gaming Random encounters vs visible encounters

[Typhoid Libby 1,265]

Some games have equipment that will raise your chances of fighting stronger enemies instead of weaker ones while other ones will raise the power of the enemies so they are all super strong but you also get more experience for them. I forget what game it was that did that but the equipment was called the Champion's Ring I think. xD

 

That's in lot of modern games. Or they have some trick to killing mobs that make them harder for more XP.

 

 

If the game is done properly, it does not have cheap deaths like "mages" or some such that you need to know precisely what they are before actually running into them.

It has no benefits, only aggravation and artificial extension of the game.

So what if I see the enemies on the screen? At least I have an idea of what I'm walking into.

 

When in random, it could be (And usually is.) "WTF is this S. AGAIN?!?" (Or you get insta-gibbed because you used the wrong skill.)

 

This. Earthbound's system was amazing. Enemy way too weak to even stand a chance of fighting you? The screen flashes and it just instaKOs.

 

Always thought that feature should be more popular than it is.

 

"Here, have a trippy LCD screen just for the sake of it. Yeah, we COULD have removed these too to save your time so that you could have more fun instead of loading. Sucks to be you, huh?"

I hated that.

 

 

All random encounters are always;

No matter how brief. Some of the Visible encounters games also do this and it's bad. It's immersion breaking and games are about immersion.

[Ron Jeremy 2,032]

That's in lot of modern games. Or they have some trick to killing mobs that make them harder for more XP.

 

 

1. If the game is done properly, it does not have cheap deaths like "mages" or some such that you need to know precisely what they are before actually running into them.

It has no benefits, only aggravation and artificial extension of the game.

So what if I see the enemies on the screen? At least I have an idea of what I'm walking into.

 

When in random, it could be (And usually is.) "WTF is this S. AGAIN?!?" (Or you get insta-gibbed because you used the wrong skill.)

 

 

2. "Here, have a trippy LCD screen just for the sake of it. Yeah, we COULD have removed these too to save your time so that you could have more fun instead of loading. Sucks to be you, huh?"

I hated that.

 

 

3. All random encounters are always;

No matter how brief. Some of the Visible encounters games also do this and it's bad. It's immersion breaking and games are about immersion.

 

1: A game in which everything is entirely predictable is too easy. There need to be factors that can surprise you, otherwise it just gets old. You need good enemies that are powerful enough to make you pay attention because you could actually lose to them, not just easy mooks that you can absentmindedly fight without much risk.

 

2: In Earthbound, the "trippy LCD screen for the sake of it" lasts about 1/3 of a second. If you're so impatient that that takes too much time, you might be playing games for the wrong reason, just saying. And for other games: I'd be more annoyed if things like that just happened instantly, with no indicator that they happened. How about in the Pokemon games, when the screen flashes when one of your Pokemon is poisoned. Would you rather not be told your Pokemon are losing health?

 

3: For the most part, the visual encounter games have had greater load times than the random encounter games. In fact, some random encounter games I've played have thrown you into the battle so fast it's rather jarring.

Edited April 12, 2012 by King K. Roop

[Typhoid Libby 1,265]

1: A game in which everything is entirely predictable is too easy. There need to be factors that can surprise you, otherwise it just gets old. You need good enemies that are powerful enough to make you pay attention because you could actually lose to them, not just easy mooks that you can absentmindedly fight without much risk.

 

Yeah, like Dark Souls, Kingdoms of Amalur and Fallout 1 & 2.

The difference between Hard and Cheap.

 

2: In Earthbound, the "trippy LCD screen for the sake of it" lasts about 1/3 of a second. If you're so impatient that that takes too much time, you might be playing games for the wrong reason, just saying. And for other games: I'd be more annoyed if things like that just happened instantly, with no indicator that they happened. How about in the Pokemon games, when the screen flashes when one of your Pokemon is poisoned. Would you rather not be told your Pokemon are losing health?

 

You get nothing from those encounters in Earthbound, just a annoying trip screen for no reason.

 

Yeah, Impatient. Das me. That's why I manage easily to get half again more more hours out of every RPG compared to my friends. ._.

About 400-500 hours in Star Ocean 4, and 700 in Vesperia. I'm nothing if not patient while playing RPG's.

I always go for the 100% without FAQs.

 

Bit different being informed of poisoning and being informed that basically nothing just happened with a flashy screen.

TBH, that flashing could have just as easily be replaced by a small icon in a corner of the screen.

Way less irritating.

 

3: For the most part, the visual encounter games have had greater load times than the random encounter games. In fact, some random encounter games I've played have thrown you into the battle so fast it's rather jarring.

 

 

 

 

"The load times in this game are killing me when I go into combat." =P

There is always a load time associated with RE.

[Ron Jeremy 2,032]

Yeah, like Dark Souls, Kingdoms of Amalur and Fallout 1 & 2.

The difference between Hard and Cheap.

 

 

1: You get nothing from those encounters in Earthbound, just a annoying trip screen for no reason.

 

2: Yeah, Impatient. Das me. That's why I manage easily to get half again more more hours out of every RPG compared to my friends. ._.

About 400-500 hours in Star Ocean 4, and 700 in Vesperia. I'm nothing if not patient while playing RPG's.

I always go for the 100% without FAQs.

 

3: Bit different being informed of poisoning and being informed that basically nothing just happened with a flashy screen.

TBH, that flashing could have just as easily be replaced by a small icon in a corner of the screen.

Way less irritating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The load times in this game are killing me when I go into combat." =P

There is always a load time associated with RE.

 

1: Yes, you do. You get experience, money, and possibly drops. I actually have had characters level up. Which makes it alerting you and popping up a dialog box logical.

 

2: rofl, was just an barely-logical assumption on my part, not a personal attack. I just was kind of thinking how silly it is to have a problem with a split second delay without mentioning the much more annoying delays, like Safer Sephiroth's attack in FFVII with an animation that takes a few minutes.

 

3: Though I kinda touched in this already, I'll also say that yeah, informing you of things like that without interrupting you would be better in most cases, but I never think of games being able to do stuff like that since most of my experience with RPGs are with the old-school console variety, where technical limitations are a factor. So, my bad there I guess.

[Radiance64 7,053]

I'm loving visible, on-field encounters like in my current gaming love, Xenoblade. But I also like how Pokemon games mix random and visible, with the grass being random and giving you more freedom in battle, and the trainers being visible with restrictions on the battle with ultimately more experience points.

[Typhoid Libby 1,265]

1: Yes, you do. You get experience, money, and possibly drops. I actually have had characters level up. Which makes it alerting you and popping up a dialog box logical.

 

My bad, it never did anything for me other than annoy me. I blame ROM-Hack for being bad.

 

2: rofl, was just an barely-logical assumption on my part, not a personal attack. I just was kind of thinking how silly it is to have a problem with a split second delay without mentioning the much more annoying delays, like Safer Sephiroth's attack in FFVII with an animation that takes a few minutes.

 

Split second flashy flashy makes me annoyed.

Sephiroth charging up his attack is awesome.

 

(And if you play it on a h4x3d console, you have the option to skip animations.)

 

3: Though I kinda touched in this already, I'll also say that yeah, informing you of things like that without interrupting you would be better in most cases, but I never think of games being able to do stuff like that since most of my experience with RPGs are with the old-school console variety, where technical limitations are a factor. So, my bad there I guess.

 

There is a reason those games are called old-school.

 

Too bad it's viewed as some sort of virtue these days to have clumsy, technically inept games that drop frames like a dispenser and cling to the ideas that were forced on game designers because of software and hardware limits.

 

Random Encounters was just that, and is a inferior method of delivering a gaming experience because there was no way to show the enemies in real time back then.

 

Games are simulators, new worlds to experience, having combats to be dropped on you out of the clear sky with loading screen and a guitar riff is not a good method to make that world feel alive around you.

[Ron Jeremy 2,032]

Random Encounters was just that, and is a inferior method of delivering a gaming experience because there was no way to show the enemies in real time back then.

 

Games are simulators, new worlds to experience, having combats to be dropped on you out of the clear sky with loading screen and a guitar riff is not a good method to make that world feel alive around you.

 

Actually, the console RPG has it's roots in pen-and-paper RPGs such as Dungeons and Dragons, which the console RPG was technically created to simulate. In pen-and-paper RPGs, things are determined by numbers, status, the roll of the die. So technically it's the visible encounters that do the worse job of delivering the intended experience.

 

In the end, both sides have their own reasons for liking what they do, and comparing random encounters to visible encounters is like comparing apples to oranges. So this debate is kind of silly I think.

[Typhoid Libby 1,265]

 

Actually, the console RPG has it's roots in pen-and-paper RPGs such as Dungeons and Dragons, which the console RPG was technically created to simulate. In pen-and-paper RPGs, things are determined by numbers, status, the roll of the die. So technically it's the visible encounters that do the worse job of delivering the intended experience.

 

In the end, both sides have their own reasons for liking what they do, and comparing random encounters to visible encounters is like comparing apples to oranges. So this debate is kind of silly I think.

 

(rofl im being quoted gaming history and theory *snort snort* ogoddasfunny)

I started with pen-and-paper.

It's not the pen-and-paper that got me enthralled, it was the worlds beyond those dices and stacks of material you needed to get there.

 

Pen-and-Paper was created to simulate entire alternate worlds.

It was the best that could be done at the time, it was not the endpoint of what those pioneeers were trying to do with crude approximations. It was simply the starting point of what has now become RPG.

All we have seen is a improving graph towards virtual reality.

That was the intended experience.

Not rule-checking every five minutes.

 

I'd say we are way past Pen-and-Paper in what can be done technically in "Interactive Media".

It's time to let go of it.

 

ALL DEBATES ARE SILLY, SILLY PERSON.

[DJ MUFF1N D3RP 322]

I prefer visible encounters when I play RPGs. I know it takes away the surprise and planning ahead elements, but I like to know what I'm fighting before I get into the battle and its also better because then you don't get spammed with random encounters like every 5 steps.

[EldarSteve 119]

I hate Final Fantasy and all things relating to it. So based on my obvious bias I like visible encounters. Although in pokemon I like random encounters.

[Ron Jeremy 2,032]

(rofl im being quoted gaming history and theory *snort snort* ogoddasfunny)

I started with pen-and-paper.

It's not the pen-and-paper that got me enthralled, it was the worlds beyond those dices and stacks of material you needed to get there.

 

Pen-and-Paper was created to simulate entire alternate worlds.

It was the best that could be done at the time, it was not the endpoint of what those pioneers were trying to do with crude approximations. It was simply the starting point of what has now become RPG.

All we have seen is a improving graph towards virtual reality.

That was the intended experience.

Not rule-checking every five minutes.

 

I'd say we are way past Pen-and-Paper in what can be done technically in "Interactive Media".

It's time to let go of it.

 

ALL DEBATES ARE SILLY, SILLY PERSON.

 

You bring up good points, I bring up good points. Though it all boils down to personal preference. Some like modern-style RPGs. Some like old-style RPGs. Some people prefer the old "outdated" stuff over the new, some people prefer the modern stuff over the old "outdated' stuff.

 

I'm mostly classic, but do like some modern-style, partially because the series of JRPG that I like best literally marked the beginning of JRPGs and continues into modern times. Though I will say that I'm not a huge fan of RPGs that try too hard to be "hip" and just end up looking tacky.

 

That said, no, I'm not one of those ALL NEW GAMES SUCK WE NEED TO GO BACK TO PLAYING WITH ROCKS people. I kinda get the feeling I'm coming off as such.

 

Also, after-the-fact interesting thought: Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (1988, NES) had enemies on the overworld that, upon touching them, start a battle. I wouldn't consider visual encounters over random encounters being a technical limitation, considering that.

Edited April 13, 2012 by King K. Roop

[Typhoid Libby 1,265]

Also, after-the-fact interesting thought: Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (1988, NES) had enemies on the overworld that, upon touching them, start a battle. I wouldn't consider visual encounters over random encounters being a technical limitation, considering that.

 

As I mentioned, devs got stuck on ideas that worked, rather than improve upon them.

Ahead of it's time in some respects.

It still loaded a pre generated battle. It was not seamless, nor particularly well implemented.

And needless to say, clunky as fsk as a game mechanic.

 

 

Some people prefer the old "outdated" stuff over the new, some people prefer the modern stuff over the old "outdated' stuff.

 

Stagnation is death.

I'd rather have new stuff than keep gurgling down the same mouthwash decade after decade.

Been there, done that.

 

The logical line of thought is lost now and the subject is gutted.

gg

Have a (1)brohoof.

[SrFrog 927]

As a 90's kid I do prefer my encounters to be random. I just get that feeling of accomplishment when defeating a group of attacking enemies, see it was the excitement of not knowing who the next enemy will be that made it all the more special.

[Strafe 594]

Meh I don't really care. Random encounters are only annoying when they happen every three steps or right when your a foot away from the dungeon exit and you get into a battle with a super powerful mob that wipes you back 3 hours of game play because you were too lazy to save.

[Starshine 16,333]

I want my enemies to be visible, so I can at least knows where to run to grind my levels

Never I had the moment where I got owned by the enemies, I tend to overgrind most of the times

 

But if can choose, I prefer something like this:

 

See that hollow bar at the bottom right? That's the encounter bar, the more redder it is, the more possibility you will run to an enemy

 

That bar will slowly changes to red whenever you take a step in hostile zone and sometimes drastically increase when you enter some certain areas. There's a special items to deplete it completely so there will be no more random encounter.

That way you could choose when to grind or when to take a leisure walk

[SrFrog 927]

 

 

See that hollow bar at the bottom right? That's the encounter bar, the more redder it is, the more possibility you will run to an enemy

 

That bar will slowly changes to red whenever you take a step in hostile zone and sometimes drastically increase when you enter some certain areas. There's a special items to deplete it completely so there will be no more random encounter.

That way you could choose when to grind or when to take a leisure walk

 

Ar Tonelico, I think this game nailed it just right with the encounter system. Should probably get to finishing that game one of these days.

[Discordian 6,015]

As I mentioned, devs got stuck on ideas that worked, rather than improve upon them.

Ahead of it's time in some respects.

It still loaded a pre generated battle. It was not seamless, nor particularly well implemented.

And needless to say, clunky as fsk as a game mechanic.

 

 

 

Stagnation is death.

I'd rather have new stuff than keep gurgling down the same mouthwash decade after decade.

Been there, done that.

 

The logical line of thought is lost now and the subject is gutted.

gg

Have a (1)brohoof.

 

You look at it as if it's stagnation and merely limitations but look at it this way: Very few RPGs these days even use random encounters anymore so you could say that random encounters themselves have a sense of antiquity. Something that makes you remember games long past. It's not as if they ruin the sense of immersion for everyone as much as they do for you, some people honestly prefer random encounters because of reasons said above: That they prefer to have to prepare for unknown possibilities rather than knowing what enemy you are fighting beforehand and can therefore prepare for that one battle before preparing for the next with the next enemy you see.

 

One could argue that preparation is one of the leading factors of what makes RPGs so great and if all of your battles are on the spot there's not so much preparation as much as it is evolving an on-going strategy that changes with every battle. When you have to prepare for something you don't know is coming it gives you a better sense of accomplishment than having to impose a challenge upon yourself by picking and choosing when and where to fight an enemy horde.

 

Also, you mention it's somehow a virtue to be oldschool and do things the old clunky way...well what's wrong with that?

 

Sure, certain things are smoother than others when it comes to visible encounters but when you talk to someone who looks back on random encounters they never look at it as clunky, they never look at it as a limitation, because it's not that big of a deal to most. There are things in games that some, like myself, believe a little too trivial to worry about. Now, I'm not gonna say you can't believe what you do or anything like that and feel the way you do but to me the difference between visible and random is negligible and I've never been more or less immersed either way.

 

Besides, I can actually point out two things wrong with Demon's Souls visible encounters that make it not so perfect. It's a good way to do it but it's definitely not perfect.

[Fenrir 39]

I like the game skies of Arcadia legends, because it has both random, and visible encounters. With ship battles, you will see the enemy ship in the distance, and if they see you, they will start to fly and chase after you. You could run away if you do so quickly, but if you want to fight them, you run into them. Also, they have random encounters for the dungions and for when you are just flying around. In the beggining of the game, they are really fun, but as you get stronger, the enemies in a cetain area will start to get boring because they are too easy. But once you move to a new area, it gets challenging again. But the little battle starting animation nearly gives me a heartattack everytime it happens.

[Bow Heart 84]

Actually, I believe Kingdom Hearts could be in both categories. Gotta love those shadows, popping up from the ground randomly -.- Annoying little buggers. (HAHA. BUGGERS. GET IT? CAUSE....They look like....ants.....'Kay, I'll shut up now)

I don't really prefer either one, but visible encounter is easier to do with if you're trying to rush through a certain area. But of course, Final Fantasy and Pokemon just are somehow psychic and throw as many enemies at you as they can when you're trying to get through an area D:

[Discordian 6,015]

Actually Kingdom Hearts isn't random. They aren't visible either but they aren't random. They are preset so you will always fight enemies in the same place every time you go through that dungeon or room (Depending on the game cuz different games in the series do it a little differently)