Flaws of the Sticker Battle system

#21EvenSpoonierPosted 11/19/2012 7:40:43 PM
1) Flawed assumption: there is no lack of sticker diversity.
2) Flawed assumption: quite a number of enemies require specific strategies.
3) Funny; I haven't found regaining Things to be particularly painful at all.
4) If you don't spend so much work at sucking every last iota of fun out of the game, you'll find that the game doesn't get all the fun sucked out of it.
5) Flawed assumption: that because the game does not adopt your pet mechanic, there is no way to control the outcome of battles.
6) I love SRPGs, but I do not claim that every game should be an SRPG. This game is not an SRPG, and that's OK.
7) To a limited degree, yes, but the alternative is making it ludicrously painful to reliably build a supply of the stickers you want.
8) So don't fill your entire supply with valuable stickers: keep some throwaways to deal with throwaway enemies.
---
"Playing a game for its graphics is like watching pornography for the story." - Kadiroth
#22wiiking96(Topic Creator)Posted 11/19/2012 8:15:45 PM
EvenSpoonier posted...
1) Flawed assumption: there is no lack of sticker diversity.
Of course there is:
- Fire Flower and Ice Flower/Burnhammer and Chillhammer both behave the same way
- Having two stickers that just add extra jumps is redundant when the basic jump already bounces 4 times
- The Bomb, Throwing Star, Bone, Sombrero, and Rench stickers all act basically the same
- The snowball sticker is too similar to the Shiny Shell sticker
- Action commands are terribly repetitive
- Shiny/Flashy Stickers behave exactly like their weaker counterparts

Ect, ect . . .

2) Flawed assumption: quite a number of enemies require specific strategies.
And how many different strategies are required in total? Are any truly new strategies added? Abusing spiky enemies is lazy, and a lot of enemies lose their previous uniqueness.

3) Funny; I haven't found regaining Things to be particularly painful at all.
Difference in opinion, I guess. Please note the first statement in the OP.

4) If you don't spend so much work at sucking every last iota of fun out of the game, you'll find that the game doesn't get all the fun sucked out of it.
Wait, are you assuming that I tried to make battling less fun? How the heck does that make sense? I put in the effort to collect as many coins as possible because I thought a lot would be needed in the long run. I was wrong.

5) Flawed assumption: that because the game does not adopt your pet mechanic, there is no way to control the outcome of battles.
That's not what I said. I said that you don't have any real control of how future battles play out, or making your play style different. Badges added layers of depth and strategy to battling.

6) I love SRPGs, but I do not claim that every game should be an SRPG. This game is not an SRPG, and that's OK.
It seems you don't have any real refutation of this. Being able to attack what enemy you want is not something unique to Mario RPGs. It's just something you expect in any turn-based battle system.

7) To a limited degree, yes, but the alternative is making it ludicrously painful to reliably build a supply of the stickers you want.
Not if you buy Stickers. Having predictable locations of any Sticker you want makes it way too easy to build up a good moveset.

8) So don't fill your entire supply with valuable stickers: keep some throwaways to deal with throwaway enemies.
Except that, in the later levels, very weak stickers ironically enough become rare. I remember far too many times when I had to use a more valuable sticker because I didn't have any better options. It gets very frustrating.
---
Quote and Curly Brace for Super Smash Bros 4!
Appeasing an unlimited amount of chocolate . . .
#23SinfullyvannilaPosted 11/19/2012 8:46:54 PM
Not sure how this relates to what I said. I said that since each world has almost the exact same selection of Stickers(as shiny's act no different), then battles among each of the worlds will play out way too similar to each other.

Are restricted to their world, unless farmed


Umm, you completely contradicted yourself there.

So having 6-8 different attack options on one particular enemy type means its repetitive? Yes, you may use some attacks more than once, but if every attack works on almost every type of enemy, whats the point in having such diverse attack options? It adds strategy.

No, having an enemy that only 6-8 attack options work on at all gets repetitive. It's pretty likely that you are going to only use about 2 of those options in any given world. Strategy comes from deducing the optimal choice from many. Magic Bullets don't add strategy, they restrict it, since they are the only viable choice to make.

Not really, because you got a greater diversity of rewards in the old battle system. You could battle just to farm badges with Ms. Mowz if you wanted to.

That's why I'm saying I understand in theory. In practice though, since coins and badges were easy to get, there was little reason to go out of your way to get them. And they didn't help the mid-world battle fatigue either, since generally, there was no way to spend coins anywhere but towns, after the world was completed. So if you WERE going out of your way to do battles to get coins, you were doing it during the interludes. And you didn't get Miss Mowz until EXTREMELY late in the game and after a ton of tedious fetch quests.
---
Polite conversation should never include Politics, Religion or what constitutes an RPG.
#24SinfullyvannilaPosted 11/19/2012 9:01:17 PM(edited)
How long has it been since you played TYD? Is it possible that you are forgetting that many of the problems caused by these design decisions were in that game too?

Wait, are you assuming that I tried to make battling less fun? How the heck does that make sense? I put in the effort to collect as many coins as possible because I thought a lot would be needed in the long run. I was wrong.

WHO WHOA WHOA, hold the phone here. Basically, this statement leads me to believe, that you were led to believe that there was more value in the coins than there were. Which means the alleged flaw didn't come into play until AFTER you played through the game, which means that while you were playing the game, the battles DID have value. Why look on back on the experience with a critical eye, when the design decision didn't bother you WHILE YOU WERE PLAYING IT? You are doing nobody any favors here by attempting to disillusion them.
---
Polite conversation should never include Politics, Religion or what constitutes an RPG.