happening is through an increase in harddrive space in the chips themselves to allow more info to be stored for multisavesEvil Smurf said:Exactly that! I loose everything if I replay a gameDryk said:It's all in how well it's implemented and as you said, whether it actually adds something.Vault101 said:but whats the difference between a gimmick and inovation?
Pokemon doesn't have replay value? I'm always having the most fun with a Pokemon game when I'm playing through the story with the rag-tag team I've managed to put together by that point. The only reason I don't replay them is because I'd lose everything.Evil Smurf said:I love Pokemon, but I would change it so there is a replay value to the games.
The thing is when you start "cutting out pointless stats when there is one already serving that purpose", and start "streamlining" RPGs, you're removing the RPG elements and dumbing the game down. The myriad of different skills enhance the character-customization that is the essence of RPGs. For example, in Fallout 1, there's two different skills for First Aid and Doctor. Sounds like the kind of thing you'd take out, right? But now there's nothing differentiating my dainty former surgeon character from your battered wasteland survivor who's learned to patch himself up over the years. It's little things like that.dessertmonkeyjk said:Even though I have no problem with RPGs in general I really dislike turn-based ones. They tend to require you to keep track of a crapload of stats that half are pracically redundant and shouldn't even be there as well as the chance the characters will hit their target based on a dice roll. It's really not something I like to see when I'm cheated out of a well placed shot at ten feet away.
Now it's obvious what I want changed. First, cut down on pointless stats when there is one already serving that purpose. Second, I like to have some like timed hits that boost the chance of hitting a target. Third, avoid having to extensively grind to advance the plot by 5-7 levels (or depending how quick xp is earned).
Yep, that's my take.
I totally agree with this kind of sentiment.Don Savik said:RTS game's aren't about feeling sad for your characters, its all strategy, all of it. Its about crushing your opponent with superior thinking, not about not trying because your soldier doesn't have a wife and kids and sad backstory. There isn't character depth for a reason. I think changing it into what you would want (basically a shooter) defeats the entire purpose.
Stealth racing is kind of brilliant. Everyone is driving a sort of James Bond-esque supercar with loads of weapons and gadgets and made to work their way through a crowded, GTA style cityscape to an objective. The challenge here being that you and the AI drive identical sorts of cars, so if you're behaving exactly like the AI cars you'll be impossible to distinguish from the AI non-racers. This way, you're moving toward the objective but trying your best not to give away that you're a player because if other players spot you, they can instantly vaporize you.DanielBrown said:Already said this in a simular thread, but I dislike racing games(well, sports games in general), so I suggested a stealth racing game.
A fighting game where you control one pokemon against another pokemon in battle, in real time, perhaps with teams or maybe swapping around characters would be one of the two things that would work with the current pokemon rules and make it better. The other would be to make it more of an srpg, where your pokemon are all on the field at once. I think this would work better if it was turn based. Imo this would make for some very interesting strategies, such as using clerics and buffing pokemon more, and if done correctly could totally revitalize pokemon.Davroth said:Pokemon style games. I find them tremendously boring.
I'd give them a shot again if they combined the polish and production value of Pokemon with a real time fighting engine. But then again, that's not what people come for with those games. But that's pretty much what it would take for me to be interested in it again. XD
I'm pretty sure that the cartridges have enough space on them to hold at least two sets of save data. I think I heard on this site that DS cartridges have 1GB of storage on them (the 3DS ones have 8GB but game freak have said that they'll keep developing for the NDS) and the pokemon games only take up around half of that. (Although, I could be very wrong) The reason why they dont put multiple save files on the games is because they want to encourage you to buy the game again, rather than losing the 500 hours you spent EV training and grinding. (Once more, I could be very wrong, this is almost entirely speculation)Shadowhawk77 said:Only way I can see that happening is through an increase in harddrive space in the chips themselves to allow more info to be stored for multisaves
I'm actually using two older examples known as Vagrant Story and Legend of Dragoon. I don't actually hate the turn-based combat itself but being overbearing can drag it down but I (subjectively, yes) feel that these two give you enough to worry about. I understand that introducing action heavy gameplay would be completely out of place in a menu-based combat system. I also understand that having classes and perk sets are not the problem since all they are is specialization/specific assignment of stat points plus bonuses. Timed hits and being able to manuver some gives me proof that it's not all dependent on stats and luck of the draw but abit more skill involved without going all out.Freaky Lou said:The thing is when you start "cutting out pointless stats when there is one already serving that purpose", and start "streamlining" RPGs, you're removing the RPG elements and dumbing the game down. The myriad of different skills enhance the character-customization that is the essence of RPGs. For example, in Fallout 1, there's two different skills for First Aid and Doctor. Sounds like the kind of thing you'd take out, right? But now there's nothing differentiating my dainty former surgeon character from your battered wasteland survivor who's learned to patch himself up over the years. It's little things like that.dessertmonkeyjk said:Even though I have no problem with RPGs in general I really dislike turn-based ones. They tend to require you to keep track of a crapload of stats that half are pracically redundant and shouldn't even be there as well as the chance the characters will hit their target based on a dice roll. It's really not something I like to see when I'm cheated out of a well placed shot at ten feet away...
The reason for turn-based combat is that it's the only way to make the combat in RPGs be reliant on the stats you defined your character with rather than how nimble you are on the controls. The dice-rolls are there so that the combat isn't just about who's done the most grinding and equipped the strongest gear. Take away turn-based combat, streamline the skills and what you have is an action game with RPG elements....
This may be before your time, but google "Brutal Sports Football" to see this concept taken to its logical conclusion in the halcyon days of the Commodore Amiga. I don't know if it came out for any other system, but my Amiga-owning mates and I played it till the disk wore out.Zeckt said:Sports. Madden can easily be fun by DEATH! everyone wears spiked armor. OOooo and baseballs that explode if they aren't caught in a glove, which would equal loads of hilarity should it land in the stadium audience. Or hockey where the sticks double as lethal weapons! Muahaha!
malestrithe said:Western RPGs in general. They need to get rid of character creation and stick to writing stories that involve you the protagonist being involved in the world. This copout excuse of saying that, "well because your ability to choose makes them better because you have more control over your experience" does not fly with me. What it does is make the game generic.
I guess that a way to solve it is to, IDK, make them more like Alpha Protocol.