Are random battles more annoying than useful?
Random battles have been a staple for many role playing games since the early days. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest were some of the first to popularize the mechanic, and since then it's been stuck to the genre like Jack Thompson on Take Two. With the video game experience becoming more important to developers (and players), is it time to put jarring random battles out to pasture?Random battles simulate the unpredictable nature of going on an adventure in the wild. One moment you're walking along questing after the Magical Boots of Magic +5, the next you're ambushed by a bunch of zombies and have to whip out the swords. This forces you to be prepared for the worst while out-and-about. But the sudden interruption isn't part of the story and doesn't enhance the overall experience. Most random battles aren't even a challenge -- just hold down the "confirm" button and keep attacking for the win. Where's the fun in that?
A few games have gotten the battle structure just right: Earthbound, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and Chrono Trigger to name a few. Battles are either planned or random, but you can see enemies ahead of time avoid them if you aren't in the mood. The feeling of danger is still present but not at the cost of maintaining the game's flow.
Are random battles an integral part in the role playing experience or should they be left in the dust?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
randombattlez @ Mar 29th 2007 8:21AM
Random Battles FTW!
Jack of No Trades @ Mar 29th 2007 8:26AM
They are when you want to get somewhere fast.
32_Footsteps @ Mar 29th 2007 8:30AM
Random battles are just an artifact of poorly-run Dungeons & Dragons games that the original RPG developers played. To be honest, I could do without them for the rest of my life.
NoHitHair @ Mar 29th 2007 8:32AM
It's hard to qualify exactly what a "random battle" is. Are you implying battles in which the screen changes to suddenly handle new gameplay? Or are you speaking of various creatures scattered on a map like in WoW or Baldur's Gate? To me both are "random battles" and neither are inherently flawed - it's the developer's lack of creativity and flexibility that harms this medium.
For example, you said:
"But the sudden interruption isn't part of the story and doesn't enhance the overall experience. Most random battles aren't even a challenge -- just hold down the "confirm" button and keep attacking for the win. Where's the fun in that?"
First of all, how can a lack of plot-driven battles be anything other than the developer's fault? Integrating an explanation and story behind why an attack is happening is not that difficult. D&D has been doing it for decades. I would apply the same logic to your example of battles being too simplistic - a fight can be entirely random and still provide direct reasoning (Xenogears) as well as active button combinations (Legend of Dragoon).
I don't believe the concepts of "random battles" and "ingenuitive battle system" are mutually exclusive.
http://blog.myspace.com/nohithair
Jacob @ Mar 29th 2007 8:33AM
Random battle stop me completing most RPGs because I give up due to frustration. They suck.
Crono @ Mar 29th 2007 8:33AM
To this very day, Chrono Trigger has had the best turned based combat system of any RPG. The strategy, the dual techs, the triple techs; positional relevance, stategy, it was perfect.
It needs to be done again in modern games, but nobody seems to want to.
frozengod @ Mar 29th 2007 8:33AM
@2 hahahaha
Yeah, no hurried travel would be complete without some monsters out from the blue to slow you down ;)
mugginns @ Mar 29th 2007 8:42AM
Random battles should be left in the dust. Always.
White Rose Duelist @ Mar 29th 2007 8:42AM
Couldn't you find a picture of a random battle to put at the top of the post?
I don't think random battles are inherently bad. The fact that the average game has billions of them is. Part of the genius of "Shadow of the Colossus" is that every fight was important - and I think that can be done in games that still have some random battles. Of course, if they were eliminated, people would complain that they spend ten minutes walking between towns and nothing happens.
Kamakaze @ Mar 29th 2007 8:48AM
Random Battles are very dated and all games should avoid them like the plague.
Basically they are there because its easier than populating the world with actual creatures.
I don't mind the shift to a different battle screen, but when the world is devoid of enemies and seemingly invisible things attack you randomly it isnt much fun when a game has presented you with a puzzle to solve.
FFXII has taken a step in the right direction and gives me control over if I want to fight or run.
Many other RPGs with random battles also often gave you the ability to permanently or temporarily stop being affected by random battles. These are essentially just band aids to a very poor concept.
While there are some very good games that still have random battles it would be much nicer if they had put the extra effort to let us see the enemies before they pounce.
Hatch @ Mar 29th 2007 8:52AM
Thes "Random" battles are and integral part of rpg's as far as I thought. Dont they allow your characters to gain exp. and Gold in turn making your character Level up in the various categories like HP,MP and Stamina. Not to mention cash so you're able to buy Equipment,items and weapons.
No random battles, then the next few major boss battles would be next to impossible to beat.
NoHitHair @ Mar 29th 2007 9:03AM
Crono:
I miss the multiplayer aspect to the Seiken Densetsu series (Secret of Mana). My dad, brother and I used to play that through several times simply for the fun we had playing simultaneously in an RPG.
It's a terrible shame that either the majority of present-day publishers refuse to allow developers to utilize innovation or developers are simply too afraid to risk their business in anything other than the safe waters of stagnation.
http://blog.myspace.com/nohithair
Myke @ Mar 29th 2007 9:10AM
What's an RPG without that paranoia you get when you see an exit and you make bets with yourself whether or not you can make it without getting in a random battle? My favorite RPG is Legend Of Legaia and I would always test myself over whether or not I thougth I could get to an exit without getting nailed.
Yoshi Likes Boys @ Mar 29th 2007 9:11AM
Random battles really do add to the excitement of and are integral to the traditional "dungeon" model. As long as "flee" is an option and so on, I think they can be very important to the "tension" that is meant to be felt when you're deep in a dungeon and low on life.
In masterpieces like FF4-6, the battles were almost instantaneous, as well as running, so it only really slowed you down if you actually fought the battles, which was kind of the point. As gamedev got more and more overblown with load times following, though, the overhead got inflated to the point where you were waiting 30 seconds just to attempt to flee. THAT is a flaw. Also:
"Most random battles aren't even a challenge -- just hold down the "confirm" button and keep attacking for the win. Where's the fun in that?"
Isn't that a complaint about the battle system, difficulty, and design of the RPGs in question? The way it looks, that's a really idiotic statement.
Dave @ Mar 29th 2007 9:15AM
Cliff racers in Morrowind were the most annoying creatures ever.
Geo @ Mar 29th 2007 9:15AM
If I remember correctly, the last level of Earthbound had random battles. You couldn't see those star dudes that would attack you. Am I right?
Geo @ Mar 29th 2007 9:16AM
I hate random battles, by the way.
jeffx @ Mar 29th 2007 9:17AM
Random battles are one of the last bastions of traditional RPGs. If they go, then I go. Well, I mean I'll stick to my classics and stop buying new games. RPGs are all I care about.
Sana @ Mar 29th 2007 9:19AM
"Random battles" ala Final Fantasy style were bourne of necessity. Consoles/PC's didn't have enough power to render a detailed landscape, or several characters on screen at the same time. It also "sets" the gameplay length. ie the amount of battles = xp = level ups = required level to find "End Boss" and finish game.
None of that is a problem anymore.
Grandia was the 1st game JRPG I played that didn't have them, you could avoid a battle if you wanted to. Nothing worse than really wanting to go to bed, and being slowed to getting to the last save point by 50 zillion random battles.
As a side note, even early tile based Ultima games didn't need "random" battles, cause there was enough ACTUAL RPing and storyline to fill the game. But thats the difference between a game that FOCUSES on story (Ultima series, Oblivion) verses a game where the battle system IS the game (World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy series).
ALH @ Mar 29th 2007 9:20AM
depends on the game. Random battles in pokemon can get irritating, but because you do have to level up your team in order to evolve -not to mention fill your pokedex theyre a necessary evil. I do NOT see the point in random battles in games like breath of fire or the original phantasy star games where you could auto-attack.
shase @ Mar 29th 2007 9:23AM
I dont mind random battles... I would prefer Wild Arms style where if the enemies are much weaker than you you could press "square" and the imminent encounter goes away. Monster already on the screen is "OK" for me as long as the combat is not like FF12's.
The way I see random battles is that by the time you get from A to B with random battles you will probably be able to fight the BBEG instead of saying to yourself "damn i shouldntt have skipped all those battles... guess i will walk back to them and fight them for exp/gold". So basically random battles is just doing you a favor from walking back and forth to fight skipped monsters.
32_Footsteps @ Mar 29th 2007 9:29AM
Geo, you're wrong about Earthbound. The enemies are always visible on the map. They might hide behind objects (sneak attacks, hey, those make sense), but they are still visible, even the Starman Final enemies in EarthBound. Now, Mother 1 had random battles, but that's one of many things changed from the first to the second.
Crono, you might be interested in the Grandia games. Those actually have a more detailed version of the setup Chrono Trigger uses, with movement rates and the ability to disrupt enemy actions. The second is the best, but the first Grandia game is really good, too. And if you don't mind alot of grinding, Grandia Xtreme also gives you double and triple techs.
And Myke... trust me, the paranoia doesn't go away just because you can see the enemies. Because a) you don't know how many enemies will come when the map designation is touched and b0 you don't know whether or not you'll be able to outrun the map designation (and thus be forced to fight). It's a different flavor of paranoia, but still there.
Todd @ Mar 29th 2007 9:29AM
Random Battles = Boredom
The BIGGEST reason I get completely bored of the Final Fantasy games.
Rallion @ Mar 29th 2007 9:34AM
I'm a big random battle hater, defining random battles as the pre-XII Final Fantasy games implement them. If I'm just trying to get from point A to point B, I want to be able to move. I hate the loss of control and the...well, the randomness involved. If I want to fight, I'll fight. If you want to force me to fight a certain battle, sure. But don't give me a random number of battles, which I'm completely unable to avoid. (And, of course, the fact that there's generally an annoying transition to a battle screen doesn't help at all.) Chrono Trigger and the Mana games proved long ago that there are better ways. I'm hoping that the success of FFXII signals the end of random battles as a mainstream mechanic.
Martez @ Mar 29th 2007 9:35AM
Random battles strike me as a mechanic used back in the day as solution to a problem current tech couldn't manage- and the only reason they still exist is they've become such a staple of the genre (and relatively simple to program) that developers use them out of laziness, along with a number of other RPG cliches. There's little excuse for them today, and it's a reason I've started to avoid RPGs lately.
Kamizar @ Mar 29th 2007 9:41AM
Random battles aren't necessarily a problem if the battle system is fun, in games like LoD and [eM] the battle maechanics provide for a fun way to defeat your enemies so that with a chance encounter you can't just press the ok as fast as possible, lest you do minimum damage or not even hit your target at all...
JodyAnthony @ Mar 29th 2007 9:42AM
random battles are fine with me, although every rpg with random battles should have something like Breath of Fire's 'Mrbl3' that lets you temporarilly keep monsters from attacking you, for when you want to just run to a save point real quick or whatever.
Markoff_Cheney @ Mar 29th 2007 9:42AM
Ah. so many miss, so few have hit. someone mentioned secret of mana series. i think they took zelda style action adventure a step above with traditional leveling up elements found in other square games. square, they used to have it. nowadays i wonder. chrono trigger was also mentioned and i agree, it had the most balanced, fluid, entertaining traditional RPG battle system i have ever played. it was flawless.. ish.
its a tired dated go to guy for battles and it has been old since systems could handle something more advanced. developers just love to go with tried and true [see also:sequels to everything till its dead] and taking a risk on a new and challenging battle system is daunting/risky? i guess? final fantasy battle systems havent significantly changed in literally.. 20 years? ish?
they say 'why fix it if it aint broke' and well... people still buy traditional rpgs like they arent broke so...
i yearn for a new experience playing rpgs. i dig oblivion, shadow of the colossus, and the revival of the mana series on handhelds [emulators also much], and i want a better system.
appearently its too much to ask.
ChaosInTheSnow @ Mar 29th 2007 9:51AM
I think we need to differentiate between what this article refers to as a random battle and what some commentors are interpreting as a random battle. The article is talking about a random battle system as defined by most Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games. In such a system the battle mode and the adventure mode are seperate. Enemies do not appear in general in the adventure mode and battles randomly occur after a certain number of steps. The game then switches to battle mode and presents a semi random set of enemies.
This is different to the idea of encounters being random, which is to say it is not predetermined what set of battles you engage in over the course of the game. Lots of games don't use a random battle system but do still have random encounters. They just display the enemies on screen in adventure mode and you can avoid them if you like. Final Fantasy XII does this very well for example.
In my opinion having enemies on screen in adventure mode is the only way to go forward anymore. It feels too disjointed to go back to the whole random battle thing after playing a lot of very good games that don't use this system. It's funny to think that Chrono Trigger did this so well such a long time ago and still the majority of Japanese RPGs kept using the random battle system. I suspect now that the system has changed in Final Fantasy XII the majority of other RPGs will follow suit since it's such a high profile title.
Yoshi Likes Boys @ Mar 29th 2007 9:51AM
Regarding the "save quickly" argument, every RPG should support "Field Journal/Quicksave" at this point, that is, a one time "stop playing and resume" save that gets deleted when you resume. THAT is a feature that should be in every game with no exceptions.
And 32_F, I would suggest that for many games, the tension/paranoia does go away, as the map system is not well designed or condusive to forcing you to fight when you'd rather not, or monster regeneration is not handled intelligently, or worse, it depends on extremely basic action/timing/stealth skills that make it a cakewalk. These are all design flaws and not a problem with the concept, but I would suggest that most of the problems with random battles are issues with specific design flaws and not a flawed concept.
Apreche @ Mar 29th 2007 10:01AM
I can't play these types of games anymore because of the random battles.
OrganicShadow @ Mar 29th 2007 10:02AM
I think random battles are a keystone to what makes RPG's RPG's. I think doing crap like the gambit system, and the way White Knight Story is going, we will eventually just WATCH games and have no part in what happens. I want to PLAY something, not tell the characters how to behave and watch them do their thing.
Random Battles
Turn Based Combat
Those are two things that should NEVER go away, but not necessarily still be a staple of "modern" RPG's.
Oh, and obviously a lot of the people complaining about them haven't played Rogue Galaxy.
Brad Lee @ Mar 29th 2007 10:10AM
I've never understood why anyone would want to defend the "random battle" method. It is so mind-numbingly repeditive and offers practically no challenge whatsoever. Sure, sometimes you'll get an actually challenging random battle, but that's extremely rare. All random battles do is draw out the gameplay so the game can be advertised as having "Over 50 hours of gameplay!" when 10 hours or more is likely spent on random battles (and the load times between them).
I'd much prefer scripted battles like Baldur's Gate and the like, or something like Oblivion than pushing the "attack" button over and over again just to hurry through the random battle. Legend of Dragoon was the worst, because you couldn't even do that, you had to time your attacks.
mj @ Mar 29th 2007 10:10AM
I like the random invisible battles now. They're annoying in a castle/dungeon when it's late and you want to quit the game, but you've gone too far and can't save yet. But in the beginning of games, they're often important for setting mood and training on the battle system. After that, it's part of the adventure.
So I don't mind random battles on the adventure map. But the most annoying dungeon/castles feature random battles. The Shinra Manor in FFVII comes to mind. It wasn't so much the random battles as that it's hard to solve puzzles and remember where you've been when you're fighting every minute for a half-hour straight. That was just annoying. So was Zozo in FFVI. Least favorite parts of both games. Hated them both, and got through them as quickly as possible, puzzles be damned. I expect this when I attack the last boss, not when I'm just wandering around still figuring out puzzles and plot.
32_Footsteps @ Mar 29th 2007 10:11AM
YLB - maybe it's just my experience with the genre, but I find that few scenes (and most of those at the beginning) in RPGs actually carry any tension. This is in part due to my habit of experimenting with abilities (so I generally get a solid grasp on everything I can do), and in part with my pathological need to win every fight I get into (resulting in me levelling alot). Sure, games like Grandia could stand to have better sight/hearing rules for better monster behavior (maybe the folks behind Metal Gear Solid could give pointers). But honestly, given how seldom turly random encounters result in tense situations, I'd say the tension doesn't go away in map monster scenarios because there's almost no tension in the first place.
haywood jablomey @ Mar 29th 2007 10:20AM
I detest random battles.
Squeek @ Mar 29th 2007 10:25AM
I can't stand random battles and I'm glad game developers are finally catching on. If I want to be interrupted every 10 seconds on the world map and sit there while the disc loads, I'll ask, mmkay?
The other thing I don't like in RPGs is turn-based battling. It doesn't make any sense to me. In a boxing match, does the one guy run up to the other guy, stop in front of him, pull a punch, then run back to his corner and wait to be hit? Is that how it works?
Thank you Tales series, Star Ocean series, and a few mentionables in-between like Baten Kaitos and Paper Mario, for using battle systems that are fun and make sense along with non-random battles in your latest games.
D @ Mar 29th 2007 10:33AM
To me, the random battle has always been a welcome addition to a RPG as they give you the option just to go out and find some creatures to pound on so you can find some good loot.
Otherwise, it feels like I'm on rails with no option to deviate if I can only fight x amount of creatures and after that, there is nothing left to fight. Of course, most games incorporate an "arena" concept to allow people to fight an unlimited amount of times. :)
Scott S @ Mar 29th 2007 10:35AM
Like many have said, random battles were born of necessity and remain due to tradition and laziness.
Any person that played Chrono Trigger and said, "man, I wish these battles were totally unpredictable, less interesting in setup, made it painful to try to solve any sort of puzzle in a dungeon, and made it deadly to get lost or, god forbid, go exploring" should really be shot. Or at least not be allowed to continue to develop video games, which seems to have been the case.
Yoshi Likes Boys @ Mar 29th 2007 10:44AM
32_F: I'd agree with your base assertion, but I'd chalk that up to, first, RPGs being a severely variable experience depending on how you play them. For example, have you ever read an RPG walkthrough on gamefaqs, where they suggest that you level up 10 levels past where you should be? what's the point of even playing then? There's also a growing tendency to leave the difficulty curve and slope far too low throughout the game, either due to carelessness in design or a desire to let the player march through the story without too much challenge.
At any rate, I think we are agreed on what's wrong, and just not as firmly agreed on the cause. I'd rest confidently on "many RPGs are not very well designed" either way. I just think it's easy to blame the end symptom, that is, "man, these random battles are so annoying," rather than what MAKES them so annoying.
Jason @ Mar 29th 2007 10:49AM
I really really dislike these things. It's THE reason I never played many RPGs over the years. I prefer seeing the enemies ahead of time so that I can avoid the battles if necessary.
These things existed at first to make it easier on the devs create balance in the game and to help with pacing. Now, it's just annoying and old and busted.
Agent MOO @ Mar 29th 2007 11:11AM
@4 Random battles are when you are walking around on a level and without warning you are dropped into a fight with creatures that weren't visible.
I think that they should stay in the FF series. It is part of the grandeur of the game to have beautiful enemy-free backgrounds to walk through, and then jump into a dramatic fight that is in an "arena" version of the area with dramatic camera pans and zooms.
Sven @ Mar 29th 2007 11:20AM
The Chrono Trigger / Super Mario RPG combination really showed how these type of things should be handled... which is what made their presence in FFVII even more depressing.
I especially like how the portable Mario RPGs treat the random battles, where the ability to gain an advantage / avoid a disadvantage is totally up to the skill of the player. That's how you keep the player interested in levelling, not wandering around in the hope that you'll encounter the one monster that gives you a disproportionate amount of gold needed to buy that next big item.
(Not that I MEAN to bash Final Fantasy I, but... c'mon, anyone who didn't hate having to pound on random monsters near Elfland for hours is lying.)
Service_Games @ Mar 29th 2007 11:30AM
Honestly, I've never been a fan of random battles unless I just want that mindless fun that can be interrupted at any time to go put clothes in the dryer, watch my alma mater's drive to the end zone, or take a call I'm expecting. I much prefer the dynamic of non-random battles from an immersion standpoint.
SG
Mandingo Chief @ Mar 29th 2007 11:33AM
Don't forget Seventh Saga - they had a good random battle method. You could see in the mini-screen in the corner where the critters were so you could avoid if you wanted to. Legend of Zelda II had a similar method of knowing where enemies were...and how powerful they were.
MosquitoControl @ Mar 29th 2007 11:34AM
Just one of the several reasons I can't tolerate a FF game anymore.
In the beginning they can be entertaining, but after a few hours they become tedious. When you're running around from one area to another to finish up a quest they just get in the way. Worse still is when you're lost and trying to figure out where to go and these just keep popping up, slowing you down and making it harder to figure out where your next quest comes from.
shaoron @ Mar 29th 2007 11:58AM
personally.. i hated the random encounter.. it gets boring most of the times...
hvnlysoldr @ Mar 29th 2007 12:14PM
Random encounters are just so random and that's annoying to me. Sometimes I just want to start grinding my characters for levels but I can't get the monsters to appear fast enough. Then when I want to do some exploring or just going from point to point in a hurry, especially in timed sequences, too many random encounters hinders me. I don't care if that can happen in a fantasy land filled with danger. The game world doesn't exist in reality and bend the rules. Also with random encounters with random enemies with random steals and random drops and random stats can delay perfectionists from obtaining everything. It's fine that they're random just that it seems to prolong the game way too much.
Sizer @ Mar 29th 2007 12:27PM
Nothing says 'lazy stupid developers' like random battles. There's just no excuse. You can still pump and grind all you want with non-random battles if you repopulate the map - I just want to see the damn monsters on the map before I fight them and maybe have a chance of avoiding them if I'm not in the mood.
Even if it works out to the same number of battles per map it feels much less onerous because you are nominally in control.
Hey Game Devs - It's been ten years since Grandia, you dorks. Random battles and 'line up and take turns fighting' is for chumps.
Slaziman @ Mar 29th 2007 12:29PM
I think what's even WORSE about RPG's is that nowadays if you want to get the "secret" stuff you MUST use a walkthrough. I'm a perfectionist and I hate not getting Sword X because I opened Chest Y when I shouldn't have had to.