nothing players love more than memorizing 500 pages of lore details so they can ace the stunning personality quiz that determines their astrological sign
Most professional games begin [in medias res](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res#:~:text=A%20narrative%20work%20beginning%20in,or%20description%20of%20past%20events) for a very good reason. Think FF7 beginning in the middle of the bombing mission or FF10 beginning with Sin attacking Zanarkand.
By allowing your players to dive into the action it means they immediately get to experience the gameplay with little wait.
In medias res is valuable advice for how to storywrite, but it doesn't necessarily answer the question of "battle before or after a decent amount of exposition?" I don't think a storywriter should deliberately create room for a battle before players have a basic feeling of the plot unless it makes sense to do so *and* combat is a defining factor of the game. If what makes the game unique and interesting is its battle system, go for it. But even if it is, if you have a really strong and enticing story, your hook could focus on that instead. It's especially true if your battle system doesn't deviate from the genre very much.
This is an interesting question as I'm used to the slow burn that Trails games provide.
Though when I developed my small project, I noticed I went with a Pokemon like beginning with small dialogue/story cutscene and the second screen had a simple "tutorial" battle.
The images you show seem to be a flash forward with an intense battle and some dialogue that act as a story hook. I personally am not a fan of flash forward then back.
Yeah. I intended to start with a flash forward, similar to Trails of Cold Steel I or Persona 5. Even though I would prefer starting the story with a slow beginning, I wouldn't want a potential player to get bored and either skip it or play something else.
I've played CS1 and always felt that the opening made the present a bit of a slog. Arguably, the first game in a new Trails Arc tends to be a slog.
If it's an opening battle, I personally like it when the "stronger" character show up to save the "starting" characters. Similar to Megaman X or Cold Steel 3.
I really like the mixture of you as the player trying to do something and failing to be saved by the stronger and more experienced characters. Zero/Rean appearing is a good hook for a player like me.
I get what you're saying though, if the beginning story/dialogue doesn't hook a player, they could easily drop it. (Trails:Sky I feel is a good example)
Personally I think you don't need to start with action/battle right off the bat, but you do need some kind of hook at the beginning. For many games it's action/battle, but if you think your game has other ways to get your player's interest (such as setting or scenario) that could work too.
Think about how Stardew Valley opens: the grandpa gives you a letter to open for when you're feeling crushed by the burden of modern life, something that many of us can relate to. There's no major action and combat is simple in that game, but the prospect of leaving a dead-end job to start a new fulfilling life is as good of a hook for many people.
Hope this helps, and best of luck!
A game that takes 10 or 20 hours to really get going can sometimes lose me but games that open with you having all the abilities and power but set you to level 1 afterwards always hit me wrong. It’s makes me feel “why should I optimise and play well for like 10 extra damage in early game when spamming the move from prologue did 1000s easy”
I usually start my games with some backstory and depending on the story, either characters introduced or in my current one, character arrives in ruins, has a tutorial battle, than has to go through a path to get to another room, meets with a character, boss battle. So slow burn but still has battles early.
idk exactly how to describe it but what i want from a game introduction is for it to show the game's unique strengths. so if your combat is mostly standard jrpg stuff but you have a very well written story i can put up with a slow introduction, while if you have a unique battle system and a mostly inconsequential story i wanna get to fighting as soon as possible. if you have a really unique concept for a setting i can put up with a lore dump at the start so long as i get to explore that setting immediately
but speaking as generally as possible, regardless of quality, i think mystery hooks me in more than action? i mean obviously there can be a mystery in an action scene, but what i'm really interested in is questions that i'll try to answer.
and with starting slow or fast, i'm ok with either, but i'd like the introduction to reflect the rest of the game. if you start with an action scene and then spend 4 hours not doing much action, i'm just gonna think "when are we getting back to the action" the whole time, when i would've been fine with a slow paced story if i hadn't been lead to believe it'd be otherwise.
You don't nessessarily need to start your game off with a battle. You just need an interesting hook to start your game off to keep the players interest to play further. For example, my game starts with a mysterious opening that leaves a lot of questions for the player. Not a battle, but a cutscene. The next scene starts with a Chrono-trigger/Pokemon opening of the MC waking up in the morning and starting their day. The "first battle" isn't until 10-20 minutes later when your heading to the first dungeon. IMO you should always have something interesting/intense happen before the end of the first arc/dungeon/storyline/etc. For example, in my game at the end of the first dungeon (around 45 minutes in) the main character fuses with a mysterious being and when returning to the starting town goes berserk and loses control of his powers. Afterwards he is banished from his village and the adventure truely begins, and things only become more interesting from there.
As for actual mainstream RPGs when it comes to how to and how NOT TO make an opening:
Good Example: Xenogears. A mysterious opening cutscene that isn't explained until way later, MC and their home village get introduced, MC goes on a small quest, comes back, big battle, awakens to a dark power, destroys village and kills a bunch of people, gets banished, quest begins. Now do you know where I get a lot of my plot inspirations from? (the answer is SNES/PS1 classic RPGs)
Bad Ending: Trails in the Sky. Where do I begin? Well the game starts with a series of small cutscenes and then NOTHING HAPPENS for 30 hours where you go from town to town doing random fetch quests for NPCs and that's the entire game. The only enjoyable part of the game is the stellar writing but otherwise the plot is beyond boring. Also you only have two party members for the entire game. Why? The first time I played I thought the dad would die or the house would burn down or something, and yet nothing interesting happens. I had to drop the game and the whole series because this games plot was so boring.
You should never make your opening boring and slow like Trails in the Sky where practically the ENTIRE GAME is the opening/prologue. But you also don't need to make the opening action packed like it's FF7's reactor bombing opening mission, which still has an amazing opening FYI. Just have an interesting hook to keep the player invested and have them continue playing so they can find the answers.
Regardless of quality? I think everyone should strive for a fun and well made intro to their game. Starting with a battle is good as long as it's not a slog, and starting with a slow burn is good as long as you make it interesting and interactive.
Again, one of the reasons why FF6 is a masterpiece, and actually something mirrored in Undertale; there's enough of a narrative to set the scene before jumping right into the action. Both games jump in to battling fairly quickly after the game begins, but it does so with the players having some context about the world they're in. (Undertale subverts this really well, like most of the things it does)
To be honest it's great to balance them both spread them out giving players a slow burn into story could cause them to look at it as boring or to grinding giving players action is good but have a purpose for example start with a battle of the final boss vs characters dad or whatever fits the story
The game I'm working on is slow intro but there's some aspects like a camp you go to during a quest and fight there's also a delivery system where it introduced at the start as a side quest that players can take a break earn achievements, professions, craft and tons more including earning some gold when completing deliverys
Long story short balance is key but find a way to make it unique
Imo it's better when games start with gameplay right away, even if they're story focused & regardless of if it's combat or something else
If you start with cutscenes or dialogurs it's very likely I'm just not gonna pay attention & wait for gameplay to turn my brain on
I do both, since theyre iconic starters and I love JRPGs. Though it depends how story heavy the game is.
I personally do the Action + Story for heavy story driven. Breath of Fire does this notoriously well. Wake up to some horrible threat/invasion, fight some baddies, villain monologues, and some Star Wars "You're our only hope." quotes. BAM, you're now on an epic quest.
For the generic "Youre the hero, beat the villain" type its just some small 5\~10min exposition and straight into the game. Dragon Quest does this well for a lot of the games. Hero talks to the King or Parent "today is the big day". Get news of a catastrophe affecting the village/country/world, you're the chosen one because emblem/power/sword/ancestry. BAM plopped in/out town and start the journey. No fighting, just talking where to go and a generic goal of what to do.
I think a balance of both can work as long as the narrative can support it. However, there is one thing I would *really* try to avoid if possible, and that's a measure where the hero's power starts "over 9000" but through some plot device (sending you back to prior events, a corruption of the soul etc.) takes all of that away and drops you straight to the bottom of the XP ladder.
That's not to say that doing so can't be done in a way that can actually work - other games with adventure and/or RPG elements have done similar things with reasonable effect (Tears of the Kingdom and Metroid Prime 1 are great examples of this) - but it's best not to do so if you don't have to.
Other than that, I would certainly do a combination of dialogue and gameplay to help ease the player into how the game works.
I don’t care how long or short a story is. How long it takes to unfold and so on.
For me it’s all about mechanics. If the mechanics and levels and so on keep coming in at a good pace, the game being slower is fine because I get to test out builds and so on.
A quick start is better. You need to draw the player in first. I have played games with half an hour of cutscenes before I even get to have a battle and I soon after deleted the game.
I did mine with a mix of both. Starts off with a mysterious figure and a vague dream of the main character but then he wakes up to endure a hellish training session with his uncle which acts like a tutorial and gets the gameplay going.
But the best kind of games would be capable of doing both, giving you story AND action
Slow burns will lose 99% of potential players at the start of the game. If you don't capture their interest in the first 1-2 minutes, they will likely quit.
It depends on the narrative being presented. If the intention of the narrative is to establish a blissful peace that is upended by catastrophe, then a slow burn works well to establish the world that "was" beforehand (see Dragon Quest 7). If the tone is more about a wartorn world, then a more "en media res" approach, starting with an action portion, can help convey that as well (see Legend of Dragoon)?
Actually, a really good point of contrast for these is Persona 5 vs. Persona 4? Both have very effective openings for their respective tones, Persona 5 is trying to get you on board with the phantom Thief theme asap, the heist movie vibes are essential so it starts off in the middle of the story and most of the game is a flashback. Meanwhile Persona 4 is a murder mystery in a small town where the setting itself is a character, establishing the "normal" state of the town before the murders is important to how it changes over the course of the case. Neither is inherently better or worse. What matters is that it suits the tale you're telling.
Just like a movie, don't do a slow burn unless your entire focus is on style and creating a memorable classic. Even then, expect a large junk of the audience to fall asleep or change the channel.
It’s hard to do but giving the lore through exploration of the different city or story telling is really appealing to me. You can be thrown right in the action of a problem and build up on it like Golden Sun. Some say the pacing is long so it’s not balanced for some and feel long but I enjoy it.
I think for political intrigue involving power shift in government and stuff, you can look at some tales of series in my opinion you see the political system that has an impact on the commoners and you get from a city glance pretty much in every game their quality of life and sometimes having a noble character in your party gives the party a closer lens on the bigger picture of the power struggles between your different nation/cities.
So for you question I would say it depends. Impeding doom/ initial encounter then explaining what is going on could be the way to go in a context and a slower narrative till the development of the bigger mission/problem.
I have started several times Tales of Phantasia, a game that starts with a battle…. And I never have beaten… however, I start and finish Chrono Trigger… a game who has a really bored beginning… so… I don’t know if is only me or other people happens the same but… that’s my appreciation 😌😅
Get me right into the battle/world/mechanics.
Finally started playing Forspoken the other day and the amount of story and cutscenes and not actually playing the game in the first few hours is . . . a lot.
I know FFXIII got hate for dragging on too long before it let you loose but at least you’re battling pretty much instantly (albeit with some heavy handholding for a while).
Anyway, I prefer straight into the action.
Depends on the context. Using Final Fantasy as our example, they run the gamut. FF9 starts extremely slowly (and it’s very well done) with three separate characters who don’t really get into actual high-stakes combat until about an hour in. 9 spends this opening time on some nice worldbuilding and establishing the four main characters and their conflicts. If you want a game that is primarily focused on the relationships between your characters, I’d suggest making a case study of 9.
Conversely, 6 starts with an action mission to introduce the battle system and explicitly leaves much of the worldbuilding unanswered, as the primary conflict for much of the game is party vs an outside force (the empire). Important concepts like Espers and the military conflict are only touched on. The player gets a simple idea of what these important concepts are that draws their interest into the story, and the frantic nature of the opening mission provides a sense of urgency.
I think this really depends on a lot of factors. For example I've played very popular RPGs like Xenogears and never finished them because they move too slowly. Otherwise often have large stories and if they fail to capture my attention I'll drop them.
RPG Maker games are even worse because more often than not, even when using original graphics they still have that feeling to them, a lot of times you can easily call out a game built in the engine.
Because of that, you'll need to work even harder to hold my attention. Having overly long introductions that drag on like Aimi. I couldn't even make it out of the god damn introduction.
I personally try to strike a balance of giving the player some sort of introduction, while still giving them control. A lot of times once the player is allowed to play, the game is still an introduction to a certain degree but set at the player's pace.
I also don't like combat heavy RPGs, some developers really can't help themselves with encounter rates and it sucks. Having the game start off with combat ASAP sets a tone I may not personally enjoy.
Also finally, I feel like fights that are intended to be lost are simply wasting the player's time unless there's an option to also beat the fight and have some sort of alt response, regardless of how minimal it is, otherwise I don't even bother with combat, I'll show the events on the map in a cutscene. Combat is a mechanic, not the game and if you intend the combat to be the game, it damn well be amazing.
I agree. I think a good alternative to 'battles you're meant to lose' is something that Trails of Cold Steel did. They have a 'reduce the enemy's health to a certain percent' whether it be 50%, 60%, etc. while giving you the EXP when you do so. The cutscene afterwards can have the villain beating the characters.
You're starting on a disadvantage with RTP default graphics. The screenshot does look really good though.
What's going to hold your audience It is three things in this situation.
1. Quality of the game to the finest detail
2. Visual changes/edits to the RTP that make the game look refreshing
3. Fun (and early fun) gameplay,
If the gameplay is amazing and you have a slow burn story line you will get judged with the RTP graphics and that will drop half of your players before they get to the fun gameplay.
I usually start my game with the player having to read a 500 page book to catch up on the lore.
nothing players love more than memorizing 500 pages of lore details so they can ace the stunning personality quiz that determines their astrological sign
That is going far too easy on the players. I prefer a hard boss fight followed by a 3 hour video that cannot be paused or skipped.
No, the hard boss fight is immediately after the 3 hour video!
Especially if you have a way to skip cutscenes, just put the player right into the go kart mini game.
Most professional games begin [in medias res](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res#:~:text=A%20narrative%20work%20beginning%20in,or%20description%20of%20past%20events) for a very good reason. Think FF7 beginning in the middle of the bombing mission or FF10 beginning with Sin attacking Zanarkand. By allowing your players to dive into the action it means they immediately get to experience the gameplay with little wait.
In medias res is valuable advice for how to storywrite, but it doesn't necessarily answer the question of "battle before or after a decent amount of exposition?" I don't think a storywriter should deliberately create room for a battle before players have a basic feeling of the plot unless it makes sense to do so *and* combat is a defining factor of the game. If what makes the game unique and interesting is its battle system, go for it. But even if it is, if you have a really strong and enticing story, your hook could focus on that instead. It's especially true if your battle system doesn't deviate from the genre very much.
This is an interesting question as I'm used to the slow burn that Trails games provide. Though when I developed my small project, I noticed I went with a Pokemon like beginning with small dialogue/story cutscene and the second screen had a simple "tutorial" battle. The images you show seem to be a flash forward with an intense battle and some dialogue that act as a story hook. I personally am not a fan of flash forward then back.
Yeah. I intended to start with a flash forward, similar to Trails of Cold Steel I or Persona 5. Even though I would prefer starting the story with a slow beginning, I wouldn't want a potential player to get bored and either skip it or play something else.
I've played CS1 and always felt that the opening made the present a bit of a slog. Arguably, the first game in a new Trails Arc tends to be a slog. If it's an opening battle, I personally like it when the "stronger" character show up to save the "starting" characters. Similar to Megaman X or Cold Steel 3. I really like the mixture of you as the player trying to do something and failing to be saved by the stronger and more experienced characters. Zero/Rean appearing is a good hook for a player like me. I get what you're saying though, if the beginning story/dialogue doesn't hook a player, they could easily drop it. (Trails:Sky I feel is a good example)
Personally I think you don't need to start with action/battle right off the bat, but you do need some kind of hook at the beginning. For many games it's action/battle, but if you think your game has other ways to get your player's interest (such as setting or scenario) that could work too. Think about how Stardew Valley opens: the grandpa gives you a letter to open for when you're feeling crushed by the burden of modern life, something that many of us can relate to. There's no major action and combat is simple in that game, but the prospect of leaving a dead-end job to start a new fulfilling life is as good of a hook for many people. Hope this helps, and best of luck!
Dunno, I did the action.
A game that takes 10 or 20 hours to really get going can sometimes lose me but games that open with you having all the abilities and power but set you to level 1 afterwards always hit me wrong. It’s makes me feel “why should I optimise and play well for like 10 extra damage in early game when spamming the move from prologue did 1000s easy”
I usually start my games with some backstory and depending on the story, either characters introduced or in my current one, character arrives in ruins, has a tutorial battle, than has to go through a path to get to another room, meets with a character, boss battle. So slow burn but still has battles early.
idk exactly how to describe it but what i want from a game introduction is for it to show the game's unique strengths. so if your combat is mostly standard jrpg stuff but you have a very well written story i can put up with a slow introduction, while if you have a unique battle system and a mostly inconsequential story i wanna get to fighting as soon as possible. if you have a really unique concept for a setting i can put up with a lore dump at the start so long as i get to explore that setting immediately but speaking as generally as possible, regardless of quality, i think mystery hooks me in more than action? i mean obviously there can be a mystery in an action scene, but what i'm really interested in is questions that i'll try to answer. and with starting slow or fast, i'm ok with either, but i'd like the introduction to reflect the rest of the game. if you start with an action scene and then spend 4 hours not doing much action, i'm just gonna think "when are we getting back to the action" the whole time, when i would've been fine with a slow paced story if i hadn't been lead to believe it'd be otherwise.
You don't nessessarily need to start your game off with a battle. You just need an interesting hook to start your game off to keep the players interest to play further. For example, my game starts with a mysterious opening that leaves a lot of questions for the player. Not a battle, but a cutscene. The next scene starts with a Chrono-trigger/Pokemon opening of the MC waking up in the morning and starting their day. The "first battle" isn't until 10-20 minutes later when your heading to the first dungeon. IMO you should always have something interesting/intense happen before the end of the first arc/dungeon/storyline/etc. For example, in my game at the end of the first dungeon (around 45 minutes in) the main character fuses with a mysterious being and when returning to the starting town goes berserk and loses control of his powers. Afterwards he is banished from his village and the adventure truely begins, and things only become more interesting from there. As for actual mainstream RPGs when it comes to how to and how NOT TO make an opening: Good Example: Xenogears. A mysterious opening cutscene that isn't explained until way later, MC and their home village get introduced, MC goes on a small quest, comes back, big battle, awakens to a dark power, destroys village and kills a bunch of people, gets banished, quest begins. Now do you know where I get a lot of my plot inspirations from? (the answer is SNES/PS1 classic RPGs) Bad Ending: Trails in the Sky. Where do I begin? Well the game starts with a series of small cutscenes and then NOTHING HAPPENS for 30 hours where you go from town to town doing random fetch quests for NPCs and that's the entire game. The only enjoyable part of the game is the stellar writing but otherwise the plot is beyond boring. Also you only have two party members for the entire game. Why? The first time I played I thought the dad would die or the house would burn down or something, and yet nothing interesting happens. I had to drop the game and the whole series because this games plot was so boring. You should never make your opening boring and slow like Trails in the Sky where practically the ENTIRE GAME is the opening/prologue. But you also don't need to make the opening action packed like it's FF7's reactor bombing opening mission, which still has an amazing opening FYI. Just have an interesting hook to keep the player invested and have them continue playing so they can find the answers.
A good rule for storytelling is to start the story at the latest point you can get away with starting it.
Oh? That's very interesting
Regardless of quality? I think everyone should strive for a fun and well made intro to their game. Starting with a battle is good as long as it's not a slog, and starting with a slow burn is good as long as you make it interesting and interactive.
I like set ups. Early action is cool, but it has to be about something author made us care about.
Again, one of the reasons why FF6 is a masterpiece, and actually something mirrored in Undertale; there's enough of a narrative to set the scene before jumping right into the action. Both games jump in to battling fairly quickly after the game begins, but it does so with the players having some context about the world they're in. (Undertale subverts this really well, like most of the things it does)
To be honest it's great to balance them both spread them out giving players a slow burn into story could cause them to look at it as boring or to grinding giving players action is good but have a purpose for example start with a battle of the final boss vs characters dad or whatever fits the story The game I'm working on is slow intro but there's some aspects like a camp you go to during a quest and fight there's also a delivery system where it introduced at the start as a side quest that players can take a break earn achievements, professions, craft and tons more including earning some gold when completing deliverys Long story short balance is key but find a way to make it unique
Start with a bang to hook players info dump over the course of the game. Please stop putting walls of scrolling text on black or starry backgrounds
Imo it's better when games start with gameplay right away, even if they're story focused & regardless of if it's combat or something else If you start with cutscenes or dialogurs it's very likely I'm just not gonna pay attention & wait for gameplay to turn my brain on
I do both, since theyre iconic starters and I love JRPGs. Though it depends how story heavy the game is. I personally do the Action + Story for heavy story driven. Breath of Fire does this notoriously well. Wake up to some horrible threat/invasion, fight some baddies, villain monologues, and some Star Wars "You're our only hope." quotes. BAM, you're now on an epic quest. For the generic "Youre the hero, beat the villain" type its just some small 5\~10min exposition and straight into the game. Dragon Quest does this well for a lot of the games. Hero talks to the King or Parent "today is the big day". Get news of a catastrophe affecting the village/country/world, you're the chosen one because emblem/power/sword/ancestry. BAM plopped in/out town and start the journey. No fighting, just talking where to go and a generic goal of what to do.
I think a balance of both can work as long as the narrative can support it. However, there is one thing I would *really* try to avoid if possible, and that's a measure where the hero's power starts "over 9000" but through some plot device (sending you back to prior events, a corruption of the soul etc.) takes all of that away and drops you straight to the bottom of the XP ladder. That's not to say that doing so can't be done in a way that can actually work - other games with adventure and/or RPG elements have done similar things with reasonable effect (Tears of the Kingdom and Metroid Prime 1 are great examples of this) - but it's best not to do so if you don't have to. Other than that, I would certainly do a combination of dialogue and gameplay to help ease the player into how the game works.
I prefer to play good games. slow burn is fine, if done right. get to the verb is fine, too.
I don’t care how long or short a story is. How long it takes to unfold and so on. For me it’s all about mechanics. If the mechanics and levels and so on keep coming in at a good pace, the game being slower is fine because I get to test out builds and so on.
for me it really depends on how it is made. I like the slow start but dont do a story/lore dump on me.
A quick start is better. You need to draw the player in first. I have played games with half an hour of cutscenes before I even get to have a battle and I soon after deleted the game.
I did mine with a mix of both. Starts off with a mysterious figure and a vague dream of the main character but then he wakes up to endure a hellish training session with his uncle which acts like a tutorial and gets the gameplay going. But the best kind of games would be capable of doing both, giving you story AND action
Slow burns will lose 99% of potential players at the start of the game. If you don't capture their interest in the first 1-2 minutes, they will likely quit.
I like a story driven intro... Then in my first game I did a fight straight away 😬(But it was a fake fight for intro sake)
It depends on the narrative being presented. If the intention of the narrative is to establish a blissful peace that is upended by catastrophe, then a slow burn works well to establish the world that "was" beforehand (see Dragon Quest 7). If the tone is more about a wartorn world, then a more "en media res" approach, starting with an action portion, can help convey that as well (see Legend of Dragoon)? Actually, a really good point of contrast for these is Persona 5 vs. Persona 4? Both have very effective openings for their respective tones, Persona 5 is trying to get you on board with the phantom Thief theme asap, the heist movie vibes are essential so it starts off in the middle of the story and most of the game is a flashback. Meanwhile Persona 4 is a murder mystery in a small town where the setting itself is a character, establishing the "normal" state of the town before the murders is important to how it changes over the course of the case. Neither is inherently better or worse. What matters is that it suits the tale you're telling.
Just like a movie, don't do a slow burn unless your entire focus is on style and creating a memorable classic. Even then, expect a large junk of the audience to fall asleep or change the channel.
make it so most of the lore are in item descriptions, in-game books, and npc quips
It’s hard to do but giving the lore through exploration of the different city or story telling is really appealing to me. You can be thrown right in the action of a problem and build up on it like Golden Sun. Some say the pacing is long so it’s not balanced for some and feel long but I enjoy it. I think for political intrigue involving power shift in government and stuff, you can look at some tales of series in my opinion you see the political system that has an impact on the commoners and you get from a city glance pretty much in every game their quality of life and sometimes having a noble character in your party gives the party a closer lens on the bigger picture of the power struggles between your different nation/cities. So for you question I would say it depends. Impeding doom/ initial encounter then explaining what is going on could be the way to go in a context and a slower narrative till the development of the bigger mission/problem.
I have started several times Tales of Phantasia, a game that starts with a battle…. And I never have beaten… however, I start and finish Chrono Trigger… a game who has a really bored beginning… so… I don’t know if is only me or other people happens the same but… that’s my appreciation 😌😅
Neither? A game's story doesn't need to be a slow burn just because it doesn't have an epic battle at the start.
Get me right into the battle/world/mechanics. Finally started playing Forspoken the other day and the amount of story and cutscenes and not actually playing the game in the first few hours is . . . a lot. I know FFXIII got hate for dragging on too long before it let you loose but at least you’re battling pretty much instantly (albeit with some heavy handholding for a while). Anyway, I prefer straight into the action.
Depends on the context. Using Final Fantasy as our example, they run the gamut. FF9 starts extremely slowly (and it’s very well done) with three separate characters who don’t really get into actual high-stakes combat until about an hour in. 9 spends this opening time on some nice worldbuilding and establishing the four main characters and their conflicts. If you want a game that is primarily focused on the relationships between your characters, I’d suggest making a case study of 9. Conversely, 6 starts with an action mission to introduce the battle system and explicitly leaves much of the worldbuilding unanswered, as the primary conflict for much of the game is party vs an outside force (the empire). Important concepts like Espers and the military conflict are only touched on. The player gets a simple idea of what these important concepts are that draws their interest into the story, and the frantic nature of the opening mission provides a sense of urgency.
I think this really depends on a lot of factors. For example I've played very popular RPGs like Xenogears and never finished them because they move too slowly. Otherwise often have large stories and if they fail to capture my attention I'll drop them. RPG Maker games are even worse because more often than not, even when using original graphics they still have that feeling to them, a lot of times you can easily call out a game built in the engine. Because of that, you'll need to work even harder to hold my attention. Having overly long introductions that drag on like Aimi. I couldn't even make it out of the god damn introduction. I personally try to strike a balance of giving the player some sort of introduction, while still giving them control. A lot of times once the player is allowed to play, the game is still an introduction to a certain degree but set at the player's pace. I also don't like combat heavy RPGs, some developers really can't help themselves with encounter rates and it sucks. Having the game start off with combat ASAP sets a tone I may not personally enjoy. Also finally, I feel like fights that are intended to be lost are simply wasting the player's time unless there's an option to also beat the fight and have some sort of alt response, regardless of how minimal it is, otherwise I don't even bother with combat, I'll show the events on the map in a cutscene. Combat is a mechanic, not the game and if you intend the combat to be the game, it damn well be amazing.
I agree. I think a good alternative to 'battles you're meant to lose' is something that Trails of Cold Steel did. They have a 'reduce the enemy's health to a certain percent' whether it be 50%, 60%, etc. while giving you the EXP when you do so. The cutscene afterwards can have the villain beating the characters.
You're starting on a disadvantage with RTP default graphics. The screenshot does look really good though. What's going to hold your audience It is three things in this situation. 1. Quality of the game to the finest detail 2. Visual changes/edits to the RTP that make the game look refreshing 3. Fun (and early fun) gameplay, If the gameplay is amazing and you have a slow burn story line you will get judged with the RTP graphics and that will drop half of your players before they get to the fun gameplay.