Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is pretty much the most concerning piece of information we got. I would've much more preferred a turn-based system, since it allows for much better pace and control over multiple companions. I think realtime systems are fine as long as they concentrate on either one complex character, or on multiple simple character, so that the player needs to focus only on making high-level tactical decisions, or concentrate on one complex entity, not nitpick on which ability or spell to use next on all of the characters. For example, Dragon Age: Origins probably has one of the worst realtime /w pause systems in existence. And I'd really truly like for Obsidian to avoid the downfalls of such a system. I also remember Baldurs Gate and pals giving me quite a bit of frustration exactly due to its RTwP system (and AD&D, but let's not go there...).

 

The problem lies in too much stuff happening around at a time, lack of a proper queued order system (the new Jagged Alliance remake has pretty awesome order queueing) and dumber-than-a-boot suicidal AI. The latter can fix a lot, but is not a easy thing to do right. But when done wrong, it can ruin everything, forcing the player to pause every second just to make sure the dumb companions do what they're told and micromanage every single little detail. Sure, I don't mind that option, since who am I to deny the pleasure of this from those who desire it, but the game should be designed in a smarter way, not to force player on this kind of style of play - which really isn't everyone's cup of tea.

 

Anyone else share my concerns?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Infinity Engine style is 100% fine by me.

 

I do enjoy turn-based though, so I backed Wasteland 2.

 

You can also make the IE games turn based, in the pause options there's an option to pause at the start of each round.

Edited by Sensuki
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer purely turn-based combat too. However, the system is only part of the equation. Creating interesting, varied encounters is almost as important - and that's why I'd rather replay Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate than Temple of Elemental Evil. Plus, there are several turn-based goodies being made right now (wasteland 2, chaos chronicles, divinity), so I can deal with a RTwP game.

 

it has to be done properly, with good pathfinding, zones of control of some kind (what irkes me in infinity games is that you cannot block passages and everyone and his mum can reach mages or archers), ruleset that is made entirely for RTwP and some autopause options.

 

If anything a good compromise is to have a toggle, that might be a nice stretch goal.

Arcanum shows us that having both is of no benefit, it just makes each of them much, much worse.

Edited by Hoverdog

[intelligence] I'm fighting the Good Fight with my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like turn based systems very much they are way too slow for me. I'd still play the game of course but I'd massively prefer real time with pause. It allows me to play at me own pace.

If anything a good compromise is to have a toggle, that might be a nice stretch goal. :)

 

That idea crippled at least one good game that I know of, Arcanum, and its cited as a inspiration.

 

So far, I've yet to see a RTwP implementation that tests either decision making or coordination in a way that is comparable to either of the specialized systems (turn based and action based, respectively) - but its important to note that RTwP requires both but without a focus on the player's dexterity (like a pure RTS). If your complaint is that too much happens at the same time its because you're comparing it to a TB game, where much of party coordination happens in a abstract way that requires only decision-based thinking of the player: you should rather complain that its often hard to discern what exactly is happening in RTwP games, especially NwN2 (IMO).

 

However, one very, very, very important thing that a lot of people should have noticed by now is that the kind of combat is only a part of the formula, and its not a chief part of it. Its more important to have good, say, encounter design than your preferred kind of combat (provided you can stand whatever isn't your ideal choice). ToEE had amazing rules and implementation, but terrible encounter design and, as such, shouldn't be cited as a good example of all things turn based ever.

Edited by Delterius
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, I prefer BG's style over "true" turn-based.

^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think turnbased combat is a must in games like Jagged Alliance because there is so much shooting going on. Tactics play a much larger role in those kind of games. The Infinity-Engine games always were about strategy and melee. Who should be in my group and which spells should be memorized. It always came down to the right strategy in terms of casters and spells. There is no need for turn based combat because there are no tactics. Just a large explosion during which you need to make sure you are the one standing in the end. At least I played this way. Maybe there are other ways ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arcanum shows us that having both is of no benefit, it just makes each of them much, much worse.

 

This comes up a lot. I agree with what you said before this (and even with that statement when it comes to Arcanum itself), and I can make do without TB despite my preferences; but is Arcanum really the pinnacle of what could be done with this context?

 

I think that even if it ends up not being implemented due to what ever reasons, the possibilities and potential should at least be explored with the teachings of the past and knowhow of today before dismissing it because Arcanum failed at it 12 years ago.

Perkele, tiädäksää tuanoini!

"It's easier to tolerate idiots if you do not consider them as stupid people, but exceptionally gifted monkeys."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arcanum shows us that having both is of no benefit, it just makes each of them much, much worse.

 

This comes up a lot. I agree with what you said before this (and even with that statement when it comes to Arcanum itself), and I can make do without TB despite my preferences; but is Arcanum really the pinnacle of what could be done with this context?

 

Not but that's not the point. The point is that Arcanum, and Troika itself, are a Greek Tragedy about trying to make a RPG larger than you can - developer idealism if you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's not turn-based combat. Turn-based is when one character acts each turn. At best it's an approximation of phase-based combat.

 

You're right I should have included the word 'kinda'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the complaint about the need to pause every second and manage everything, because that's exactly what happens in a turn-based game.

 

I don't like turn based systems very much they are way too slow for me. I'd still play the game of course but I'd massively prefer real time with pause. It allows me to play at me own pace.

 

Ultima 6 didn't have this issue. Ultima 6 is turn-based and allowed the player to set the pace very nicely. You could play only a single character and have the game play as fast as you want(faster than real-time in BG or PS:T, anyways), or all of them and play it very slowly and strategically.

 

Short of that though, I agree, RTwP is the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the OP's concerns about realtime with pause can really be solved just by doing party AI right, as it was done in BG or IWD. Set up/pick an AI script for your party and let them go, while still being able to give commands and have those trump anything the AI chooses until the action is completed. Want your archers to shoot an enemy mage until he's dead? Selecting them and order them to do it. Have that action persist until a) the mage is dead (where AI would take over again, until another order is given), or b) the player tells them to change to a different target.

 

RTwP doesn't have to be nitpicky, it can totally be about higher level decisions... Party AI just needs to be handled well to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arcanum shows us that having both is of no benefit, it just makes each of them much, much worse.

 

This comes up a lot. I agree with what you said before this (and even with that statement when it comes to Arcanum itself), and I can make do without TB despite my preferences; but is Arcanum really the pinnacle of what could be done with this context?

 

Not but that's not the point. The point is that Arcanum, and Troika itself, are a Greek Tragedy about trying to make a RPG larger than you can - developer idealism if you will.

 

Yes, I acknowledge that. And I wouldn't want them to get greedy with features at the expense of other features. But I do also think the potential of whether or not it could be done in a satisfactory manner should be explored. They're aware of what not to do when there are no conditions to do it; but I think they also have the knowhow to do it right if the conditions and their own willingess to attempt allow for it.

Perkele, tiädäksää tuanoini!

"It's easier to tolerate idiots if you do not consider them as stupid people, but exceptionally gifted monkeys."

Link to post
Share on other sites
RTwP doesn't have to be nitpicky, it can totally be about higher level decisions... Party AI just needs to be handled well to do it.

 

I'm of the opinion that the combat system loses its point if a AI can do the job for me. And if it can't, then I don't use it. The only thing I ever left for the AI in BG or IWD was auto-attack with a ranged weapon and even that kinda sucked when the Ranged AI insisted in repositioning itself without need.

 

Yes, I acknowledge that. And I wouldn't want them to get greedy with features at the expense of other features. But I do also think the potential of whether or not it could be done in a satisfactory manner should be explored. They're aware of what not to do when there are no conditions to do it; but I think they also have the knowhow to do it right if the conditions and their own willingess to attempt allow for it.

Well, I agree to disagree. My turn-based cravings will be hopefully be satisfied with the upcoming Wasteland 2, Divinity: Original Sin and Chaos Chronicles; I'd rather Etenity's RTwP is done right. Possible better than anything that came before. And I also fear you're being idealistic yourself, but I do understand that the idea of mixed combat systems is a interesting concept.

 

Not one I'd have the guts to design, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I share OP's concern and hope RTWP will be well implemented. I am no specialist, but I would insist on:

- Numbers: a text box with details about the actions; dice rolls, "X begins to cast a spell", etc.

- Responsivity: the feeling that the character is actually doing what the player asked him/her to do (relies heavily on well-designed graphical tips).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the complaint about the need to pause every second and manage everything, because that's exactly what happens in a turn-based game.

 

I know, it's funny because that's what everyone easily thinks, and it sounds like that's how it is, but the reality is that a good turn-based game has a completely different feel to it. Turn-based in itself is a way of pacing the gameplay and removing any reaction time factors. A good turn-based game is designed in way to take advantage of the turn-based mechanics. It usually means there isn't that much stuff happening at a time. For example, combat mechanics can be deadlier, because of the extended time each turn takes. In realtime games it's often better to rely on HP sack mechanics, because it gives players more time to see whats going on. Pausable or not, the flexibility is required precisely because of itself: no matter how optimal gameplay, not all people pause every second, because they don't have to. It's tedious.

 

Why arcanum had very bad turn-based mechanics was because it was built on top of a mediocre realtime system (or vice versa, doesn't really matter I think). And I don't think it should be attempted again, because I cannot recall any example where it would've worked, and I'm not sure it woudl be worth the trouble. Better to focus on just one and make it damn fine. Thus, even though my preference is turn-based, I see some advantages in RTwP, and have a desire to bring up the discussion on how the execution should be done, and wish that Obsidian follows that discussion to make sure they put every ounce of creativity and ingenuity in their heads to perfecting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor encounter design of ToEE and the unbalanced combat of Arcanum are not really inherit to the turn based combat system of these games. They're consequences of rushed development.

 

In PE they're trying to make something amazing and I think they should strive for that in the combat department as well. Obviously my subjective opinion but no game with RTwP has had amazing combat of the level seen in JA-series, KoTC and AoD and the potential ToEE had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I acknowledge that. And I wouldn't want them to get greedy with features at the expense of other features. But I do also think the potential of whether or not it could be done in a satisfactory manner should be explored. They're aware of what not to do when there are no conditions to do it; but I think they also have the knowhow to do it right if the conditions and their own willingess to attempt allow for it.

Well, I agree to disagree. My turn-based cravings will be hopefully be satisfied with the upcoming Wasteland 2, Divinity: Original Sin and Chaos Chronicles; I'd rather Etenity's RTwP is done right. Possible better than anything that came before. And I also fear you're being idealistic yourself, but I do understand that the idea of mixed combat systems is a interesting concept.

 

Not one I'd have the guts to design, though.

 

Yeah, I'm looking forward to those titles too. And I admit I might have a certain amount of that idealism. But I do think having hopes for best ever RtWP isn't far off that either. Anyways, I'm generally fine with what they've announced - I'd call the lack of TB a mild nuisance at best, something I can well live with but a nuisance nonetheless as I've never really been a fan of RtWP. Can't hurt thinking about could potentially be done.

Perkele, tiädäksää tuanoini!

"It's easier to tolerate idiots if you do not consider them as stupid people, but exceptionally gifted monkeys."

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a tactical RTwP I think it is important to have the possibilty to chain multiple commands for each character (Jagged Alliance: Back in Action is really impressive in that aspect) and to have group formations just like in Baldur's Gate. A basic AI, that can handle simple actions alone and relieves the gamer from basic handlings (e.g. auto base attack for fighters, if there is no other command available), is also important. The optimum imo at the moment is Dragon Age with its feature to create several routines for your characters. If you have that features, imho RTwP is a alternative to the tactical feeling of turnbased games.

Edited by Avantenor
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also make the IE games turn based, in the pause options there's an option to pause at the start of each round.

 

I have never agreed with this statement. Its not real turn based if I dont know who is next in the initiative line to plan my turns.

 

I would also agree that it is slow as many say. Some of us like it slow. I actually played TOEE with a buddy using two monitors/keyboards/mice so we could pretend it was multiplayer. LOL

 

Please, please, make real turn based an option

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also make the IE games turn based, in the pause options there's an option to pause at the start of each round.

 

I have never agreed with this statement. Its not real turn based if I dont know who is next in the initiative line to plan my turns.

 

I would also agree that it is slow as many say. Some of us like it slow. I actually played TOEE with a buddy using two monitors/keyboards/mice so we could pretend it was multiplayer. LOL

 

Please, please, make real turn based an option

 

That's one of those fundamental, binary development choices. Doing both in the same game and doing each well seems like a monumental task, if not impossible. It's not something that can just be tacked on as an option later ... at least not with a game with a budget as small as this one will probably have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...