Diogo Ribeiro

PS:T gives actual importance and various uses to character skills. Most situations can be dealt with via dialogue instead of combat. In fact most combat is avoidable. You are given certain interactivity functions to use while engaged in dialogue (an example would be the possibility to ditract someone in dialogue and kill them silently, instead of loudly and publicly - and this is also dependant of, say, Dexterity to pull off a swift neck-snapping). There are various endings, all according to what you decide. It has the first (and last) fully randomized dungeon using the IE, also. Different than BG and IWD? Definetely. PS:T far behind BG and IWD, gameplay-wise? No.

Popful Mail was nice.

3D environments offer the possibility of better interactivity, but not always. As pointed out, NWN is a bad example of it. You look to Arcanum, and the tile-based engine allowed for much more interactivity that NWN's poor attempt at 3D did.

That's ok

Hence why Planescape: Torment's premise - guide someone with amnesia - worked

There aren't Espers in FF8 <_<

Er... it was? This is related to Odin't strike in Final Fantasy 8. Zantetsuken was meant to mean "Iron Cutting Sword" or "Cutting Iron Sword". I don't recall it being Zanzetsuken; and I don't recall ever reading "zanzetsuken" anywhere, either I could be wrong, though

The idea of isometric being used for party-based games is ok, but it isnt a requirement. I can play solo in a party-based game (Fallout, Baldur's Gate), just as I can play a party in a first-person view (Wizardry). I believe it should be related to the type of combat. Turn-based works better in isometric. For one, you have quite a large view of the battlefield, which allows you to see a large part of the battlefield. You have a wider point of view, which allows you to build up estimatives of possible moves and analyze what part of your surroundings (if any) can be used to your advantage. Real time, however, works better in first person (FP), or third person (TP) in my opinion. For one, the "zoomed in" factor of the point of view gives players a larger sense of immersion, of being there. Isometric and real time also has a problem with allowing more specific combat options (like the impossibility of allowing to move and fire simultaneously). In FP/TP, you can directly control your character, and can do the above. Direct control allows for different and more interesting, player-controlled combat mechanics like combos and blocks if TP, or a more immersive type of experience of your standard FPS with things like prowling and phisically aiming at your targets if FP. Isometric's "zoomed out" perspective makes you feel like a general overseeing your troops; FP/TP perspectives makes you feel like a soldier actively envolved in the battle field. And if I had to name a favorite, I'd have to go with Temple of Elemental Evil's isometric 3D characters on 2D pre-rendered backgrounds. I have no problems with other types, but I like this best

I find JRPGs quite irrelevant to this. The would-be "greatness" or "usefulness" of ATB is purely subjective. In the "old days", ATB had 2 options: Active and Wait. Wait made it so it actually simulated turns (allowing for characters to only be attacked after they inputed their orders); Active made it so characters would be attacked even before they made their decisions. The main problem with it is that planning was rather mundane: few combat options, time limit defining when it was a characters' time to act (very bad imitation of turn), and the worse - no movement. It was even more boring and less interactive than a CRPG's TB.

@Greatjon: Theres no workaround that will diminish it, and adding more workarounds in a system which is already a major workaround to two different systems will start compromising its integrity. If you state that an RTWP system is useful in allowing players to get more control in everything during combat, then you can't approve of removing control (in this case, the inability to cancel already activated actions) because that is one of the ideas behind a RTWP system. The main aspect we should realize here is that when you pause, you're effectively disrupting combat pace for your own reasons, sacrificing realism. If you take realism as a rule, a turn is unrealistic, but so is pausing, as its also an abstraction of realistic combat. One can't approve one and disaprove of the other based on which is more realistic. As for the rest... I agree with all those lines, except with point #7. Not because I dislike realistic combat, but because I don't see a reason as to why CRPGs should have realistic combat. Also, #7 and #1 will always conflict, and there is rarely, if ever, an acceptable middle ground.

@Greatjon: Something which is well designed and well coded will usually work, but this is a different thing. Despite being well designed and well coded, RTWP will not be able to do some things either system provides. It can provide an alternate form of looking at, and playing, combat, and could work on its own; but because its set between extremes while using components of each in a different way will make it not work as well as the original systems. Sure, it can "work" for some players, but "working" and "doing something better" are entirely different. Hence why I pointed out that there is no actual reason to invest in a hybrid system that brings little to no improvement over the original systems its modelled after, but still brings most of their weaknesses. @Greatjon and Atreides: As for the artificiality and reality aspect... Arbitrary pauses serve one purpose, specifically, to show whose turn it is to move in a sequenced round. You're trying to bring realism into the table, and what is and isn't realistic, but the fact is, aside preference, realism is unimportant. If someone dismisses a turn in TB because they believe its unrealistic, then they're missing the point, and are looking at it the wrong way. A combat system does not have to be realistic, it just has to show what is happening in combat. And TB does it, quite well. If you base a combat system on how well if imitates real life, then there is something definetely wrong, as games, and anything included in them, do not have to simulate real life. Back to turns. People believe that a turn is unnatural, or artificial, or unrealistic. Yet, like I already pointed out, this abstraction actually helps in modelling "real life" combat situations. I'll just be repeating myself, but its called for. You have a situtation (and in this case I'm thinking of isometric CRPGs, not FPS/RPG hybrids which have different mechanics, and are a bigger abstraction from combat; im considering a purely point-and-click model) of where you want your character to move and attack at the same time. RT allows you to move, or attack, but not both simultaneously. RT and RTWP suffer from the same problem. You can order a character to walk into a direction, but to have it attack, it will not be able to keep walking: it will have to stop, and perform the attack until it disengages from that target, or until you issue another order. Simply put, running out of cover, firing into a group of enemies, and running to the next point for cover (all this while moving) is impossible. However, when you look at TB, your unrealistic turn actually models this event well. Since it isn't imitating reality, it allows you to, in one turn, represent non-stop movement involving displacement of one place to another while firing. Its "unrealistic", yet it managed to represent something a "more realistic" combat system could not. Now, realism should be judged on how well its simulated, not on how well it looks. It might look purty when it all moving at once, but its not actually simulating it well, is it? Thought so. If RT or RTWP are simualting reality because they move in real time, then the functionality of the system - the main component - is no longer at stake, and we would all be thriving on aesthetic values and placing them over functionality. Looks aren't everything. You also bring up the point of how having the system control when the game pauses doesn't bring it any closer to reality. TB doesn't have to be closer to reality; combat systems do not have to mimic reality. Even if they did, a turn is only allowing you to execute an action. Do you not execute actions on a combat situation? Also, a turn is derived of one thing: sequence. A sequence defines a chain of progression in combat, and a sequence is existant in "realistic" combat (the difference being, again, the real time execution of it). You state that pauses dealt by the system are not realistic, but forget that the pauses are in fact giving you control; the same control you'd have over yourself in "realistic" combat. In realistic combat, your turn is purely that, your turn. You decide what to do, and do it. Others decided what to do, and they do it. But combat always has an order of how things are played out, and that is what a turn does. The system isn't "controlling pauses", its determining whose time it is to act. Its giving you control, the chance to decide what to do. But of course, being an abstraction of combat does have its perks, and stationary turns are an abstraction, regardless of describing in detail realistic combat. However, the main difference here is the concept of the pause, and your idea of what is realistic. What is closer to reality - a system which simulates a specific set of events in a detailed way on a step by step way, or a system that allows you to play God by freezing everything whenever you feel like it? Again, a pause and a turn are two different things; but in terms of which is realistic, the pause is much more unrealistic. If you consider its unrealistic that the TB system is dictating pauses for everyone on the field, then why is it more realistic for the player to dictate pauses on the field? TB is only controlling enemy phases, and you are in control of your own (or rather, your characters') actions. However, a pause feature puts a halt to everything: including what was supposed to be carried out. So, it unrealistic to have a system which operates on a "You go, I go" rule, and that is simulating two independant sides of a battle, by allowing you to control your side as your enemies control theirs; but its not unrealistic to have a system that operates on a "We all go together" rule, but allowing the player to determine a stasis field for everyone? In short, its unrealistic to have God (the program) decide how things should go, but its realistic to let the player play God? Weird. Very Twilight Zone-ish.

@Volourn: It lessens interactivity by cutting down the level of interaction and involvement RT always gave players. The more options you add onto it that remove interaction and reflexes, the less you're investing in it. If instead of personally directing it, you're pausing, issuing orders, and sitting back and watch it unfold, its reducing it. @Greatjon: Thats my main problem with what you're trying. TB works well on its own, and RT works well on its own. RTWP tries to be both, but cannot do it. People have brought many examples in this threat pointing this out. You're basically after a system that has elements of both systems, you seem to want some elements from TB pasted into RT plus the pause, but that hybrid cannot implement some things, and will never be as good as either TB or RT on its own. The way I see it, there is no reason to try and develop a system which doesn't present any advantage over either system except possibly speed and a way to more actively and easily change your mind on combat situations. If it isn't better, there isn't a poitn; and why bother making something which could be just as good, when you already have a system that already is good for it? No I didn't contradict myself. A turn isn't the same as pause created by you, which was what we were talking about, but apparently you forgot. I've already explained what TB is trying to do; and have already stated it isn't artificial, its inherent to the system and to the depiction of what is happening. You consider a turn to be artificial derived from your own unapreciation of the system itself, because you consider it artificial yourself, as you claim its not realistic. If you can't differentiate between a pause which is natural and needed to explain what is happening in a system, and an artifical pause you use on your whim to influence combat (and why one is artificial and the other isn't), then I'm afraid this further investment into this point is utterly useless, as you can't cleary understand it, and I don't have the patience to repeat myself ad nauseum, and neither I want to bog down the thread to other forums user by constantly repeating the difference. But would approach your intention.

This is getting crowded. I suspect contradictions and forgetfulness of what was written in the past will crop up due to the need to try and keep track of what is being written, and predict a derailing of the topic somewhere in the next pages Anyway, I'm happy to see Saint P is here, and that a certain someone is already being owned with his own half-assed logic. Nostalgia. How it clings. Now, where to start? @Greatjon: My point was not wanting reflexes to play a part (I actually prefer them instead of resorting to pause); but rather, pointing out that you are trying to replace something with something else which operates on a similar concept - reflexes. If you say player reflexes aren't needed, but then replace them with something else which also needs reflexes, its... weird. Also, what you're aiming at is already available in the IE. It has feedback options which activate pauses based on certain events. But I find it strange that you're rejecting turn-based, but are advocating the creation of a system that imitates concepts of TB. After all, if you don't like the fact that you have automatical turns to decide what to do when in the face of a certain problem, then why would you propose a system which uses auto-pauses (which simulate, in fact, turns) to decide what to do when in the face of a certain problem? If you disaprove of pauses for one system, why include the same pauses you disaprove of in the other? I don't want things to happen in the same way. You are the one who is saying they can happen the same way, in TB and RTWP. I'm saying they can't. True. I didn't said otherwise; I only pointed out that a pause feature has no bearing on it. And why is RTWP better in helping you sort these changes out if you are given indicators of changes in both systems? Pausing is an exterior method of control. A pause is an artificial halt of the combat; a turn isn't, as it isn't breaking the flow of combat and is actually simulating the event as it would happen in RT. First, because pause is an artifical feature in comparison with both systems (TB and RT). Its a method which disrupts the flow of combat of both systems and allows players to avoid errors. Theres no point in stating that a pause = a turn, because it doesn't; just as its no use stating that a turn is an escape mechanism because it isn't. Turns are inherent to TB, just as real time is inherent to RT. Turns simulate one character's action(s) in battle, in a given time frame. Pause becomes an escape mechanism because its something which does not belong to the system and is only there to give you control in situations where other methods exist (wheter planning carried out by turns, wheter player reflexes). Secondly (and directly answering your question), I don't quite get your point. Any situation needs to happen before you decide to act on it. I don't see where this is contradictory of what Ive been saying. Would it? I'm thinking to a certain situation Ive seen happen in Arcanum on several occasions. In TB, I can lay waste to a minimal group of low level critters in seconds; but I've found that in real time, I take longer because they are running away in actual real time, so I spend longer chasing them. I don't think pausing would allow for a quicker chance of killing them, unless I was using ranged weaponry (and even then, I had several critters, not just one). As for not being subject to having to go trough x turns just to kill something, I think an option for an automated form of combat could be included. Now, I don't want to butt in between you and Saint, but "realistic" implies a concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary, and to be aware or expressing awareness of things as they really are. Magic is unrealisitc. What you perhaps meant was "credible". Magic can be made to be credible in the context of a fictional setting, but its not realistic. Thats why I also pointed out pause isn't realistic for a real time system, as realistic, you cannot pause your life. @ShadowPaladin: The pause added onto an RT system is also a limitation. It limits player interactivity, and aside personal preference, it does nothing except being an added layer of abstraction (which is another step in bringing down realism, for those that liked it). IF TB is a limitation, then why try to make RT play like TB by adding options into it?

@Greatjon: 1) Thats why I pointed out back there the need for a clean and easily accessible interface for strictly real time games. Note that you're trying to replace one thing by another that's almost the same. You state there isn't a need for player reflexes, but you will tap that pause button based on your reflexes whenever a problem arises or when you want to give orders. You state there isn't a need for constant interaction, but you constantly interact with it when you pause and issue all orders (and you will do this very often specially if you are controlling a party, unless you rely on your characters to have scripts that determine their actions - like attacking the nearest enemy when their current enemy is dead - which then makes it just a simple click and watch). The more enemies you have to deal with and the more options you have for doing so, the more you will have to constantly interact with it. Also, just the addition of pause does not make it instantly have more tactical planning or decisions. Adding a pause system adds the ability to include more options, thats certainly a fact. But what good is the pause or the added options if the options still have to contend with the fact that they are still executed in real time? There are quite some things which can

The Aurora Toolset was the foundation for KoTOR's engine. It's heavilly modified, but the original starting point was that.

Appreciate it. Thanks everyone I'm taking a Graphic Design course now (if all goes well, I'll finish it in 2006); when I'm trough it, I think I can then move on and try new things.

@Greatjon: 1) We can't change what RT means, and how it should work. When I say constant interaction, I'm talking of player-defined moves and attacks in real time. They're a necessity. There's no point in bringing up Dungeon Siege again as the example in how it was done, as it was a failure; if RT combat isn't dynamic and if it isn't challenging you, or making you actually participate, then it won't grip the player, and he will have a very weak role when it comes to deciding and acting in combat. If the level of interaction for combat isn't constant, part of the involvement and interest you have is removed - whats the point, after all, of playing a game that plays itself in many events? And if you're not involved in its working, or if you're not involved in it for large segments, then you're not playing, or you're playing less and less. Its that simple. Try to translate the concept of DS into an FPS. You aim a weapon at an enemy, fire (click), and your character keeps attacking it until its dead, not needing your input. That simply isn't acceptable. Same goes for player reflexes. If you aren't acting as quick as possible (and I'm going with the obvious rule of it needing to be as simple and clean as possible), by use of hotkeys and/or mouse, then you won't survive for long at incoming enemies. Again, translate your idea into an FPS. It would be ridiculous to try and implement such a feature (pausing to aim then clicking to attack, and unpausing), in a system that is meant to have player reflexes and interaction as its concept. Now before you tell me again you consider RTWP the same as RT, it isn't; and if you were using RT to refer to RTWP again, well, bummer, as I typed for nothing. If you want to add pause to it, again, its your call, but its no longer RT because the concept is undone. 3) Or perhaps not. 4) I didn't said that not being able to do it was more tactical, or better. Merely that having that function makes it very easy to correct mistakes, if not preventing them altogether (not forgetting the former challenge of RT which is now gone). It simply makes it exploitable in terms of error correcting or preventing. 5) TB steals the focus of the game? News to me. Why should it? And I think I said back there I considered TB to be the best. Or I may have said i prefered it, but in any case, yes, I prefer it for CRPGs. @G3N13: But that is not a problem; that is the whole point of RT, presenting action-based gameplay which doesn't revolve around planning. I think the problem here is that people are saying that RT doesn't need to be hectic, and can present other ways (in this case, a pause feature) to allow for more strategic gameplay. But that is not the essence of RT. It never was. If it had been, then RTWP would have been invented earlier, and the RT we know would probably not even exist. As for D&D implementation, was this even an issue here? No. Human error is anything but eliminated in TB, as your decisions are the primary drive behind it. You fail or succeed because of what you decide, after all. That isn't "cheese", its an abstraction of what would happen in RT. After all, after you spend your turn in TB moving out of cover, shooting and returning to cover, your enemies will take their next turn reaching you. The same would happen in RT, only, of course, in real time. You can do the exact same in RT.

@Greatjon: 1,2) I'd wager RT is basically both things at the same time: simultaneous events, and non-stop. After all, its what real time is. When you look to how time passes in real life, its the same. Unless we're erecting certain conditions for things in real life to take turns, it passes by like real time. 3) I think its weird because NWN's system basically had the IE system has a foundation; and if those elements in NWN were actually supposed to work that way, and weren't programming problems, then they could have made an appearance in BG with minimal programming effort. 4) The main event where the difference strikes is the time of execution. TB does not allow actions to be interrupted during their execution phase. Actions in it are basically automatically. As for the latter part... well, only if she listened :D 5) Then in this point, we're back to preferences. @Atreides: Yeah, TB really helped in the appreciation of Fallout's critical deaths. Goodbye lungs and half the head!

How about asking what things mean instead of trying to claim others don't speak english or aren't speaking anything at all, when its you that doesn't understand it? Just a thought. RT stands for Real Time. TB stands for Turn-Based. RTWP stands for Real Time With Pause. A is for An... no I'm not going to imitate that Crosby photoshoped image. <_<

@Greatjon: 1) Well, adding pause to a real time system is making it so its no longer a standard RT system. Almost the entire RT concept - that of constant interactivity and reflexes - is taken away. RT thrives on action and reflexes. When you add to it an option to pause and consider what to do, its no longer pure real time, but something else (RTWP). The idea of real time is that it happens in actual real time - no downtime, and no pauses. Adding a pause feature changes the system considerably (if not dramatically), and refering to it as if it was still pure RT is in my opinion a wrong appraisal of it because the change infused into it changes the whole point of having something in real time. 2) I shudder to think DS is an RPG at all :ph34r: But even considering it an RPG, look at it this way. Its true it shows you don't have to be constantly interacting with it in combat - but notice how that heavilly detracts from the combat experience for most players? Notice why its combat sucks for many people? There is almost no involvement, and that's bad. It shows precisely why constant interaction in an RT combat system is needed. 3) Possibly, but if that is the case, its damn weird it took them that long to include it in their games. BG series allowed for this, after all, and the system is basically the same. 4) As for my example, not quite. The whole difference in that situation is that in TB, you wouldn't be able to stop doing something if you felt it was wrong. In RTWP, you can, precisely of the pause. In TB you have to live with your decisions, and you can't stop executing a possibly counter-productive action by pausing: if you make a mistake, its yours. RTWP becomes more lenient in this matter. I can't see the challenge in being able to prevent potentially wrong decisions from being carried out. Another example. Imagine your girlfriend asks you a life-changing question (kinda like "Do I look fat on this dress?"). Suppose you have the option to say "Yes" or "No". Suppose that you begin to say "Yes", and notice her facial features are starting to change into that of a psychotic killer. You then pause your life, and choose the correct option - "No" You noticed you were going to fail, or that the action you were about to do could prove to be hazardous, but prevented it by pausing, and corrected your intention, and gave the right answer. You can't correct errors midway like that in TB. 5) Too much automation for my taste. That makes me abstract myself from my characters, and I don't feel involved in battle.

I disliked how Carsten didn't accept criticisms towards his ideas at a certain DaC thread. I read the exchanges between him and some forum users, and felt he couldn't stand up for his points, neither was he accepting criticism. I like it when developers interact with fans willing to give input, but Carsten isn't shaping up to be a JE Sawyer, which is a pity.

Well you're only messing with yourself, spud, as you're *gasp* yet again contradicting yourself. Just pipe down, you've already overstepped the boundaries of credibility.

Didn't they do that in Resident Evil 2 as a hidden character? But its moving to an RPG. A piece of tofu with character development and growth? Perfect.

Sure you did. Thats why you're back, isn't it? Don't be a hypocrite. If you wanted it to drop, you wouldn't be talking back at me. You could let it drop, but didn't. That shows how "commited" you were to letting it go. Or not.

Because I want you to shut up, and move on. Don't confuse "not caring whose fault it is" with "not caring about the matter". You're a big boy, I'm sure you can make the distinction. But given your apparent track record, and your continuous attempts at trying to get the last word, no matter how insignificant they are, I won't be that lucky. Oh well. There's always moderation.