Inaccurately Accurate

[RokuGurin]

You know the whole accuracy thing in RPGs never made sense to me.

For one, it's just hilarious how some attacks just seem to miss their target. Especially in games where you visibly see the attack connect. That fire spell hit the enemy, right? Nope, it missed. Somehow.

Sometimes, it's just absurd. Take Pokemon for instance. Can anyone explain how you can miss with an attack called Sing?!

And going to my fire spell example, how exactly can a magic spell MISS? I guess if you're making it pretty damn obvious you're going to aim at a specific area where the opponent is standing, then yes, they can simply sidestep to avoid it, but when you conjure up fire out of nowhere...

Yeah, excuse me, sir? Hold the bill for a moment. I don't think that makes sense.

As to my second point, take some ARPGs for instance. Games like Tales of Symphonia/Abyss/Whatever don't really have a way attacks can miss, which does make sense...but then again don't. I mean, it's pretty easy to avoid a slow moving Demon Fang, right?

I suppose it's a situation that's neither heads nor tails.

Then again, I'm trying to make sense out of video game physics, so maybe I'm being silly right now.

You decide.

[Garamonde]

To be fair Sing could most likely be avoided by covering your ears.

I do agree though, missing attacks are not only annoying but can cost you the battle.

[Kami]

It's rediculously shown, if it's going too miss, they should at least have a differnt animation to indicate that it missed instead of saying missed even though it shows it hitting the target.

[Kriven]

...So basically you all want to take the element of unpredictable life risk out of the game?

[Kami]

no. It's just that stabbing something squishey like a slime or a person shouldn't miss if it shows the attack making contact.

[Garamonde]

...So basically you all want to take the element of unpredictable life risk out of the game?

Well okay when you say it like that I guess it's fine. Losing Pokémon battles this way is the worst though.

[Mutsukki]

That's something called, gameplay mechanics? The game needs to be balanced somehow, not having this miss chance would be dumb, it's there for a reason.

I kinda agree about different animations, but RPGs barely animate in the first place

[Terminal Devastation]

but when you conjure up fire out of nowhere...

I originally wanted to suggest a few ways this does in fact make sense, but then I realised the implications of my theory, and think it would be really neat to explore the concept more accurately as a game mechanic.

When fire comes up out of nowwhere, you're using pure visual distance to judge where the fire should just appear. Still have to aim it in a sense, so a mage might misjudge the distance and direction from time to time....

And then I had the idea of magic becoming more likely to hit the more its used in a fight, sort of like a bizzare game of battleship, where your vision is the same as if you were really drunk, and your opponent is showing his board as well.
You can see the target, but can't quite grasp exactly where it is.

[Gaia]

For one, it's just hilarious how some attacks just seem to miss their target.

The Ultima spell is an example here, in reality, a spell like that would've been unavoidable and used as a last resort, as it will also take the spellcaster down with the enemy he's fighting.

Other spells with a huge range would just obliterate anything realistically if casted, unless the caster had a charm to protect himself from his own spell of death.

I mean, it's pretty easy to avoid a slow moving Demon Fang, right?

Demon Fang IS a starting move and is just a rush attack, so it should be easy to see coming.

but when you conjure up fire out of nowhere...

Yeah, excuse me, sir? Hold the bill for a moment. I don't think that makes sense.

Well, you can also just do a little chant while doing a certain body motion (a hadoken-like motion should do the trick) to cast a fire spell, it's been done in role-plays before gaming existed.

For one, it's just hilarious how some attacks just seem to miss their target. Especially in games where you visibly see the attack connect. That fire spell hit the enemy, right? Nope, it missed. Somehow.

It's the game mechanics. See the Final Fantasy Tactics series.

[Zero Kirby]

The best way to remedy this problem would be by having you control the character directly and then using attacks so that

A) It takes actual skill
B) It's your fault when you mess up
C) The games might be fun

Then again even Kingdom Hearts DS didn't subscribe to the whole "your fault when you miss" newsletter

Or do it like Paper Mario 2 and have the characters miss only under certain circumstances. And then add Action Commands to make the game fun.

[SKELTON S. SKELETON]

see the thing about RPG's and combat is the miss factor is ostensibly the way of keeping the game relatively balanced.
you have to remember; JRPG's and even western RPG's commonly use dungeons and dragons based mechanics to form the basis of their gameplay
in dungeons and dragons, attacks missed because the game was simulating combat. the "miss rating" was what happened when your attack was calculated against the score of an enemy. the logical reason for this is so enemies had the same chance to auto-dodge as players do.

this works wonderfully for balance reasons because it means encounters last for longer and it means there's still a chance for the game to stifle the players power so they can't entirely steamroll an area/encounter. even as game mechanics developed and mutated through the years from using tabletop games as a complete basis, the idea is still the same.

[puggsoy]

The Mario & Luigi RPGs (SS, PiT, BiS) fixed this problem fantastically. Whether stuff misses or hits is based purely on your personal skill, not a player statistic, and when it misses IT ACTUALLY MISSES. From what I recall Paper Mario also did this, at least to a certain extent.

This is one of the factors that made me love the games. If you got hit by an enemy, or your move didn't do enough damage, it's actually your fault and you can improve from your mistakes. In other RPGs like Pokemon, if I keep missing the enemy or the enemy keeps hitting me (despite using Sandstorm 5 times) I'm like "AAARGH WHY IS THIS HAPPENING IT MAKES NO SENSE", which makes the game a bit less fun.

[Hoeloe]

The best way to remedy this problem would be by having you control the character directly and then using attacks so that

A) It takes actual skill
B) It's your fault when you mess up
C) The games might be fun

This.

Very much this.

[Gwen]

That's what I really wish pokemon would do, since in the anime it's not that turn by turn but intense on and forth battle. I wish you just controlled the pokemon during battles.

[Mutsukki]

But the appeal of Pokémon is that it's a competitive turn based RPG, there's not really anything else like it. I always think that's what the spin-off like Mystery Dungeon or idk, PokéPark try (or should) to achieve with you controlling the Pokémon and all that (even if Mystery Dungeon is still RPG-like).

I see people in this thread calling this a problem, when it really isn't. Action-based RPGs are something else entirely. While I love them (probably more than regular RPG), I don't think that is what should define the genre. RPGs have always been about planning, finding weakness and thinking fast (and grinding, but welp)

The best way to remedy this problem would be by having you control the character directly and then using attacks so that

A) It takes actual skill
B) It's your fault when you mess up

I don't see how RPGs take no skill. They just don't need reflex skills, unlike in most games which rely solely on them. And since the enemy can also miss for no reason, it's balanced. I don't see the problem, really, it sounds more like most people complaining in this thread just don't enjoy RPGs :I