Bringing TB into the 21st Century

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Bringing TB into the 21st Century

 

That almost makes it sound as if TB is old-fashioned.

Yeah I've noticed I'm really bad at making titles

 

I was thinking along the lines of theres only been 1 TB CRPG in recent times and that was TOEE. If you can think of other ones, by all means, point me towards them...

Well there are some, but they weren't exactly great commercial successes (despite garnering good criticism); and it also depends on what you consider "recent". Off the top of my head, you have ToEE, Silent Storm, Geneforge 1 and 2, Devil Whiskey, Paradise Cracked and Wizardry 8. More TB games are in production, too.

 

A pity that only indie developers or low profile companies invest in TB.

 

EDIT: I had forgotten about UFO: Alien Invasion. Its an opensource project, but its also TB.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

@MrBrown:

 

Well, trying to take the default PnP approach to combat works, after all. It would be old-fashioned if better ways had actually been invented, but until now, all these so-called improvements barely improve, if at all, and just fall under preferencial categories. If it still works, I'll use it and support it. Also, just because its been around for a long time doesn't actually mean its old-fashioned: if I remember correctly, both TB and RT have been around for somewhat the same time (and if I'm not mistaken - which I can be - the very first D&D CRPGs, at the time nothing more than dungeon crawlers, were RT).

[MrBrown]

Well, trying to take the default PnP approach to combat works, after all. It would be old-fashioned if better ways had actually been invented, but until now, all these so-called improvements barely improve, if at all, and just fall under preferencial categories. If it still works, I'll use it and support it.

What I meant is, IMO, it doesn't work or isn't the best option always, if simply taken after PnP. With changes (the most basic one being adding full party control) TB can work alot better.

 

For example, (IMO again) FO combat was boring because different choices for your character were few and more importantly most of the time in combat was spent watching party NPCs or enemies do their actions. Full party control (differs from PnP) would have made the combat easily alot better on one strike. Adding more options, such as crouching or reactive actions (ie. FOT Overwatch) could have also made it better.

 

2nd example (still IMO), TOEE suffered from following D&D rules too closely. While a simple Normal-Action/Move-action/Fullround-action works in PnP, CRPGs are just better of with action points or something similar. Likewise, it had alot of options that could have been combined into fewer or completely removed in a CRPG (ie having to choose an action to try to break off from spider web, when there's very few things you can do while webbed in any case).

[MrBrown]

To add to the above (and going a bit off-topic), I think one step in making a good Computer RPG is disregarding PnP rules. Which isn't easy, as known settings sell.

 

I don't mean that a developer should forcibly try to avoid taking anything from PnP, but that their first thought shouldn't be "let's make a CRPG version of ruleset A".

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Fallout had few combat options but these were somewhat offset by being able to invest in various skills and perks. And while I didn't exactly consider it boring, I can see why someone would, specially by not being able to control party members. For me that made the NPCs feel more like their own selves, not some meat puppets who I could order about (and that would inexplicably obey every command).

 

As for ToEE, I think that it suffered not because it followed the ruleset closely, but because there weren't many occasions where you could actually use other combat options (or they simply weren't worth it).

[MrBrown]

For me that made the NPCs feel more like their own selves, not some meat puppets who I could order about (and that would inexplicably obey every command).

I do agree that it's more realistic and enhances the roleplaying that way, but it's a matter of what kind of game it tries to be, like I mentioned previously. The combat does suffer because of this, and I think there should be some attention put towards that rather than just shrug it off with the roleplaying excuse.

 

This is one place where TB might not be the best choice; FO combat would have been alot faster in RT (though with the range in it's combat, it's not a clear cut choice). Of course, it could have been handled in other design decisions than changing the combat itself, such as lowering the amount of enemies in battles or making the enemy movement faster etc.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I wasn't shrugging it off with a "roleplaying excuse". I understand why people like to control all characters in a party; I don't mind controlling all party members in a party during combat (though its not a prefered option). I only pointed out the roleplaying aspect because in essence, a player only roleplays one character, and controls most or all aspects of said character; controlling 6 people almost as if they were player-created is weird at best (ordering an NPC in Baldurs Gate to kill a kid, then watching as it carried out the task, but then having to listen to him complaining about the reputation drop was surreal, at best). Thats why the roleplaying aspect isn't as intense or as thought-dividing as, say, playing a dungeon crawler like ToEE or Wizardry because you are not actually roleplaying 6 characters, and there isn't also a main character.

[Megatron]

I liked the combat in Fallout. Most of the time there wasn't huge amounts of enemies to fight so combat was usually more tense. Fighting in a town took to long, but it's been 'solved' since (Arcanum).

 

I don't see how controlling a whole team of npcs would make for better combat. Mabye for a strategy game, otherwise I'd prefer to speak to them during combat and make it a totally different skill (speaking to somebody about old willy jenkins' mine and screaming at a bunch of people while fighting would be different mebbe?)

 

I liked the combat in Fallout. You can't really complain about length as you could make the animations super fast. The problem of lairs full of rats could be solved by better game design, making masses of enemys one entity or an 'auto-combat' option for those of us who don't like bumbling through dungeons for an hour or so when it could be solved by just doing a few calculations, something like JA2?

 

The camera control option would be nice, so long as there's buttons to save and load camera positions. There's also other stuff you have to take into account like sky and having to make larger buildings (?) but nothing too much to cry about.

 

 

Anyway

1) Dialouge in combat. When you watch an action movie you expect them to talk, mabye a few one-liners. Watching all the shooting/car-chases where nobody talks would be...BIZARRO!

 

2) Enviroment interaction. More than just blowing stuff up and opening/closing things, stuff like flipping over tables and throwing any object about (including children, goblins, dogs etc.)

 

3) A bit like 1, but other ways to solve combat without dying. Surrendering, bribing, getting naked, crying all should be semi-valid ways of escaping death.

 

4) Different fighting styles. After playing any game for a while, the combat is usually the standard shooting/hitting each other with VERY SHARP SWORDS and mabye crouching about a bit if you're lucky. Combat should feel more fluid and allow the player to choose from a few fighting styles (melee or firearm). It would alter things like stats (speeds, damages, defence etc.) but also just look different. While fighting in a bar in a drunken brawl I don't expect to be doing the exact same moves as I am when fighting some ancient evil. It'd also just look different, a bit of variety. Things like being able to do 'cool' moves like firing over your shoulder without looking or doing a backflip. It wouldn't do much but it'd be cool?

 

5) Sort of going on from the last point I'd like to see other stuff than fighting, even if it is fighting? Things like a duel (pistols at dawn, one shot kills?), chess, rap-battling, arm-wrestling. A bit of a mix between combat and dialouge (which is basically combat for diplomats anyway)? Mini-games really. So long as they aren't stuff like hunting for golden chocobo eggs or wacking moles or something.

 

baldsfgsfhfs

[Revolver]

Here's a couple more ideas- again, let me know if it's already in a game:

 

When it's your turn in TB combat, have your character's weapon (lets say, gun) be aimed in the direction the targetting cursor is- so you see him pivoting and swinging the gun around. And when the cursor passes over an enemy, have them sorta try to duck ,wince, cover their face, or have a worried expression- which makes it all the more satisfying when you finally pull the trigger

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Fallout and FO:Tactics did this but with text blurbs. While there was minimal dodging movement, the lines usually reflected the event (a taunt for player failure, a criticism/lashing out against a hit). As for movement, can't remember anything at this hour of the day

[Revolver]

Fallout and FO:Tactics did this but with text blurbs. While there was minimal dodging movement, the lines usually reflected the event (a taunt for player failure, a criticism/lashing out against a hit). As for movement, can't remember anything at this hour of the day

The movement was all I was talking about- and I meant before the shot.

 

Of course I loved the combat feedback and taunts- all RPGs should have them... What? It's not practical in realtime? Thats just too bad

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Zantetsuken, I believe the point Mr Brown was trying to make was that perhaps going with turnbased in the Fallouts wasn't the right choice. There was no need for the player to be granted so much time to think, since you had so limited options in combat and, because you couldn't control your party members, a big part of the combat was spent waiting for them to finish their turns by shooting you in the back.

 

"When it's your turn in TB combat, have your character's weapon (lets say, gun) be aimed in the direction the targetting cursor is- so you see him pivoting and swinging the gun around. And when the cursor passes over an enemy, have them sorta try to duck ,wince, cover their face, or have a worried expression- which makes it all the more satisfying when you finally pull the trigger"

 

Nice idea, Revolver. I'd like to see eye-candy like that implemented more often, too. There was a feature like that in Worms 3D and it added a nice little touch to all those "Last Worm" situations. Nothing beats throwing a sticky bomb at an enemy worm's face in that game...

 

"I loved the combat feedback and taunts- all RPGs should have them... What? It's not practical in realtime? Thats just too bad"

 

What do you mean? As far as I can see, the only element of impracticality realtime can bring to that is that it may run too fast for the player to read.

[Megatron]

Therefore making it pointless?

 

Turn based is just y'know...better. Than real-time. Seems like a big discussion here though, so somebody would have given better reasons than I haven't.

[Revolver]

Well, you can do it in realtime, like Volourn mentioned in another thread, when you have several feedback windows for different types of feedback. However, it would still probably go too fast especially with multiple combatants (or even attacks), and it is evident it's not worth the effort as no developer I know of has tried it for a pure real-time game. (of course there could be). And pausing to read the feedback sorta ruins the whole effect. I'd also like to say that, if you don't have those messages, you're relying solely on graphics for the effect, and the graphics better be pretty damn good.

[Exitium]

Sadly, suggestion #4 is missing from Silent Storm and the end result is a little too much waiting. Fog of war isn't a bad thing to implement at all, provided it's implemented correctly and in the right places. TOEE's dense fog of war in the towns was totally unnecessary and as I found out, they were a late addition to the game by Atari, and not by Troika. I will digress for a moment and state that Atari also added the 'piss fog' (there's no other way to call it) to the TOEE box art. :angry:

 

It would be nice if Silent Storm provided for a 'concurrent turns' option in the same vein as Temple of Elemental Evil, as it would certainly speed up a lot of the rounds which as a previous poster noted, take too long.

 

As for TOEE's condition, all I have to say is to wait for the next patch. It's being worked on. It's not some damn rumor, either.

[roshan]

the main problem with ttoe is the story which doesnt exist thus leading to the game being boring. i doubt any patch would be able to add a story to the game. if troika is working on such a patch then kudos to them.

[Hell Kitty]

Oh baby I sure would like to see combat like Silent Storm in an RPG. I usually get told "RPG, not tactical combat game", but damn it, I want an RPG with interesting combat! :angry:

[Revolver]

This is making me even more agitated for not being able to play Silent Storm. For someone who has the game, how plausible would it be for someone to license the engine and make a pure RP focused RPG out of it with some adjustements?

[roshan]

Oh baby I sure would like to see combat like Silent Storm in an RPG. I usually get told "RPG, not tactical combat game", but damn it, I want an RPG with interesting combat! :angry:

agreed, combat should be good.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Therefore making it pointless?"

 

I said there was a possibility of it being too fast, but I guess I should've added that I seriously doubt it would be so. If I can read the enemies taunts (and reply, if I happen to find a safe corner) during a heated Quake fragfest, I don't think it would be a problem in an RPG, considering that they usually have a lot slower combat than FPSs.

 

"Turn based is just y'know...better. Than real-time. Seems like a big discussion here though, so somebody would have given better reasons than I haven't."

 

I don't think that RT is better than TB or vice versa. They're just different.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Zantetsuken, I believe the point Mr Brown was trying to make was that perhaps going with turnbased in the Fallouts wasn't the right choice. There was no need for the player to be granted so much time to think, since you had so limited options in combat and, because you couldn't control your party members, a big part of the combat was spent waiting for them to finish their turns by shooting you in the back.

TB is always the right choice The main point for me back there was the NPC thing. And like I said, it was admitedly boring wait and watch for their automated actions to end (truth be told, I found IE combat - real time - just as boring), but I obviously concede that it was somewhat untactical to let them decide for themselves because they most often than not made weird, or plain wrong, decisions. As for the lack of options, that's true; but I prefered it was TB for the chance that I might've used aimed shots, grenades and surroundings for cover.

[Revolver]

Ok, I finally got the Silent Storm demo to work (at the lowest possible graphics setting) and have a couple observations. Yes, a lot of the features I suggested are in the game, but not completely- so I'll base it on my original post. And also, remember the topic is about RPGs rather than tactical games. Though this is the best squad based game I've played in a while.

 

1) I liked the camera control, but I didn't like how you couldn't pan down to ground level like in HotU and Soldiers of Anarchy. Also, I think that during the enemy turn the player needs even more to occupy their time than moving the camera around- like some sort of limited action pr being able to shout orders to teammates (if its a single character focused RPG.)

2) You could target body parts but not see the physical results of damage- not a big deal though, unless you want a really graphic game.

3) The destructable landscape was one of the best parts in the game. I'm not sure exactly if cover made a difference, but it seemed to work

4) As someone (Exitium?) mentioned, SS really needed a way to speed up the enemy moves

5) There was dialogue (though it wasnt great) during combat, but it would have been much more fun if we got Fallout-like descriptive text combat feedback- laced w/ a little dark humor.

6) it was a pretty good mix between simple and more advanced combat- though it maybe it should have defaulted on targetted shot instead of snap shot

7) combat initiation was handled excellently

8&9) These are things better left for RPGs so its understandable that SS didnt have them

 

Overall, with a few added features and a few simplifications I think it'd be a great system to use with a pure RPG- either squad based or single character control. (more features would have to be added for single character control to make it more interesting though- eg giving vocal orders)

[gojira]

i have honestly never seen any rpg more shallow and pointless, except for perhaps nwn.

 

Sounds like you haven't yet tried Morrowind then. Although the character/monster models suck in that 3D Studio Max kind of way (amazing how much more "real" sprites can look), the scenery in Morrowind was the most amazing I have ever scene in a computer game, if you have the hardware to display it. So you may want to try it if you can find it for free and have a high end graphics card.

 

As far as TB goes, I'm of the opinion that both limited RT and TB should be implemented if at all possible. I don't agree that this is inherently not doable. Having two viable fight modes adds to the replayabillity. Having said that, true TB (as in FO) or true unpausable RT (as in Morrowind) are both bad choices IMO. If I had to pick only one I would choose TB, because RT allows for no strategic fighting at all and that is part of the fun of a CRPG IMO.

 

When RT is implemented very well (Ultima Underworld, Arena (maybe), Might and Magic 8, Arx Fatalis etc) it can be fun, but the lack of strategic options is a significant weakness. But a good pause and play implementation in combination with quick spell, quick attack options seems to retain most of the strategic aspects of TB while also retaining the excitement of the fight. If the pause is instantaneous enough, it leaves you the time you need to make decisions and prepare just as much as TB.

 

I found fighting in FO to be fun (although it wasn't very strategic as compared to games like BG2 or Might and Magic 6-8 in TB mode), but the slowness of the action made it feel more like a game of battle chess than a real fight. The adrenaline rush is just not quite there. Plus, quick kills of much weaker opponents are not possible in true TB.

[Magena]

I think that TB is much better suited for multiplayer than for single player. I don't know if it would even be possible to have the two different sets in each of the types of game.

 

As far as story, and linear vs non-linear. If there is a good story base, and the reason that it is seen as non-linear is that you didn't have to do something in exactly the same order (ie BG/2 vs IWD/2) Then there is a lot of merit to the idea, but there has to be a GOOD story there for there to be replayability no matter how linear the events are which get you from point A to point B.

[Iolo]

i have honestly never seen any rpg more shallow and pointless, except for perhaps nwn.

 

Sounds like you haven't yet tried Morrowind then. Although the character/monster models suck in that 3D Studio Max kind of way (amazing how much more "real" sprites can look), the scenery in Morrowind was the most amazing I have ever scene in a computer game, if you have the hardware to display it. So you may want to try it if you can find it for free and have a high end graphics card.

 

As far as TB goes, I'm of the opinion that both limited RT and TB should be implemented if at all possible. I don't agree that this is inherently not doable. Having two viable fight modes adds to the replayabillity. Having said that, true TB (as in FO) or true unpausable RT (as in Morrowind) are both bad choices IMO. If I had to pick only one I would choose TB, because RT allows for no strategic fighting at all and that is part of the fun of a CRPG IMO.

 

When RT is implemented very well (Ultima Underworld, Arena (maybe), Might and Magic 8, Arx Fatalis etc) it can be fun, but the lack of strategic options is a significant weakness. But a good pause and play implementation in combination with quick spell, quick attack options seems to retain most of the strategic aspects of TB while also retaining the excitement of the fight. If the pause is instantaneous enough, it leaves you the time you need to make decisions and prepare just as much as TB.

 

I found fighting in FO to be fun (although it wasn't very strategic as compared to games like BG2 or Might and Magic 6-8 in TB mode), but the slowness of the action made it feel more like a game of battle chess than a real fight. The adrenaline rush is just not quite there. Plus, quick kills of much weaker opponents are not possible in true TB.

Even Morrowind can be paused but you are limited to choosing magic spell/scroll/item to cast next, drinking potions and changing armour and weapons. However, it does make casting or changing weapons much easier especially on the XBox to pause and go into the interface.