A Coders Defense to Fate's Cynical Sense of Timing

by LeoDraco

Looking through RPGamer's Editorials for this week, I discovered one dealing with some complaints on battle systems found in the modern RPG. Finding some of the arguments arguable, I decided I would construct a bit of a rebuttal to this person's article ("Fate Has Quite The Cynical Sense Of Timing"), in a point-by-point manner. To make my comments a bit more logical, I have reproduced the article, point-by-point, with my comments. So, any part that is italicized is the work of Endarire, not myself...

First, I will mention this, and only this: I'm an independent game developer. I don't do professional stuff, just freeware games that people can obtain over the internet. As such, I know about some of the physical restraints that are imposed when writing a game engine. My rebuttal to Endarire, is from this particular standpoint.

Punct Eins. Using a stat-altering ability on a target (like Charm/Haste) will not help in the end; the target will die, the story will progress or/and the battle will end before that character can be affected by it. In FFT, ALL magic can miss, which means the Raise, Cure, Esuna or Haste you so carefully planed can end up causing a lost soldier or a reset. This is extremely annoying and further degrades effect abilities; why lower someone's defense 10 points when you can flame 'em or stab 'em for 60 with a higher success rate? Exceptions: Final Fantasy Tactics, Wild ARMS series and Lunar series somewhat.

While such problems can/do exist in many RPGs, and can be rather annoying when they pop up, the thing to keep in mind is that they exist for your benefit: Why not overkill a foe? In fact, some future games, most notable of which is Final Fantasy X, allow the user to profit from overkill. The point of many battle systems is to act as a medium for the user to build the levels of characters. As such, developers try to make battles fun, by implementing a strategy system, or through magic, etc.

Punct Zwei. Things that don't seem like they'd ever work will, and vice versa. Killing 4 Blood Slimes with one Concussion Sword, even though they're about 2/3 physically immune DOES work, while missing a Raise on a 92% chance seems ludicrous to me. In FFT, the toughest-if-you-play-like-the-designers-intended battle, Golgorand Execution Site, is beyond the capabilities of most players at first. It seems odd why such a battle would be sprung on unexpecting people with (luckily) a place to level previous. Also, with level-based learning of abilities, often players are unaware of what level abilities are learned. Gwyn (Lunar 2) learned Shattered Sword AFTER the fight where it would've saved me much trouble.

Hit percentages are exactly that: the thing to keep in mind is that they represent the PROBABILITY of an attack hitting a character. You use Raise with a 92% chance of hitting as your example; what this physically means is this: if you were to cast Raise 100 times, with the exact same hit percentage, 92 out of those 100 times would physcially hit whomever you are targeting. Thus, eight times out of 100, your attack will miss. As I'm sure that games such as FFT utilize a psuedo-random number generator (computers cannot "guess," as a human would, but can return a set of random numbers based on a particular "seed," which is usually the system timer (the amount of milliseconds since January 1, 1970 (usually))), the percentage is muliplied by the random number generated, and the result is tallied. If it's between an acceptable value, then the attack commenses. If not, then the attack misses. But, as the computer can not accurately predict the outcome of 50 coin tosses (which would be a 50% chance of either heads or tails), sometimes you might end up with more misses, or more hits.

I have never found the Golgolrond Battles to be at all difficult: when I play Tactics, I will generally spend much of the first chapter just building my characters. I set up teams that can easily kick any of the scripted battles. As you can quickly start facing opponents on random battles that can be 10 times as strong as those in scripted battles, your characters can easily elevate themselves above some of the puny AI characters they must face. To sum, strategy games, and RPG strategy games in particular, are based on party/unit development. Therefore, if your party cannot stand up 'gainst the Golgolrond forces, then it would stand to reason that time needs to be spent battling. And, who is to say that FFT's developers intended players to NOT use random sites for developing the party. It seems, in my own opinion, to be a bit naive to assume that we were meant to play the game through, from start to finish, without once setting foot into a random battle (speaking, of course, primarily about FFT). (See comment on your next point.)

Punct Drei. Save points (and heal areas in some RPGs) are in odd locations sometimes. Barely making it through a fight and with much of the path to go, I heal up just to find a free heal station on the next screen. Or, like in Breath of Fire III, there are complex mazes which you MUST go through (it took me about 3 hours to find a save in the Mayor's Mansion WITH a guide) but have no convenient way to exit, heal and save. There are also some times in series battles where it may be logical for you to be able to run away for 10 seconds, get to the save point, use another save slot and return to the fray. Exceptions: Deus Ex.

Save points do seem to be arbitrarily set about. But, usually, they are placed in a strategic location: in FFIV, for example, a save point is available on a ledge just before Cecil must confront himself. It's a bit of a walk, but even that has strategic significance: your characters should be able to massacre the foes of an area before you reach the boss of an area. If, in those final battles before a boss, you find that your characters seem to not be holding their own, then it would be advantageous to go level up some more...

Punct Vier. Speaking of which... Running from battles can be difficult and deadly, especially since many RPGs give the opposition a free turn if you try to run. Even if you DO run, you'll probably be attacked within 8 seconds by foes that are very difficult, "blow-on-them-and-they'll-die" difficulty or ones you're just sick of fighting. (Earthbound is somewhat good in this regard; 'super easy' foes either flee or are killed without going into the battle screen."

And your saying that in real life, if you tried to run from someone attaking you, that it wouldn't result in a "free turn" for your opposition to attack you? A common misconception is that RPGs are like books: that when you buy a RPG, you are going to play a story. But, based on the roots of the genre, this is not true. RPGs, again, are based on character developement, through an experience based growth system. You, the player, control a character whom you take the role of. As such, it is your duty to guide that character through an experience growing medium. In many RPGs, this medium is the battle.

As you are meant to stay in battle for much of the game, it is no wonder, therefore, that heinous restrictions are enforced for trying to leave. To use a real-world example: what happens when you attempt to pay off a mortgage 10/20 years before your due to finish paying? You get fined in an amount that may be more than the amount you would have to be payed. This is because people want their money, and you paying off early means that they cannot collect the interest...

And yes: it can be really annoying to escape from a battle, and wind up in another one five steps later. Now, saying this, the only game I can think of that this actually occurs in would be FFIV, when you get to the moon. Of course, if you have properly grown your characters, battles should not be all that annoying. Also, several games now provide features to circumvent this: in FF7, you could set up your materia to provide your charcters with first-strike/sneak-attacks coupled with massively harmful summons.

Punct Funf. The AI is either drunk-dumb, cheating or weird. Lunar 2 has some of the best autobattle intelligence I've experienced; occasionally being the only way I could win fights. However, I could put autobattle on for an easy fight then leave only to find my MP nearly empty, spent poorly to max out HP from 32 damage hits, cast regen when my HP was full, and use the strongest attacks when I could kill everything within a round with pure muscle. (Luica from Lunar 2 aggrevates me; early in the game she goes from super-useful to annoying, either not doing anything, running or casting a defense up spell on herself exclusively. Later she obviously decides her action after everything else; there's no way I know of to know that Hiro would be the target that round or that one foe would be left.)

Maybe this is due to the fact that it is supposed to be you playing, not some AI? I wouldn't be surprised if game developers actually coded dumb AI for user parties just to prevent the user from just sitting there. A game is meant to be played, not watched, afterall. And, in games that I've played that offer AI control of your units, fairly accurate descriptions of the AI options are given.

Punct Sechs. If merchants sell such wonderful stuff, why haven't they gotten out of their situation already? It seems oddly convenient that the next town has better stuff than the last and that "dungeons" often contain better things than the last merchant group. Are the previous towns so poor that they can't afford to import/trade with cities that have such wonderful gear? Why is there so much powerful stuff lyin' around in Kefka's tower? Does he KNOW that it's there and that the heroes will find it? Does he CARE? "Dungeons", especially places such as caves and the final one shouldn't hold the ultra-cool equipment unless there's a very good reason for it, and I don't mean in the search-and-be-rewarded sense.

Many games are not like this: in FFT, for example, as the game progresses, each town will get all the latest items, although trade cities usually have a wider variety.

Also, it may just be that some towns SPECIALIZE in some products. Sure, you can find a dagger anywhere, but a Mythril Sword? Obviously, they'll be more of them the closer you get to a silver mine...

In FFVII, for example, there was a shortage of mythril items in Kalm due to the Midger Zolom inhabiting the marsh lands...

Also, many inhabitants of RPGs rarely travel. It's not as if many games physically have brand name stores; or mega-malls akin to WalMart. Merchants, by trade, usually do not wander. In any given fantasy book you could pick up, I would bet that at least 75% of them have village inhabitants who have never seen the outside world. Now, a travelling merchant is something else entirely. If a merchant travels, one would assume that he'd have available items he picked up along the way...

It also makes perfect sense to me for the final dungeon to contain some of the best items: what's not to say that Sephiroth is, at heart, a rare materia collector? In Beowulf, an Anglo-Saxon epic, the Dragon guards a treasure horde, full of gold and trinkets. As such, it would be expected that the most humble of final bosses like to outfit his location with fine looking things.

Of course, the bosses could be either completely stupid, or just don't give a care: for example, many bosses don't even fear your party! They beleive so much in their own powers, that they probably assume that your party is as troublesome as flys, and as easy to kill. Many bosses probably stock their dungeons just to amuse themselves with what pathetic attempt your party could make with the items.

Punct Sieben. Villains are content to do like Doctor Evil in Austin Powers 1, the "one guard" philosophy. If they have a spell that could reduce my party to bits, why don't they use it ASAP if they want me dead? If I live, why don't they hit me with it again and again? Also on that, (and going back to #5), enemies seem VERY stupid. Even if I kill 11/12ths of them with one ability or in 1 round, they will almost never run. Exceptions: Lunar 2 somewhat.

A "random" AI is usually implemented to make the opponent seem much more "lifelike." Also, if Sephiroth could cast Super Nove twice in rapid succession, there would be no way that he could be defeated: you'd be spending the whole time trying to revive your characters, until your MP and items all ran out. Enemies who seem very stupid are usually progammed as such so that you will not complain to the company about how unbeatable their game is. It saves all of us a big headache... I'd rather play a game that may be too easy, rather than one that I could never beat...

Punct Acht. Fights will almost always start with you facing the foes head-on and with everyone content to just stand there and beat on people and let themselves get beat on. Why don't enemies try to get behind me or go for critical body part? Why is turn-based still very popular? Exceptions: Deus Ex.

Turn-based is still popular for two reasons:

• It's something that the public is familiar with, and can readily understand. Plus, it physically makes sense, the way it is usually implemented (character movement based off of character dexterity)
• It's easier to code.

Looking from a coders perspective: It is also much harder to manipulate movement data for characters on screen. Although not impossible, it definitely is easier to code characters into static positions, from where attacks can be unleased.

If you want games that have a bit more strategic handling of battles, try the Star Ocean series: you move the characters in real time, and can attack enemy backsides...

Punct Neun. It doesn't matter what I wear, I'll prolly look the same. Having the best stuff available doesn't allow me to take a few swipes at villagers, threaten a merchant or compress someone's house into a microchip housecake. Even though I'm probably on the good side, I want to be able to kill those I'm pissed at. Exceptions: Somewhat in the Diablo series and Lunar series.

Hmm... If you are referring to the physical appearance of the character changing after you put on a peice of armour, then there is a very logical reason for why this is around.

• First: many old-school games were developed for a medium that had a very restrictive memory capacity. The cartridge is notorious for the amount of memory it can hold (next to none, in comparison to today's DVD based systems). As such, memory could not be wasted on fifty versions of a sprite, just for changing armour.
• As many old-school games were developed prior to the advent of main-stream 3d gaming, and were done in super-low res (by today's standards), a Super-Deformed look was required of the characters, to make them recognizable to the player. As not ever game will implant the character name above a charcter as he moves about the screen, the player must come to associate a face with a name. Therefore, if a character changed their appearance dramatically each and every time that you changed their armour, this could cause some problems for you, as you try to figure out who is who...

Also, remember that you are ROLE PLAYING! As such, you have to take on the character's psychological clothing: if you are playing Sweet Tooth from the Twisted Metal series, you have no qualms about killing. But, if you are playing as Cecil, you feel qualms about the idea.

In many RPGs, your characters are trying to keep a low profile. Nothing stands out worse than a sore thumb than a murder.

Also, in many games, it would serve absolutely no purport whatsoever to kill an NPC. Sure, the bar wench may block the passage a bit, but it doesn't mean you have to kill her for it...

Punct Zehn. Villains seem to conform their tests to hero abilities. If someone doesn't know how to swim, why not get hold of them and chuck 'em in the nearest ocean, lake, stream, pond, pool or hottub? Tests of hero abilities should make clever use of generic abilities, or ones villains didn't know the heroes had.

But, where exactly is the fun in having to restart the game when your character dies from not being able to swim? Many challenges allow you to discover the character(s) that your playing, not the boss. Plus, in several games (mainly those produced by Japanese firms), the main villian is usually tied somehow to the main character, and thus knows many of the strengths and weaknesses of that person. If a villain has a purpose for a character (Such as Grahf for Fei, in Xenogears), what use is it to that villian if they end up killing the character through exploiting their weakness?

Punct Elf. There's always a problem in the next area when the last one's been cleared. Why should I help rescue Ferranks Garex, duke of Mon Dane, when I don't even know/like/care about him? I'd like to be able to find him and kill him myself if I loathed him so. Exceptions: Deus Ex.

Although Lufia 2 only comes to mind when I read this, I do know that many games do have this construct. Essentially, as the RPG utilizes an experience based growth system, this is to keep the developement of your characters constant, and enjoyable. If you faced nothing but weakling reactor guards (FFVII) for 20 hours straight, you would go mad.

Also, often in more modern RPGs, the main villain is tied up in each disturbance. As your fighting that villain (whether you know it or not), it therefore becomes your duty to help those being attacked by him. Also, it reiterate: you are ROLE-PLAYING! It matters not whether you wish to save that duke or not; it matters if your characters want to...

Punct Zwolf. Magic is magic, but all magic shouldn't be almighty. If I cause a quake, the aftershocks should be visible. If I cast Fire in a forest, if I cast Meteo anywhere.... The point: Magic should have SOME visible aftereffect on the setting or the target, if localized. (It boggles me why Flare can avoid killing someone and not leave a mark; physical hits as well like sword swipes also offend this.) Exceptions: Deus Ex.

Ever play "Kartia: Word of Fate" by Atlus? It was a strategy/war game that utilized magic to alter the terrain that you played on: Earth attacks would heigten or sink ground; Fire attacks would burn trees and bushes; Ice attacks would freeze water; etc.

Again, from a coders standpoint, such a system is really difficult to create. What you ask is for the dynamic altering of a static environment. As we gain more powerful consoles, such games shall pop up. I refer you to Red Faction: in it, the developers created what they call "GeoMod" technology. In essence, you point a rocket launcer at a wall, press the trigger, and a hole is now where a smooth wall was.

Cool as this may be, it is physically demanding on the game engine (as many, many variables have to be stored to change the terrain), and can almost certainly slow down less powerful hardware systems.

Punct Dreizehn. Items are in infinite supply in stores, but I can only hold a certain number. (Most games have it at 99, FF8 is 100 and Lunar 2 is 20.) Why? If I have room, I SHOULD be able to carry the item, even if it means less of a challenge. (And if I'm rich enough I can afford 529 Megalixers honestly, the game probably forced me to level too much.) Item space is also touchy; plate mail can take up the same room as a ring. Without item weights or other constraints, it seems very screwed up that I can have 30 Sherman Tanks in my packs and not be hampered any. Exceptions: Baldur's Gate series, Diablo series, Castle of the Winds series.

There are a variety of good reasons for this, but many of them boil down to physical programming:

• Variables can only hold a finite number of things: no matter what language your running, most different types of variables have a maximum value that they can represent. A "variable" is much like a box: it holds data. But, instead of being made out of cardboard, a variable is made up of physical memory from a system (so, little bits of your computer). As this value is finite, so, therefore, is the variable. As the size of the data increases, so does the space required of memory for that variable.
• Caps are provided as an incentive to you: if 99 potions are not enough for you to make it through a dungeon, then perhaps you need to either level your characters a bit more, or race ahead to a town where you can buy hi-potions.
• I personally cannot stand the Diablo series for the simple fact that I am limited to a physical amount of total items. It may be "lifelike" and make logical sense, but it is very restrictive to gameplay.

Punct Zuletzt. Party size limits have no logic. What if I WANT to bring out my team of destroyers instead of limiting it to 5 or less? Who said I hadda fight fair when the villains obviously aren't? If I want to or don't care if large groups of foes come after me, I'll bring out my whole group. Of course the battlefield'll be crowded, but I planned ahead and didn't let the twitchy guy have the area-effect weapon of mass distruction.

Again, this is due mainly to memory restraints, and ease of coding. Providing for only three characters per battle is much easier, and much more efficient memorywise, to providing for 7. Of course, FFX will have the ability to swap characters in, so you should have that to look forward to...

My final impression: I do believe that many of the points listed by Endarire were good ones. But, many of them can be explained by the fact that coding is not very easy, and size, in the case of game constuction, does matter. With the next-generation systems (starting, of course, with the PS2), many of these complaints/observations may become obsolete, as space and processing speeds increase to nearly unimaginable limits.

Original Editorial: Fate has Quite The Cynical Sense Of Timing