Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG

[Spook]

I didnt buy your explanations in the slightest thats why. Plenty of excuses why certain things didnt sell. But not one solid piece of evidence to support why an STB game made by Obsidian would sell.

And what piece of evidence do you have that a STB would not sell well?

 

When we start talk about evidence we will usually end up with nothing, since it is more or less impossible to prove anything that is in the future. We can fall back on statistics, but they are not any proof and can be twisted to supoort anything, if you know what you do.

[Revolver]

I suppose if I did manage to find the highest grossing TB RPG, you'd post the sales figure of KOTOR or BG- FR and Star Wars games. But wait, didn't FF7 make a boatload of cash? But no, that doesn't count because of your STB ATB qualification- which sounds like an EXCUSE if I ever heard one. And you never answered my question whether FF7 would have taken a sales dive if strategic movement was allowed.

 

Is there any evidence of STB RPG's selling ?

Of course there is. Do you actually think FO and FO2 hurt Interplay and BIS? They did pretty damn well for being M-rated games in an unknown setting.

 

EDIT:

Yes he did reply to my question about FF7, but he didn't answer it. What he said was "I wouldn't attribute the sales to the lack of movement but, blah blah" That was not what I asked about.

[Saint_Proverbius]

But no, that doesn't count because of your STB ATB qualification- which sounds like an EXCUSE if I ever heard one.

Which is why he says it doesn't count. Anything that basically screws his argument up doesn't count, like me pointing out that Diablo clones don't sell well at all.

 

Oh yeah, and it should be TTB, for Tactical Turn Based, since Strategic doesn't fit the context of what we're talking about - tactical combat. But, that's ShadowPaladin in a nutshell.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Actually, you brought up Diablo about 6-7 pages ago. If you want to bring it up versus the sales of ToEE or another turn based game, I think it's entirely fair to bring up that it's clones haven't sold worth a crap.

 

As for copying the IE, what about Prince of Qin and Gorasul, which were IE clones? They tanked. Two of the studios that have managed to make money off IE style gameplay to date actually used the IE, BIS and BioWare, and even then IWD2 tanked. About the only IE clone, as in not actually using IE itself, I can name that's sold really well is Dungeon Siege.

Yes but since no one is talking about copying Diablo that they havnt sold makes no difference at all.

 

Never heard of Prince of Qin dont think it got released here. Vaugely recall Gorusal which had all the problems that translated RPG's seem to have.

 

But those two studios are also responsible for the lions share of RPG's so it's natural that would be the case.

 

With the addition of Dungeon Siege I think thats covered most of the RPG releases over the last few years on the PC.

 

What about KOTOR and NWN ? They dont use the IE engine. But both are RTWP.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And what piece of evidence do you have that a STB would not sell well?

 

When we start talk about evidence we will usually end up with nothing, since it is more or less impossible to prove anything that is in the future. We can fall back on statistics, but they are not any proof and can be twisted to supoort anything, if you know what you do.

Well if your asking someone to take a risk the onus of evidence is usually on you.

 

If I wanted Obsidian to say start making ATB games then I would use Squares success to back that up. Not that I want them to, its just an example.

 

No one seems to be able to come up with a single succesful STB RPG game which I find very interesting.

 

And it dosnt support the assertation that making said game would not cause financial harm.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I suppose if I did manage to find the highest grossing TB RPG, you'd post the sales figure of KOTOR or BG- FR and Star Wars games. But wait, didn't FF7 make a boatload of cash? But no, that doesn't count because of your STB ATB qualification- which sounds like an EXCUSE if I ever heard one. And you never answered my question whether FF7 would have taken a sales dive if strategic movement was allowed.

What does FFVII's combat have in common with either BG or FO ?

 

Because I dont see a great deal of commonality there at all. As I have already said the things that are quoted about being irksome in STB's dont come up in JRPG's because they have removed the movement aspect.

 

Now if you were saying I think you (Obsidian) should make a JRPG then FVII and all the FF games would be good evidence for it.

 

Well you could compare the sales of FFVII to FFT.

What makes you think I would know the answer ? That JRPG's sell well and have no movement, I can stand behind that. That JRPG's would still sell if they had movement. I have no idea. Square make the Tactics line, but they dont sell as well as the ATB FF's.

[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....

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

sounds like an EXCUSE if I ever heard one.

Which is why he says it doesn't count. Anything that basically screws his argument up doesn't count, like me pointing out that Diablo clones don't sell well at all.

 

Oh yeah, and it should be TTB, for Tactical Turn Based, since Strategic doesn't fit the context of what we're talking about - tactical combat. But, that's ShadowPaladin in a nutshell.

It's worth it almost to see some people champion the FF series..

 

Diablo is only applicable if you are making a diablo clone.I'm not talking about making a Diablo clone.

 

The point is what makes you or anyone else think that a TB game made by Obsidian would be succesful in the BG/KOTOR ballpark.

 

I havnt seen anything , anywhere on or off the boards that would lead me to that conclusion.

 

Yes your correct. I hereby suggest we amend it to TTB from this time forward.

[Saint_Proverbius]

Yes but since no one is talking about copying Diablo that they havnt sold makes no difference at all.

I'm sorry, you didn't bring it up to suggest that people should make games like Diablo instead of turn based games because Diablo sold so well? Then why else did you bring it up when you mentioned it was bad for developers to make turn based games as opposed to games like BG and Diablo?

 

Never heard of Prince of Qin dont think it got released here.

It was released in North America. It actually did make money in China, though, where the game is set.

 

Vaugely recall Gorusal which had all the problems that translated RPG's seem to have.

 

So? The real time with pause thing worked. Isn't that what sells big?

 

With the addition of Dungeon Siege I think thats covered most of the RPG releases over the last few years on the PC.

Hardly. There's Divine Divinity, Harbinger, Lionheart, Gothic and Gothic 2, Arcanum, Blade and Sword, Arx Fatalis, Morrowind, Dues Ex and it's sequel, Mistmare, Pirates of the Carribean, and probably a few more I've forgotten.

 

What about KOTOR and NWN ? They dont use the IE engine. But both are RTWP.

 

Do you honestly think BioWare couldn't release a turn based game that sold millions of copies just based on their name alone?

[Revolver]

Now if you were saying I think you (Obsidian) should make a JRPG then FVII and all the FF games would be good evidence for it.

Saying that Obsidian would do well by making a JRPG b/c FF7 did well, shows a severe lack of rational thought.

Diablo is only applicable if you are making a diablo clone.I'm not talking about making a Diablo clone.

Well lets talk about making a Diablo clone- all Diablo clones have failed. Diablo sold magnificently well. Where does that leave your brand of arguments?

 

(Done posting for the night)

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

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.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Do you honestly think BioWare couldn't release a turn based game that sold millions of copies just based on their name alone?

Yes.

For the same reason you wouldnt want FO3 to be real time.

 

You could always post a thread over at the Bioware boards and see what the response was.

[Spook]

And what piece of evidence do you have that a STB would not sell well?

 

When we start talk about evidence we will usually end up with nothing, since it is more or less impossible to prove anything that is in the future. We can fall back on statistics, but they are not any proof and can be twisted to supoort anything, if you know what you do.

Well if your asking someone to take a risk the onus of evidence is usually on you.

 

If I wanted Obsidian to say start making ATB games then I would use Squares success to back that up. Not that I want them to, its just an example.

 

No one seems to be able to come up with a single succesful STB RPG game which I find very interesting.

 

And it dosnt support the assertation that making said game would not cause financial harm.

Good old Pally, never needing to prove anything himself while every one else need to do so.

 

 

Concidering that there is a lot of RT games that have failed as well, RT is hardly a safe card (Lionheart?). Hence what is youre evidence that RT will sell (you are the one saying they should go RT after all and have as much need to prove your point).

 

I doubt that any one will come up with a STB RPG game that "interst" you since you by definition are not interested in TB games. So how could someone come up with something that "interest" you? They have been taking up examples and comaprations from your own posts without even getting a single acknowledgement when they had a point.

[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)

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

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.

Limiting profits always hurts the company. So your admiting that you would expect lower sales from a TTB game than an RTWP game ?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Good old Pally, never needing to prove anything himself while every one else need to do so.

 

I doubt that any one will come up with a STB RPG game that "interst" you since you by definition are not interested in TB games.

Thats usually because I am on the side that either isnt looking for change. Or is supporting the maximised sales strategy B)

 

If you want someone to do something you need to convince them. In the case of business by showing them how its sound investment. If you want them to keep doing what they are doing then you dont.

 

I dont know how you came to the conclusion I am not interested in TTB games.

Interested or not dosnt change the fact that I wouldnt tell someone to make a TTB game if it was going to get 10% of the sales of an RTWP game. That just dosnt strike me as a sensible thing to do.

[Greatjon]

Okay, I assumed that you would would divine from my example of the Archer vs. Wizard that we're talking about a case where the two enemies are not standing right next to one another and that there would be travel time of the projectiles. I should have been more clear.

 

Anyway, even if you use a marginal delay within the round to simulate a "sequence", everything is still in real time(pause is irrelevent in this case since while paused, everything stops and vice versa). While the arrow travels, the wizard will cast.

Why do you need a sequence at all? What's wrong with everything happening at the same time? I would have fewer problems, in theory, with a TB system where you give all of your characters orders for the coming turn, then all actions, PC and NPC, are executed at the same time. This would also come up with some weird results though. There would have to be some system for slightly changing orders automatically depending on new input, such as moving to intercept a character in melee, not doing dumb things like walking right into newly cast area effect spells, etc.

 

Okay... Animation speed is ALWAYS a problem in real time, and it's NEVER a problem in turn based. No matter how you design a real time game, you've got to sync everything up with the animation system. That's just the way it is.

Syncing actions on screen to what's happening under the hood may be a problem, but a problem arising from trying to fit 15 seconds worth of action into 5 seconds doesn't have to be a problem, if accounted for in the design. As for Haste spells and the like, it should be possible to make the animation go faster, or have an alternate animation with half the frames removed. There are other solutions than nerfing the effect of the spell.

 

You know that most CRPGs have magic systems, right? So, what's the point of bringing up how realistic the combat is? Even the ones that don't still allow the protagonist to become something pretty powerful typically beyond the realistic like being able to fire your gun a half a dozen times compared to the standard enemy or some such.

The existance of magic in a fictional world isn't unrealistic. That's one of the things fiction allows. It's realistic as long as it's presented consistently within the context of the fictional world. By that reasoning, I suppose you could make up some physical laws to justify a combat system that requires characters in a fictional world to take turns while trying to kill each other. Magic seems more plausible to me though. I would also be in support of a rules system that doesn't allow players to become to ridiculously powerful, that's for a different argument though.

Your point was that real time with pause can do everything turn based can do. It can't. Let me remind you of what you said:

(Greatjon via Wayback Machine)

I meant exactly what I said.  A real-time system can have every option a turn based system can have, but to make use of them, you need to have a pause function.

 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. By the words every option I didn't mean things like being able to simluate sequence or have the same exact outcome in any particular battle. By options I meant the ability to do things like make a plan, such as a surprise attack or flanking maneuver, and execute it; do things like implement feats, spells, and special actions such as tripping, bull rushes, or grappling. I meant the actual actions the characters are taking, rather than how these actions are simulated.

[Spook]

Good old Pally, never needing to prove anything himself while every one else need to do so.

 

I doubt that any one will come up with a STB RPG game that "interst" you since you by definition are not interested in TB games.

Thats usually because I am on the side that either isnt looking for change. Or is supporting the maximised sales strategy B)

 

I dont know how you came to the conclusion I am not interested in TTB games.

Interested or not dosnt change the fact that I wouldnt tell someone to make a TTB game if it was going to get 10% of the sales of an RTWP game. That just dosnt strike me as a sensible thing to do.

That is the point....

Just because they are doing something it is not necessarily the best strategy to sell maximum number of games. It is just assumed to be so.

 

 

As for not being interested in TB.........It must have been something you said.

 

And again that it will only sell 10% is your assumption. What is your proof of that statement?

[Volourn]

Saint Proverbius, huh? Dungeon Seige isn't really an IE clone; but a Diablo clone. TOEE is much closer to being an IE clone than DS is (not saying TOEE is; just saying it's closer to it than DS).

 

Shadow Paladin,a re you saying BIO fans wouldn't buy a BIO game just because it was turn base combat? I sure hope not; as I'm sure they would. Bio is too popualr at this point to say otherwise. The only way BIO can crash, and burn is if they really screw up (like they would be if they followed through with that silly "rumoiur"). Hehe.

[Greatjon]

Thats why I pointed out back there the need for a clean and easily accessible interface for strictly real time games.

That's why I'm not advocating strictly real-time games.

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.

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.

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.

You don't have to do anything constantly when the game is paused, you can take your time, that's the point. Your statements here apply equally to TB and RT with pause.

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

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Just because they are doing something it is not necessarily the best strategy to sell maximum number of games. It is just assumed to be so.

 

 

As for not being interested in TB.........It must have been something you said.

 

And again that it will only sell 10% is your assumption. What is your proof of that statement?

I'm sure they do their research. If you took this board as a typical population you would get the impression that 90% of people supported TTB strategy games and likely the other 10% didnt mind either way.

 

I've played lots of the things. Front Mission 3 is one of my all time favourites (thanks in part to the Platinum Challenge)

 

Got to love IF B) 10% might be a bit high. But in luie of figures I would guess that the top selling TB CRPG would hover at 100,000.

[Saint_Proverbius]

Why do you need a sequence at all? What's wrong with everything happening at the same time? I would have fewer problems, in theory, with a TB system where you give all of your characters orders for the coming turn, then all actions, PC and NPC, are executed at the same time. This would also come up with some weird results though. There would have to be some system for slightly changing orders automatically depending on new input, such as moving to intercept a character in melee, not doing dumb things like walking right into newly cast area effect spells, etc.

I think I clearly showed what was wrong with having everything happen at the same time by pointing out the divergent results.

 

Furthermore, I could add that real time combat with a ToHit roll system also created problems with ranged weapons. In turn based, this isn't a problem, but in real time.. Well, say you fire an arrow at a thief at the end of a hall corner. You fire, score a perfect hit roll, but at the same time, the thief runs around the corner. UH OH! What do you do now? Most likely, that arrow will be rounding a corner or passing through walls to meet the target that the hit was scored on. That's the easiest and best solution, even though it's hideously unseemly.

 

The same thing could be said about a fighter slapping a teleporting mage or any other event where a roll is calculated to determine an outcome that takes any amount of time to perform. Sequence actually allows a statistical model with random probability outcomes much better than real time.

 

Syncing actions on screen to what's happening under the hood may be a problem, but a problem arising from trying to fit 15 seconds worth of action into 5 seconds doesn't have to be a problem, if accounted for in the design.  As for Haste spells and the like, it should be possible to make the animation go faster, or have an alternate animation with half the frames removed.  There are other solutions than nerfing the effect of the spell.

It's always going to be a problem because in real time, you're never going to know when to speed up and when not to speed up during that round. Say you have the fighter with the goblins again. The gamestate isn't going to know the outcomes of all those rolls, so it's not going to know how much to speed up the animations of the fighter for in order to fit all that in to the 6 second round.

 

The fighter takes a natural swing, hits, kills a goblin. Then he's ready to Cleave. If he hits on that cleave swing, only then is he able to do the Great Cleave swing. Each swing is what determines if the next will happen, so you can't just fluidly do the entire thing at once in real time. It's an impossibility. This affects this which affects this, all outcomes have to occur in order and wait for that order.

 

The existance of magic in a fictional world isn't unrealistic.  That's one of the things fiction allows.  It's realistic as long as it's presented consistently within the context of the fictional world.  By that reasoning, I suppose you could make up some physical laws to justify a combat system that requires characters in a fictional world to take turns while trying to kill each other.  Magic seems more plausible to me though.  I would also be in support of a rules system that doesn't allow players to become to ridiculously powerful, that's for a different argument though.

 

... Magic isn't unrealistic in a fictional setting? Do you need time to look up the meaning of the words fictional and realistic?

 

And actually, turn based does a damned fine job of mirroring what goes on in real combat. When one combatant is on the offensive, the other is typically defending - that's how turn based works.

 

do things like implement feats, spells, and special actions such as tripping, bull rushes, or grappling.

 

I've already listed a few feats that will screw up real time. Next?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Saint Proverbius, huh? Dungeon Seige isn't really an IE clone; but a Diablo clone. TOEE is much closer to being an IE clone than DS is (not saying TOEE is; just saying it's closer to it than DS).

 

Shadow Paladin,a re you saying BIO fans wouldn't buy a BIO game just because it was turn base combat? I sure hope not; as I'm sure they would. Bio is too popualr at this point to say otherwise. The only way BIO can crash, and burn is if they really screw up (like they would be if they followed through with that silly "rumoiur"). Hehe.

Dungeon Siege has a party so its closer to IE than Diablo in that respect. It's also pausable to issue orders another simularity.

 

Depends what you mean by "fans" not everyone who buys a Bioware game is a fan.Bioware have established themselves by making RTWP games. And Jade is real time bordering on beat um up. Not everyone who bought BG bought KOTOR and vice versa. So saying that people will buy a TB game just because Bioware made it dosnt ring true. Biowares strength has always been they have been able to capture the mass market while at the same time not alienating all but the most jaded of RPGer's. Like I said , post a thread over there about Bioware making a TB game and see what sort of reception it gets.

 

I guess I will answer that one after Jade is released since it's their first real departure from the RTWP formula with regards to RPG's.

 

I dont see how making an MMPORG would cause them to crash and burn as you put it. It might ruffle a few feathers but thats nothing new Jade did exactly the same thing.

[Greatjon]

I think I clearly showed what was wrong with having everything happen at the same time by pointing out the divergent results.

I think I said before that divergent results do not mean something is necessarily wrong in either system.

 

For a real world example, take voting systems. You can have direct election, weighted election, instant runoff, messed up electoral college, and others. With the same votes, depending on how they're counted, you get different results. Same thing.

 

Arrows going around corners and teleported mages getting hit by swords are issues you have to deal with in real-time, yes. There's no reason you can't just have them miss though, disregarding the hit roll.

The fighter takes a natural swing, hits, kills a goblin. Then he's ready to Cleave. If he hits on that cleave swing, only then is he able to do the Great Cleave swing. Each swing is what determines if the next will happen, so you can't just fluidly do the entire thing at once in real time. It's an impossibility. This affects this which affects this, all outcomes have to occur in order and wait for that order.

With the Cleave and Great Cleave feats, the fighter is only taking one swing. All the game engine has to do is animate one swing, and apply damage to whatever targets the rolls indicate.

Magic isn't unrealistic in a fictional setting? Do you need time to look up the meaning of the words fictional and realistic?

No, I don't. Anything can be defined as being real in a fictional setting. Whether or not it's real in the real world doesn't matter, only the context it's happening in matters.

I've already listed a few feats that will screw up real time. Next?

You listed a few divergent results, nothing more than that.

[Saint_Proverbius]

I think I said before that divergent results do not mean something is necessarily wrong in either system.

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. 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.

 

Arrows going around corners and teleported mages getting hit by swords are issues you have to deal with in real-time, yes.  There's no reason you can't just have them miss though, disregarding the hit roll.

And thus, you'd end up with different results. That doesn't help your case, it hurts it.

 

With the Cleave and Great Cleave feats, the fighter is only taking one swing.  All the game engine has to do is animate one swing, and apply damage to whatever targets the rolls indicate.

 

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.

 

No, I don't.  Anything can be defined as being real in a fictional setting.  Whether or not it's real in the real world doesn't matter, only the context it's happening in matters.

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

 

I've already listed a few feats that will screw up real time. Next?

You listed a few divergent results, nothing more than that.

 

One more time, if the results aren't the same, then there's a problem. Those feats can't work like they do in turn based because of timing. That's why the IE games drop any attack passed the fifth one and why NWN fudges up the Combat Reflexes and Cleave rules.

 

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.