Eternal Sonata Combat

Eternal Sonata is in development for the 360 by tri-Crescendo (also rumored to be in development for the PS3). Or was, depending on how you look at it. The game was released in Japan a month ago under the name of Trusty Bell, and is currently being localized for the United States with a planned September release. This is not tri-Crescendo's first title, that belongs to Gamecube RPG Baten Kaitos. But it doesn't take too hard of a look to notice aspects of that earlier title within the newest (namely graphics and music). However, not one to rest on their laurels, tri-Crescendo is once again innovating combat within the RPG genre.

The vertical bar on the left is the timer. Only .20 seconds remaining!

Eternal Sonata's combat is both turn-based and real-time. Players have a party of four characters at a time. Combat is either single-player or multi, as Eternal Sonata supports four-player co-op. Regardless, as in many other RPGs, one character acts a time. Both ally and enemy characters take turns moving and attack one another over the course of a battle. This is where the real-time part comes in, mostly. In RPGs like Final Fantasy, players act via menu selection, and take as long as they please to do so.

Eternal Sonata is different. For one, characters can move during a fight, and in fact, stratgeic movement is integral to the combat system. Second, players don't select actions from a menu. Instead players can run their chararacters around with the analog stick and use the face buttons to attack, defend, and cast spells or use abilities. This makes for a feel much more reminiscent of Tales of Symphonia than Final Fantasy. But rememer, only one character can act and attack at a time. If the game is both turn-based and real-time, then how are turn length or limits constructed? Good question. And the answer is a timer.

Towards the beginning of the game, players have a 5 second action timer. But as the game progresses, that time is reduced to 4 (and possibly lower, in so far as I know). But the time limit isn't static, not at first. tri-Crescendo is using the timer to pressure players and force them to play more strategically. As opposed to just making harder and harder monsters, this time limit manipulation serves to inflate the combat difficulty. Combat at the start of the game allows for more thought and planning in making decisions. This is because the timer only ticks down when the player is acting. If the player just stops and sits still, so too will the timer freeze. But when the player moves, attacks, or acts in any other way, then the timer ticks down. As we all know video games work in animations, so when players perform an action, such as attacking, then the timer will count down for as long as that animation lasts.I love tihs because it so neatly combines turn-based and real-time. Players can sit and think as long as they want about what type of action they want to take. Do you run in and perform and attack, attack, attack? Or, do you run in and attack, then run away again so the monster won't attack you come its turn? You may change your mind half-way through, and thats ok, because you can just stop acting and reevaluate the situation, then adjust your tactics accordingly. Unlike in turn-based games where players move through grid spaces, Eternal Sonata's system is free-form and allows for 360 degrees of movement. Its more like Warhammer than Chess.

But eventually this system might get too easy, or at least tri-Crescendo feel so. Who needs all that time to think and plan and stuff? The answer is irrelevent because players don't have a choice. Eternal Sonata gets harder. At some point in the game, the player loses the ability to pause time. Now, when the player stops acting, the timer just keeps on going anyway. When a character's turn starts, so does the timer, and it doesn't stop until time is up (therefore ending that character's turn). Players are thereafter forced to think and act much more quickly than at game's start.

Let it be known that water wheels are awesome.

The combat of Eternal Sonata has a whole lot more to it then what I've discussed, including a shadow/light mechanic, combos, and more. The active timer is a really awesome system. It is like the confluence of two great rivers: real-time and turn-based, and it is good.

Sources:
IGN Pre-E3 Preview
IGN E3 Preview
Gamespot E3 Preview
Gametrailers

What Comes First: Gameplay or Story?

When designing a game, particularly a role-playing-game, which comes first: the story or the gameplay? Think about any RPG, is the story more important or the gameplay? Regardless, which aspect is the primary design point?

In an interview with IGN, Eisuke Yokoyama talks about the development of Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings for the DS.

We did not set out to make a game that was connected to FFXII. In the beginning it was supposed to be a 'My first Final Fantasy' experience - that was the overall plan for this game. We had already created the battle system. It was ready to go, but at a certain point during the development and planning process, Toriyama's team started talking. FFXII had just been released and it was really popular, so it was more a matter of timing that it turned into this kind of game.

I was surprised to read this. I actually don't think there is any one order to design an RPG, or any game, for that matter. Whichever comes first comes first. If you come up with a great story that would work well with a video game, congratulations. But I think its probably equally effective to come up with a gameplay system and then build a theme and story around it. Both aspects are very important, however. Whichever comes first, in the end both need to be given equal consideration and development. An RPG needs both to be truly great. Personally, I almost always design the gameplay and control scheme before even thinking about anything else. But who knows, maybe one day that will change if an interesting story and world suddenly pop into my head. Both approaches are entirely feasible. Which foot do you start off with, gameplay or story? And do you think one approach is superior to the other.

GDC 2007: The Evolution of the RPG

What is a Role-Playing-Game? This question was asked to three highly prolific designers in the genre at a conference entitled: The Evolution of the RPG. The three said designers were Peter Molyneaux- creator of Fable, Hironobu Sakaguchi-creator of Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey, and Ray Muzyka-CEO of BioWare and contributor to Mass Effect.

So, what makes an RPG what it is? Well, Muzyka named four aspects that he believes are essential to an RPG: excellent stories and characters, the experience of exploration, characterprogression that is motivational and addictive, and emotionally charged combat.

Molyneaux agreed and also added that role-playing games are just that, players in roles. He said it is necessitous for the player to feel like a hero. RPGs should be an emotionally defining journey, to as he put it, “start off as nothing and end up being a hero?”

Finally, Sanguichi stressed these points in addition to the need for the player to feel accomplishment to be felt by the player.

Blue Dragon-Designed by Hironobu Sakaguchi of Mystwalker

The next question asked about turned-based combat, and whether it was good or bad. Molyneaux answered first, stating that real-time combat was the best choice for Fable because they felt it was more of an “immersive” gameplay experience. Muzyka however said that Mass Effect offers both real-time and turn-based, players can choose for themselves. Apparently, they don't want one gameplay type to be a barrier to the enjoyment.

Mass Effect-Designed by CEO Ray Muzyka's BioWare

Following this came character customization. Sakaguchi said it can be good but ultimately liked the RPG experience to a movie. The reasons movies can be so engrossing is because the story and characters are already defined. This moved into branching storylines and their use. Molyneaux started with a very provocative response, the problem with branching storylines is that when players choose, there is always a good possibility that they will regret their decisions and want to turn back or even lose interest.

Muzyka was more optimistic, saying that players new that their choices had consequences both good and bad, and that this would eventually lend itself to the game being more repayable.

Fable 2-Designed by Peter Molyneaux of Lionhead

The session ended with the subject of the MMORPG. Muzyka summarized all three of the panelists thoughts with this: “the story that develops between players--the social interaction--is a different kind of story, something you can't achieve in a single-player game.” He also hinted that BioWare is currently working on a game that blends the story of a single player RPG with the benefits of the multiplayer.

And that ends the roundtable.
The RPG is sometimes difficult to define, its not like the first-person-shooter, which we can easily label. But, the RPG does have a common set of characteristics that allow us to form associations. And, really, these three designers pinned it down. I'm sure everyone would agree that a true RPG features an interesting plot and good storytelling. Dynamic characters are crucial as well. As Ray Muzyka pointed out, emotional attachment is the hallmark of a successful RPG. Just look at any "Top 10 RPGs" list you can find, all will feature characters that players eventually come to appreciate, if not love.

Ico, greatest game of all time, ever.

What I like most about this roundtable though, is how Dr. Muzyka told us that combat must elicit emotion. This struck a chord with me immediately, the reason being I just finished Fumito Ueda's masterpiece, Ico. If you havent played Ico, do so as soon as humanly possible. Everytime the shadows try to take away Yorda, I found myself shouting at the screen: "Stay away from her, evil!" There is a flip-side to emotionally charged combat as well. You can feel badly about attacking or killing something. The final scene of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (spoiler) is a fantastic example of this. The player is forced to shoot the head terrorist, and it was really effective at making me upset. At the same time, I knew it was what I needed to, both to continue the game and for the fate of the world.

The last thing I want to say is about the MMO. And its just as Muzyka said, its a different type of experience, a social one. I love the concept of fusing this player interaction with the emotional story of a single-player RPG. This is especially true if, somehow, players unanimously want to play their given roles, through use of force, incentive, what have you.

Role-Play
Why is an RPG an RPG?
Think about the RPGs you've played, what elements seemed strogest to you, which do you like best?
Do you think that real-time combat is more immersive than turn-based? Why or why not?

Please post any comments you may have.

Source: Gamespot