Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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:

 

If you don't want reflexes to play a part at all, you can put in a variety of auto-pause options, such as to pause when health is below a certain level, when a character dies, or a target dies, various things to take away the need for superior reflexes. You can even add the option to pause a intervals to simulate turns.

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?

 

The addition of a pause does allow the execution of tactical to decisions to become easier than in pure RT. Saint pointed out situations where the outcome is different depending on the rules for combat resolution. Why would you want things to happen in the exact same way?

 

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.

 

There are more ways a confrontation can change than immunities and protections.

True. I didn't said otherwise; I only pointed out that a pause feature has no bearing on it.

 

The enemy could try flanking or bringing in reinforcements, changing weapons or going moving to different terrain. When these things occur, in either RTWP or TB, they still have to be countered, whether on your turn, or when it happens.

 

And why is RTWP better in helping you sort these changes out if you are given indicators of changes in both systems?

 

How is that different from turns?

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.

 

Exactly, it's the same in all systems. If you admit this, why are you saying pausing so much more of an escape mechanism than a turn?

 

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.

 

Badly worded on my part. I meant if an encounter is so easy that no tactical decisions are necessary, the player shouldn't be forcibly dragged through the pointless combat. This can be avoided by not having pointless combat, but there would still probably be situations where you're only left with the remnants of an enemy group, and cleaning up is a chore. RT with pause give to player control over whether to take minute control over the characters or get combat over with sooner.

 

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?

[Volourn]

How does the ability or the lack of ability to pause effect player interactivity in anhy way? That is weird to say. Pause n play, of course like all suystems, has its own weaknesses to deal with; but lack of interatcivity isn't one of them. In fact, lakc of interatcivity isn't it inherited to any combat system (RT, RT/w pause, and TB being the Big 3).

[Greatjon]

@ Saint_Proverbius

 

No, it just means you can't do the same thing with different systems, which is what you originally said.  If the outcomes don't match the events, then they sure as hell aren't the same thing.

I said:

A real-time system can have every option a turn based system can have...

I never said that it could replicate the results in every case, and I wouldn't expect it to, or want it to try to. Back to my voting system analogy: you can take the same input, put it through a different system, and come out with different results.

 

The fact of the matter is, you can't just take every option from a turn based system and make it real time and expect everything to work just fine

Of course you have to stipulate the rules to fit the system, but that doesn't mean the concept behind the different rules in seperate systems cannot be the same.

 

And if the goblin you cleave is to the left of the goblin you killed with your natural swing while the goblin you're going to great cleave is to the right of the first goblin or behind you? UH OH! Another problem.

The way I see it there's two basic ways to handle this. One, just animate one swing, but count all of the hits according to TB rules. This would look a little weird, but it'd work. Two, you could alter the rule so that you can only cleave in the same direction the initial swing went, up to a certain arc length. This would still allow only one swing, and the spirit behind the rule would remain constant, but it is adapted to the system and has a slightly different result.

 

Yet having multiple swings for cleave, great cleave, attacks of opportunity, etc is unrealistic, but magic is realistic. Gotcha! Perfect sense!

You're comparing entirely different things. The latter is an element of the game world, while the former is an attempt to abstract combat and is en element of the game's combat engine. These are entirely different things, and the meaning of realistic is different in each case. You're comparing apples to oranges to prove your point.

 

One more time, if the results aren't the same, then there's a problem.

One more time, if the results aren't the same, then there's no problem.

 

This would be passed time for you to just admit that you can't have everything you can have in turn based in a real time with pause system.

I said above that you can't model things that exact same way, that's obvious.

 

This would be passed time for you to just admit that having divergent results is inherently a bad thing.

 

 

@ Zantetsuken

If you say player reflexes aren't needed, but then replace them with something else which also needs reflexes...

As I pointed out, you can make a system so that you don't need reflexes to use pause. Even without auto-pause, a pause relies less on reflexes than pure TB.

 

I find it strange that you're rejecting turn-based

I'm not totally rejecting TB; I have enjoyed TB games in the past. I just prefer RTWP, implemented in a fashion much closer to TB than to pure RT.

 

If you disaprove of pauses for one system, why include the same pauses you disaprove of in the other?

In one system the pauses are unavoidable. In the other, they're entirely under the control of the player. That's the basis of my preference, control.

 

You are the one who is saying they can happen the same way

No, I'm not. I already address this in my response to Saint.

 

And why is RTWP better in helping you sort these changes out if you are given indicators of changes in both systems?

I'm not saying it's better in that respect, I'm saying it can be just as good.

 

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.

A turn isn't an artificial halt of the combat? That's news to me.

 

I addressed the latter part of this statement in an early post.

 

First, because pause is an artifical feature in comparison with both systems (TB and RT).

You just contradicted yourself. You said a turn isn't artificial, but here you say it is. I've answered the rest of that parapraph in earlier posts.

 

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.

You keep on instisting that a pause is completely natural if it coincides with a turn, but is completely artificial if it's used in RT. Both are artificial abstractions, both are artificial halts of combat. Stating one is while the other is not, is a contradiction.

 

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.

Which would then not be turn-based.

 

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.

When I said realistic in that, I meant what would be realistic to an inhabitant of the fictional world. To such a person, magic most certainly would be real. Not real to us is not the same as not realistic within the confines of an imaginary world. You can call that credible if you want to.

 

You cannot pause real life; you also cannot hold everything static while you take your turn in real life. Both are artificial.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

@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:

 

As I pointed out, you can make a system so that you don't need reflexes to use pause. Even without auto-pause, a pause relies less on reflexes than pure TB.

I'm not totally rejecting TB; I have enjoyed TB games in the past. I just prefer RTWP, implemented in a fashion much closer to TB than to pure RT.

 

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.

 

 

I'm not saying it's better in that respect, I'm saying it can be just as good.

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?

 

A turn isn't an artificial halt of the combat? That's news to me.

 

You just contradicted yourself. You said a turn isn't artificial, but here you say it is.

You keep on instisting that a pause is completely natural if it coincides with a turn, but is completely artificial if it's used in RT. Both are artificial abstractions, both are artificial halts of combat. Stating one is while the other is not, is a contradiction.

 

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.

 

Which would then not be turn-based.

 

But would approach your intention.

[Judge Hades]

Bottomline for CRPG combat:

 

Turn Base=Best

Pause and Play=Okay

Realtime w/o pause=Suckage.

 

What more needs to be said?

 

ANy style of combat that requires a player's reflexes to win instead of the character's combat ability has no place in a CRPG.

[JJ86]

I played UFO Aftermath with it's RT w/ Pause and was wholly unimpressed. Maybe it was poorly implemented but I felt I had less control than a more purely RT such as FOT. I didn't mind FOT combat but it was designed so that you did not have to deal with too many melee enemies at once. It really needed to be scripted in such a way as to make the battles manageable. All in all the scripted battles of TB games are more interesting than any other method.

[G3N13]

I played UFO Aftermath with it's RT w/ Pause and was wholly unimpressed.

It was a bad game that was badly done...Nothing to blame at RTWP.

All in all the scripted battles of TB games are more interesting than any other method.

Which are after first go a breeze.

 

Prescripted battles are more RT based solution because with no scripts AI has no other chance to rush with superior numbers and reactions and trust that the Player can't control his character(s) with same fluency, this is especially true with especially with more 1-2 characters. Therefore RT with pause gives the player a chance to control each character INDIVIDUALLY instead of controlling just one character badly. The problem is still the lack of good "free" movement RT AI (pause doesn't help the computer!) that doesn't cheese.

[Judge Hades]

I thought UFO Aftermath was a decently fun game to play. A worthy successor to the old X-Com games.

[Deadeye Dragoon]

How is TB a limitation?

In PnP you have no choice but to take turns. If you dont then you get chaos because everyone would be talking and trying to do something at the same time and a human DM cant cope with that kind of sensory overload.

 

A computer on the other hand has no problem multitasking. In fact they are very good at it.

 

RT is something that can only be done on a computer. The pause aspect is there to facilitate the interaction between the computer and user.

 

I see very little reason to place the limits of one media on another just because.

This doesn't answer why TB is a limitation of PnP media. You need to explain exactly what the limitation is in a PnP TB game, what is sacrificed by each player moving in turn versus what could be gained from it, and the same for the same game in PnP but also RT if it were possible. Just pointing out that a computer can calculate X times faster than a human is "just because" for your own argument. WHY should a TB game ported to computer be better in RT? Does it matter the type of game or tactics? Just PnP RPGs? Chess? Why or why not?

 

"no choice to take turns"? Why would a PnP player not want to take turns?

[Greatjon]

TB works well on its own, and RT works well on its own. RTWP tries to be both, but cannot do it.

I think RTWP done correctly can work well also. All three can also work poorly. If well designed and coded well, anything between the extremes can work well.

 

I'm not saying it's better in that respect, I'm saying it can be just as good.

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?

I said "in that respect," not overall. It's about priorities. I've outlined in previous posts why I think RTWP is the best choice when all aspects of the game are taken into consideration.

 

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.

Turns are an integral part of turn-based combat. Turn-based combat, just like any other abstraction of real life, is artificial. Turns are a subset of turn-based combat, turn-based combat is artificial, therefore turns are artificial.

 

This is exactly like my point on realism. Within the system turns are natural and non-artificial. Taken by themselves turns are artificial. Within a fictional world, magic can be realistic. Taken by itself, magic is obviously unrealistic. In both cases, it depends on your perspective.

[Exitium]

Real time combat is too, for the most part - artificial. Damage done to the player is limited to small amounts in order to keep the game as a relatively bearable experience - hence artificial. It wouldn't be much of a game if it was too realistic considering the drawbacks of the experience of dying in a single hit of a sword.

 

Most real time games do not occur in the same way a fight would in real life due to certain corresponding abstractions, such as the implementation of vital statistics (Strength, Perception, et al) and their relevence to the combat, as well as a breakdown of the player's own interaction (hand-eye coordination, player dexterity) to the game which often comes to play in real time strategy games that aren't fully automated.

 

It should therefore be said that real time games are no less abstractions of real situations than turn-based games. The AI in real time games is often 'gimped' in order to make up for the player's lacklustre abilities as a gamer.

 

The existence of magic may be relevent to a game, but that does not nihilate the importance of tactical implementations like Attacks of Opportunity which only serve to add to the whole gaming experience.

[Atreides]

Pure TB and RT are extremes but both have their inherant good and bad points. Not much will be gained if we were to just pick a side and praise/lambast the other since nothing much changes.

 

IMO something more productive would be to improve the base system. If this means weeding out bad points and importing or emulating good points of the other then so be it. In that sense the system wouldn't be at the extremes, but somewhere in between.

 

RT has taken a page from TB by adding a pause option so that people have time to plan/execute commands and depend less on speed. TB has taken a page out of RT by adding attacks of opportunity, or similar things that interupt the basic flow of turns, to simulate a simultaneous reaction to another's reaction. There are many other examples.

 

I would say that these are improvements generally and it may be more productive and useful to think of ways to improve systems (RT or TB and everything in between) than just saying my system > yours, or just pointing out weaknesses or strengths. For example, proposing that the rats in FO all move at the same time (ala ToEE) to save time/decrease boredom would be more productive and beneficial in general than just complaining how terrible it was or thinking of excuses/counters.

 

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)...

 

Arbitrary pauses in a system that would emulate real combat is artificial. In real life there is no such thing as bullet time or people lining up to take turns to have a go at each other. In this sense both RTWP and TB are artificial.

 

In RTWP you can control when the breaks happen and the flow resumes when you want it to. In TB, the timing of the pauses is determined by the system. Having the system control when the game pauses doesn't bring it any closer to reality.

 

If you were intending to say that taking turns is natural/not artificial in the system itself - ie an inherant property then the same can be said for RTWP. The controlled pausing would be a natural mechanism, part of the system so it wouldn't contradict the system.

[Exitium]

Pure systems are much better than the derivatives (aka hybrids) that stem from them. I am of course referring to pause-and-play real time systems of which I am not a big fan of due to the inherent lack of the importance of strategy and the use of the spacebar as a failsafe.

 

The solution to the 'rat problem' in FO could be dealt with in one of two ways (or both):

 

1) The implementation of TOEE's simultanious movement system. This can only be a plus to any turn-based game. There are absolutely no drawbacks to implementing this.

 

2) Don't put rats in the late game. That's a design mistake.

[LlamaGod]

Turns are an integral part of turn-based combat. Turn-based combat, just like any other abstraction of real life, is artificial. Turns are a subset of turn-based combat, turn-based combat is artificial, therefore turns are artificial.

 

This is exactly like my point on realism. Within the system turns are natural and non-artificial. Taken by themselves turns are artificial. Within a fictional world, magic can be realistic. Taken by itself, magic is obviously unrealistic. In both cases, it depends on your perspective.

 

 

Err, turns are usually a few seconds slowed down to the point were you make a decision in most games. So it would be very natural if you saw it played out. An example is it'll take you say 2 seconds to think 'hit that dude with the axe' and 2 seconds for the enemy to think 'punch him' and you go back in forther doing that, in real life, it'd be a guy with an axe hitting and a guy punching him. So why is real-time more realistic? Might as well say they are even in that aspect, but they arnt because real-time doesnt allow the ability to think beyond a few simple things.

 

So all and all, real-time is just a hamper.

[Atreides]

Well, if you don't like to think of it as hybrids, then think of it as an evolution of a system you prefer. Attacks of opportunity is such an example. It contradicts pure TB since you're moving out of turn/interrupting the sequence. However, it is now considered an integeral part of TB and most people wouldn't have it any other way.

[Shadowstrider]

TB is FAR from simply slowed-down, reality. As an example, if you're running in reality, you would be signifigantly harder to hit, then if standing still. In TB you're standing still, and as a result it is impossible to apply a movement penalty to attack rolls (or damage avoidance, however you wish to handle it). Likewise, in a melee focused game, you could easily exploit actions per round. Play Fallout 2, and fight one of the Geckos west of Arroyo. You can hit and then outpace them, so you would never get hit(they never even swing). This is unrealistic.

 

TB combat is simplified reality, for the sake of tactics.

 

That said, TB offers a lot more in terms of tactical combat, because you have time to think. If you could do something like bullet-time, or the D&D Heroes slow-down feature, a RT game could do VERY well, if not better, then TB, as long as all the features are implemented well. Some rules systems do not allow this, however.

[Exitium]

I loathe to think of the day when the pause feature will be an 'integral part' of the real time gaming experience. Pausing gives the player an unfair advantage against the AI, and I don't like that. I prefer a challenge. I'm sure most people worthy of calling themselves gamers feel the same way about this. After all, the pause feature was only implemented to make up for the shortcomings of a real-time combat system with D&D (turn based) rules.

 

Annotation: Yes, bullet time is definitely a preferrable replacement to the unexciting 'pause and play' system.

[Atreides]

The solution to the 'rat problem' in FO could be dealt with in one of two ways (or both):

 

...

 

2) Don't put rats in the late game. That's a design mistake.

In an ideal situation the game design shouldn't have to compensate for weaknesses of a system. The more conditions or clauses included, the less room there is for creativity.

 

For example, assuming Torment was TB, would it have been a good decision to remove the cranium rats reduce tedious combat? Probably not, as good chunk of the plot - ie Many as One (which was good) would have to be changed.

[Exitium]

The solution to the 'rat problem' in FO could be dealt with in one of two ways (or both):

 

...

 

2) Don't put rats in the late game. That's a design mistake.

In an ideal situation the game design shouldn't have to compensate for weaknesses of a system. The more conditions or clauses included, the less room there is for creativity.

 

For example, assuming Torment was TB, would it have been a good decision to remove the cranium rats reduce tedious combat? Probably not, as good chunk of the plot - ie Many as One (which was good) would have to be changed.

I think that the implementation of cranium rats or similar creatures would be a very happy welcome in a turn-based gaming experience. The experience created by the 'joining' of cranium rats to form a powerful mage-like collective capable of casting spells of mass destruction is certainly cause for much suspense in a pen and paper Planescape game.

 

Just in case you were wondering, I was referring to the very weak rats of Fallout and in other words, referring to 'weak' creatures that would never ever pose a threat to the player character. Cranium rats do pose a unique challenge (in which they assimilate into a collective to cast spells), unlike their regular rodent counterparts which serve as nothing more than fodder and annoyance for the player in the late game.

[Shadowstrider]

Something I've been designing for my system is like bullet-time. I'll use archery as an example.

 

You're standing ther shooting arrows @ X. There are 2 ways to instigate the slow-down. Manual, where you click a button(or use hotkey), and suddenly, the action in real-time slows dramatically, (6 seconds could take as long as a minute, or whatever).

 

An example of manual would be your arrow is notched and you were aiming at foe X, but out of the side, you suddenly have a shot on foe Y. In RT there is no time to declare a new target, but in slow-time, you can declare the new foe as the target of your new attack(at an increased cost).

 

Then there is automatic slow-down, this arises when certain events trigger a possible response.

 

Example. Your arrow is notched, and you're about to fire, but you notice someone has already fired at you. You can fire off your shot, then dodge, giving you less chance, or you could forget the shot and dodge the arrow, at an increased cost.

 

Thats just how I see my system working in a RT scenario.

[Revolver]

So judging from this entire thread, I see your argument is that there is no recent record for a CRPG with a turn based combat system with strategic movement without a best selling license selling as well as two games with extremely popular licenses, one being marketed on national TV, therefore Obsidian would be taking a huge financial risk with the simple act of creating a turn-based RPG.

 

Good job- I think you'll convince Feargus of this for sure....

Again your making excuses for the poor sales. Really just show me one CRPG with a TB combat system and with tactical (my bad that one) movement that even comes within sniffing distance of lets say Dungeon Siege since its an original property.

 

Or even outline your plan on why you think making a TTB game rather than an RTWP game is a sound financial move.

How is summarizing the flow of your ever changing arguments making excuses? And wake up, the question is whether it would hurt the company, not whether its going to make some top ten list.

(really done for the night)

Want a very profitable company? Look at Krispy Kreme. Does that mean Obsidian should quit out the CRPG business and start making donuts? Just because something else is profitable doesn't mean that turn-based is not. You make enough crappy real time games, eventually you're going to get 1 or 2 that stand out. KOTOR and BG. And you can't even be sure if thats not all because of the super popular licenses they had. Thats why I listed the number of unreasonable assumptions that go with your need for a bulls*** example of a top ten TB RPG.

 

Lets look at the argument from the other side. Find an example of a TB game in recent years that hurt the company that released it. Remember, the argument is about financial RISK. I can think of one maybe- Pool of Radiance 2. Now look at how many RT games hurt their developers. St. Proverb has given you a couple. Gorasul. Lionheart. A few other names I can't remember, but you read back on. Now, from your line of biased empirical reasoning, RT games are more of a financial RISK. Do you see why your arguments suck?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

@Greatjon:

 

I think RTWP done correctly can work well also. All three can also work poorly. If well designed and coded well, anything between the extremes can work well.

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:

 

Turns are an integral part of turn-based combat. Turn-based combat, just like any other abstraction of real life, is artificial. Turns are a subset of turn-based combat, turn-based combat is artificial, therefore turns are artificial.

 

Arbitrary pauses in a system that would emulate real combat is artificial. In real life there is no such thing as bullet time or people lining up to take turns to have a go at each other. In this sense both RTWP and TB are artificial.

 

In RTWP you can control when the breaks happen and the flow resumes when you want it to. In TB, the timing of the pauses is determined by the system. Having the system control when the game pauses doesn't bring it any closer to reality.

 

If you were intending to say that taking turns is natural/not artificial in the system itself - ie an inherant property then the same can be said for RTWP. The controlled pausing would be a natural mechanism, part of the system so it wouldn't contradict the system.

 

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.

[axelgreese]

Am I the only one who thinks they should make a sequel the the best selling award winning NFL Blitz? I had so much fun with that game it was great lol! Can you imagine that as Massively Multiplayer :ph34r: ?

[Greatjon]

@ Exitium

I agree both are abstractions; never said otherwise.

 

Most of the rest of your comments have already been covered.

 

@ Zantetsuken

In short, its unrealistic to have God (the program) decide how things should go, but its realistic to let the player play God?

I never said pauses were realistic, in fact I'm pretty sure I said they're artificial. In the former the basic tenant of the combat system--turns--are unrealistic. RT on the other hand, is at it's base, real-time. Pauses are merely added to allow the player to access greater functionality of the game engine. You could get around the whole escape mechanism problem by not letting players cancel actions they've already begun, and only allow them to queue new ones.

 

 

 

 

I was going to much write more at this point in response to other posts, but as our arguments are heading into their eighth lap, I don't think many new ideas are going to enter the foray. At this point a lot of what is being argued about is semantics, perceptions that aren't going to change, and much quibbling over small and tangential points.

 

I propose a new direction for the discussion. Instead of continuing down the path we're on, reiterating arguments from a few pages ago, how about we try to figure out what we can agree upon?

 

Let's start with the assumption that we're talking about a CRPG. Diablo, Dungeon Siege, Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm and the like all need not apply. Let's also start with the assumption that the game we're talking about is not a sequel, and is original intellectual property, so it does not have any baggage riding in with it.

 

What're the questions we've been trying to answer in the last few hundred posts? What is the place of combat? What requirements should combat fulfill? What should combat do?

 

Here's a start, in mostly random order:

1. Above all else combat should be fun.

2. Combat should be a legitimate way to solve problems, in most cases.

3. Combat should be an equally legitimate way to exercise character skills as any other part of the game.

4. Being a CRPG, combat should not be the focus of the game.

5. Combat should not get in the way of the rest of the game.

6. A player should have to make and execute plans to be successful in combat.

7. Combat should try to simulate real-world combat, but never to the point that Rule 1 is violated.

8. Combat should be challenging.

9. Diverse options should be available in combat.

10. Combat should be reasonably accessible to new players.

11. In most cases combat should be avoidable.

 

I think most of these points can be satisfied by either TB or RTWP if implemented correctly. Some of these points can also be seen as contradictory, I think this does not invalidate either point, but merely indicate that a middle groud between the two has to be found.

 

Comments, changes, additions, retractions?

[Revolver]

Here is the grand summary for ShadowPaladin's arguments (some quotes, some paraphrases)-

 

In the sales figures matter (only when they support my case) category:

 

1a) TOEE is being carried by the D&D name. "That TOEE owes most of its sales to the D&D logo really cant be disputed. "

1b) Saying that popular licenses like Forgotten Realms and Starwars were responsible for the high sales of NWN and SW is just making excuses

 

2a) KOTOR sales were PROBABLY helped by the Star Wars license- but a lot of Star Wars games have failed

2b) A lot of RT games have failed but they aren't IE games so they don't count.

 

3a) "Well you could go on (about the uselessness of sales figure comparisons) I doubt you could find comparable sales figures (between real time and turn based) even if you look on consoles where STB games are far more common. "

3b) "I dont happen to have any figures for TOEE do you ? What is the highest selling STB CRPG ?"

 

4a) "Using FF (which has wracked up in the region of 60 million sales) to support an arguement for an STB game selling well, is a fallacy. " JRPGs are turn-based and sold well, but you cant move your characters in combat so they don't count.

4b) Diablo clones bombed, but they aren't IE games that use RTWP, so they don't count

4c) IE RTWP clones like Prince of Qin and Gorasul that failed don't matter because I don't know anything about them

4d) Lionheart doesn't apply, because it moved too fast

4e) Quote: "Again your making excuses for the poor sales."

 

In the watch me contradict myself category:

 

1a) I'm going to stick to RPGs since the original author was refering to TB RPG's not TB games in general.

1b)If you look at something like MechCommander which also runs in real time. You have a much more measured combat pace and the targetting interface is via the numpad which means you dont need multiple icon clicks to find it.

1c) JA2 and SS's sales figures are hardly worth Obsidian's time

 

In the WTF are you talking about category:

 

1) "The thing with STB games is you have so much time to analyse while your waiting for something to happen it makes spotting bugs incredbly easy. "

2) FF7's sales can be only be used to justify why its not risky for Obsidian to make a JRPG