BREAKING NEWS: NEW BATCH OF NWN2 SCREENIES

[Darque]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What SP said... the system was wicked, but the bad AI really borked it

 

Still, something like it in a new turn based game would be awesome

[StillLife]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

TOEE was too crummy to wade through, so I can't argue with you there. In JA2, or SS for example though, while you may have had one guy perform the same action, you were usually doing something different with at least one of your group the entire time, which required constant input per round. Otherwise if it's an easy battle, that's why auto-resolve should be present.

 

Yes, but 30 seconds back to back--if you're chugging through a combat heavy area--adds up quick to a lot of idle watching of your characters perform for you.

 

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

 

You'd have to manually select which survivors to pick off though right? Wouldn't work in a queue.

 

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

 

That's an example of poor design then, if even on bosses you use the same tactics over and over.

 

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 what is the point of having a queue if you have to interrupt it frequently? I very rarely had to interrupt even full queues in KOTOR. Maybe that's mainly a result of KOTOR's combat being so simplistic, but it seems to me whenever queues are present, the combat will probably be a snoozefest. NWN is another example.

 

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

 

I humbly thank SL for bestowing that honour on me.

 

Me wrong? That's preposterous! Off with your head!

 

Your focus is on some intrinsic flaw in the queue. You should focus on poor design catering to dumb people.

 

Maybe, but I think they're redundant in an RPG, and I've never thought in a CRPG with combat that I enjoyed, that it needed a queue.

 

Try this game...

 

Sounds interesting, I'll make a point to check it out when I have a chance.

 

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.

 

Ah, but you're speaking of a full-blown strategy games with lots of units right? We're talking about RPGs, which have no excuse for having such over-simplified approaches when going for a strategic element, considering the small number of units. They might as well just go almost completely the action route, or make everything automated when it comes to combat.

 

I like both aspects to be fully present in strategy games, like in the Total War series. RTS' have started to move away from simply out-twitching an opponet, though that is still an element. Take Battle For Middle Earth for example, a game which I was in the top 20 of the official world ladder for quite a while /end nerdy bragging. You couldn't do good in that game against other people(experienced players at least) without out-thinking them at nearly every turn, as well as maintaining better micromanagement in individual skrimishes. Same with other games like Empire Earth 2.

 

Anyway, I'm obviously not changing anyone's mind here. Not surprising considering this board tends to have a fair number of fans of the two games with the function I'm knocking. I take comfort in knowing the queue in CRPGs is most likely at the end of it's lifespan though.

[Volourn]

"You'd have to manually select which survivors to pick off though right? Wouldn't work in a queue."

 

Yes, it would. After a fireball, most (typical) hobgoblins (oops, my bad i believe it wa sbugbears in TOEE, slong ago) are low on hp... so one hit per one should be enough to just qeue up a n attack on each - espicially since you'll have the other PC/NPCs' help.

 

 

"So what is the point of having a queue if you have to interrupt it frequently? I very rarely had to interrupt even full queues in KOTOR. Maybe that's mainly a result of KOTOR's combat being so simplistic, but it seems to me whenever queues are present, the combat will probably be a snoozefest. NWN is another example."

 

KOTOR is a poore xmaple. 'Cause its combat (other than how it looks) sucks (imo). Queue is cool, and the point is that it's nice to plan ahead to strategize and all that. But, like any good strategizer, you have to be ready and willing to change your strategy mid game.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Volourn

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

TOEE was too crummy to wade through, so I can't argue with you there.  In JA2, or SS for example though, while you may have had one guy perform the same action, you were usually doing something different with at least one of your group the entire time, which required constant input per round.  Otherwise if it's an easy battle, that's why auto-resolve should be present.

 

Yes, but 30 seconds back to back--if you're chugging through a combat heavy area--adds up quick to a lot of idle watching of your characters perform for you.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Isnt autoresolve an even worse way of you not interacting with your characters?

 

In KOTOR most battles were over in less than 30 seconds anyway. I could see this perhaps being an issue if you only had one character to control but you have several, so one is likely to be active all the time.

 

It's like with IE games. I left the fighters mostly on AI control, because they were doing what I wanted them to do anyway.

[metadigital]

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. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, because generals don't participate in the battles that they command.

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. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure how long your command queues are, but generally the next move or two is all I need / want. I can't see that translating into minutes. Then again, Wizzardry 8 contained the most boring combat I have had to endure in many, many years.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like in Rome: Total War, you mean? Yep, helps to focus on the strategic battleplan, rather than the minuti

[metadigital]

"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!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

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}>

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you are now guilty of reductio ad absurdam.

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. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Queueing actions for several members of a group allows for me to focus on each character in turn, set their actions, then watch them all work in concert.

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}>

I think you are confusing KotOR: TSL which had easy combat, with combat using queues. The two are not necessarily interchangeable.

[StillLife]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Meta, I don't mind being outvoted, outnumbered, or whatever on an opinion I have, as most of my opinions on games would probably be pretty unpopular around here, but do you have to go through patting everyone on the back who disagrees with me with emotes? Especially when it's to points I've already responded to? Seems a bit childish in an unnecessary, mean-spirited sort of way. Bit unbecoming of a mod at least.

 

I'm very proud of you for knowing Latin and apparently so are you, but you may want to stick to English if you want what you're saying to actually be interpreted in a message.

[metadigital]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Llyranor wins.

 

Meta, I don't mind being outvoted, outnumbered, or whatever on an opinion I have, as most of my opinions on games would probably be pretty unpopular around here, but do you have to go through patting everyone on the back who disagrees with me with emotes?  Especially when it's to points I've already responded to?  Seems a bit childish in an unnecessary, mean-spirited sort of way.  Bit unbecoming of a mod at least.

 

I'm very proud of you for knowing Latin and apparently so are you, but you may want to stick to English if you want what you're saying to actually be interpreted in a message.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You might want to read the other fifteen comments, rather than cherry-pick a single emoticon to comment on.

[alanschu]

Google is your friend:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[StillLife]

You might want to read the other fifteen comments, rather than cherry-pick a single emoticon to comment on. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah and there's the point. Why should I respond seriously given your attitude and the fact I have to switch over to Wiki to even know what you're saying in some of the comments?

[StillLife]

Google is your friend:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never heard of it.

[Volourn]

I have definitive word that NWN2 is gonna suck, folks! This is undisputable proof, I swear!

 

 

SolidXtremeZ posted on Gamespot Forums:

 

"I played the intro tutorial of this game tonight. I dunno if it was because it was an early build or what, but based on what I played this game sucked. I wanted to like it because I heard the first one was good."

 

 

 

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/neverwinter...2667&pid=922154

 

Do not dare try to deny his truthful words. It will only embarass you!

[alanschu]

Google is your friend:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never heard of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's why you use Google.

 

http://www.google.com

 

As a result, you could have poked fun at him for spelling it wrong "

[StillLife]

SolidXtremeZ  posted on Gamespot Forums:

 

The name alone makes his opinion suspect.

 

That's why you use Google.

 

http://www.google.com

 

As a result, you could have poked fun at him for spelling it wrong

 

Oops.

Edited May 4, 2006 by StillLife

[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.

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still don't get the fuss over it. It's purely an option - something you can ignore or use.

 

When something doesn't affect my preferred choice in any way, but is there in case I want it I don't freak.

[Nartwak]

When something doesn't affect my preferred choice in any way, but is there in case I want it I don't freak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think you're trying hard enough then.