This, who in the world would pick random encounters over visible encounters at all!?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Random Battles vs Visible Enemies in JRPG'S
- Thread starter TheGhost
- Start date
This, who in the world would pick random encounters over visible encounters at all!?
The Scholar job's first passive reduces the encounter rate so low that you can reliably go entire screens without an encounter.
That's acquirable at the very beginning of the game.
Eh it wasn't really good enough in my opinion, and it also hogs a slot for more important things as the game progresses. It's really later on in the game and the post-game where I felt random encounters were worst - the game encourages you to explore and then punishes you by throwing random encounters at you with no way to completely avoid them.
I'm OK with both, as I've experienced good and bad implementations of both, often within the same game series! A little surprised at people saying Octopath Traveler is a big offender, that was the first game I've played with random encounters in quite some time and it still felt really lenient to me.
I do think random encounters have been fairly well-explored up to now while visible encounters are still very underutilized. I could make a good list of games that have one or two cool things but there isn't really one I think really puts together a large number of the things tried over the years to really create a consistently dynamic and engaging system. Most just do some combination of the basic symbol encounter system, basic triggers and behavior, and/or skipping all that and just materializing enemies out of thin air in designated combat areas, with maybe some feature that lets other enemies come into the fight or instantly skip it or whatever. It's serviceable and of course more straightforward to design, but it's not particularly interesting and doesn't really capture much of the potential in the concept because there's plenty of evidence that more can be done than "serviceable".
Curious to see if say, Final Fantasy VII or XVI, will pump in the resources to see more advancement in this area given a few previous games in the series experimenting a little with AI behavior and stuff.
I do think random encounters have been fairly well-explored up to now while visible encounters are still very underutilized. I could make a good list of games that have one or two cool things but there isn't really one I think really puts together a large number of the things tried over the years to really create a consistently dynamic and engaging system. Most just do some combination of the basic symbol encounter system, basic triggers and behavior, and/or skipping all that and just materializing enemies out of thin air in designated combat areas, with maybe some feature that lets other enemies come into the fight or instantly skip it or whatever. It's serviceable and of course more straightforward to design, but it's not particularly interesting and doesn't really capture much of the potential in the concept because there's plenty of evidence that more can be done than "serviceable".
Curious to see if say, Final Fantasy VII or XVI, will pump in the resources to see more advancement in this area given a few previous games in the series experimenting a little with AI behavior and stuff.
I tried going back to FFX last month since it was on sale but had to stop as it was too annoying with its encounter frequency.
I'll take visible enemies any day of the week, even if they're abstracted/still have a transition like in Persona 5.
I'll take visible enemies any day of the week, even if they're abstracted/still have a transition like in Persona 5.
this is the first game I thought of when I see people say visible encounters are always better lol
I think a combination of both can work well though like in the Etrian Odyssey series where the toughest battles are all visible, but everything else is random.
I tend to prefer visible, and since I'm just playing through CrossCode (which, while not exactly a Jrpg, is generally relevant to the question and seems criminally underrated around here), I'll describe the way it handles encounters - which is brilliant, I think.
Enemies are visible and are 1-to-1 (one enemy model is just one enemy), as combat is in-world and real-time, not turn-based. You need to fight to gain XP, get drops, and complete quests, but if you don't feel like fighting you can simply pass them by since they're (almost) always passive towards you. When you DO attack an enemy, other enemies within a certain radius will join the fight as well, so you typically find yourself taking on small groups at a time.
The catch here is that, upon finishing a given enemy/small group combat encounter, a timer begins ticking down - about 10 seconds or so. If you let it expire, you're considered out of combat and you receive the regular amount of XP from that encounter, as well as a full HP bar.
You also have a style/combo/chain meter which fills as you kill enemies - starting at D and going up to S - which determines the amount of bonus XP you'll get at the end of the combat phase. So if you engage another enemy while the timer is still active, it resets and you remain in combat, which in turn keeps your combo meter rolling. But! by remaining in combat your HP doesn't reset, which means you'll have to rely on healing items buffs, and your combat abilities like dodging, blocking, etc to keep you going. Needless to say, it can get pretty hairy.
So, if you do want to fight, you can go encounter by encounter for baseline XP and a full HP bar after each one, or study the level terrain and enemy group locations and plan out the best route to move through while staying in combat for long enough so as to keep your streak alive. Or just say fuck it and blow past because you can! I find it to be a really engaging and novel solution.
Enemies are visible and are 1-to-1 (one enemy model is just one enemy), as combat is in-world and real-time, not turn-based. You need to fight to gain XP, get drops, and complete quests, but if you don't feel like fighting you can simply pass them by since they're (almost) always passive towards you. When you DO attack an enemy, other enemies within a certain radius will join the fight as well, so you typically find yourself taking on small groups at a time.
The catch here is that, upon finishing a given enemy/small group combat encounter, a timer begins ticking down - about 10 seconds or so. If you let it expire, you're considered out of combat and you receive the regular amount of XP from that encounter, as well as a full HP bar.
You also have a style/combo/chain meter which fills as you kill enemies - starting at D and going up to S - which determines the amount of bonus XP you'll get at the end of the combat phase. So if you engage another enemy while the timer is still active, it resets and you remain in combat, which in turn keeps your combo meter rolling. But! by remaining in combat your HP doesn't reset, which means you'll have to rely on healing items buffs, and your combat abilities like dodging, blocking, etc to keep you going. Needless to say, it can get pretty hairy.
So, if you do want to fight, you can go encounter by encounter for baseline XP and a full HP bar after each one, or study the level terrain and enemy group locations and plan out the best route to move through while staying in combat for long enough so as to keep your streak alive. Or just say fuck it and blow past because you can! I find it to be a really engaging and novel solution.
Visible enemies with transition, with only showing like a detached form or a single enemy of the mob on the main screen so there is some surprise in terms of size of mob and all the enemies that make up it. Having interaction pre-transition is also ideal, so like Tales of Symphonia system really. That is my preference.
A fully random battle system shouldn't exist anymore as a general rule, though I don't fault older games for them much if it's not too egregious/they have ways to mitigate the encounter rate/make it zero.
A fully random battle system shouldn't exist anymore as a general rule, though I don't fault older games for them much if it's not too egregious/they have ways to mitigate the encounter rate/make it zero.
I preferred DQVIII's randoms battles to DQXI's visible enemies. I feel that being able to walk past enemies greatly reduced the challenge in XI.
Random battles really need an option of turning it off to go along with it. Something like repels in Pokemon or menu options in Bravely Default.
Oh yeah. Etrian does random battles really well.
Oh yeah. Etrian does random battles really well.
I can tell you my absolute least favourite:
1) Games that use random battles primarily, that also drop in one or more sections with visible enemies. Why?! Make a decision, developers.
2) Games with visible enemies that are so hard or erratic to avoid that the game may as well use random battles.
I've played many examples of both.
1) Games that use random battles primarily, that also drop in one or more sections with visible enemies. Why?! Make a decision, developers.
2) Games with visible enemies that are so hard or erratic to avoid that the game may as well use random battles.
I've played many examples of both.
Depends on the game and its particular design, of course.
Here's an example: People praise Pokemon Let's Go for its visible encounters, and they do work for that game. But adding visible encounters to the traditional style Pokemon games would completely upset the game balance, because you could just switch Pokemon before every fight so that you would start every fight with a type advantaged Pokemon.
A lot of RPGs are balanced around the fact that the next fight is a surprise, so you have to organize your party so that you're prepared for any threat at any moment. I think that kind of game design can be fun. So it doesn't make sense to claim that visible battles are always better than random battles.
Here's an example: People praise Pokemon Let's Go for its visible encounters, and they do work for that game. But adding visible encounters to the traditional style Pokemon games would completely upset the game balance, because you could just switch Pokemon before every fight so that you would start every fight with a type advantaged Pokemon.
A lot of RPGs are balanced around the fact that the next fight is a surprise, so you have to organize your party so that you're prepared for any threat at any moment. I think that kind of game design can be fun. So it doesn't make sense to claim that visible battles are always better than random battles.
Random encounters actually force the player to meaningfully engage with the ressource management aspect of RPGs. With visible encounters, this aspect is usually greatly diminished. For that reason, I do prefer random encounters, although I do like when there's some sort of encounter indicator, such as in SMT:Nocturne, or Etrian Odyssey games for example.
The best SaGa game isn't a SaGa game, it's The Alliance Alive.
I prefer visible encounters.
The only downside is that if you DO want to battle, you usually have to exit and reenter the area for them to spawn again, whilst random encounters is infinite, and can be beneficial when grinding
The only downside is that if you DO want to battle, you usually have to exit and reenter the area for them to spawn again, whilst random encounters is infinite, and can be beneficial when grinding
A simple Whistle ability ala DQ can and should be added for QOL in this case
Visible is my preference, but random is okay too as long as the encounter rate isn't something ridiculous and escaping isn't some tedious affair.
I do tend to prefer separate battle scenes if there are overworld enemies, just because there's usually more shit to fight if the game has battle arenas. Enemies out on the map tend to be fewer, which is usually a bummer if I'm digging the mechanics.
I do tend to prefer separate battle scenes if there are overworld enemies, just because there's usually more shit to fight if the game has battle arenas. Enemies out on the map tend to be fewer, which is usually a bummer if I'm digging the mechanics.
Visible encounters like Blue Dragon and Final Fantasy XIII are good. I especially like when you can initiate the battle by smacking them for a preemptive strike or straight up kill them if they're low level garbage. It also allows you to simply avoid a lot of fights if you want to.
Random encounters require a delicate hand, which can be disastrous if not done correctly (it often wasn't). You want to wear down the player so that there is tension and they burn through recovery items/spells, but not so much that they get annoyed by them. Considering that JRPGs have steadily moved away from the resource management gameplay, and games have become less abstracted over the years, it's probably for the best that most use visible enemies these days.
I personally find Bravely's system a fine enough compromise, although I personally don't care for the ability to turn encounters off outright, and would prefer that it be contextualized in the game world through an item or something.
Back in my day, you had encounters every two-three steps, and trying to run would drop your defense to 0, you coward.
I personally find Bravely's system a fine enough compromise, although I personally don't care for the ability to turn encounters off outright, and would prefer that it be contextualized in the game world through an item or something.
Back in my day, you had encounters every two-three steps, and trying to run would drop your defense to 0, you coward.
I only like random battles if I also get an indicator of when one is about to happen (SMT Strange Journey, Panzer Dragoon Saga, etc). Otherwise I absolutely prefer seeing them on the field. Let me pick my battles.
And plenty of people would defend and praise that.
Lots of other stuff in Let's Go besides visible monsters throws the balance out the window in favor of a player sweep, like PC box anywhere, the candy system, plus stuff not introduced in Let's Go but carried from previous games, like the bonuses (free bonus crits/status cures and enemy misses) you get from petting minigame and poison no longer causing fainting out of battle.
And a large contingent on here love to celebrate those kinds of depth removal and casualizations under their common praises of "QoL" and "respecting my time". honestly feels a lot of the time like Let's Plays would be the better option for people who hate inconvenience and push back from games they play so much.
Also if the game showed you what you were up against beforehand and the only thing you had to actually do to win was chose the type advantage and one shot it, then that would just make wild battles work exactly the same way as all Pokémon besides the first in every trainer battle in the game under the default switch battle rules.
Both can be enjoyable, and both have drawbacks and strengths.
Random battles can be a bit annoying if tuned improperly, but in many cases they supply a steady string of obligatory fights, allowing for well-paced dungeon challenges. They also allow for a ton of dungeon design concepts that don't work with visible enemies.
Visible enemies can be fun to interact with and less obnoxiously out of nowhere, but they can easily limit or bog down a game too. If the devs don't limit their numbers and give you room to dodge them, then they can be maddening and frustrating in a way random battles almost never are. On the other hand, they can be made too easy to avoid, so it becomes too easy to avoid conflict and removing most of the tension and drama from the gameplay.
Random encounters focus the player's attention on the dungeon and environment, while visible enemies put that attention on the enemies. Both have their use.
As a whole though, I've seen more truly bad examples of visible enemies than random encounters.
Random battles can be a bit annoying if tuned improperly, but in many cases they supply a steady string of obligatory fights, allowing for well-paced dungeon challenges. They also allow for a ton of dungeon design concepts that don't work with visible enemies.
Visible enemies can be fun to interact with and less obnoxiously out of nowhere, but they can easily limit or bog down a game too. If the devs don't limit their numbers and give you room to dodge them, then they can be maddening and frustrating in a way random battles almost never are. On the other hand, they can be made too easy to avoid, so it becomes too easy to avoid conflict and removing most of the tension and drama from the gameplay.
Random encounters focus the player's attention on the dungeon and environment, while visible enemies put that attention on the enemies. Both have their use.
As a whole though, I've seen more truly bad examples of visible enemies than random encounters.
Ultima was doing Visible Enemies AND in-battle movement in the 80s. What the fuck was most JRPG devs' excuse?
While I vastly prefer visible enemies, that's not necessarily true. With random encouters you might have the possibility to turn it off entirely for easy exploration. While you can avoid enemies when they are visible, it can be annoying to do so in a few instances.
There's no reason why that same thing couldn't be done with visible enemies, and some games even have a system in place to let you automatically skip battles against enemies sufficiently below your level if you run into them.
The aesthetic of the random battle is perfectly cool to me. You're traveling over land, you're seeing your chibi character walk over the countryside. it's just a representation of a party traveling by foot over great distance. And then they get jumped. Works for a dark cave, too. monsters come to you, you don't have a lot of choice in the matter. You can try to escape during the battle.
I vote randoms.
I vote randoms.
Chrono Trigger did jRPG battles the best. Visible on screen and you have to get near enough to trigger them, but sometimes they just pop up and ambush you. I also like how FFXV spawns random mobs near you, though I felt they went a bit over board with the magitek soldier drops.
When inconvenience always overrides the appreciation of quality.
Estoma's been around for like, 25 years. That fact never stops them either.
Estoma's been around for like, 25 years. That fact never stops them either.
I still prefer visible over random overall, but:
Being able to see but not avoid certain enemies just makes me annoyed at the game. Whereas random battle retains the (very often false-) hope of "may be I"ll go through this section with no battles at all.
Being able to see but not avoid certain enemies just makes me annoyed at the game. Whereas random battle retains the (very often false-) hope of "may be I"ll go through this section with no battles at all.
Hardware limitations of the NES PPU, if memory serves.
Why was this still going on after Chrono Trigger and Earthbound showed that we had moved past this limitation? "Tradition".
I tend to enjoy random battles more, but some games do have cool mechanics around enemies visible on the field. Persona or Dragon Quest, for example. Or the latter Final Fantasies.
For Pokémon, though, give me random battles. None of that PLG bull.
For Pokémon, though, give me random battles. None of that PLG bull.
I like not knowing which enemy im about to encounter, but its also annoying when im tryna streamline to a destination. But thats part of the fun for me i guess too
After playing Let's Go Eevee, I've been getting into Ultra Moon. Going from visible enemies to random grass encounters feels like the hugest step back, both in terms of gameplay but also world feel.
