By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jumpin said:
DonFerrari said:

It trully is delicious to obliterate enemies from time to time, but the investment is to high. I would say the concept of to much random encounters came from the idea of the time to make the person play a lot to see value on the game as much as the difficult in several 8-16 bits games were to hide a 1h game as something very time consuming.

Haha, maybe not that extreme in most cases - Dragon Warrior was about a 5-10 hour game but probably had around an hour to two of unique content. But I fully agree with what you’re saying with the grinding in early RPGs, particularly NES/SMS/SMD. In fact, I’d say Dragon Warrior 3 and 4 were the only RPGs of the 8-bit generation that didn’t require grinding MOST of the time (they required a little if playing reasonably, but maybe 10-30% of the game was grinding as opposed to the majority of RPGs at the time which hit the 80%+ mark (Phantasy Star series anyone?!?!). The first RPG I recall that didn’t require grinding was Mystic Quest Legend and the extremely rare Final Fantasy Legend games for Gameboy - but all those games took only a few hours to finish (FF Legend 2 had way more content than any NES RPGs but you could finish it in a sitting). I can point out the exact moment of change: Secret of Mana, that game required a ton of grinding like most RPGs before it, but just about every RPG after it could be done free of the stop-and-grind. But you’ll notice that FF6 has significantly more content and story than any Square RPG before it, and that’s probably the reason for the ease of balance.

I started FF on 9, and ever since I never needed to grind to finish regular content, the pace and quantity of random encounters is enough for you to level (still takes like 50h), and you just need to plan well your game and learn the skills so you can have an end-boss under lvl 50 with success. Of course the hidden content was another matter that is totally necessary to grind so for me that is perfect balance.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."