Even within the same genre, games can vary greatly. You may love fighting games, for example, but certain design choices can suck the fun right out of some titles. I find this happens to me with SRPGs (strategy role-playing games).
I’ve played the original Shining Force series (1, 2, and CD mostly) over and over again, yet I’ve owned Fire Emblem on Game Boy Advance for probably five years now and have yet to finish it. Even though I like the game, a small part of me actually dreads going back to finish it. The two play almost identically, so why the disparity? It all comes down to the concept of lost time.
[Quick summary: in SRPGs, you typically command an army of (on average) 6-12 people in battles that take place on a checkerboard-like grid. (Some SRPGs allow characters to move freely within a certain radius.) You move each character in turn along the grid and attack when in range of the enemy. To win, you often have to either a) take out all the enemies, b) kill the enemy leader, or c) reach a designated goal. It sounds simple, but the strategy can get very deep. Also, in many SRPGs, your game automatically ends if your leader is killed.]
In Shining Force, the player has the option of casting a spell to escape the battle at any time. You can regroup, revive any characters that were killed, maybe change equipment or who you take into battle and then try again. However, you get to keep any experience or levels gained, making the time sunk into your previous attempt worthwhile.
Shining Force
In Fire Emblem, there is no such retreat option. If you can tell you aren’t going to win… well, too bad. Reset and try again from scratch. To make things worse, characters that die in Fire Emblem stay dead; there’s no reviving them and they won’t be back for the next battle. Any time that you put into the current battle is lost, gone forever. When a typical battle can last 30-60 minutes, that becomes a significant loss of time.
Fire Emblem
Yes, the higher stakes in the latter design do up the excitement somewhat, but at the same time, the increased stress can kill the fun. The thought of, “if I screw this up, the past 45 mins were for nothing” is constantly playing in the back of my mind. The trade-off is just not worth it to me.
This effect is compounded when the in-game clock doesn’t even keep track of that lost time. I wouldn’t mind quite so much if, when my leader dies or I don’t make it to the goal on time, my playtime is recorded and I have to try again. Instead, I’m greeted with the “Game Over” screen and forced to load my last save file. If I’ve attempted the same difficult battle four times in a row, it makes me want to shelve the game until I regain some of my patience. I’m sure this isn’t an issue for everyone, but it would be a small step to easing the brunt of losing a battle.
Currently, I just started playing Jeanne d’Arc (PSP) again. Like Fire Emblem, losing battles results in lost time, but at least any defeated characters automatically revive for the next battle if you clear the stage. The lack of perma-death helps strike a healthier balance in game design and makes me optimistic that I will finish the game in a more timely manner.
Is anyone else bothered when chunks of time put into a game disappear with nothing to show for it? ICG would love to hear about titles that have had a similar effect on you. Use our comments section below to share your experiences!
