BREAKING NEWS: NEW BATCH OF NWN2 SCREENIES

[StillLife]

"Volourn, that's like saying no one is forcing you to use some Uber Sword of Unbalancing you find in the game, decent character builds, or health potions if they make the game too easy. Outside of difficulty setting choices, it's the developers job to keep things from being too easy for the player."

 

Queue doesn't really make the game any easier unlike an overpowered weapon or too many heal potions. There's no need (and no reason) to queue 2-3 rounds ahead. Afterall, if you are say catsing magic missle at a fellow wizard and you notice the first magic missle is blcoked harmlessly (ie. enemy has shield up) you'll have to cancel your queue anyways (or waste your spells to no avail). So, like I said, it gives no advantage in the game. It just makes the gameplay smoother so you don't have to wait until the next round to choose your next move - you are alreayd ready. In fact, it makes it closer to tb combat this way.

 

It's no different than in tb combat when you already have an idea what spell/skill you will use in the enxt round.

 

My point was that if there's even a queue system in place, the combat is probably too damn easy and simple, otherwise, why have it? Look at KOTOR for example. 90% of the time in that game I queued up a max amount of moves for all my characters and just kinda floated through combat.

 

force power, force power

blaster shot, super blaster shot,

sit back, yawn

 

Also worth pointing out that even if there's just an illusion of continued interactivty by having the player enter their next moves individually, at least they're constantly engaged and fully focused on whats happening. Look at WOW for example, which doesn't allow you to queue anything. If that game had boring queues, far fewer people would probably be able to stomach the combat for very long. Though it would be good for gold farmers.

 

As for your FO comparison, there were other factors you always had to keep in mind, like distance you wanted the character to the enemy, limited number of action points, staying out of companion's line of fire, using a burst or single shot, using drug buffs, etc. Using queues in that game without having an expert knowledge of it would've been suicide, same with JA2, or Silent Storm for example. Real-time, regardless of if you can pause or not doesn't allow for the same tactical complexity of turn-based combat. So it at least needs to be fast-paced, exciting, and not a boring automated affair to compensate.

 

The simple pause and select thing was fine for Baldurs Gate, no need to pander to lazy or impatient gamers by catering to them any further than that. Fortunately the queue thing doesn't seem to have caught on outside BioWare and Obsidian. Hopefully this will be the last game that utilizes it.

 

Actually, it's for people that don't like real time combat.

 

And it's also for people who don't like turn-based which is why it sucks in both respects. Pseudo turn-based with queues completely nullifies the tactical complexity you'd get from a full TB game, but also succeeds in eliminating the reflexive advantage of real-time. So who's it good for in reality? It's good for people who don't like being challenged by games, which kinda defeats part of the purpose.

Edited May 2, 2006 by StillLife

[metadigital]

So you are advocating some sort of pseudo-compulsion, using the gimmick of constant attention to the ensuing battle as a means to make the game seem more interesting (given the battles are just as complex)?

 

I have to side with Volo on this one: as someone who uses queues extensively (through thorough research, beforehand, to understand the best battle tactics for my PC), you aren't going to magically make a battle more interesting just by removing the queue. That's a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, and it's nonsensical.

 

By all means, make the battles more challenging. The queue is irrelevant to the battle difficulty. What you are saying is that DnD 3.5 combat is too simplistic. Yes / no / maybe / whatever, but the queue is irrelevant.

[Diamond]

-The ogre model is too lowpoly for the normalmaps to work

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This doesn't make sense, normal maps are there to increase the detail of a low polygon model.

 

 

And the screenshots are awesome.

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

I need a new computer.

[StillLife]

So you are advocating some sort of pseudo-compulsion, using the gimmick of constant attention to the ensuing battle as a means to make the game seem more interesting (given the battles are just as complex)?

 

I have to side with Volo on this one: as someone who uses queues extensively (through thorough research, beforehand, to understand the best battle tactics for my PC), you aren't going to magically make a battle more interesting just by removing the queue. That's a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, and it's nonsensical.

 

By all means, make the battles more challenging. The queue is irrelevant to the battle difficulty. What you are saying is that DnD 3.5 combat is too simplistic. Yes / no / maybe / whatever, but the queue is irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, constantly inputting commands is more engaging than shoving them all out at once, sitting back and watching things unfold for a minute or two. Requiring constant feedback from the player is not a gimmick, that's how games with moderately interesting combat generally work if you haven't noticed. Removing the need for input from the player for long stretches of time is not fun or interesting. Should be a pretty basic concept to grasp. Otherwise, there might as well just be an auto-resolve function so combat can be entirely skipped in all but the most challenging of battles and the inactive watching part is entirely removed.

 

The queue is a side-effect of combat that is most likely too easy.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yes, constantly inputting commands is more engaging than shoving them all out at once, sitting back and watching things unfold for a minute or two.  Requiring constant feedback from the player is not a gimmick, that's how games with moderately interesting combat generally work if you haven't noticed.  Removing the need for input from the player for long stretches of time is not fun or interesting.  Should be a pretty basic concept to grasp.  Otherwise, there might as well just be an auto-resolve function so combat can be entirely skipped in all but the most challenging of battles and the inactive watching part is entirely removed.

 

The queue is a side-effect of combat that is most likely too easy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't see the big deal. If the game is doing what you want it to do then I see no need to fiddle with it. It's not like your movements are being directly carried out by the character. Only abstract orders.

 

What seperates it from a TB game,is that here you can jump in and change things at any time. You dont have to wait for your turn to come up. For that reason I dont see how a TB game where you are watching the non active characters is any different. And is in fact inferior, because you can't intervene at any time.

[Volourn]

"I have to side with Volo on this one"

 

MIRACLES DO HAPPEN!

 

Outside of my mod, you rarely agree with me and even then it's iffy!!!

 

 

"Yes, constantly inputting commands is more engaging than shoving them all out at once, sitting back and watching things unfold for a minute or two."

 

I (and, apparantly others) seem to disagree and do find it enagaing. I find it more engaging than many games that don't allow qeues.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Volourn

[Llyranor]

Just because a plan never survives contact with the enemy doesn't mean you shouldn't have one. Queueing is essentially that, formulating a plan, and then watching it unfold, and making appropriate changes where you deem it necessary. Blaming lack of difficulty in games on that seems like jumping the gun. Lack of difficulty is a design issue, not a queueing one. An action RPG might require my constant input and attention, but that doesn't mean it requires any higher level of thinking.

[Craigboy2]

http://www.atari.com/nwn2/_assets/ss/17_InField_lg.png

This guy's ****ed...

[Judge Hades]

That is my desktop background now. The subtitle of that pick should be "First you say it then you do it."

Edited May 2, 2006 by Judge Hades

[StillLife]

Just because a plan never survives contact with the enemy doesn't mean you shouldn't have one. Queueing is essentially that, formulating a plan, and then watching it unfold, and making appropriate changes where you deem it necessary. Blaming lack of difficulty in games on that seems like jumping the gun. Lack of difficulty is a design issue, not a queueing one. An action RPG might require my constant input and attention, but that doesn't mean it requires any higher level of thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not really blaming the lack of difficulty on the exsistence of queues, but if they're present and usable more than 10% of the time, then the game probably is too easy.

 

I don't see the big deal. If the game is doing what you want it to do then I see no need to fiddle with it. It's not like your movements are being directly carried out by the game. Only abstract orders.

 

What seperates it from a TB game,is that here you can jump in and change things at any time. You dont have to wait for your turn to come up. For that reason I dont see how a TB game where you are watching the non active characters is any different. And is in fact inferior, because you can't intervene at any time.

 

Because if you're basically just watching your characters do stuff without you, it's not really that interactive of a game in my book.

 

It's expected to watch an enemy perform their actions in any game, regardless of the time scale. When you're waiting long periods of time while your characters are doing something without your direct input prior to each of their actions, that's when it becomes boring for me. It is quite different from waiting for your turn to come up in a turn-based game.

 

I don't know, I just like for a game to require my control regularly during combat moments. For example, I prefer RTS' where you have to frequently direct your units in the course of a battle, over one's where you just kind of send a blob of units at the enemies forces and watch what happens. Apparently that isn't as important to some people, so maybe it's just a weird quirk of mine.

 

I have trouble believing most of you truly prefer the queue based combat in KOTOR or NWN over every other CRPGs combat model though.

Edited May 2, 2006 by StillLife

[mr insomniac]

http://www.atari.com/nwn2/_assets/ss/17_InField_lg.png

This guy's ****ed...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's the halfling i was talking about earlier. Wouldn't want to be in his soles.

[Craigboy2]

nwn2 sucks.  you know how we know?  'cause we saw a child in a screenshot.  children will continue to be unkillable 'cause certain euro countries has some laws 'bout such things, and 'cause atari probably don't want a MA rating here in the States even if they could release such a game in europe.  and as we all know from having followed the codexians, a game with unkillable children is NOT a real crpg.  therefore, as is proved by means o' simple logic, nwn2 must suck.

 

is a shame really, 'cause we actually prefer many of the nwn2 screenies to stuff we seen from oblivion.  no nightmarish faces alone is a vast improvement over bethesda

Edited May 2, 2006 by Craigboy2

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Because if you're basically just watching your characters do stuff without you, it's not really that interactive of a game in my book. 

 

It's expected to watch an enemy perform their actions in any game, regardless of the time scale.  When you're waiting long periods of time while your characters are doing something without your direct input prior to each of their actions, that's when it becomes boring for me.  It is quite different from waiting for your turn to come up in a turn-based game.

 

I don't know, I just like for a game to require my control regularly during combat moments.  For example, I prefer RTS' where you have to frequently direct your units in the course of a battle, over one's where you just kind of send a blob of units at the enemies forces and watch what happens.  Apparently that isn't as important to some people, so maybe it's just a weird quirk of mine. 

 

I have trouble believing most of you truly prefer the queue based combat in KOTOR or NWN over every other CRPGs combat model though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How is it different ? Not doing anything is not doing anything. The only difference as I see it , is in a TB game you are forced into not doing anything. Where as here you are not doing something out of choice.

 

What I really dont get is that the waiting dosnt bother you in a TB game , yet it does here. That just mystifies me.

 

Well the goal is to formulate a set of tactics to "win" it's only when something throws a spanner in the works that those tactics really change.

 

Lets say for example I want to knock something down each round. Am I really getting more out of it clicking every 6 seconds when I could just do it a couple of rounds in advance ? I really don't think so. And it gives my fingers a rest from clicking while playing out

[Atreides]

What's the fuss over the queue system? Think of it as an option - if you don't like it then just ignore it. If you do like it then it's a nice bonus.

[Dark_Raven]

What's the fuss over the queue system?  Think of it as an option - if you don't like it then just ignore it.  If you do like it then it's a nice bonus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wiser words have never been said.

[StillLife]

How is it different ? Not doing anything is not doing anything. The only difference as I see it , is in a TB game you are forced into not doing anything. Where as here you are not doing something out of choice.

 

What I really dont get is that the waiting dosnt bother you in a TB game , yet it does here. That just mystifies me.

 

Well the goal is to formulate a set of tactics to "win" it's only when something throws a spanner in the works that those tactics really change.

 

Lets say for example I want to knock something down each round. Am I really getting more out of it clicking every 6 seconds when I could just do it a couple of rounds in advance ? I really don't think so. And it gives my fingers a rest from clicking while playing out

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I already explained it's not the waiting alone that bothers me, it's waiting while my character does stuff without my direct input prior to each action; watching the battle unfold as opposed to guiding it at every turn. That hasn't been the case in any turn-based game I've played.

 

And yes, you are getting something out of controlling the battle directly each round, your motor functions are staying more lively. If you're wanting to not use your fingers very much, you should be doing something inactive like watching a movie or playing a cinematic heavy JRPG!

 

What's the fuss over the queue system? Think of it as an option - if you don't like it then just ignore it. If you do like it then it's a nice bonus.

 

That's what Volourn mentioned earlier. Virtually every crappy feature in a game could use that excuse. I'm not really saying it's completely game breaking or anything, but it helps set the stage for dull combat and it needs to go after NWN2.

[Llyranor]

You ARE guiding the battle. It's YOUR bloody plan. How do you play chess? Do you formulate a plan about what your next moves will be in advance, then make modifications as your opponent gets in the way, or do you just wait until it's your turn, then think up what your move should be? Chess could easily be played in a round-based fashion where you'd have a whole set of moves already prepared in your mind, and have it unfold turn-by-turn without 'direct' input, interrupting only when you want to make changes to your plan. That's what's going on in the player's mind ANYWAY, whether it's 'direct' input or not.

 

Geez, it sounds like you're advocating action RPGs as some kind of awesome cerebral experience.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I already explained it's not the waiting alone that bothers me, it's waiting while my character does stuff without my direct input prior to each action; watching the battle unfold as opposed to guiding it at every turn.  That hasn't been the case in any turn-based game I've played. 

 

And yes, you are getting something out of controlling the battle directly each round, your motor functions are staying more lively.  If you're wanting to not use your fingers very much, you should be doing something inactive like watching a movie or playing a cinematic heavy JRPG! 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most of the time your issuing the same orders turn after turn anyway. Like in FO I just shot things in the head. If I could have shot things in the head without having to dig through the menu every turn so much the better.

 

My motor functions are fine I've played Trauma Center . RPGs are not going to exercise your motor functions whether or not you issue orders every 6 seconds , or every 30 seconds. Cinematics are not really part of combat, I remember FFVIII you could hammer the square button during the summon sequence perhaps thats the sort of workout you are looking for ?

 

I always use the memory function because unless the battle plan gets disrupted pressing X a few times is preferable to digging through the menu for each action. Call me lazy, but I see no gameplay benifit in it.

[StillLife]

You ARE guiding the battle. It's YOUR bloody plan. How do you play chess? Do you formulate a plan about what your next moves will be in advance, then make modifications as your opponent gets in the way, or do you just wait until it's your turn, then think up what your move should be? Chess could easily be played in a round-based fashion where you'd have a whole set of moves already prepared in your mind, and have it unfold turn-by-turn without 'direct' input, interrupting only when you want to make changes to your plan. That's what's going on in the player's mind ANYWAY, whether it's 'direct' input or not.

 

Geez, it sounds like you're advocating action RPGs as some kind of awesome cerebral experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Glad you brought Chess up. While you may be planning ahead in your mind, rarely does it work out, nor should it, or it wouldn't be the highly regarded game it is today. That's why there are no queues to my knowledge in computer chess games. Unless you were a chess master, you'd get destroyed even allowing one move to go through without taking every move of your opponets into consideration before your next turn.

 

If they aren't going to be tactically focused like a turn-based game, then yes, they should have reflex oriented combat experiences, like Oblivion, Deus Ex, Gothic, Divine Divinity, or VTM: Bloodlines. Even in a party-based game(like BG) where your allies are under you control, pausing to issue one set of commands per round should be as far as it goes. Otherwise they should just have an AI or auto-resolve feature where you let the game handle combat for you, that way, you wouldn't have to do anything!

 

Most of the time your issuing the same orders turn after turn anyway. Like in FO I just shot things in the head. If I could have shot things in the head without having to dig through the menu every turn so much the better.

 

My motor functions are fine I've played Trauma Center . RPGs are not going to exercise your motor functions whether or not you issue orders every 6 seconds , or every 30 seconds. Cinematics are not really part of combat, I remember FFVIII you could hammer the square button during the summon sequence perhaps thats the sort of workout you are looking for ?

 

Fallout is getting up in the years now. It's not exactly the perfect model of turn-based combat.

 

Yes they will. Simply typing exercises your motor functions. Sitting there watching everything happen for you? Not so much. The summons in the later Final Fantasy's were too drawn out. That's another story though.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Fallout is getting up in the years now.  It's not exactly the perfect model of turn-based combat.

 

Yes they will.  Simply typing exercises your motor functions.  Sitting there watching everything happen for you?  Not so much.  The summons in the later Final Fantasy's were too drawn out.  That's another story though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

TOEE was the same. Especially at the lower levels. Most of the time you want to perform the same action over and over.

 

Your exagerating the watching time. Even 5 actions will only be 30 seconds and most of the time you wont get 5 actions without having to change your battle plan.

[Darque]

TOEE had an excellent combat model

[Meshugger]

TOEE had an excellent combat model

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never got any interest in TOEE, due to the bad reviews. What's so special about its combat system/model?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I never got any interest in TOEE, due to the bad reviews. What's so special about its combat system/model?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's very detailed. Unfortunately the AI is dumb.

[Volourn]

Aye. SP wins. And, as mentions, even in TOEE with its awesoem combat SYSTEM (poor combat though), you still mostly repet the same actions - ie. fighters swing their respective weapons while mages tend to use spells in a certain order..

 

Big group of Hobgoblins: Fireball then pick off with crossbow any survivors:

 

"Boss" Battle: Defensive spells first then the same offensive spells.

 

What StillLife is missing while you can qeue up 6 rounds of actions; chances are you will not likely go that long before having toc hange it... Outside of rpeating melee/missle attacks, I *never* went that many rounds without having to stop the qeue anyways.

 

So, in essence, SL is wrong... and, for once, I'm enjoying being on the side of the majority. LOL :D

 

I humbly thank SL for bestowing that honour on me.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Volourn

[Llyranor]

Glad you brought Chess up.  While you may be planning ahead in your mind, rarely does it work out, nor should it, or it wouldn't be the highly regarded game it is today.  That's why there are no queues to my knowledge in computer chess games.  Unless you were a chess master, you'd get destroyed even allowing one move to go through without taking every move of your opponets into consideration before your next turn.

Which is exactly why you need to constantly modify your plan as needed, anyway. Again, the best-laid plan won't survive contact with the enemy, but that's no excuse for not having one. Your focus is on some intrinsic flaw in the queue. You should focus on poor design catering to dumb people.

 

http://www.gamershell.com/download_505.shtml

 

Try this game. It's a wargame, but the same point remains. RTwP. Try it on realistic command delays, meant to simulate the logistics of proper command & control. Depends on where your units are, it can take you a very long time for your orders to reach them, sometimes up to hours. The game implements chains of command, so you can give order to 'HQ' units, whom will determine a plan for all their subordinates based on your specifics (or, you can micro everyone if you want). Each time you send a new order, it takes some time for the AI to set up a new plan, representing the inefficiency of constant changes in orders. The way it works (again, if you put it on realistic delays - you can also choose to have no delays and play it 'RTS' mode) is that you need to thoroughly think out your grand plan and try to outthink the enemy, anticipating enemy moves, and act preemptively. Then you let your plan unfold. You need to prethink all your moves, giving orders hours in advance in anticipation of what the enemy will do.

 

You can spend a lot of time trying to get a hold of the big picture instead of micromanaging individual units. THAT's what strategy and tactics are all about for me, not playing a twitchfest and dancing single units around as in most conventional RTS. I want to win because I outthink the enemy, not because I click faster or I memorized more building patterns.