Taking turn base action out of RPGs...

[Nightblade]

TB = cardboard game.

[Kalfear]

I picked turn based for two reasons

 

1) If a company is so focused on real time combat that takes away from the story of the game which should always be #1 in a RPG. Im sure there will be posters that say otherwise but its a simple fact. Games are built on time tables and the more time you spend twinking your real time combat, the less time you spend on the important aspects of the game.

 

2) Turn based is more tactical then real time. Again, just a simple fact. That pause is there for you to think and plan in. Real time is just recation speed. No real planing, just bolast throw as best you can and the better your reaction the better you do.

 

There is a reason that ALL the successful war games use turn based rather then real time. TACTICS! RPGs combat is traditionally rooted in tactical combat, hense the turn based requirement.

[Blank]

I enjoy KOTOR's fighting system, where you can pause it whenever you want and do a type of turn-based strategy for a little bit, then switch to real-time and let it simulate, then go and give orders again. or you can just let it go all real-time undisturbed. i like that. turn-based is too unrealistic since you have 1 of the 8 combatants doing something while the others are stuck in a perpetually 2-frame animated "ready-stance".

 

But Kalfear, i agree with you when you say that the developers need to be focusing on the story. that is usually one of the special feature that makes RPG's unique from other games.

 

Also, parties are a must with RPG's for me. i hate it when there are no parties...

Edited December 8, 2005 by Blank

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

1) If a company is so focused on real time combat that takes away from the story of the game which should always be #1 in a RPG. Im sure there will be posters that say otherwise but its a simple fact. Games are built on time tables and the more time you spend twinking your real time combat, the less time you spend on the important aspects of the game.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The same is true if the focus is on the turn based combat and not the story. How is it a face ? A combat system that takes priority over the story is the same be it TB or RT.

 

What about TOEE combat was ok but the story and the roleplaying were not.

 

So while your statement may be true in a sense. It applies to all combat not just real time.

[angshuman]

I like having full control over my henchmen, but I dislike turn-based combat in general. Real-time combat with the ability to pause and issue commands to everyone would be awesome. Obviously, all actions should take an explicit and finite amount of "real-time" (as Guild Wars' spells do).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

2) Turn based is more tactical then real time. Again, just a simple fact. That pause is there for you to think and plan in. Real time is just recation speed. No real planing, just bolast throw as best you can and the better your reaction the better you do.

 

There is a reason that ALL the successful war games  use turn based rather then real time. TACTICS! RPGs combat is traditionally rooted in tactical combat, hense the turn based requirement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again entirely subjective. If you dont think and plan in real time game you die. You just think and plan faster. Less to do with reactions than you might think . Diablo dosnt take much in the way of reactions, but it does take competant skill seclection for the situation at hand.

 

Which is the most succesful genre ? TB wargams or RTS ?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I like having full control over my henchmen, but I dislike turn-based combat in general. Real-time combat with the ability to pause and issue commands to everyone would be awesome. Obviously, all actions should take an explicit and finite amount of "real-time" (as Guild Wars' spells do).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never played it. Do you mean that each action has it's own "time cost" ? For example a fireball spell taking 3 real seconds to complete rather than to cram everything into 6 second turns or the like ?

[Haitoku]

I like having full control over my henchmen, but I dislike turn-based combat in general. Real-time combat with the ability to pause and issue commands to everyone would be awesome. Obviously, all actions should take an explicit and finite amount of "real-time" (as Guild Wars' spells do).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never played it. Do you mean that each action has it's own "time cost" ? For example a fireball spell taking 3 real seconds to complete rather than to cram everything into 6 second turns or the like ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, skills have a casting time.

 

Also, I think turn-base fits better with the RPG genre in general.. Think about it... in any RPG, you never really have total control. Your always limited to certain choices, story paths, etc.

[Ellester]

WIz8 is probably a worst-case example since I do think Linda Currie and her teams made a bad decision in trying to bring classic Wizardry gameplay into a full 3d environment  without  considering the ramifications of how fighting multiple large groups of monsters would play out when everything was now being moved and animated in full 3d.  A style that worked OK in Wiz2 was suddenly problematic in the new world of 3d realtime movement and animations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wiz8 combat was slooooooooow. But you could speed it up in the options menu, which many did not realize. Also after learning about it, I downloaded a fan made patch that accelerated the combat up to 20 times faster. So the slow combat never really was a problem anymore, just kinda weird as they move from 100 feet away to right into your face in 1 second. lol

[Darque]

TB = cardboard game. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

RT = twitchfest

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yes, skills have a casting time.

 

Also, I think turn-base fits better with the RPG genre in general..  Think about it...  in any RPG, you never really have total control.  Your always limited to certain choices, story paths, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like Diablo II then.

 

I think it depends entirely on the workload you expect of the player. If you TB'd KOTOR in the true sense it would be quite boring since you can easily handle that workload in real time or if you cant manage that invoke the pause feature only when you need it.

 

Ask too little of the player and they spend a lot of time staring at the screen waiting for the enemy to move compared to how much time they are actualyl playing. Biggest inherent flaw in TB combat is that more enemies (or allies) will equal more waiting time.

 

TOEE tried to have it so all things on the same initiative would move at the same time. But I just found that messy and "gamey" reinforcing that I was playing a board game and not infact a character a in the game.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

RT = twitchfest 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Darques been tetchy this week <_<

[Darque]

[Judge Hades]

Please explain the difference, because simultaneous real-time vs. sequential turn-based seems to be the obvious thing that separates the first two games from the last four.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I shouldn't have to explain the difference. As a game designer and such you should already know the difference. KotORs, JE, NWN 1 and such are designed to be more cinematic. I am not saying that is a bad or good thing, but hardcore RPGing isn't cinematic. From the implementation of rules, style of combat, the camera angles, the way the characters interact, and options available in combat. Such as can my character do a charge attack and get a bonus to hit and damage in the KotORs or NWN? No. Can I take aimed shots in KotORs or NWN, Jade Empire, and such games? Nope.

 

Also games that reflect of being more table top RPG tends to be far more difficult on normal challenge level than the cinematic types such as KotORs, JE, and NWN. I mean in KotOR 2 an optimize character can take on the droids in the opening area unarmed and kill them in one hit no problem. On normal dificulty in Fallout 2 an optimized character can still get his or her butt kicked in the Temple of Trials.

 

 

Style of representation, the limited options in combat, and the easiness of todays games make them not proper CRPGs. They are more like cinematic adventure games with RPG elements. Not saying that is good or bad, but that doesn't make them CRPGs.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I shouldn't have to explain the difference.

If it wasn't obvious, I'm trying to understand your thought process, not mine.

 

KotORs, JE, NWN 1 and such are designed to be more cinematic.  I am not saying that is a bad or good thing, but hardcore RPGing isn't cinematic.  From the implementation of rules, style of combat, the camera angles, the way the characters interact, and options available in combat.  Such as can my character  do a charge attack and get a bonus to hit and damage in the KotORs or NWN?  No.  Can I take aimed shots in KotORs or NWN, Jade Empire, and such games?  Nope.

I would think that taking called shots at limbs would be more cinematic in presentation than always popping off body shots, but that's just my opinion. Also, you can't take called shots in ToEE either. None of the games you listed have "cinematic" camera angles for combat, unless free camera = cinematic camera.

 

Also games that reflect of being more table top RPG tends to be far more difficult on normal challenge level than the cinematic types such as KotORs, JE, and NWN.  I mean in KotOR 2 an optimize character can take on the droids in the opening area unarmed and kill them in one hit no problem.  On normal dificulty in Fallout 2 an optimized character can still get his or her butt kicked in the Temple of Trials.

You're not explaining the reasons for this. You can design a first level encounter for D&D characters that is easy or you can design one that's very difficult. You can design an early encounter in any game that's difficult or easy. Whether the rules are more "RPG-ish" (whatever that means) doesn't have anything to do with it. Cinematic presentation or differing rule systems don't bind this. Ninja Gaiden has an extremely difficult first boss battle despite having a quick input-driven combat system.

 

 

Style of representation, the limited options in combat, and the easiness of todays games make them not proper CRPGs.  They are more like cinematic adventure games with RPG elements.  Not saying that is good or bad, but that doesn't make them CRPGs.

Before, you said it had to do with the rules, but now you're saying it has to do with limited options in combat, "cinematic" visual represenation, and ease of play. I don't think you're being consistent in your definition.

 

Reading between the lines, it seems that you feel certain games define the CRPG genre. Games that are similar enough to those games are CRPGs in your mind. Games that aren't close enough to those games are not CRPGs. I don't have any camera angles when I'm playing tabletop games, some of the game systems with which I play have pretty basic combat systems (like Storyteller) and easiness is up to the individual DM/GM -- so saying these newer games aren't like tabletop RPGs doesn't really fly for me, either.

 

Also, the first Fallout was pretty damned easy if you put any effort into making a combat-oriented character. Fallout's TB combat system made the fight with the Master a joke. ToEE was very difficult for the first few levels, but once I hit about 4th level, it was as easy as any of the IE games. I had more options than I did in the IE games, but that didn't suddenly make ToEE brutally difficult.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Ninja Gaiden has an extremely difficult first boss battle despite having a quick input-driven combat system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:ph34r:

 

The only difference I could see between FO/TOEE and NwN/KOTOR is this.

 

The first two require a certain rules knowledge. If you have that , then both are a walk in the park. If you dont then you will struggle to make sense of what is going on. FO is particularly easy with some basic math , where as TOEEs movement lacks the precise nature that such a game really needs.

 

KOTOR/NWN dosnt require this so much , it's more forgiving allowing you to learn as you go instead of reading a 200 page PDF.

 

Do designers want people to have to read 200 page PDF's just to play a game ?

 

To bring it back to Ninja Gaiden I felt it was similiar to TOEE in that that game upto that point had not provided you with the knowledge you needed to beat that encounter. Prior to that the game had been easy so it was like slamming into a brick wall.

Edited December 8, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Volourn]

"Can I take aimed shots in KotORs or NWN, Jade Empire, and such games? Nope."

 

Yes, you can. In fact, both NWN and KOTOR have feats that do exactly that. In fcat, many full fledge turn base games don't even the ability to take aimed shots. NWN, for example, has called shots for the arms and legs.

 

 

"On normal dificulty in Fallout 2 an optimized character can still get his or her butt kicked in the Temple of Trials."

 

Really? The Temple of Trials is very ahrd to die in. While FO2 is more challening than KOTOR1&2; the TOT is not. On top of that, the difficulty of a game has NOTHING to do with TB or RT. I would say it's impossible to die in the TOT with an 'optimized' character built for combat. But, to say that, I need to know what you mean by 'optimized'.

 

I've played lots of easy tb games. TOEE surely comes to mind.

 

I've played lots of challenging rt games. BG series (well.. it's technically a mixed of real and turn base at the core).

 

KOTOR series may be easy; but it has nothing to do with its mixed real and turn base combat.

 

I also remember you saying that you felt 'challenged' by JE (that's the game not the developer, lol). Weird now that you are arguing otherwise.

 

SP: Not so true. You need to know the rules to play NWN successfully. Just read the NWN GD and Spoilers section of all three campaigns to see what I mean. Lots of people have MAJOR problems fighting those battles simply because they misunderstand or just don't know about a certain rule.

 

Example: Someone whines about a certain party vs party battle in HOTU being impossible. Some NWN/D&D expert comes in bragging how that fight was a walk in park because they had x class, xparty members, and x items, and totally talks down to the first guy.

 

NWN is very unforgiving when it comes to not not knowing the rules.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Volourn

[Haitoku]

Style of representation, the limited options in combat, and the easiness of todays games make them not proper CRPGs. They are more like cinematic adventure games with RPG elements. Not saying that is good or bad, but that doesn't make them CRPGs.

 

Excuse me...

 

But how does combat/difficulty stop a game from being a true cRPG?

 

These things are at the bottom of the priority list...

 

EDIT: I should say, they should be.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Haitoku

[Judge Hades]

J.E. it isn't suppose to work for you. It is suppose to work for me. It is my definition, not yours. If it is inconsistant that is because I am inconsistant.

 

Overall it has to do with the style of the game which makes it a true CRPG or not for me. Since I am not in the industry or Obsidian are making games specifically for me I am wondering why you are so interested in my definitions.

[Judge Hades]

Excuse me...

 

But how does combat/difficulty stop a game from being a true cRPG?

 

These things are at the bottom of the priority list...

 

EDIT: I should say, they should be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If the game is too easy, I get bored and any game I get bored at is not a CRPG to me.

[J.E. Sawyer]

J.E. it isn't suppose to work for you.  It is suppose to work for me.  It is my definition, not yours.  If it is inconsistant that is because I am inconsistant. 

 

Overall it has to do with the style of the game which makes it a true CRPG or not for me.  Since I am not in the industry or Obsidian are making games specifically for me I am wondering why you are so interested in my definitions. 

These boards exist to further exploration of a range of topics, not mire discussion in mental masturbation. Idea exchange through words is like currency exchange. When everyone involved understands what's being given and received, the exchanges go smoothly. When one person plays loosey goosey or doesn't care to be consistent in what's being given or received, it causes conversation to devolve to clarifying what's going on. If you don't care if people can consistently understand what you're giving to them or how you're interpreting what they're giving to you, that's your choice. It just seems like a waste of time to me.

[Joseph Bulock]

Excuse me...

 

But how does combat/difficulty stop a game from being a true cRPG?

 

These things are at the bottom of the priority list...

 

EDIT: I should say, they should be.

 

If the game is too easy, I get bored and any game I get bored at is not a CRPG to me.

 

As a parallel to this definition, any time I eat something, but do not enjoy it as much as I expected, it is no longer defined as food.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

SP: Not so true. You need to know the rules to play NWN successfully. Just read the NWN GD and Spoilers section of all three campaigns to see what I mean. Lots of people have MAJOR problems fighting those battles simply because they misunderstand or just don't know about a certain rule.

 

Example: Someone whines about a certain party vs party battle in HOTU being impossible.  Some NWN/D&D expert comes in bragging how that fight was a walk in park because they had x class, xparty members, and x items, and totally talks down to the first guy.

 

            NWN is very unforgiving when it comes to not not knowing the rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wasnt quite what I said. I said it was more forgiving allowing you to learn as you go.

 

Even someone who dosnt know the D&D rules could get through most of the prologue and pick things up along the way. Where as with TOEE if you dont at least know the basics your pretty much dead in your first battle.

 

Obviously someone who jumped straight into HoTU would not be equipped to deal with it since it's meant as an expansion and not an introduction.

Edited December 8, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

As a parallel to this definition, any time I eat something, but do not enjoy it as much as I expected, it is no longer defined as food.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Guest MacLeodCorp]

Combat difficuly should change. After you are done fighting one boss, the next boss should be twice as hard. Supportive NPCs should have various difficulties the closer you get to the Big Boss, and they should be different variations. Other words, Sith Lords would be a higher difficulty rate compaired to a Sith Assassin. In the chane of difficulties, Sith Assassins should be weaker. When you fight Sion, he should have been weaker than Kreia. Just an example. I would not expect to fight a level 4 character in a level 10 world. Therefore, combat difficulty is essential.

 

Wow! How about reward systems. When you fight Big Bosses and open difficult doors, there should be rewards that reflect the difficulty in levels. Otherwords, when I defeat an Exchange Boss, I should get a reward that is superior to the one I get from just opening a canister. In KotOR II, the rewards don't reflect the difficulty of the character you defeated or the skill level.

 

(I am just using KotOR II as an example, and I completely enjoy the game.)