I'm torn about them. On the one hand they free up the combat design to be as wildly different from the exploration as it wants. Which can result in really creative stuff. Favorite examples are Undertale, MegaMan Battle Network series, and Tales series.

But on the other they interrupt the flow of exploration, the music, you forget where you were by the end of combat and they can be very annoying if they happen to be common or just as you're about to leave an area. The consolation prize of growing stronger with every battle only helps so much.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xhrit@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This is actually a few different design paradigms you are talking about.

The first is the exploration map transitioning into a battle map during encounters. The second is randomly spawning encounters. The third is forcing players to fight those encounters. Games like Zelda 2 had a exploration map transition into a battlemap, but the encounters are visible on the exploration map and could be avoided if you want so they were never forced or random. On the other hand games like Shining in the Darkness had exploration and battle on the same map; there was no transitions and the view perspective did not change, the game just randomly forced you to fight encounters while you walked around. Then you have something like Vermintide 2 which is a realtime first person action rpg/shooter where random monsters are spawned in at random times on random places on the map to attack you, but the monsters only spawn out of sight in places you are not looking at, and you are not forced to fight them.

IMO battle transitions and forced encounters are outdated mechanics designed around the technical limitations of 8 bit era systems, while random encounters are a great way to improve exploration and overall replay value of a game.

[–] droning_in_my_ears@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Good point. I guess it is 2 things I'm talking about.

I think battle transitions are a tradeoff. They free combat but at the cost of interrupting flow. If you don't do anything with the freedom they give you and you just make the same tired pokemon style choose from a menu combat it's not worth it.

[–] xhrit@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Aye. Like all design paradigms, there are places where they can be useful or can be used to achieve a certain feel.

I actually hate "choose from a menu combat" but have thought of a few cases where it would make sense - for example a Legend of Galactic Heroes style space warfare game based on hyper-realistic combat between massive fleets of 20,000+ ships each, which according to lore, line up in nice neat firing lines and shoot at each other for 12+ hours until one side has won via attrition. There is no way to simulate that in real time and be fun, and the ranges at which combat happens in deep space means that there is basically literally no room for maneuvering once the battle has began...