[Crazy Game Ideas]

Controlling a 5 foot tall piece of Tofu wearing glasses as the main character.

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.

[Will This Game Suck?]

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.

[Will This Game Suck?]

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.

[Will This Game Suck?]

Like I said I don't care who started it, or who's right or wrong. Enough is enough.

[Will This Game Suck?]

I think targetting an entire group of people because of the actions of few isn't exactly correct. If you have a problem with people from other sites, don't bring it here. And if you dislike people from that other site and their actions, then your constant pseudo-advertisement of it seems dubious, at best. If you claim some people here are acting on behalf of a group, or are acting exactly like said group acts, I suggest actually presenting proof - specially if you imply said site's activity revolves around the element of homosexual pornography. Or better yet, a reason why we should put up with the same repetition of that statement.

 

I don't really care who is right or wrong, but trying to read a thread and coming up with "Oh noes teh eeeeeevil guys from teh Codex are meanies and have teh porn and are beating me up and I cant answer back so I flip out and cry" at regular intervals is getting on my nerves.

[Crazy Game Ideas]

For example other part thinks he is fisherman and other thinks he is fish.

What would the character do in the fish segments of the game - stare at us, open its mouth and let bubbles come out? <_<

[One word a day to express you you feel]

Paracetamol.

[Why so quiet?]

I don't know, but it could be, it could just be, they might be, like, working. But don't feel pressioned by what I said.

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

I don't understand the first statement. How is it impossible for the designers to put the same options into a RT game that they could put into a TB game?

 

Ok, i'll more or less repeat what I said before. A purely RT system has to be as streamlined as possible in terms of options and in terms of interface to use said options. It needs constant player input for combat and cannot afford to have the player always reaching for the interface, losing time fumbling for icons when the character is involved in non-stop battle. Since RT combat is always requiring the player to be active, it needs a small amount of fast-using, but reliable options, and can't give a plethora of options which bog the player down in endless interface buttons or skill trees.

 

Thats why I said that you probably meant RTWP instead of RT as the pause would allow players to access the interface at their leisure.

 

Also, I don't see how RT is hectic by nature. That's more a function of game design and how much is happening in an encounter. You can design the same encounter in any system; TB can be just as hectic with enough enemies thrown in. The only difference is that in TB, it would take a lot longer, and proceed much slower.

I'm not refering to game design, I'm refering to its very nature. Everything happening simultaneously and unstoppably is more hectic than TB. Thats just how it is. Intense activity (often leading to one having little to no control over) is hectic. Considering that RT combat is also usually faster and more confusing, it becomes even more hectic in certain situations.

 

It's been awhile since I've played Neverwinter Nights, but how I remember it, you weren't able to cancel actions instantly. If you decided to cancel a spell, the character would still go part way through the actions of casting, before being able to start something else, and often would wait a second or two before going into the next action.

 

NWN is but one of the RTWP games out there, and is an exception. And in this case, from what I remember, that happened because of bad programming and trying to have the animations fit in with your actions. Volourn will correct me, I'm sure

 

As for your examples of reacting to something else that's happening, such as a spell being cast, or drinking a protective potion or something. In TB, these things would either happen before or after you have to decided your action.

Thats the point of TB. Planning. If you fail to escape something or succeed to avoid it, its all based on how you planned. I can't see how pausing to avoid suffering consequences to bad decisions be an improvement over tactical planning, or how its good combat. In fact, thats precisely the point. In TB you'd suffer if you made a bad choice. In RTWP, the possibility of failure is quite lessened. An example (which is only to present the gist of it, its not meant to be accurate):

 

TB situation, part 1: You enter a room where a wizard engages in combat, and you decide to engage as well. In his first turn, he draws magical power for a magical surge spell. You are not sure if the spell will be a direct-hit spell (like Magic Missile, or Chromatic Orb), or if it will be an area-effect spell (like Fireball). Nevertheless, he wasted his turn drawing magical power, and you decide to advance towards him in your turn. His next turn however is devastating as he launches a maximized area-effect spell using himself as the epicenter of unleashed magic, and you die. You failed because of your wrong decision.

 

TB situation, part 2: Like before, but you decide to stay where you are in your turn. The wizard unleashes the spell, but you were not in its area of effect. You survived, and the next turn you advance towards the wizard. You lived longer. You succeeded (or at least, lived for a few more turns) because of your correct decision.

 

RTWP situation: You see the wizard and decide to attack him, so you click on him to have your character attack. As you approach him, you see him gathering magic energy. Considering it to be devastating, you automatically pause the game. You just paused the carrying out of your bad decision to rush headlong into him, and with the game paused, can now decide to run away to avoid being hit. You succeeded because you avoided any consequence to your wrong decision, and somewhat "correct" it before it could bring bad results.

 

If everything else is static during your characters' turns, then it's not a very good approximation of what they'd be doing in real-time.

 

Thats why its an abstraction of combat, not a die-hard anal realistic simulation. Again, it doesn't have to happen in real time to show how real time would work. If turn-based systems were invalid in depicting a real time sequence of events, the turns taken in chess games wouldn't be considered valid, then.

 

But it also allows you to go through combat much more quickly and fluidly than turn based, even if there is a speed slider. You would still have to give orders every single turn, and you don't have the ability to queue orders.

 

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but are you implying RTWP has turns?

[Crazy Game Ideas]

Controlling a 5 foot tall piece of Tofu wearing glasses as the main character.

[Location (no age or sex required... yet)]

Europeans rule.

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

'aight

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

All the examples i gave served their purpose. It doesn't stop them from being unecessary elements to combat situations. Wheter its an overabunance of duergar (which I thought were sniverflibin or whatever <_<) or bugbears or ants, it becomes boring and repetitive. Yet you concede that neither of those situations is representative of the game, neither is it representative of the combat system.

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

Thats what i said, Vol, that both are passive. Where did i said it was more passive?

 

And the problem you're describing - amount of enemies - isn't a problem with the system itself. Thats bad design. The useless amount of bugbears in ToEE is as useless and boring as the amount of giant ants in the Broken Hills mine in FO2. Just as it was useless and boring the inane amount of sniverwhatever gnomes in the lair of the Drow Bhaalspawn in ToB that kept respawning.

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

The problem with most of what you wrote is that you're trying to recreate something in RT which already exists and functions quite well in TB; effectively trying to take all the inherent elements of TB forcefully fit RT for no good reason other than would-be superior form of control and AI latency. If a person states that TB is too slow, there is the option of speed sliders for all the actions in combat; or the option to increase search pathways; or the option to increase a higher graphical rate for sprites. If a person states that TB is too passive, they have to concede that so is RTWP, given you issue orders and watch combat unfold, just like TB (with the main difference that in TB you issue orders one by one, while in RTWP you can issue orders for everyone; but its passive nonetheless). If a person states that pause is a great feature because it allows you to handle your characters in a given situation, then there's two scenarios. One, the person does not like the TB method, and is not interested in a step by step control, and prefers instant and absolute control over everything with a "universal" pause. Two, they just want the control but are not particularly interested in the time it takes. If its the later, they can look to Wizardry 8, which is phase-based, and makes it so at the beginning of each round players can assign actions to every character, and they're all carried out automatically until the end of the round, where it will start all over again. If its the former, than its their preference, but being able to pause at will isn't a concept that goes in hand with good combat given it removes the challenge (one of the primary interests of combat). The only merit it has is providing a way to dictate the pace of combat. One can argue that handling all characters in one single event determined by the universal pause is cutting downtime and is an improvement, but controlling all characters in one single turn is effectivelly the same as controlling one by one. Does it take less time with the universal pause? Yes, it does. But that doesn't make it bad; its just not up to snuff with personal attention span. I understand why people would think that guiding 8 characters in 8 individual turns is boring, but controlling those same 8 all at once several times in combat isn't much of an improvement.

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

There's absolutely no reason you can't have the same amount of options available in RT that you can have in TB.

 

I think you mean RTWP instead of RT up there, otherwise you're making a false statement, as RT cannot have the same amount of options as TB on its own.

 

The problem comes in being able to make use of them, hence pause. Although in some past games, RT may have been hectic, and thing may have been cut out to make the game flow better, there's no reason it has to be that way.

RT is always hectic, with or without pause. There's no way to prevent it. The ability to pause doesn't make it less hectic. When you unpause, it resumes its hectic nature.

 

How does TB have "the advantage of allowing you to see it on a more relaxed frame of observation" if you can pause the game at any time?

 

I had stated back there it allowed for it in comparison to RT, not RTWP.

 

How can you walk into a mistake in TB when you only have to decide the actions of one character at a time?

The chance of error is possible, and unstopable, in most (if not all) TB games. You can "walk into a mistake" by deficient planning, you can do a certain action which has no possible escape or cancellation, such as attacking; you can't pause to cancel actions in TB, as they're carried out automatically.

 

Other characters can ready actions and such, but it's harder to do. There's also no reason in a future game that a pause feature would mean instant cancellation. You might be able to alter the course of action part way through, but ideally, not cancel it flat-out. This kind of feature isn't really needed in TB, because nothing else is moving while it's your turn.

 

Pause does allow you to cancel it. In all RTWP systems I've seen to this day, thats what happens. By pausing, you can cancel pretty much everything you're doing. In RTWP you can pause to avoid delivering a blow, for instance; or pause and backtrack if you see a mage firing an area-effect spell such as Fireball; or having a mage start casting a spell, notice the enemy launched a protection against that spell, pause and order him to run away, effectively terminating the spell he was about to launch and allowing him to run away. Thats the "escape method", as it can let you flat-out cancel things. Prime candidate: all IE games.

 

And TB does not show what a character would be doing in real time; in real-time, everything else would be moving, and they'd have to react to that.

Yes it does. Note the difference between "happening in real time" and "showing how it would act out in real time". TB is a simulation of combat which shows in detail what is meant to happen in RT. It doesn't need to happen in RT to show how it would happen.

 

A RT with pause system both allows the player to fall into more difficulties by having everything happening at once, but has the added flexibility to reissue orders in such a situation.

 

That might be a flexibility to some, but I see it as a flaw. Running into more difficulties is useless if you have the ability to easilly escape them and the ability to easilly handle everything and everyone in your party. The lack of challenge it creates by adding pause isn't really making up for it.

[What is necessary to become a game designer?]

I'm interested in knowing what is the best course, or courses, to officially become a game designer. Is there a specific degree? Do I have to learn skills from different sources, and if yes, where would be the best sources? Do I just need a cunning mind and sharp wit? What are the best colleges, specially in Europe?

[What Does It Take To Make Game?]

I didn't forget QA, its not necessary to make a game.

Fallout:Tactics would like to have a word with you.

So would the initial version of ToEE. <_<

[IGN's Take On What Obsidian's Up To]

I don't understant why people diss the Final Fantasy card games. They were fun, and required some thinking. And having the right cards for the right moment.

[In Need Of Forum Moderators?]

Get a room. All of you.

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

Combat options are always tweaked no matter the combat system. TOEE proves that that despite being the most accurate D&D rules system in a D&D game yet; there was still quite a bit of twinking done.

 

Thats not exactly the point. You said that RTWP could have the same amount of tactical options than a TB game, but RTWP is still RT, regardless, and you know well that some things just can't be done, nor carried out the same way.

 

@Greatjon:

 

When I say real time with pause, what goes through my head is much closer to a simultaneous turn based system with arbitrary turn length controlled by the player than to a system that's supposedly fast and exciting, relying upon player mouse skills and reflexes, with pause added in.

Apparently the confusion stemed from giving similar names to different things, then. You were thinking of something somewhat different from Baldur's Gate, or NWN, which was what I was thinking by reading RTWP, so that's probably where the confusion came from.

 

Also, that second system isn't RTWP exactly: Diablo is RT and requires constant player input; IE games dont. That was the point i was also trying to make back there, as RTWP don't even require player reflexes, and becomes passive.

 

As for assessing strategy. I think it's just as possible to determine how you're doing, whether you're winning or losing, in a real-time system. I just prefer a system where you have to be able to keep track of many things at once, rather than being able to review each individual choice separately as it's happening. Even a simultaneous turn based system would accomplish this to my satisfaction.

 

Well, like I said back there, both TB or RT allow you to see how you're doing, but TB has the advantage of allowing you to see it on a more relaxed frame of observation. RT is too hectic for it; its manageable, but only if the amount of things to track down is reduced.

 

I don't know what larger escape method there is than a pure TB system where you can react to each enemy in turn, rather than having to plan your entire move ahead, and react as everything is happening at once. And of course there should be some mechanism to prevent instantly changing from one action to another, but that basically breaks down to some predetermined time elapsing for different actions. Turns happening, just in the background, and asynchronously, but simultaneously. Or something like that.

Despite having turns, TB doesn't allow you to stop the action if you're about to make a mistake. Even if you have a turn to decide how to act, the act is majorly carried out automatically. The pause feature allows for that, instant cancellation of possibly wrong moves or stopping wrong decisions from being carried out. Its much more of an escape method in that sense. Turns aren't an escape, they're just showing in detail what a character would do in real time.

 

As for the separate turns, its not uncommon for characters to carry out their turns simultaneously. ToEE did this. Enemies would often have the same turn in the sequence and would move simultaneously, solving the usual downtime of combat. This isn't done for party members because they are all under your control. But its quite possible to have 2 or more NPCs, like enemies, to act simultaneously on a TB system. An NPC control scheme like that of Fallout (automatic), but with simultaneous movement for NPCs. But automating NPCs isn't always a good idea.

 

I think they both take place outside the combat system.

 

I disagree, but i already gave out my view on why i disagree on that one, so I'll refrain from posting it again.

 

@Nexus:

 

Well you're certainly right there. I'm not a devoted fan of pure RT, but I can see its merits (fun included), and can adapt to it. And while I prefer TB over all else for combat in a CRPG, i understand how it doesn't appeal to people looking for realism. I can even tolerate RTWP, but I've yet to see it bring more fun that pure RT or more options than pure TB, hence why I don't understand the overall hype around it.

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

No, I'm not a mod. But I'm also not someone who likes to be insulted for no apparent reason. I don't know about you, but I don't.

 

I just find it funny people say that Rt with pause lacks tatics comapred to turn base combat. It all depends on the options the devloper gives the PC.

 

Perhaps you're forgetting that combat options need to be tweaked to be used in that environment, and that real time is limiting towards the amount of tactics you can have? Pausing it to issue orders doesn't undo the fact that its still real time.

[About Van Buren]

Stalker seems an interesting game, but the dev team's claim that its an RPG irks me, given they've stated it won't have any character attributes, skills or levels. In short, they're trying to pass off an FPS as an RPG.

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

Are you being ignorant?

 

One time warning. Drop the attitude.

 

Why do you want TB? Because you can't do 2 or more things at the same time. RTWP IS the solution for it: With pure RT you need more feedback and instant controls than you can achieve without a) oversimplification of controls and hence the actions & game B) AI takes care of most actions c) direct neural link d) inhuman mouse hand RT is mainly FPS for this particular reason. (RTS is just isometric FPS )

 

Someone translate this. Thanks in advance.

[Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG]

There's no reason why an implementation of RTWP could not fulfill these points.

 

Except that RTWP is RT at its core, and by nature RT systems cant provide it by the reason I pointed out above. There always has to be a measure of streamlining. Thats why it should be either system, not a hybrid which isn't better than either system.

 

The main problem with RTWP is that its a hybrid that contradicts itself. It tries to keep the action of real time to make combat fast and exciting, but fails because it adds the ability to pause. An RT system is built around the concept of player reflexes, and requires the player to be constantly interacting with the game; having the ability to pause to plana nd queue actions removes the challenge of fighting in RT, and the fast-paced nature of it (amusingly some people claim that TB is way too passive, but had no problem with the passiveness of IE combat, which involved pausing, issuing orders, and just look as they were carried out - almost like TB). At the same time, it tries to keep the tactical component of TB, but fails because your ability to gauge your strategy isn't as good, and because it doesn't carry the same amount of combat options. One can play the part of the optimist and say an RTWP system could fulfill these glaring flaws in the future, but how and what for? If we already possess RT for the challenge, interaction and fast-paced combat it provides, and TB for the planning and tactical component, and if both systems work like a charm, why waste time in RTWP when it has almost zero benefits (and these benefits usually belong to user preference, and are not factual improvements)?

 

As for the second point, I had already stated it in what I previously wrote.

 

I guess that's part of my point. I don't think you should be able to easily evaluate your strategy after each particular move.

Why not? Why shouldn't players be able to see if what they just did, or if what they planned, is working out? In this case, how would we be able to tell if we were winning or losing?

 

Everything should be happening at once, and if your plan starts to break down, well, that's what the pause is for.

 

That's the problem. Depending on a pause feature in that case ends up being a quick way to correct your mistakes in combat, an "escape method" which should not exist. Adding pause to an RT system comes off as a cop-out. A player should succeed by either using his brains or his reflexes, not by how fast he can hit the pause button. I accept that you're talking of preferences, but if we go with the concept of realism, and of not being able to measure our actions on the field of battle, then pausing is extremely unrealistic - as unrealistic as turns - and a contradiction in your point. If realism is what you're after, then your argument should be to defend and/or prefer real time, not real time with pause, as the pause isn't realistic at all. And if you believe one shouldn't be able to make assessments of his strategy, then approving of a pause feature is strange, given that's the entire purpose behind adding a pause feature into an RT system.

 

Both a speed adjustment for TB and pause for RT are both really solution to the same problem: trying to combine the strengths of both of the systems.

 

They're quite different. A speed adjustment works outside a combat system; a pause feature doesn't. One is only affecting framerates, not the entire combat system philosophy such as what a pause feature is doing.