| RolStoppable said: Experience points mean that there's something to be gotten out of turn-based battles, so the higher investment of time to defeat an individual enemy is rewarded. Remove the reward and you end up with something that is more of an annoyance than something enjoyable. Admittedly, Color Splash has enemies that drop cardboard hammers as sort of experience points, but the lone stat this affects (color capacity) isn't especially important for progress. On the other hand, Sticker Star's purpose for battles was to earn coins which could be invested in stickers for future battles; what made the whole thing pointless is that if you don't engage in battles, you don't need coins for new stickers as you keep the stickers that you find along the way without fighting anything. Ultimately it comes down to there being no point or not much of a point to do a certain thing, so it raises the question why said gameplay mechanic is in the game to begin with. |
First of all I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, I'm just interested in hearing more of your thoughts.
I focused on a couple of points. It seems like you're suggesting that turn-based systems ought to reward the player materially because those gameplay systems are inherently unrewarding, whereas action-based gameplay is inherently rewarding and therefore the act of playing the game is reward enough. The gameplay cycle of "spend resources in combat, be rewarded with more combat resources" isn't unique to Sticker Star. It's not so different from shooters where you pick up ammo from defeated enemies, and it immediately reminds me of Breath of the Wild's weapon durability system.
Are there turn-based systems you enjoy on their own merits? For instance, online battles in Pokemon games don't award experience points. How do you feel about those?
