[A -> B] Life: Measuring Progress In JRPGs Through Common Encounters
https://basementmtl.blogspot.com/2014/05/a-b-life-measuring-progress-in-jrpgs.html
Earlier this week I read an article in which an author pondered over what made common encounters in JRPGs good. Broadly, in JRPGs common encounters are battles which occur frequently as the player’s party explores the game world. The author’s focus here is on encounters which occur randomly (in games where enemies do not physically appear on the world map and in dungeons) in addition to those which the player can initiate (in games where all enemies are visible). While his thoughts are worth exploring in their own right, my own idea of what makes common encounters “good” is far simpler; far more systemic; and far more measurable.
In my opinion, JRPG encounters are noteworthy institutions in the RPG subgenre quite simply because they help to define the core experience of playing these types of games: namely, each common encounter serves as a tangible time commitment made in the effort of achieving level, skill and monetary maximization within the game. Perhaps this answer is far too simple to come across as enlightening; however, I would urge you to think about it throughout the rest of this post.
I’ve recently begun playing Bravely Default for the 3DS, which was released earlier this year to commercial and critical success. Part of the warm critical reception was grounded in the game’s mechanical transparency: players are free to change the game’s difficulty at will, how fast battles play out, how much experience they acquire after battle, and the occurrence rate of common encounters (among other options not pertinent to this post). Importantly, the option to customize the relative value of common encounters has caused me to re-focus my attention of why these encounters exist in the first place.
Most avid JRPG enthusiasts will agree that the institutionalization of what is regularly defined as a “common encounter” was initially crafted due to hardware constraints. Early JRPGs such as Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest could not render battles in real-time without sacrificing memory which was committed to world-building and exploration. Therefore, battles which took place in separate areas from exploration became the norm.
While common encounters can certainly become draining (due in large part to their frequency and repetitive nature), they function as effective roadblocks which help the player chart his/her progress through the game’s story. As I’d touched on during my last post, battles in RPGs generally feel necessary to varying extents, as they often enable players to empathically understand the personal milestones which the game’s characters themselves are going through.
Beyond the value that common encounters bring with respects to enriching JRPG stories, I feel as though “good” common encounters also actively encourage experimentation. Much of the praise for the Bravely Default plays with this element of relative necessity well. By inviting players to dictate the value they place on common encounters (“value” here is defined through battle frequency, battle duration, and victory spoils), developers Silicon Studio is gently nudging players to consciously appreciate each battle they fight.
Moreover, common encounters become experiments, where players can incrementally improve their battle strategies through micro-level resource management. It’s worth noting that Bravely Default, like Final Fantasy Tactics, has a job system, whereby your four-person team’s roles can be changed before/after battle. By encountering the same foe multiple times, I felt that I was able to actively gauge the effectiveness of my job combination, equipment setups and subspecialty abilities, which I measured through damage output and team synergy.
In this way, common encounters enable the player to play more effectively; to learn from his/her choices immediately through constant feedback. This strategic management loop of battle/resolve/tinker/battle helps define the pacing of a good JRPG, in addition to contributing to the player’s active understanding that his/her actions (however seemingly small) are actively contributing to his/her level, skill and wealth maximization within the game world. It’s all good stuff, and I find myself fond of how transparent the entire process is.
In other words, the next time you find yourself facing off against the exact same combination of ecological beauty (natural predators such as bird-, dog- and cat-like abominations all working together in a harmonious attempt to kill and consume the player’s party), thank me for providing it with context and meaning. You’re welcome.
In my opinion, JRPG encounters are noteworthy institutions in the RPG subgenre quite simply because they help to define the core experience of playing these types of games: namely, each common encounter serves as a tangible time commitment made in the effort of achieving level, skill and monetary maximization within the game. Perhaps this answer is far too simple to come across as enlightening; however, I would urge you to think about it throughout the rest of this post.
I’ve recently begun playing Bravely Default for the 3DS, which was released earlier this year to commercial and critical success. Part of the warm critical reception was grounded in the game’s mechanical transparency: players are free to change the game’s difficulty at will, how fast battles play out, how much experience they acquire after battle, and the occurrence rate of common encounters (among other options not pertinent to this post). Importantly, the option to customize the relative value of common encounters has caused me to re-focus my attention of why these encounters exist in the first place.
 |
| JRPG exploration |
Most avid JRPG enthusiasts will agree that the institutionalization of what is regularly defined as a “common encounter” was initially crafted due to hardware constraints. Early JRPGs such as Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest could not render battles in real-time without sacrificing memory which was committed to world-building and exploration. Therefore, battles which took place in separate areas from exploration became the norm.
 |
| JRPG common encounter |
While common encounters can certainly become draining (due in large part to their frequency and repetitive nature), they function as effective roadblocks which help the player chart his/her progress through the game’s story. As I’d touched on during my last post, battles in RPGs generally feel necessary to varying extents, as they often enable players to empathically understand the personal milestones which the game’s characters themselves are going through.
Beyond the value that common encounters bring with respects to enriching JRPG stories, I feel as though “good” common encounters also actively encourage experimentation. Much of the praise for the Bravely Default plays with this element of relative necessity well. By inviting players to dictate the value they place on common encounters (“value” here is defined through battle frequency, battle duration, and victory spoils), developers Silicon Studio is gently nudging players to consciously appreciate each battle they fight.
Moreover, common encounters become experiments, where players can incrementally improve their battle strategies through micro-level resource management. It’s worth noting that Bravely Default, like Final Fantasy Tactics, has a job system, whereby your four-person team’s roles can be changed before/after battle. By encountering the same foe multiple times, I felt that I was able to actively gauge the effectiveness of my job combination, equipment setups and subspecialty abilities, which I measured through damage output and team synergy.
In this way, common encounters enable the player to play more effectively; to learn from his/her choices immediately through constant feedback. This strategic management loop of battle/resolve/tinker/battle helps define the pacing of a good JRPG, in addition to contributing to the player’s active understanding that his/her actions (however seemingly small) are actively contributing to his/her level, skill and wealth maximization within the game world. It’s all good stuff, and I find myself fond of how transparent the entire process is.
In other words, the next time you find yourself facing off against the exact same combination of ecological beauty (natural predators such as bird-, dog- and cat-like abominations all working together in a harmonious attempt to kill and consume the player’s party), thank me for providing it with context and meaning. You’re welcome.
