egg's forum posts

#2 Edited by egg (1450 posts) -

"With another activity to keep exploration from getting stale."

punch me in the face while I eat so I dont get bored

"Even though the exploration parts are designed with this in mind?"

This makes no sense. You are perhaps insinuating that exploration parts are dumbed down in order to take random encounters into account. But first of all, this means that by not having random encounters we could have richer worlds to explore. (not like that matters in an RPG right??) But it also means that if you design environments with the existence of random encounters in mind (which logically means dumbing said environments down) then it stands to reason that by taking that logic to its ultimate conclusion you would decide to have no environments at all. Which is basically what SRPG's do. I'm saying, stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can only either be fighting enemies or navigating the environment at a given time. No matter what in a game with both, you have to take turns, and out of all the ways one might have tried to make a game that alternate between these two subgames, why choose the stupidest method possible? If you had two movies and wanted to watch them, 1) why would you alternate between the two in intervals of seconds at a time, and 2) why would you make the intervals RANDOM.

Also, only now I just realized, you didn't actually refute my point. You didn't argue that encounters were somehow good for exploration or somehow didn't make the environments suffer. You just said that they are "designed with this in mind" arguably in the same manner a urinal cake was designed to be urinated on in mind.

"Pokemon, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy; all games that benefit from these random encounters."

What does this have to do with atmosphere? Furthermore, random encounters disrupt atmosphere by definition of the word atmosphere, so it would be a desperate point to argue against. If you disagree, why not have random encounters during cutscenes then? What fucking difference does it make, at this point?

random encounter in 3... 2...

"Sometimes yes, sometimes no." <--- Sometimes spoiled chicken gives me stomach virus, other times no. So it's not a bad thing by virtue of the consequences only sometimes taking effect.

"Depends on the dungeon, honestly, and this might have a little more to do with visual direction (IE being able to differentiate your environment)." <--- Translation: "Random encounters are so godamn important, that if need be, all environments should be linear corridors with low graphical detail in order to minimize the invariably resulting confusion of the random encounters. Of course, the easier solution would be to just have the encounters not be random, but that would be admitting that random encounters are sort of objectively shitty, so that solution is out of the question"

"It's usually a small animation to signal a transition into battle." <--- it's like someone fake-punching you, and you flinch even in cases when you knew they were going to do it. Because you didn't know when. How many times have you walked up to a treasure chest, finger all but wrapping the X button to open, but BAM "haha nope. Enemy first" Damn it, you startled me. God damn it.

Furthermore, the transition animations tend to be visually and audially assaultive and unnecessary. You dont get visual static and hear sound effects of tearing up paper whenever a cutscene starts or whenever you enter a shop/inn, bring up a menu, etc. Which perhaps says something about the nature of random encounters existing at all.

p.s. do we even agree on what the word objectively means? Because as far as I can tell, no matter what objective parameter could conceivably exist for judging a game (or any piece of media for that matter), random encounters do not help. They serve only to be a taint on the experience, and that's just the best case scenario.

#3 Edited by egg (1450 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@egg:

You have yet to say why random encounters are bad, let alone why they're objectively bad. All you've done so far is repeatedly yell that they are bad (going so far as to use "glitch" as a pejorative) and that anybody who doesn't agree with you is insane and delusional.

Imagine having to explain why a disease is bad. Talk about profound!

Random encounters are bad because they are schizophrenic, they interrupt exploration, they destroy pacing, they butcher atmosphere, they pull you out of the experience, they cause your to lose your sense of direction (often you end up going back the way you came simply because you forgot, especially after an intense battle or simply a drawn-out one), they are often visually assaultive (they are basically internet screamers but we pretend not to know it) and are generally disruptive.

Furthermore by nature they can not be avoided or eliminated, which is not only mechanically broken (why be forced to fight enemies that don't pose a threat and no longer provide substantial exp by any means) but also unimmersive (every cave, one million goblins) and unrewarding. (each encounter essentially makes zero progress)

A lot of this is common sense though. We would not watch a movie that suddenly burst into noisy static every 10-30 seconds, then froze, then jumped you to a random part of the tape. Although on second thought evidently we would, provided it was a cultural convention for movies to be presented in such a manner.

#5 Edited by egg (1450 posts) -

@corruptedevil said:

@egg: Your insistence that Random Encounters are the worst thing since AIDS is stunning. Keep up the good work.

It's not simply a matter of exactly how bad random encounters are; whether they are the worst thing ever or just a minor annoyance. It's just the fact that they are OBJECTIVELY BAD. They have no redeeming quality and no excuse, we all merely tolerate them to some extent depending on the individual. Despite this fact, despite being OBJECTIVELY BAD we. refuse. to. see. them. die.

It is profound!

#6 Edited by egg (1450 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@egg said:

To you, it couldn't be a glitch, merely because the idea of multiple games having the same glitch would be too absurd.

Because it is. Do you think Square, at the height of their popularity, would have repeatedly included this "glitch" in all their games at the time? Despite them all running on different engines? Despite them having the knowledge and budget to work around this glitch, if they so chose?

Also, not vast majority. Many recently released JRPG's no longer have them such as Persona 3 and Persona 4. It's actually pretty pathetic you would try to overstate how common random encounters are.

  • Pokemon games
  • Final Fantasy games
  • Dragon Quest games
  • Treasure of the Rudras
  • Faria
  • Lunar games
  • Parasite Eve
  • Resonance of Fate
  • Shin Megami Tensei games
  • Phantasy Star games
  • Earthbound Zero
  • Breath of Fire games
  • Lufia games
  • Lost Odyssey
  • The first 2/3 Persona games (damn that Innocent Sin/Eternal Punishment divide)
  • Panzer Dragoon Saga
  • Legend of Legaia
  • Legend of Dragoon
  • etc.

Other than that, a completely niche feature.

"reinterpret it as an actual gameplay feature." reinterpreted by who? Games don't interpret themselves, we interpret them.

What about the developers? That's who I meant when I was talking about designing the game a certain way.

"Do you think Square, at the height of their popularity" <-- at the height of your popularity, you get to do literally anything. That's kind of the problem.

and then you list a bunch of mostly old games. We already went over this. Random encounters are antiquated, it is mostly old games that have them. What drives me nuts is to observe how it is basically impossible for something to die. So now I can understand how someone like Anita Sarkeesian probably feels to see all the sexist games receiving ports and remakes (a trend which may continue for all time) and to see new games repeat these tropes out of homage to the old games, as she pointed out in her series. So it never goes away. It's horrifying since we're basically throwing entire games on the altar. Making entire games, worlds, storylines, designing the code and testing it and then just pissing it all away by adding random encounters. Over and over again. It's horrifying because once a game goes obsolete, it's just that, obsolete. The games are for all intents and purposes going to hell whether or not we realize it now. In the meantime we're just releasing more games to add to the obsolete pile.

#7 Posted by egg (1450 posts) -

@egg said:

So how do you know, VGK?? How do you know that among your beloved random encounter trash, there isn't one that was supposed to have visible enemies, but due to a glitch they don't actually appear and the devs, a little embarrassed, just sort of decided to keep hush on it?

Let me turn this on you, then: you were the one who originally made the claim that random encounters are glitches in game design. That they are unintended. Where is your proof? Because your idea needs some serious explaining. It's difficult to believe that this would be a glitch in the vast majority of JRPGs (over how many consoles and how many years) and that rather than using the time and money available to them under the best case scenario to go with the idea they actually want (assuming, of course, that this wasn't the idea they wanted), that they'd leave a significant glitch in their design in the final product and reinterpret it as an actual gameplay feature.

"vast majority of JRPGs (over how many consoles and how many years)" That is your argument. You're appealing to the fact that multiple games do it. To you, it couldn't be a glitch, merely because the idea of multiple games having the same glitch would be too absurd. (even though it is for all intents and purposes what is happening, as your "accidentally invisible" visible enemies example illustrates)

Also, not vast majority. Many recently released JRPG's no longer have them such as Persona 3 and Persona 4. It's actually pretty pathetic you would try to overstate how common random encounters are. They are basically rare now if you discount ports and remakes. Why they haven't been stamped out completely is beyond me. That's what grates my nerves, it's pretty much objective at this point yet japanese devs want to drag a clearly dead horse out of the grave time and time again. The devs need to get with it and let go of random encounters. The rest of the world is gradually ignoring them more and more but you know what, they deserve it. The worst thing western devs give us is sports games.

"reinterpret it as an actual gameplay feature." reinterpreted by who? Games don't interpret themselves, we interpret them. How old were you when you first played a JRPG with randomly triggered encounters? I played FF6 on SNES (they called it FF3 damnit) back in like 1995 I think. Beat it, loved it. Cried whenever my brother accidentally deleted my save. But I was young and didn't know any better. The game is trash.

#8 Posted by egg (1450 posts) -

@egg said:

@video_game_king said:

@egg said:

@jjweatherman said:

@egg said:

don't get it, the game has randomly triggered encounters I think, and the first game (First Departure) is piss poor

If you're implying random battles single-handedly make a game not worth playing, then that's... well that's something.

so an incessant game breaking glitch that cannot be avoided means a game is worth playing? Right...

That's not what random encounters are.

How do you know? Prove it.

Glitches are unintended design that the developers do not account for. Random encounters are designed into the game, accounted for, and don't cause the game to crash or anything. It's not like you're running into NPCs that trigger monster attacks, but somebody forgot to make them visible; the games are specifically designed this way, usually with behind-the-scenes dice rolls determining if you encounter anything.

Ok, but how have you established that random encounters are intentional, other than "well they just are"?

"dont cause the game to crash or anything" omg it doesn't crash, its a gud game u guis.

"behind-the-scenes dice rolls" i.e. "there is a reason it happened, like in the code and stuff" so... like a glitch

"It's not like you're running into NPCs that trigger monster attacks, but somebody forgot to make them visible" Which I might point out, would be in effect indistinguishable from random encounters.

So how do you know, VGK?? How do you know that among your beloved random encounter trash, there isn't one that was supposed to have visible enemies, but due to a glitch they don't actually appear and the devs, a little embarrassed, just sort of decided to keep hush on it?

#9 Posted by egg (1450 posts) -

@egg said:

ketchup is vegan

mayo is necessarily made with tortured chicken eggs

checkmate

The torture is what makes it taste good.

this vid is made using videogamey graphics so I was reminded of GB. Maybe one of you guys will find it appealing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSMjvrcC_mE

dat efficiency

#10 Posted by egg (1450 posts) -

@egg said:

@jjweatherman said:

@egg said:

don't get it, the game has randomly triggered encounters I think, and the first game (First Departure) is piss poor

If you're implying random battles single-handedly make a game not worth playing, then that's... well that's something.

so an incessant game breaking glitch that cannot be avoided means a game is worth playing? Right...

That's not what random encounters are.

How do you know? Prove it.