Classic JRPG lovers; what would you want in a new game?

[gothamhunter]

Back onto this topic; any other ideas? The game will probably have random encounters, but how about you only have to deal with x amount of encounters for a zone, and after that you don't need to fight in that zone unless you want to via a menu option (Provoke enemy or something).

 

[Chiropteran]

A plausible story line with choices and branches, instead of a basic linear "on rails" type story line.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

Something like Earthbound maybe

 

[dmoney1980]

Suikoden for the PS1 had something no other jrpg had before- 108 playable characters! As you recruited people, your castle grew. For instance if i recruited a blacksmith, I would have a shop in my castle that sold weapons at a discounted rate.

 

[gothamhunter]

There will definitly be choices and story branches; your decisions you make at points in the game will impact the rest of your game.

I like the Suikoden 2 ideas dmoney; I'll have to look at that game for inspiration.

 

[darkewaffle]

Skies of Arcadia 2

 

[dmoney1980]

to add- how about a crafting system? I dont recall any jrpg having one

 

[WildW]

Giant customizable turn-based combat robots. With big bouncy . . . well, maybe on the pilots.

 

[videogames101]

Make it a long and extremely challenging game.

That is basically all I play JRPGs for.

 

[Aikouka]

Back onto this topic; any other ideas? The game will probably have random encounters, but how about you only have to deal with x amount of encounters for a zone, and after that you don't need to fight in that zone unless you want to via a menu option (Provoke enemy or something).

Eh, that system seems awfully hokey.

 

[gothamhunter]

Eh, that system seems awfully hokey.

What do you mean hokey?

You're in a dungeon. There's a counter of at least 30 random battles. After that, you won't be forced into a random battle unless you go into the main menu, or via a hotkey, decide to battle a monster. Is there something wrong with that idea that it doesn't work for you? Should you be forced into battles indefinitely?

Call of Cthulu and Breath of Death VII implemented this idea and it made the game ultimately more enjoyable.

 

[dmoney1980]

What do you mean hokey?

You're in a dungeon. There's a counter of at least 30 random battles. After that, you won't be forced into a random battle unless you go into the main menu, or via a hotkey, decide to battle a monster. Is there something wrong with that idea that it doesn't work for you? Should you be forced into battles indefinitely?

Call of Cthulu and Breath of Death VII implemented this idea and it made the game ultimately more enjoyable.

That does sound like a nice feature to have, especially if you can turn the battles back on in case you need to lvl up before a boss. I'd also like to add - multiple "main" characters? Tell the story from multiple locations, and have all the events entwine towards the end of the game. Choices you make with Character A impact what happens 5 hours later when you're playing as Character B.

 

[gothamhunter]

That does sound like a nice feature to have, especially if you can turn the battles back on in case you need to lvl up before a boss. I'd also like to add - multiple "main" characters? Tell the story from multiple locations, and have all the events entwine towards the end of the game. Choices you make with Character A impact what happens 5 hours later when you're playing as Character B.

They'll stop happening automatically, but you can force battles in an area after that.

 

[Aikouka]

What do you mean hokey?

It just feels like an unnatural solution to a common annoyance in jRPGs.

I believe it was Final Fantasy VI that had a relic that would reduce the random encounter rate if you equipped it. I actually don't mind that at all, because you can make up some silly tool-tip text to justify how it works. However, the idea of pressing start, and "flipping a switch" just sounds too out of place.

It sounds even more weird when you have some arbitrary number associated with it.

 

[gothamhunter]

It just feels like an unnatural solution to a common annoyance in jRPGs.

I believe it was Final Fantasy VI that had a relic that would reduce the random encounter rate if you equipped it. I actually don't mind that at all, because you can make up some silly tool-tip text to justify how it works. However, the idea of pressing start, and "flipping a switch" just sounds too out of place.

It sounds even more weird when you have some arbitrary number associated with it.

That's better explained; thank you for the feedback. How about a piece of equipment that repels mobs for an area? Say after x amount of kills, you realize what would drive them away in that area, and you apply it to that equipment.

 

[Chiropteran]

It sounds even more weird when you have some arbitrary number associated with it.

I don't think it's an arbitrary number at all. It's a very realistic system.

Example: you are wandering some evil wizard's castle. He has 15 sets of guards patrolling, 10 magical beasts wandering his castle, and 5 enslaved ogres wandering the halls doing work. When you hit a random encounter, it's one of these. As you kill them, they are dead. Eventually you kill all 30 potential encounters and there aren't any more.

Now, the OP explained it as a basic system where after X encounters they stop. I think a better system would be one that rolls the random encounter among the 30 or whatever potential possible encounters, and if the encounter has already been defeated no random encounter occurs. So instead of being full random encounters right up until the 30th and then 0, it would be a gradual reduction in encounters until almost never saw any and then nothing after the last one is killed. I like my system more, but maybe the OP wants to keep it simple and easy.

Now, maybe the switch to re-enable encounters is a little unrealistic, but you can justify that in other ways. Perhaps it's not that there is a limit of 30 patrols in the castle (or whatever zone), but it's talk and rumors about your power spreading among the local monster/evil henchmen population such that they actively avoid you as they start to realize you are way too strong for them to defeat. Switching the switch could symbolize the idea that you are actively seeking out the monsters, as opposed to waiting for them to find you. Heck, you could take it a step further and allow use of the switch before the area is "cleared", and it could greatly increase the chance of finding a random encounter, for those players that just want to clear it faster.


Edit:

Instead of being an arbitrary switch in the interface, make it a skill that some (or all) of the potential characters posses, called "hunting" or something. Training it up could make it more effective, a high hunt skill could make it very easy to find monsters and increase chance of surprising them, while a low hunt skill might result in you walking into ambushes half the time as your poor tracking techniques revealed yourself to your quarry.

Dammit, now I want to design a game.

 

[dmoney1980]

how about - unlimited random battles on the world map, limited battles in dungeons???

 

[Aikouka]

I don't think it's an arbitrary number at all. It's a very realistic system.

I think we're starting to touch some of the oddities that have existed in jRPGs for quite some time. I mean... who hasn't wondered why these baddies don't stop attacking after we slaughter all of their comrades.

A moral/instinct system could work in a jRPG, but I guess I would have to inquire whether or not the state of it would be visible?

Instead of being an arbitrary switch in the interface, make it a skill that some (or all) of the potential characters posses, called "hunting" or something. Training it up could make it more effective, a high hunt skill could make it very easy to find monsters and increase chance of surprising them, while a low hunt skill might result in you walking into ambushes half the time as your poor tracking techniques revealed yourself to your quarry.

This sort of reminds me of Blue Dragon, which I finally started playing. The game uses in-world mobs that attack you to initiate battle (instead of random encounters), but mobs behave differently in the world vs. in dungeons. In the world (signified when you have a compass up), the mobs will respawn pretty quickly, but they don't in dungeons.

The game has numerous Field Abilities that you can use to adjust combat. They do things like attract mobs, repel mobs, hide/stealth from mobs, kill weaker (and respawned) mobs instantly (no exp, reduced sp), adjust surprise attack chance and adjust preemptive strike chance.

Weaker mobs will also naturally attempt to flee from you.

 

[Martimus]

I can say that nothing kills my suspension of disbelief in a RPG more than artificial party limits. NWN2 was horrible at this. I am trying to save the world, and I have recruited a dozen people to help me do this, yet I can only bring 3 of them at a time to help me while the rest literally hang out at a bar? It didn't make a damn bit of sense, and they didn't even attempt to explain out this game mechanic which made it worse.

If you can't use all of your characters for either a technical reason or gameplay reason, please try to make a story feasible reason why. Otherwise it is just a reminder that we are playing a video game and not trying to save to world or whatever the game has us doing.

 

[SZLiao214]

Biggest thing for me would be coop.

 

[Aikouka]

Biggest thing for me would be coop.

I don't think I've ever seen a jRPG that did co-op well. I think Final Fantasy VI had a two player option, but it just let the two controllers take turn during combat. Co-op works well in things like FPS games because both players are always in control, but jRPGs tend to be party-based.

If it were an Action RPG, that might be a different story.

 

[Sulaco]

I don't think I've ever seen a jRPG that did co-op well. I think Final Fantasy VI had a two player option, but it just let the two controllers take turn during combat. Co-op works well in things like FPS games because both players are always in control, but jRPGs tend to be party-based.

If it were an Action RPG, that might be a different story.

Secret of Mana.

But I suppose you're counting that as an Action RPG.

 

[videogames101]

I don't think I've ever seen a jRPG that did co-op well. I think Final Fantasy VI had a two player option, but it just let the two controllers take turn during combat. Co-op works well in things like FPS games because both players are always in control, but jRPGs tend to be party-based.

If it were an Action RPG, that might be a different story.

Tales series does co-op in a very good way.

 

[Aikouka]

Tales series does co-op in a very good way.

Hmm... I've never played a Tales game, but I did recently buy Tales of Vesperia.

Secret of Mana.

But I suppose you're counting that as an Action RPG.

I can barely remember the Seiken Densetsu series, but at least Wikipedia calls it an Action RPG.