pulp

Seems like you can either agree or disagree with Al-Qaeda - or risk an all out rhetorical attack that conflates Al-Qaeda's actions with its grievances. So when Zapatero stands up and condemns the US, he has to qualify that he abhors the actions of these terrorists. Well, of course - "you're either with us or against us", aren't you? Tragic, a world full of either/or's.

Hah! was thinking of starting a thread for Pax, but I guess mods always beat us to it! happy birthday, pax!

One more thing: did anyone else notice how prices magically skyrocketed with the introduction of CDs as opposed to floppy disks as the media of choice for developers? Over here, I could get an original copy of Darklands for close to 50 dollars, at the time, whereas now, I have to pay close to 120 to 150 dollars for a game.

Well, that was a fairly thought out post re: pricing, but what I - and I think others - would want to know is, what's an economist's take on reducing prices to encourage would-be pirates to buy games rather than pirate them? Would it or would it not be more profitable? If the answer is "no", then assuming that there will be - in the future - a diminishing pool of possible buyers of games, won't there logically be lesser returns over time from selling games priced at current levels? Because it seems to me that if more people begin to pirate, it seems these companies must raise prices to break even at least, and a price increase might just drive away more customers, and you have the begining of a vicious cycle. If I'm right in assuming that more people will pirate, over time, won't it be reasonable to lower prices to prevent this possible downward spiral? (Always assuming that lowering prices will encourage more people to buy, of course).

I wonder if its the sort of question he'd freely answer

Non-linear stories? You mean, an over-arching storyline but with enough freedom to explore other interwoven threads of different stories?

You'll have to qualify the question abit. Firstly, to which platforms are you refering to? Secondly, are you making a comparison across platforms? Lastly, and most importantly I feel, somebody will have to work out the average dev costs for a standard CRPG/FPS/etc game to have a benchmark by which to gauge a game's success or not - especially if you're asking about break-even points.

Good point. Playing FO:T real-time as close to real combat as possible (not necessarily sniper decoy + sneaked in characters w/ full burst auto), but with real fire movement and laying down the suppressing fire while troops moved up and all that.. well, it's a rush, and a good one. RT *does* have it's moments, but only if you're willing to lose hair, depending on the game.

Volourn> it all depends on the DM and the people you're playing with, I suppose LOL. With regards single-players vs. Multiple characters, it does figure into the debate in a big way - as you've pointed out, controlling more than one character does make a game more tactical, and I've argued that that's what TB games allow most specifically, and in the best manner possible. I do understand if feel that controlling more than one character lessens the role-playing strength of the game in general, but I'd argue that while this might be in a certain sense true, it depends very much on how developers have crafted the game - depending on the game being "player-centric" vs. "story-centric", the latter case being where the PC is incidental to the evolving drama around him/her/it. Oh, I'll be the first to agree that NWN is a good platform to explore other fan-created games/stories - it's what I loved NWN for. But that's after I got past the disappointing OC, which I completed as a matter of course, rather than with any real pleasure. Wrt MW, sorry, I don't prefer it at all. You'll note that with all the examples you cited, it all involved preparation prior to combat, and not actual in-game tactics *while* combat was going on. I don't see that as being tactical, just prudent .

Well, I think you'll take the point and agree that we can only base our discussions on past implementations, and not other hybrid - or otherwise - combat systems that we haven't actually seen yet. Or rather, seen implemented successfully. Till then I'll just reserve judgement on whether it's conceivable to have a hybrid RT/TB game. I don't like being forced to micro-manage also, and that usually comes up for me when I'm up against really low level enemies (like nasty rats). Turn base then does become a chore. But I'd argue that that might be more a function of game design rather than a fault of the combat system *shrugs*.

Volourn> We must be playing different games, because the unwashed masses always seem to want a piece of me up close and personal There's nothing wrong with aiming a fireball directly right down to a millimetre. It makes an odd sort of sense. If your character were real, accuracy and precision could possibly just the sort of things experience has honed. I don't see anything wrong with that notion, and I think it makes far more sense when there isn't a disjunct between the abilities of the real life player (you and me) and the player character. If you feel that isn't fun, then that's subjective. As for NWN and single players vs. parties, they are in my opinion at the heart of the debate - one allows you the versatility of having quite a variety of methods to resolve combat while the other restricts you to the abilities of your one character - and TB allows much more of the latter than the former. With regards the OC in NWN, I know you're an avowed NWN fan, but really, the OC was crap, to be brutally honest. That, again, is in my opinion. I'd like you to point out usable tactics in the OC. I'm just a bit sceptical, you see.

Yeah, that would be fine if all actions are undertaken by yourself - we have FPS for that, relying on your own dexterity and quick-thinking. The difference with RPGs is the fact that you acquire skills that allow you to act or fight in certain ways i.e. your *character* is already micro-managed. Heh, I'll be pugnacious and suggest that a micro-managed character implies the need for a micro-managed combat system, which TB provides.

My bad on called shots. It *has* been a while since I last booted up the game. As for knockdown and disarm, the mess is greatly reduced by the fact that you have just one character to control. I don't see how you can conduct fire movement, character positioning and other tactical options that are usually implied by a team of more than one - with real time combat in NWN all you have to worry about is going toe to toe with the enemy and pray you have the requisite skills to take it down. That and the fact that the enemy is going to charge right at you all the time. Imagine trying to step back to lob a grenade or toss off a spell only to be met face to face with the enemy - who's just followed you all the way back. With turn based combat, you at least have a sense of how much you can do in the time allotted to you before facing the enemy up close at melee range. ToEE's advantage is precisely because it's turn based - the fact that it has more options not only pertains to the more robust options that *can* be included in a turn based game, but also the fact that you can now utilize a whole range of skills provided for by multiple characters. How is this possible in real time combat? Even NWN is essentially a single-character game with an uncontrollable henchman, restricted to such because - in my view - it is precisely in real time. Pause can be used with real time combat, of course, with options to choose actions prior to unpausing the game, but then fluidity in combat is lost - which I would argue is the purpose of having combat in real time.

NWN's called shots are not to particular parts of the body, if I recall correctly. trip(knockdown) is a matter of a single click. So is disarm. But you have to queue these options first whereas there is a chance of firing off these special attacks too late. With TB you can choose precisely how you'd wish to attack.

Not at the same level as with pure TB games. You cannot choose the manner in which you attack, only the weapon you have chosen to use e.g. there's a marked difference between a thrust and a swing. You can't do aimed-shots with as great a variety and with as much flexibility as you can with TB. And, even if these are incorporated within a RT with pause game, you will end up pausing all the time - which in effect, removes whatever fluidity you might have striven for with combat systems of that sort. I don't see a good way to make a hybrid RT/TB game, unless you have a better suggestion.

I suppose it depends on what you prefer. I don't like RT with pause because I'd like to micro-manage the technical side of combat. RT with pause - a feature I deplored in BG et al - made everything far too messy.

Yeah, or it'll be a backslapping, tree-hugging session, with everyone gathered 'round congratulating each other for agreeing with each other. As far as I'm concerned, the whole point of discussions with extreme views are for people to read those views and then find their own middle ways. :D

Hullo. I'm pretty new here... to the Community I mean. Lurker before, poster today. hurray.

I second the motion (heh heh). Make a good TB CRPG. I've been playing Silent Storm and was just thinking how great it would be for a TB system like the latter married with very very strong RPG elements.

I'd second all the good suggestions above. To add to the above, I'd like an RPG with a compelling story; most compelling stories are usually tragic. Nothing too epic - I shouldn't be saving the universe, I should be saving some small slice of the universe The same dialogue and interraction in PS:T, but with a combat system as good as a bug-free ToEE.

Wow, thanks for telling me what I think. Quite a ridiculous request - if you don't mind me saying - since: 1. no one knows what Obsidian's next game is, if it even is KOTOR 2. 2. all speculation on whether it'll be good is as pointless as mould on bread, since - and get this - we don't know what they are working on.