![]() ![]() And I think the games were better for it - each battle was meaningful to the story, and one could generally expect the battle itself to make for a satisfying challenge, instead of a simple grind using a tried and tested tactic. There would be no random/regular encounters (like there would be in Heroes or Final Fantasy). Thus, one could generally expect each level to have some design thought put into it, being crafted around certain ability or strategy or gimmick. These games would have a linear structure, with story being told in cutscenes between battles. you can easily drop from a higher area to lower, but climbing back up directly might not be possible) and different abilities areas and ranges, both for the players and enemies.Īlso, I played some games where the battles were pretty much the only gameplay element, except for items purchase, upgrading skills between levels etc. It can be further enhanced by having different levels of terrain (so e.g. It's not a requirement, and just that might not be enough for engaging gameplay, but it already opens up lots of potential tradeoffs and decision ("do I target this character now, or do I move away from this super-strong enemy?"). ![]() One way to add it is allowing the characters to move around the map (like in Heroes of Might and Magic) rather than reduce combat to opponents targetting each other (like in early Final Fantasy games). I think a lot of engaging turn-based strategy gameplay boils down to having a certain degree of variety and strategic depth (though overdoing the depth part might not be good, either). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |