-
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.
Random encounters suck and should be considered a dated relic of game design
- Thread starter Jane
- Start date
Isnt that what grinding usually is? I dont see how the form of how you encounter the monsters change the actual way of fighting them
And even the most archaic rpgs with random encounters offered the option to skip them with certain items
No, random encounters can be done well and can be fun. The Etrian Odyssey series is an example of doing them well:
Anyway, neither is inherently better than the other. They can both be done well, and they can both be done poorly.
- You have a meter that has a chance to slowly fill up each time you take a step, and when it hits max you get into an encounter. This is nice because you know when to expect them. Also you can't get two encounters immediately back-to-back.
- The meter clears when you change floors in the dungeon. This adds an interesting mechanic where you can traverse large amounts of a dungeon without getting encounters if you navigate it efficiently enough to hit stairs before your meter fills.
- The random encounter rate is lowered dramatically in puzzle rooms, so it doesn't bother you while you are walking back and forth trying to solve the puzzles.
- The random encounter rate isn't too high in general. Honestly I think most people's problems with random encounters in other games would be fixed if they just lowered the rate a bunch.
Anyway, neither is inherently better than the other. They can both be done well, and they can both be done poorly.
Funnily enough, I think (older, at this point) Pokemon games had a good thing going with Repels. A temporary block of random encounters, but only for those below your leading Pokémon's level. Yeah the games are all pretty easy (Platinum honestly has some nice difficulty imo), so you could easily spam them depending on how you played. But it's a player choice using a consumable you have to buy or find in the world that doesn't fully break anything down. No Bravely Default full shut off whenever, wherever. Think that kind of system has got to make balancing a lot more difficult
Yeah, I don't enjoy random encounters because they feel like they're interrupting me when I'm trying to get where I'm going. If a game has random encounters, I want to be able to toggle them on or off.
Mmmm, random encounters, what a delight! Throw in some save points for good measure and you got the perfect combination... for recycle bin.
I've thought about this many times, and I always come to the same conclusion: my problem is not with random battles themselves, but rather with the frequency in which they appear. Especially when there's no consistent way to avoid them, such as an item (Repel in Pokémon games) or an outright option in the menus (Bravely Default).
i feel like this is the usual issue people have, they just bark at the wrong tree. its not the random part of random encounter they have an issue with, its the encounter part. example - a game with overworld encounters that pack their tight corridor dungeons with them, the only real difference you're having is seeing what you will be battling beforhand (or even not, case in point shadows in persona). you're still going to have to go through a lot of battles the same way.
Yep. If there are overwold enemies but they chase you and catch up to you so quickly you can't avoid them, or they are placed in such a way that you have to go through them to reach your destination, you're just changing the way the problem looks.
They're absolutely not a dealbreaker for me but yeah they suck. If you're gonna have random encounters please at least let us flee safely.
It's a matter of pacing imo. Usually RPGs of this variety are doing town-field-dungeon or something like that, where you alternate between a safe area and an area where you're vulnerable to ambush. Frequency in terms of step counts isn't irrelevant but the broader context is how many fights between transitioning between vulnerability areas and safe ones, or at least rest points
Visible encounters can be done poorly but that doesn't mean random encounters are good
With random encounters you have no control over when you face an enemy or not. For example, if you're almost dead and you ran out of items and you haven't been able to save and there's a save point just within reach but the flee rate isn't 100% good luck.
And of course a lot of games with random encounters have that "SURPRISED!!!" Mechanic and sometimes it's with monsters that inflict a shitload of status effects on you. Party dead. Goodbye, reload save.
Visible encounters are better. I can see how people enjoy the "randomness" of it, I guess? But in general visible encounters provide the player with, well, a way to see potential encounters and reliably avoid them if they want to. You can't do that with random encounters.
and honestly sometimes just the pop-up aspect of them is irritating. At least to me lol
And to the people bringing up XIII-2's random encounters: yes, it's the best form of random encounters I've ever experienced but it would've been better if the enemies were visible from the get-go. The game also had some fights you couldn't flee from and some areas where the encounter rate was beyond insane which was annoying. I never had that issue with XIII which had visible encounters.
With random encounters you have no control over when you face an enemy or not. For example, if you're almost dead and you ran out of items and you haven't been able to save and there's a save point just within reach but the flee rate isn't 100% good luck.
And of course a lot of games with random encounters have that "SURPRISED!!!" Mechanic and sometimes it's with monsters that inflict a shitload of status effects on you. Party dead. Goodbye, reload save.
Visible encounters are better. I can see how people enjoy the "randomness" of it, I guess? But in general visible encounters provide the player with, well, a way to see potential encounters and reliably avoid them if they want to. You can't do that with random encounters.
and honestly sometimes just the pop-up aspect of them is irritating. At least to me lol
And to the people bringing up XIII-2's random encounters: yes, it's the best form of random encounters I've ever experienced but it would've been better if the enemies were visible from the get-go. The game also had some fights you couldn't flee from and some areas where the encounter rate was beyond insane which was annoying. I never had that issue with XIII which had visible encounters.
Sort of funny that people call random encounters dated while one of the most popular modern RPGs released uses a traditional random encounter approach.
The problem has nothing to do with random encounters. It has to do with pacing. Poorly paced games can toss a million visible enemies on the screen that force you to fight each one just the same as a long dungeon with a high encounter rate. Random encounters (and RPGs in general) are about resource management and random encounters similarly make running out of resources more and more dangerous because you can't predict when you'll fight a particularly dangerous enemy.
The problem has nothing to do with random encounters. It has to do with pacing. Poorly paced games can toss a million visible enemies on the screen that force you to fight each one just the same as a long dungeon with a high encounter rate. Random encounters (and RPGs in general) are about resource management and random encounters similarly make running out of resources more and more dangerous because you can't predict when you'll fight a particularly dangerous enemy.
As others have already said, random encounters have various advantages in tight dungeon areas or more narrow parts of an overworld where symbol encounters would be too cluttering, as otherwise games would have to adjust every area to be spacious enough to fit monsters in it. I don't think big open barren regions of nothing look particularly nice.
It's also how each design is utilized. Symbol encounters can be crappy for the above reasons, and random encounters can be good when you aren't getting hammered with them every other step, or when there's various toggles like Bravely Default's ability to adjust the encounter rate or turn it off completely. And for personal reasons, I sometimes prefer having no idea who I'm gonna fight next or when that will happen.
It's also how each design is utilized. Symbol encounters can be crappy for the above reasons, and random encounters can be good when you aren't getting hammered with them every other step, or when there's various toggles like Bravely Default's ability to adjust the encounter rate or turn it off completely. And for personal reasons, I sometimes prefer having no idea who I'm gonna fight next or when that will happen.
You guys need to stop with this idea that everything you don't like is dated and should never exist. Silent protagonists, turn based combat, random encounters, no auto save and etc. These are all artistic decisions too, doesn't matter if they were born out of limitations bor not, and they all have space in the gaming landscape as long as devs want to use them.
They were bad back then, and absolutely terrible in this day and age. Random encounters is the only reason I can't be bothered to replay FF VII and IX. It was always shit, but back then it was what we had to make do with. There's no excuse today except for it being a deliberate (bad) choice by the game devs.
It was never due to a technical limitation, it was all mostly for artistic reasons. Random encounters originated from D&D after all, which many of the original RPGs took direct inspiration from. Many earlier titles had non-random encounters with enemies on the screen and there was never anything stopping you from doing so outside of purposeful design. Things like maintaining game state on consoles or color limitations were actual technical problems that developers had to grapple with.
At the very least if y'all are gonna criticize random encounters you should be at least somewhat familiar with the history of them.
I always felt like they were mainly inspired by random 'wandering monster' tables in tabletop RPGs where the GM wants to add filler encounters to add pacing and danger to long journeys.
Certainly in dungeon crawls like Etrian Odyssey where you can only save at the base, it works better than on a world map where you can save at any time, as the drain on party resources rather than being able to avoid almost all encounters makes the risk/reward of one more step instead of locking in all gains an important choice.
They can be done right but with all my days of playing JRPGs I can't think of a time where I thought "this game is better because of it". All I feel is "great, I just finished the last battle against this damn enemy and now I need to replay it..."
I get why they are used still but I feel they make the game feel like a chore. Thank god most modern JRPGs moved away from them.
I get why they are used still but I feel they make the game feel like a chore. Thank god most modern JRPGs moved away from them.
They're fine, i don't mind either random encounters or visible enemies so long as both are done properly. I will get annoyed at random encounters happening when you're tying to get somewhere, and i'll get annoyed at visible enemies on screen blocking a place you want to go due to their pathing.
I've been playing Xenosaga and those visible enemies are annoying. But what's more annoying is putting save points like 3 screens away from the boss and having enemies in the path to the boss.
I've been playing Xenosaga and those visible enemies are annoying. But what's more annoying is putting save points like 3 screens away from the boss and having enemies in the path to the boss.
I like them tbh. I don't like the new Pokemon where they all just wander about aimlessly and if your looking for a rare one you just run around until you see it. I kinda liked when an encounter triggered you weren't quite sure what you would be fighting.
Plus I feel like with random encounters you got a large variety of enemies whereas if you can see them you can't really fit all the different weird enemies on the map or otherwise they are just some unidentifiable blob.
The maps also have to be designed for running past them etc whereas with random encounters they serve as pretty window dressing and the path can be whatever you want. FFXIII hallways tended to be huge for example.
I think both work, but labelling one as unplayable feels like an overaction.
Plus I feel like with random encounters you got a large variety of enemies whereas if you can see them you can't really fit all the different weird enemies on the map or otherwise they are just some unidentifiable blob.
The maps also have to be designed for running past them etc whereas with random encounters they serve as pretty window dressing and the path can be whatever you want. FFXIII hallways tended to be huge for example.
I think both work, but labelling one as unplayable feels like an overaction.
I don't think there's any video game that would be made worse if it had a deterministic encounter system instead of a random one so I agree OP. It's mostly just a cop out solution to a problem that has better answers.
Love random encounters especially when parties with set save points.
I love the risk reward. Especially in high level areas such as the island closest to hell on ff8
Typically with random encounters you get a much larger variety of enemies too as they don't have to keep all the models in memory too just walk back and forth in a line.
I love the risk reward. Especially in high level areas such as the island closest to hell on ff8
Typically with random encounters you get a much larger variety of enemies too as they don't have to keep all the models in memory too just walk back and forth in a line.
I not a huge fan of the somewhat basic approach most well-known in Final Fantasy/Dragon Quest games, though I don't mind it either, but a lot of other games came up with interesting mechanics and encounter rate algorithms.
As pointed out visible encounters often come with their own issues as far as level design and encounter design and can very easily not be particularly fun, there is no free lunch with this stuff really. Either way thinking of the encounter system as another part of the game that has to be interesting and fun and not just something you can just throw in and move on to the next part of the game goes a long way.
As pointed out visible encounters often come with their own issues as far as level design and encounter design and can very easily not be particularly fun, there is no free lunch with this stuff really. Either way thinking of the encounter system as another part of the game that has to be interesting and fun and not just something you can just throw in and move on to the next part of the game goes a long way.
Forum posting is turn based conversation WITH random encounters!
You didn't see me coming, did you? 😜
Well COVID has certainly turned random encounters into a relic of the past for me, dating-wise.
But I agree, OP. I think DQXI hits a nice balance as far as traditional JRPGs are concerned.
But I agree, OP. I think DQXI hits a nice balance as far as traditional JRPGs are concerned.
Just because jrpgs are generally bad at stuff doesn't mean the ideas themselves are completely worthless. Random encounters work really well in certain cases. Roguelikes/lites for instance make good use of them.
Octopath is the only game in the past 20 years where I didn't mind the random encounters, mostly because the dungeons were pretty compact and simple. Nothing worse than trying to solve a puzzle only to get interrupted every 15 seconds.
If any JRPG implements random battles at this point they should at the very least try to come up with a new twist to them like Bravely Default with the option of increasing/decreasing the encounter rate.
Otherwise, I vastly prefer to be given the option to see and avoid enemies.
Otherwise, I vastly prefer to be given the option to see and avoid enemies.
Counterpoint: having enemies visible on a map, but just standing in a spot or walking in circles is also pretty poor design.
I think there should be a middle ground. On paper DQXI does it best, but it's almost too easy to avoid enemies in that game. Certain enemies should have an aggression meter or something to indicate its likliness to rush at you.
I mean, animals function similarly in real life too, right? A bear is more likely to attack you if are near its children or food.
I mean, animals function similarly in real life too, right? A bear is more likely to attack you if are near its children or food.
Couldn't agree any harder than I already do OP. It's because of random encounters that drag down fantastic games, like Skies of Arcadia, from absolute perfection. If it must be in, then I wish more devs would include options to adjust the random encounter rate--similar to the ones in Bravely Default and Bravely Second.
I don't mind them if the game is enjoyable to play or if they create an appropriate amount of tension due to a nice difficulty curve. But when battles are super easy or super long and if the game does not provide a way to avoid them with an item or something, then it becomes a chore.
As with all things, it depends on the execution. I prefer them at times on certain games like Pokémon.
As with all things, it depends on the execution. I prefer them at times on certain games like Pokémon.
I agree, it's dated. The superior method is seeing the enemy on the map and being able to physically avoid them.
It is a design decision that I no longer tolerate. I think the last game I played with random encounters was Octopath Traveler and it was the worst aspect of that otherwise pretty cool game.
Of course, if we get a MM Battle Network/Star Force collection then I'll have to temporarily suspend my rules
Of course, if we get a MM Battle Network/Star Force collection then I'll have to temporarily suspend my rules
