Depends on the game but one reason it's done is to avoid save scumming. Sometimes save scumming can ruin the atmosphere in games, especially survival horror. Tactical and strategy games also make good use of limited saves to make the player rethink their plan before executing. For example, I prefer to play Fallout Tactics on Iron man mode as it really does increase the tension. However, in games where there's a lot of RNG, I absolutely hate it.

Could you imagine playing an ARPG where you could just save before the boss and keep reloading until you get the loot you want? It would ruin some of the excitement when you get some decent loot.

There was also the issue of storage on older consoles but yeah, I won't get into that as this is about PC games.


Edit: Re losing saved games do to crashes. Oh yes, I totally agree to that which is why devs should make sure that NEVER happens. If the game as only one save and it's likely that save could be corrupted, you've pushed out a borderline unwinnable game.

I can. In fact, I have done it in SaGa 2 (which is turn-based, but that's actually irrelevant to your (or my) argument). Specifically, the Dunatis fight is one that can lead to lots of reloading, because Espers (Mutants in US FFL2) have a chance of learning any Esper skill, including things like Flare. (In fact, in the original Game Boy version, this can be used to escape the Dragon Race (and keep the dragon), though I have found an alternative method that doesn't require an Esper.)

I could also mention the Tinker Bell in Final Fantasy 5, which is only available as a rare drop from a boss; there is no other way to get it, and no way to re-fight the boss. (Well, the GBA version added an arena where you can re-fight the bosses in a boss rush-type mode, but you can't get any item drops there.)

My conclusion is that game design that would encourage abuse of the save system is flawed game design, especially when it comes to random drops. (Incidentally, one flaw of the DS remake of SaGa 2 is that it actually encourages this more than the original, particularly when it comes to digging up buried treasure. Fortunately, the new arena doesn't suffer from this issue, as the reward you get is non-random (instead determined by the threads you use), and any resources you use are given back to you after the fight.)

I was referring to random loot drops in ARPGs (not RPGs) that you could mule between different characters, seeing if they could be used in any future builds. I wasn't trying to get 100% completion in a game or trying to get anything specific, but I do see where you're coming from.

Why do you specifically exclude regular RPGs from this discussion? Nothing in your argument precludes that sort of thing.

(Anyway, I do think that boss drops shouldn't be random.)

I wasn't intending to specifically exclude RPGs. it's just what you mentioned was different to what I was thinking with ARPGs.

I do agree with you that not being able to learn certain enemy skills in an RPG playthrough because of RNG is a bad design choice. I'm sure I played games with that in it but I'm not sure what they were as I never cared enough to find them. Also, It's one of the reasons I never bothered with the chocobo breeding game in FF7, there was a luck component IIRC. I'm not sure how familiar you are with ARPGs but the chance to find hard to find loot is part of the excitement of ARPGs and being able to save scum would ruin that. You aren't permanently locked out of anything like you mentioned in your example.

In RPGs, I think a little randomization in loot drops is okay. Considering the boss is only killable once, the possibilities should definately be limited. For ARPGs though, bosses are reset every game session, drops need to be random otherwise killing them again is pointless

I have seen games that do not follow the generalizations you present.

Some games that are commonly referred to as "ARPGs" do not have respawning bosses, like Final Fantasy Adventure, Secret of Mana, Crystalis, and many others. In fact, Crystalis doesn't even have random bosses, and the other two games I mentioned only have them as a minor component (and only from non-boss enemies).

Conversely, in the Etrian Odyssey series of turn-based RPGs, bosses respawn every certain number of in-game days, and can therefore be killed multiple times. Also, some classic computer RPGs don't keep track of which bosses have been killed, allowing you to re-fight them (I believe the two boss fights in the original Wizardry are like that).

Also, in my SaGa 2 example, the skills aren't enemy skills, but are rather skills that an Esper learns randomly after battle, and that particular boss happens to have a high rank, allowing you to potentially learn powerful abilities like Flare from it. (The boss in question is actually rather easy in the original, and the DS remake did not take out its vulnerability to petrification.)

Mini games that punish the player for exploring. Fallout 3 and new Vegas, no, I DON'T feel like a hacker or lockpicker, and I DON'T like being perm locked out of computers, locked rooms, and crates because I failed too many hack attemptss or blew a forced lock attempt. Dues ex human recolution, stop punishing me with hundreds of hacking games for daring to want to immerse myself in the world by wanting to read the email entries the dev team spent hours and hours writing for the player to find. Finally, saints row 2 and 3, the minifgames AREN'T real missions no matter how you ty to disguise them with phone calls or cut scenes.

Of course, games are not simply carbon copies of each other and I didn't say all ARPGs had the same mechanics.

Secret of Mana for the SNES right? I remember playing that one many years ago but I thought that was a JRPG. I haven't played the others you mentioned so I can't comment on them.

And ......errrrr........why did your posts get downvoted? :S

Here's the thing: What you refer to as ARPGs are action games with RPG elements; this distinction is orthogonal to the JRPG/WRPG distinction. Whether a game is turn-based or action has no relationship to whether a game is Japanese style or Western style.

As for why my posts get downvoted, I highly suspect that some users don't like me for some reason (I suspect transphobia) and are abusing the reputation system. (I've already reported that.)

It's the Guardian Forces that give you massive bonuses with more experience. True that enemies hold your level but leveling up Guardian Forces will allow you to junction magic to more stats making you massively stronger than enemies.

I was level 100 and I one shot killed everything, because of higher level Guardian Forces. Also abilities like +40% HP, and +40% magic damage.

Yes, but at some point I found out that you can simply avoid leveling at all, because bosses only give AP and no EXP. If you do that all monsters stay on their base level but you can still boost your states with the junctions, even getting high level spells early from the cards game.

You can still hit for 9000+ damage but even the last boss will have like 10 000 HP. Basically every time you kill a monster that gives EXP you make the game harder for yourself.